boydjohn

I finally got my Biopsy Results. It seems like I have a dysplastic nevus with atypia cells and not melanoma. Glad I got this sucker out. There are some more information here that I don't understand but I guess I should just do yearly skin check ups and I will be fine. Here is the results. 

Gross: SCO a punch skin biopsy measuring 0.3×0.3×0.4 cm in greatest dimension EIT. 

Microscopic: Sections show elongation of rete ridges with nests of plump melanocytes at the dermo-edpidermal junction. In some areas the nests show bridging between adjacent rete ridges. There is mild nuclear atypia of some of the melanocytic nests. In the upper dermis there is a patchy perivascular lymphocycic infiltrate with melanophages. In one or two focal areas there is mild papillary fibroplasia but this is not a significant feature. There are no nevus cells present in the dermis. The overall configuration combined with melanocyctic atypia would suggest that this is a dysplastic nevus. In the plane of section examined the lesion appears to be completely excised. 

Diagnosis: Dysplastic Nevus

I finally got my Biopsy Results. It seems like I have a dysplastic nevus with atypia cells and not melanoma. Glad I got this sucker out. There are some more information here that I don't understand but I guess I should just do yearly skin check ups and I will be fine. Here is the results. 

Gross: SCO a punch skin biopsy measuring 0.3×0.3×0.4 cm in greatest dimension EIT. 

Microscopic: Sections show elongation of rete ridges with nests of plump melanocytes at the dermo-edpidermal junction. In some areas the nests show bridging between adjacent rete ridges. There is mild nuclear atypia of some of the melanocytic nests. In the upper dermis there is a patchy perivascular lymphocycic infiltrate with melanophages. In one or two focal areas there is mild papillary fibroplasia but this is not a significant feature. There are no nevus cells present in the dermis. The overall configuration combined with melanocyctic atypia would suggest that this is a dysplastic nevus. In the plane of section examined the lesion appears to be completely excised. 

Diagnosis: Dysplastic Nevus

I finally got my Biopsy Results. It seems like I have a dysplastic nevus with atypia cells and not melanoma. Glad I got this sucker out. There are some more information here that I don't understand but I guess I should just do yearly skin check ups and I will be fine. Here is the results. 

Gross: SCO a punch skin biopsy measuring 0.3×0.3×0.4 cm in greatest dimension EIT. 

Microscopic: Sections show elongation of rete ridges with nests of plump melanocytes at the dermo-edpidermal junction. In some areas the nests show bridging between adjacent rete ridges. There is mild nuclear atypia of some of the melanocytic nests. In the upper dermis there is a patchy perivascular lymphocycic infiltrate with melanophages. In one or two focal areas there is mild papillary fibroplasia but this is not a significant feature. There are no nevus cells present in the dermis. The overall configuration combined with melanocyctic atypia would suggest that this is a dysplastic nevus. In the plane of section examined the lesion appears to be completely excised. 

Diagnosis: Dysplastic Nevus

Just wanted to give an update. 

I found a dermatology walk-in clinic here that has a certified dermatologist. They just needed a referral form filled out and using that form I can just walk-in into the clinic and see a dermatologist. 

So tomorrow I'm seeing a dermatologist. The doctor that filled the referral form for me took a look at my mole and said this is nothing to be worried about. She said my mole is very small and not many small moles are cancerous. I have done my research to know that is not true and how can she even be so sure just by looking at it from a distance and not even looking at it with a light, but she seemed very reassuring that the mole is not cancerous. 

How true is that? Can 3-4mm mole be considered benign just because it's less than 6mm? I'm seeing a dermatologist anyways. I haven't been able to eat that's how worried I am. I don't know how I'm going to deal with this for 2 weeks before I get the biopsy results. 

Just wanted to give an update. 

I found a dermatology walk-in clinic here that has a certified dermatologist. They just needed a referral form filled out and using that form I can just walk-in into the clinic and see a dermatologist. 

So tomorrow I'm seeing a dermatologist. The doctor that filled the referral form for me took a look at my mole and said this is nothing to be worried about. She said my mole is very small and not many small moles are cancerous. I have done my research to know that is not true and how can she even be so sure just by looking at it from a distance and not even looking at it with a light, but she seemed very reassuring that the mole is not cancerous. 

How true is that? Can 3-4mm mole be considered benign just because it's less than 6mm? I'm seeing a dermatologist anyways. I haven't been able to eat that's how worried I am. I don't know how I'm going to deal with this for 2 weeks before I get the biopsy results. 

Just wanted to give an update. 

I found a dermatology walk-in clinic here that has a certified dermatologist. They just needed a referral form filled out and using that form I can just walk-in into the clinic and see a dermatologist. 

So tomorrow I'm seeing a dermatologist. The doctor that filled the referral form for me took a look at my mole and said this is nothing to be worried about. She said my mole is very small and not many small moles are cancerous. I have done my research to know that is not true and how can she even be so sure just by looking at it from a distance and not even looking at it with a light, but she seemed very reassuring that the mole is not cancerous. 

How true is that? Can 3-4mm mole be considered benign just because it's less than 6mm? I'm seeing a dermatologist anyways. I haven't been able to eat that's how worried I am. I don't know how I'm going to deal with this for 2 weeks before I get the biopsy results. 

Thank you for replying Janner. By change do you mean change in size or any change (color, borders, etc)? 

How do you tell if there is a change just by looking at a photograph. I'm not able to photograph my mole in the same position i photographed it 3 years ago. Maybe because it's on my outer thigh and very hard to photograph and i don't even remember how i photographed it .

In the picture above the one on the top is my mole 3 years ago and the bottom one is right now. The top one from before kind of looks like a fish but the bottom photo which is my mole today, looks more circular. Is that considered a change? It might be the position and lighting as well. 

Because in another one of the photos I took of my mole it actually looks similar to old one. (see below)

(once again top image is 3 years ago, bottom today) 

Thank you for replying Janner. By change do you mean change in size or any change (color, borders, etc)? 

How do you tell if there is a change just by looking at a photograph. I'm not able to photograph my mole in the same position i photographed it 3 years ago. Maybe because it's on my outer thigh and very hard to photograph and i don't even remember how i photographed it .

In the picture above the one on the top is my mole 3 years ago and the bottom one is right now. The top one from before kind of looks like a fish but the bottom photo which is my mole today, looks more circular. Is that considered a change? It might be the position and lighting as well. 

Because in another one of the photos I took of my mole it actually looks similar to old one. (see below)

(once again top image is 3 years ago, bottom today) 

Thank you for replying Janner. By change do you mean change in size or any change (color, borders, etc)? 

How do you tell if there is a change just by looking at a photograph. I'm not able to photograph my mole in the same position i photographed it 3 years ago. Maybe because it's on my outer thigh and very hard to photograph and i don't even remember how i photographed it .

In the picture above the one on the top is my mole 3 years ago and the bottom one is right now. The top one from before kind of looks like a fish but the bottom photo which is my mole today, looks more circular. Is that considered a change? It might be the position and lighting as well. 

Because in another one of the photos I took of my mole it actually looks similar to old one. (see below)

(once again top image is 3 years ago, bottom today) 

I also read many posts here and on other sites that sometimes doctor ignored melanoma and thought it is something innocent but when it was biopsied it turned out to be an advanced melanoma. Maybe my family doctor and the walk-in clinic doctor that said my mole isn't serious made the very same mistake that many other doctors have made. 

I also read many posts here and on other sites that sometimes doctor ignored melanoma and thought it is something innocent but when it was biopsied it turned out to be an advanced melanoma. Maybe my family doctor and the walk-in clinic doctor that said my mole isn't serious made the very same mistake that many other doctors have made. 

I also read many posts here and on other sites that sometimes doctor ignored melanoma and thought it is something innocent but when it was biopsied it turned out to be an advanced melanoma. Maybe my family doctor and the walk-in clinic doctor that said my mole isn't serious made the very same mistake that many other doctors have made.