I had a mole removed 6 months ago. It came back as mildly atypical, but not with clear margins. The doctor gave me the choice to have it fully removed or leave it behind. Because I'm at very high risk of melanoma, I elected for the exicison IF and ONLY IF the mole close to it would not be disturbed. He said no problem, he wouldn't cut into the neighboring mole.
He didn't. He put the stitches through it. I would not have agreed to that given the choice. Am I wrong in thinking that's kind of stupid for a derm to do?
I'm worried about 2 things.
(1) I'm worried stitching through the mole could itself cause cancer to develop in it by disturbing the cells. This is a theory some derms have, but it's only a theory.
Because of (1), I think I'd like to have the remaining mole removed because it's red and bumpy where it was stitched into. But (2) I'm worried about how this trauma will impact the pathology report. Can't trauma and scarring mimic melanoma?
These moles are at the top of my breast, so I'm sure all that scar tissue will be super fun when it comes time for me to get mammograms, and I wish I'd never had the first mole removed in the first place, but one thing at a time, right?
Would you have the remaining mole removed? Can I expect an accurate pathology report with the fact that the derm put stitches through it? Would you get a new derm?
