generally, my comments for Part 1 apply also to Part 2. I do not see enough evidence to call this lymphoma, particulalry in the light of the phenotype... extrafollicular blasts activation would be a particular explanation for the morphological changes seen.

This case seems somehow different to the previous one (ID168731), the lesion is more diffuse, less well circumscribed and shows destruction of endometrial glands, in addition there is cellular atypia. I find it difficult to diagnose a clearcut DLBCL, but the lesion is worrisome. I would suggest to repeat the curretage and to do a minimal staging. It might be also worthwhile to repeat the PCR for IgH clonality.

I'm sorry, but I'm confused. Is this the same patient as before? or a completely different patient?

2 different patients from different regions, different accessing numbers (PCR results are different too). We deal with such lessions from endometrium very rare and these 2 cases lay down on the table in pair. Starnge feeling. But really this case is more infiltrative and multifocal, than previous.

I am very concerned about this lesion. In the low-power slide labelled 'CD20 multifocal' is the pink tissue necrotic? It looks like it might be. This case has features lacking in the first case: wide involvement of the endometrium, gland destruction (very good idea to do the CK stain), and possibly necrosis. I would call this diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, and I think this patient needs staging and therapy rather than a wait-and-see approach. If the first patient has these findings after a repeat curettage, she will be in the same situation; that's why she needs re-evaluation for further biopsy and close followup.

I agree with the diagnosis of DLBCL.