Is 2nd Biopsy Pure Tubular Carcinoma

[ladysmith105]

Please explain why the 2nd biopsy is NOS, then states Well Developed Tubules.  Is a 2mm Margin Adequate?  I also had a Partial Mastectomy after the initial biopsy.

Biopsy #1 (Excisional Biopsy)  I was told this was a pure tubular carcinoma.

Invasive Ductal Carcinoma, Well Differentiated (Tubular Carcinoma).  
Grade I, Nuclear Grade I, 1cm, lymphatic/vascular invasion not identified
Margins negative for invasive carcinoma
Distance from closest margin:  2 mm from designated inked margin
Microcalcifications, not present
E+, P+, HER2NU-

Second Opinion:  Invasive Ductal Carcinoma, NOS Type, Histologic Grade I (Well Developed Tubules), Nuclear Grade II (moderate Variation in size and Shape).
No calcifications or vascular invasion
Partial Mastectomy, Benign Breast tissue with Fibrocystic Changes and Biopsy Site Changes, Focal Calcifications noted in association with benign breast
Benign Lymph Note 0/1

[ladysmith105]

Hi,
I meant a 2nd opinion.  I know I asked the Oncologist about the NOS terminology in the office but can't remember what she said.  I think she said that is how the Pathology Dept. describes invasive ductal carcinoma, and Tubular is a sub-type.

Nice to hear from you and hope all is well.

[japdip]

I'm not quite clear as to whether you mean 2nd biopsy or 2nd opinion using the same slides. You mentioned both terms and this would make a difference. If a second biopsy were done the same specimen may not have been obtained. The two reports don't seem conflicting to me but perhaps they are not complete in this writing. Both were negative for Lymphatic invasion although different terminology was used throughout the two reports.    Regards ....