Understanding a pathology report

Hi,
I had written in several weeks ago because they found an abnormal spot when they did a uterine wash during a laparscopic surgery.  Everything came back fine from the follow up pathology saying no malignant cells found.

I did have one question:  my doctor has told me numerous times that the tumor they took out was a benign granulosa cell tumor, but when I got this follow up path report, it didn't say anything about benign.  It just said "granulosa cell tumor."
Since I didn't read the report until I got home I didn't think to ask how do they know it's benign?  I know this particular kind can be malignant or benign.   This was a follow up report to a previous path report (which I didn't see.)  It was incredibly brief.

I could call my doc and ask them, but wanted to know if anyone understood path reports better than me. (Not that I think my doc is wrong; I just wanted to understand the path report myself...I guess for self assurance)

Thanks!

[scoutshadow]

I had a granulosa cell tumour removed 16 years ago and another one removed (seedling) last July.  I would say that this is a tumour of low malignant potential - it's a slow growing tumour (usually).  There are other factors that are important - size of original tumour (above 10cm) and a high mitotic count that bring the risk for recurrance more likely.  It needs life long follow up as recurrances can happen much later in life.  

The tumour is usually located in the ovary though it can produce oestrogen and consequently thicken the lining of the womb and some women develop womb cancer as a result.

I would suggest that you take a peek at this site:  www.ovca.net and click onto the granulosa cell tumor forum.  At the moment the discussion is about women who were told that their tumour was benign - just like you.

I would go back to your doctor and ask for further clarification.

Good luck.