› Forums › General Melanoma Community › Stable moles diagnosed as melanoma
- This topic has 15 replies, 3 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 6 months ago by
jennunicorn.
- Post
-
- March 18, 2016 at 11:54 pm
Six years ago, I had a stable mole biopsied and it came back as a thin melanoma. Just last month, I had another stable mole biopsied and it came back as melanoma in situ.
These were both small-ish, and had not visably changed since I was a teenager (I'm 56). I had a mole mapping done with the first diagnosis and have been vigilant about self-checking and my derm / melanoma clinic appointments.The pathology was done by UCSF, which is supposed to be a leader in this area.
No family history of melanoma at all, I have "slightly more than normal" number of moles and do have dysplastic moles.
I'm so confused, and do not know how to monitor my skin if my long-time stable moles are coming back with a melanoma diagnosis.
Thoughts?
- Replies
-
-
- March 19, 2016 at 2:52 am
They may have been stable melanomas. I have read/heard something along the lines that many elderly people may actually have undiagnosed melanoma primaries but they just aren't growing. So it might be similar with you and these melanomas were basically stable and may have stayed the same whether you had them removed now or later. Or they were extremely slow growing. No one can know for certain and it makes diagnosing more difficult. Removing all your moles is extreme and no guarantee since 50% of melanomas grow from new lesions. I don't know if there is any real plausible explanation and have no idea what I'd do in your place. I don't have lots of moles but what I do have are mostly dysplastic. I have a genetic defect that puts me at high risk for multiple primaries but an unknown family history. Good luck!
-
- March 20, 2016 at 5:19 pm
Thank you, Janner! With this last one (in situ), they had to go to two different labs and do a special stain to diagnose. My long time derm suggests a dermatologist skin check every six months and for me to continue to do monthly self checks. It all feels very "let's cross our fingers" vs proactive.
-
- March 20, 2016 at 5:19 pm
Thank you, Janner! With this last one (in situ), they had to go to two different labs and do a special stain to diagnose. My long time derm suggests a dermatologist skin check every six months and for me to continue to do monthly self checks. It all feels very "let's cross our fingers" vs proactive.
-
- March 20, 2016 at 5:19 pm
Thank you, Janner! With this last one (in situ), they had to go to two different labs and do a special stain to diagnose. My long time derm suggests a dermatologist skin check every six months and for me to continue to do monthly self checks. It all feels very "let's cross our fingers" vs proactive.
-
- March 19, 2016 at 2:52 am
They may have been stable melanomas. I have read/heard something along the lines that many elderly people may actually have undiagnosed melanoma primaries but they just aren't growing. So it might be similar with you and these melanomas were basically stable and may have stayed the same whether you had them removed now or later. Or they were extremely slow growing. No one can know for certain and it makes diagnosing more difficult. Removing all your moles is extreme and no guarantee since 50% of melanomas grow from new lesions. I don't know if there is any real plausible explanation and have no idea what I'd do in your place. I don't have lots of moles but what I do have are mostly dysplastic. I have a genetic defect that puts me at high risk for multiple primaries but an unknown family history. Good luck!
-
- March 19, 2016 at 2:52 am
They may have been stable melanomas. I have read/heard something along the lines that many elderly people may actually have undiagnosed melanoma primaries but they just aren't growing. So it might be similar with you and these melanomas were basically stable and may have stayed the same whether you had them removed now or later. Or they were extremely slow growing. No one can know for certain and it makes diagnosing more difficult. Removing all your moles is extreme and no guarantee since 50% of melanomas grow from new lesions. I don't know if there is any real plausible explanation and have no idea what I'd do in your place. I don't have lots of moles but what I do have are mostly dysplastic. I have a genetic defect that puts me at high risk for multiple primaries but an unknown family history. Good luck!
-
- March 19, 2016 at 3:11 am
That's definitely a rough spot to be in, since in almost all situations change is what we look for.
You're doing the right thing keeping up with ongoing visits to your derm. UCSF is very good, their dermatopathologists are very knowledgeable about melanoma. I'd keep up with going to your derm, does your derm use a dermoscope to look at your moles when you go? I know my derm at UCSF uses one and she says it helps her really be able to tell if something needs to be biopsied or not, takes the guess work out of it.
All the best,
-
- March 20, 2016 at 5:26 pm
Hi Jenn-
Both my derm and my Melonoma clinic Drs (Stanford) use a dermatoscope.
She looked at the one that was diagnosed as situ with her dermatoscopeshe, compared against my mole map and said it looked fine, No changes in six years, but also said since it looked unique to my other moles that we should just biopsy it. (She tends to take a couple of moles a year, which I am fine with).
I'm curious who you see at UCSF.
-
- March 20, 2016 at 9:48 pm
Stanford is close to home for me too.. but I go to UCSF because it was highly recommended by a couple of people who had family members with melanoma. The 45 minute drive isn't terrible.
Glad your derm is proactive. Seeing something that although hasn't changed in many years but looks different from other moles is a good sign to biopsy.
My derm at the UCSF Melanoma Center is Dr. Susana Ortiz-Urda, she's so full of melanoma knowledge it's pretty amazing, was a world of difference going to her from just a regular derm.
-
- March 20, 2016 at 9:48 pm
Stanford is close to home for me too.. but I go to UCSF because it was highly recommended by a couple of people who had family members with melanoma. The 45 minute drive isn't terrible.
Glad your derm is proactive. Seeing something that although hasn't changed in many years but looks different from other moles is a good sign to biopsy.
My derm at the UCSF Melanoma Center is Dr. Susana Ortiz-Urda, she's so full of melanoma knowledge it's pretty amazing, was a world of difference going to her from just a regular derm.
-
- March 20, 2016 at 9:48 pm
Stanford is close to home for me too.. but I go to UCSF because it was highly recommended by a couple of people who had family members with melanoma. The 45 minute drive isn't terrible.
Glad your derm is proactive. Seeing something that although hasn't changed in many years but looks different from other moles is a good sign to biopsy.
My derm at the UCSF Melanoma Center is Dr. Susana Ortiz-Urda, she's so full of melanoma knowledge it's pretty amazing, was a world of difference going to her from just a regular derm.
-
- March 20, 2016 at 5:26 pm
Hi Jenn-
Both my derm and my Melonoma clinic Drs (Stanford) use a dermatoscope.
She looked at the one that was diagnosed as situ with her dermatoscopeshe, compared against my mole map and said it looked fine, No changes in six years, but also said since it looked unique to my other moles that we should just biopsy it. (She tends to take a couple of moles a year, which I am fine with).
I'm curious who you see at UCSF.
-
- March 20, 2016 at 5:26 pm
Hi Jenn-
Both my derm and my Melonoma clinic Drs (Stanford) use a dermatoscope.
She looked at the one that was diagnosed as situ with her dermatoscopeshe, compared against my mole map and said it looked fine, No changes in six years, but also said since it looked unique to my other moles that we should just biopsy it. (She tends to take a couple of moles a year, which I am fine with).
I'm curious who you see at UCSF.
-
- March 19, 2016 at 3:11 am
That's definitely a rough spot to be in, since in almost all situations change is what we look for.
You're doing the right thing keeping up with ongoing visits to your derm. UCSF is very good, their dermatopathologists are very knowledgeable about melanoma. I'd keep up with going to your derm, does your derm use a dermoscope to look at your moles when you go? I know my derm at UCSF uses one and she says it helps her really be able to tell if something needs to be biopsied or not, takes the guess work out of it.
All the best,
-
- March 19, 2016 at 3:11 am
That's definitely a rough spot to be in, since in almost all situations change is what we look for.
You're doing the right thing keeping up with ongoing visits to your derm. UCSF is very good, their dermatopathologists are very knowledgeable about melanoma. I'd keep up with going to your derm, does your derm use a dermoscope to look at your moles when you go? I know my derm at UCSF uses one and she says it helps her really be able to tell if something needs to be biopsied or not, takes the guess work out of it.
All the best,
-
Tagged: cutaneous melanoma
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.