My Pathology Report…Translation?

› Forums › General Melanoma Community › My Pathology Report…Translation?

  • Post
    • September 18, 2013 at 12:51 am
    d0771
    Participant

      I have looked up all the terms, and have a general idea of what it means, and also asked my derm to translate into plain english, but would still like the thoughts of those on the board who have gone through this as well.  

       

      Final Microscopic Diagnosis:

      A. Left lateral back, Punch Biopsy:

      Melanoma In Situ arising in association with an intradermal nevus, extending to lateral margins.

       

      Comment:  Sections show a central melanocytic proliferation of maturing and small dermal melanocytes.  In the overlying epidermis, adjacent to the dome of the nevus there is an asymmetric and poorly circumscribed intraepidermal melanocyctic proliferation.  The lesion desplays confluent melanocytes with marked cytologic atypia and pagetold scatter.  In a focus confluent atypical melanocytes extend far down along an adnexal structure.  The lesion is present on sun-damaged skin.

      MART-1 and MITF Immunostains support the above findings.  Initial and level sections were examined.  The above findings represent the consensus opinion of the dermatopathologists present at the daily case conference.

       

    Viewing 2 reply threads
    • Replies
        • September 18, 2013 at 1:58 am
        Janner
        Participant

          There is actually no point in analyzing your path report line by line.  It makes a bit more sense to pull out the important bits if you have a deeper lesion, but there are really no key indicators to pick out when you are looking at in situ.  Basically, the microscopic description is how the pathologist is justifying his diagnosis.  It's hard to comment because he's the expert.  Other dermpaths confirmed the diagnosis.  If this were a deeper lesion, we'd be looking for things like depth, ulceration, regression, mitosis and other things.  But they don't really apply to your lesion. 

          It's melanoma in situ.  It's extremely low risk.  Maybe not 100% because nothing is ever 100%, but it's about as good a prognosis as you can get when it comes to a cancer diagnosis.

            • September 18, 2013 at 2:12 am
            d0771
            Participant

              Thank you very much for the reply.  From looking up all the terms, etc, that is what I thought, and also pretty much what my dermatologist told me as well, but I thought I should put it online here as well, just to see if there were any contrary comments / things I should be asking my derm.

              • September 18, 2013 at 2:12 am
              d0771
              Participant

                Thank you very much for the reply.  From looking up all the terms, etc, that is what I thought, and also pretty much what my dermatologist told me as well, but I thought I should put it online here as well, just to see if there were any contrary comments / things I should be asking my derm.

                • September 18, 2013 at 2:12 am
                d0771
                Participant

                  Thank you very much for the reply.  From looking up all the terms, etc, that is what I thought, and also pretty much what my dermatologist told me as well, but I thought I should put it online here as well, just to see if there were any contrary comments / things I should be asking my derm.

                • September 18, 2013 at 1:58 am
                Janner
                Participant

                  There is actually no point in analyzing your path report line by line.  It makes a bit more sense to pull out the important bits if you have a deeper lesion, but there are really no key indicators to pick out when you are looking at in situ.  Basically, the microscopic description is how the pathologist is justifying his diagnosis.  It's hard to comment because he's the expert.  Other dermpaths confirmed the diagnosis.  If this were a deeper lesion, we'd be looking for things like depth, ulceration, regression, mitosis and other things.  But they don't really apply to your lesion. 

                  It's melanoma in situ.  It's extremely low risk.  Maybe not 100% because nothing is ever 100%, but it's about as good a prognosis as you can get when it comes to a cancer diagnosis.

                  • September 18, 2013 at 1:58 am
                  Janner
                  Participant

                    There is actually no point in analyzing your path report line by line.  It makes a bit more sense to pull out the important bits if you have a deeper lesion, but there are really no key indicators to pick out when you are looking at in situ.  Basically, the microscopic description is how the pathologist is justifying his diagnosis.  It's hard to comment because he's the expert.  Other dermpaths confirmed the diagnosis.  If this were a deeper lesion, we'd be looking for things like depth, ulceration, regression, mitosis and other things.  But they don't really apply to your lesion. 

                    It's melanoma in situ.  It's extremely low risk.  Maybe not 100% because nothing is ever 100%, but it's about as good a prognosis as you can get when it comes to a cancer diagnosis.

                Viewing 2 reply threads
                • 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