Biopsy Diagnosis Inquiry – Janner response appreciated!

(I am putting this post out for the hopeful reply by Janner, as I greatly respect this person's opinions on the matter of biopsies and approach to diagnoses.)

I went in to see a new dermatologist for what felt like mild rugburn on the skin along the neck and shoulders, with the sensation stretching down the backside on occasion. (I had prickly heat/heat rash since I was a kid, and even now, at 34, my skin abhors heat and humidity.) The nurse practitioner who saw me suggested possible Grover's Disease, as there was no rash or redness. I asked her to take a look at my back and see if any moles there looked suspect. I have a few there, perhaps 5-10 at least, and it was something I requested pretty much on the spur of the moment, not because of any pain, itch, bleeding, or suspicion of melanoma. I do not sunbathe, rarely sunburn, never been to a sun tanning bed (see no use to them), and have, roughly 15-25 moles on my body. Possibly more, never counted them in full. And there is no history of skin cancer or melanoma on either parents' side of the family, nor for myself.

She saw one that looked atypical to her, and suggested a biopsy. I figured, "Why not", and had it done. It was a shave biopsy. The nurse didn't seem hugely worried about it, and only suggested it in passing, or so it seemed.

Four days later I get a phone call informing me that the report came back with abnormal cells and that excision with stitches would be needed. "That escalated quickly," I thought. Of course, as I have generalized anxiety, this didn't do much to make my days easier and put me in a bit of a mental tailspin, as it were. Naturally, I spent a week doing massive amounts of research, and ultimately decided that I needed a copy of the pathology report to make a determination or myself. So here is the report, in full:

DIAGNOSIS:

LOWER BACK LEFT OF MIDLINE:

      MODERATELY DYSPLATIC COMPOUND MELANOCYTIC, EXTENDING TO THE PERIPHERAL EDGE

Gross Description: The specimen received in formalin labeled with patient's name and as "lower back left of midline" consists of skin measuring 0.5 x 0.5 x 0.1 cm. ES, 2y / 1bs 

Microscopic Description:

Sections demonstrate skin with single cells and nests of moderately atypical melanocytes which bridge adjacent rete ridges. Within the dermis there is papillary dermal fibroplasia and an inflammatory host response. A dermal component of the nevus is present.

That's all of it. I spent a bit of time learning the terminolgy, such as fibroplasia meaning scarring, I think, but the papillary dermal suggests scarring just under the epidermis. Am I correct? Thus the mole did not likely extend far beneath the upper dermal layers? The biopsy was, to me, a disappointingly brief 0.1cm, when I expected something more akin to the usual 0.2cm. Thus leaving me with the wonder if 0.1cm would have made the difference.

Also I am slightly confused as to the inflammatory host response part. Not sure what that means, unless it is referencing trauma from the biopsy, or to the dye(s) used. And what in the world does ES, 2y / 1bs mean? Should I buy a vowel, or try and solve the puzzle?
 

As for the excision, I am of the research-driven understanding (read way too many published papers on NCBI) that very few mild and/or moderate dysplatic moles turn cancerous, roughly 1 in 10,000. I prefer to keep it more scientific and retain my worries in the realm of probability, which suggests I have a 1-2% chance of the remaining abnormal cells doing something naughty. The mole that was removed has been there a long time, easily 10 years, perhaps even as far back as late adolesence, and I did not see any notable changes in the mole in that time. So I wonder if the excision is going to offer anything more than a clear margin.

This brings me to my main concern. The excision. I have a deep worry that they will want a WLE, which to me seems highly unnecessary, with a small conservative excision requiring 2, maybe 3 stitches being all that's needed. But does this report suggest a need for excision, or can the biopsy site be watched closely for 12 months to see if pigmentation arises? At which point the excision can be done. Or does waiting for something make the excision more laborous as the cells might go deeper than originally? This is where I am puzzled. And finding 5 dermatologists who agree on anything or offer a uniform guideline is like teaching a polar bear to juggle typewriters.

My mother is dead set against the excision, arguing it is completely unnecessary. I am on the fence, as it were, so I am looking for outside opinions.

(Sorry for the breadth of this topic. Brevity was never my strongest attribute.)