Waiting on biopsy results – was the biopsy done correclty?

› Forums › General Melanoma Community › Waiting on biopsy results – was the biopsy done correclty?

  • Post
    • June 7, 2016 at 10:32 pm
    ECTechnology
    Participant
      I went in for a skin check at a dermatologist, I haven't had one for about 3 years. I'm a 34 year old male, grew up in Australia and now live in the U.S.
       
      The person who did the check (a Physician Assistant?) identified a small, 2 mm, mole on my back that looked suspicious. He was not concerned, but wanted it biopsied to check. I went back for the biopsy with the dermatologist on the same day.
       
      The dermatologist removed it and said it's 50/50 whether it's melanoma, but if it is, we most likely caught it early. Here is the mole: http://imgur.com/G4bzIVM
       
      The thing is, the order called for a 5(?) punch biopsy, but the nurse stuffed up and handed him a 4, he only realized after but told me it should be fine as he didn't "think it was very deep".
       
      I'm freaking out a little that I have melanoma, and that the biopsy might miss it because of this mistake. What does this 4/5 mean? Any help or reassurance would be great…
       
    Viewing 2 reply threads
    • Replies
        • June 7, 2016 at 10:59 pm
        Janner
        Participant

          4mm and 5mm punch (width).  If your mole was 2mm, it should be fine.  The larger punch size helps get clear margins.  You're fine with the biopsy as done.  Depending on the result will indicate if they need to take more later, but the biopsy should be fine for diagnosis.

          • June 7, 2016 at 10:59 pm
          Janner
          Participant

            4mm and 5mm punch (width).  If your mole was 2mm, it should be fine.  The larger punch size helps get clear margins.  You're fine with the biopsy as done.  Depending on the result will indicate if they need to take more later, but the biopsy should be fine for diagnosis.

            • June 7, 2016 at 10:59 pm
            Janner
            Participant

              4mm and 5mm punch (width).  If your mole was 2mm, it should be fine.  The larger punch size helps get clear margins.  You're fine with the biopsy as done.  Depending on the result will indicate if they need to take more later, but the biopsy should be fine for diagnosis.

                • June 8, 2016 at 2:35 am
                ECTechnology
                Participant

                  Thanks Janner for your answer. What do you think of the 50/50 statement by the dermatologist? It seems to me the odds are much lower than 50% that the mole would be melanoma? It's very small, and I think has been there for some time (without growing).

                  • June 8, 2016 at 2:35 am
                  ECTechnology
                  Participant

                    Thanks Janner for your answer. What do you think of the 50/50 statement by the dermatologist? It seems to me the odds are much lower than 50% that the mole would be melanoma? It's very small, and I think has been there for some time (without growing).

                    • June 8, 2016 at 2:35 am
                    ECTechnology
                    Participant

                      Thanks Janner for your answer. What do you think of the 50/50 statement by the dermatologist? It seems to me the odds are much lower than 50% that the mole would be melanoma? It's very small, and I think has been there for some time (without growing).

                      • June 8, 2016 at 3:30 am
                      Janner
                      Participant

                        It looks like many moles I have that I'm not concerned about.  It may be atypical but I think 50/50 was an off the cuff remark, not a real odds.  I'd say much less too.

                        • June 8, 2016 at 3:30 am
                        Janner
                        Participant

                          It looks like many moles I have that I'm not concerned about.  It may be atypical but I think 50/50 was an off the cuff remark, not a real odds.  I'd say much less too.

                          • June 8, 2016 at 3:30 am
                          Janner
                          Participant

                            It looks like many moles I have that I'm not concerned about.  It may be atypical but I think 50/50 was an off the cuff remark, not a real odds.  I'd say much less too.

                            • June 8, 2016 at 8:24 am
                            stars
                            Participant

                              I'd like to say that your derm was talking shit. The more correct statement is: it shows some of the ABCDE signs so we will biopsy it to be safe. To say '50/50' is BS in my book. No-one can tell with the naked eye or even a dermatoscope, even a dermatologist. Pathology alone tells all.  I'm not going to hazard a guess whether it's mel because that's all anyone can give, a guess. The truth will be in the pathology and more than likely you'll get the all clear. Try not to stress.

                              • June 8, 2016 at 8:24 am
                              stars
                              Participant

                                I'd like to say that your derm was talking shit. The more correct statement is: it shows some of the ABCDE signs so we will biopsy it to be safe. To say '50/50' is BS in my book. No-one can tell with the naked eye or even a dermatoscope, even a dermatologist. Pathology alone tells all.  I'm not going to hazard a guess whether it's mel because that's all anyone can give, a guess. The truth will be in the pathology and more than likely you'll get the all clear. Try not to stress.

                                • June 8, 2016 at 8:24 am
                                stars
                                Participant

                                  I'd like to say that your derm was talking shit. The more correct statement is: it shows some of the ABCDE signs so we will biopsy it to be safe. To say '50/50' is BS in my book. No-one can tell with the naked eye or even a dermatoscope, even a dermatologist. Pathology alone tells all.  I'm not going to hazard a guess whether it's mel because that's all anyone can give, a guess. The truth will be in the pathology and more than likely you'll get the all clear. Try not to stress.

                                  • June 10, 2016 at 8:58 pm
                                  ECTechnology
                                  Participant

                                    Just thought I would reply here to update. I received my results today from my derm. Dysplastic Nevus!

                                     

                                    JUNCTIONAL MELANOCYTIC NEVUS WITH MILD ARCHITECTURAL DISORDER

                                    AND MILD CYTOLOGIC ATYPIA ("DYSPLASTIC NEVUS"). THE LESION APPEARS

                                    TO BE COMPLETELY EXCISED.

                                    • June 10, 2016 at 8:58 pm
                                    ECTechnology
                                    Participant

                                      Just thought I would reply here to update. I received my results today from my derm. Dysplastic Nevus!

                                       

                                      JUNCTIONAL MELANOCYTIC NEVUS WITH MILD ARCHITECTURAL DISORDER

                                      AND MILD CYTOLOGIC ATYPIA ("DYSPLASTIC NEVUS"). THE LESION APPEARS

                                      TO BE COMPLETELY EXCISED.

                                      • June 10, 2016 at 8:58 pm
                                      ECTechnology
                                      Participant

                                        Just thought I would reply here to update. I received my results today from my derm. Dysplastic Nevus!

                                         

                                        JUNCTIONAL MELANOCYTIC NEVUS WITH MILD ARCHITECTURAL DISORDER

                                        AND MILD CYTOLOGIC ATYPIA ("DYSPLASTIC NEVUS"). THE LESION APPEARS

                                        TO BE COMPLETELY EXCISED.

                                  Viewing 2 reply threads

                                  Tagged: 

                                  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
                                  About the MRF Patient Forum

                                  The MRF Patient Forum is the oldest and largest online community of people affected by melanoma. It is designed to provide peer support and information to caregivers, patients, family and friends. There is no better place to discuss different parts of your journey with this cancer and find the friends and support resources to make that journey more bearable.

                                  The information on the forum is open and accessible to everyone. To add a new topic or to post a reply, you must be a registered user. Please note that you will be able to post both topics and replies anonymously even though you are logged in. All posts must abide by MRF posting policies.

                                  Popular Topics