• Practice your interview with the new SDN AI Interview Coach. Choose a school, answer by voice or typing, and receive a personalized feedback report. Available now to all SDN members. Try the AI Interview Coach.

Angiolymphatic invasion?

Started by Perry Mason
Your Residency Journey Starts Here
This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
P

Perry Mason

Full Member
15+ Year Member
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Just curious, what do others think on commenting on angiolymphatic invasion in the CAP tumor checklists in a situation when you don't see a clear cut invasion but there are lymph nodes positive for metastatic disease? I try to leave it out altogether (if it is asterisked and therefore optional). Any other approaches?
 
I usually list LVI as "Not identified", to cover situations like this. Sections of the primary when there are lymph node mets don't always have LVI on the sections examined. It doesn't matter to the oncologists anyway, since they're going to treat based on the N status.
 
Perry Mason said:
Just curious, what do others think on commenting on angiolymphatic invasion in the CAP tumor checklists in a situation when you don't see a clear cut invasion but there are lymph nodes positive for metastatic disease? I try to leave it out altogether (if it is asterisked and therefore optional). Any other approaches?
Click to expand...


Always use "not identified", which doesn't mean it isn't there, just means it wasn't identified.
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Perry Mason said:
Just curious, what do others think on commenting on angiolymphatic invasion in the CAP tumor checklists in a situation when you don't see a clear cut invasion but there are lymph nodes positive for metastatic disease? I try to leave it out altogether (if it is asterisked and therefore optional). Any other approaches?
Click to expand...

I saw mixed as a resident. Some did what's been suggested, others deleted the line reasoning "it's gotta be there if it's in the nodes", and rarely faculty asked for deepers and/or more sections to try and find it.
 
I usually delete it. Having the tumour in the lymph nodes is a strong evidence of angiolymphatic invasion. Therefore, stating "not identified" while you are seeing the tumour in the lymph nodes does not sound right. If insist, you can split it into (vascular invasion) and (lymphatic invasion). Put "not identified" for vascular invasion.
 
If it's not there it's not there. It becomes essentially irrelevant if you have nodal mets anyway. If clinicians don't understand how something can be in nodes and not have ALI in the examined sections, use it as a good topic for educating them on the limitations of histologic sampling.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.