MRF-Logo2019-Horizontal-RGB
Finally got a copy of my original pathology report..
REGISTER
The information on this site is not intended or implied to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. Content within the patient forum is user-generated and has not been reviewed by medical professionals. Other sections of the Melanoma Research Foundation website include information that has been reviewed by medical professionals as appropriate. All medical decisions should be made in consultation with your doctor or other qualified medical professional.

Finally got a copy of my original pathology report..

› Forums › General Melanoma Community › Finally got a copy of my original pathology report..

  • Post
    • March 22, 2012 at 2:54 am
    kelsta78
    Participant

      Hi all

      Just wondering if anyone can help me out.  I got a copy of my original report and thought I would share if here to get some opinions. 

      Hi all

      Just wondering if anyone can help me out.  I got a copy of my original report and thought I would share if here to get some opinions. 

      "Sections show Malignant Melanoma, Clark level IV, Breslow thickness 1.0mm.  There is pinpoint spot of ulceration measuring 0.1mm.  There i no vascular space or perineural invasion, no sesmoplasia, and no satellitosis.  Tumour infiltrating lymphocytes are present and there i no intermediate/late regression.  The mitotic rate of dermal invasive melanoma is 2 per mm.  There is evidence of an asoicated dysplastic juntional naevo-melanocytic lesion.  Excision of the lesion appears complete with the nearest peripheral margin to in-situ melanoma being 2.2mm, the nearest peripheral margin to the invasive component 2.5mm, the distance of in-situ melanoma extending down a pilosebaceous unit to the deep margin 3mm and the distance from the dermal invasive tumour to the deep margin 3.5mm".

      I don't think my doctor even understood it very well as he has underlined half of it and wrote a question mark beside it!  This being the same doctor that told me there was nothing wrong with the mole and it didn't need to be taken out (thank god I insisted).

      All I really understand is that it was 1mm thick and ulcerated.  So can anyone shed light on the rest of the report?

      So far I have had the wide excision done and results were clear from that.  I am booked in for mole mapping in a few weeks time.  I go back to the surgeon on 4th of April for a check up of the area and he said he will organise a PET scan in a few months time.  I do wonder why wait? 

      Thanks in advance.

    Viewing 11 reply threads
    • Replies
        • March 22, 2012 at 5:18 am
        FormerCaregiver
        Participant

          Thanks for posting the details of your pathology report. I feel that the most important
          prognostic indicator is the depth of the primary tumour.

          For details about Breslow thickness:
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breslow%27s_depth

          For info on Clark's level:
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breslow%27s_depth#Clark.27s_level

          Here is some detailed info about stages of melanoma:
          http://cancerhelp.cancerresearchuk.org/type/melanoma/treatment/stages-of-melanoma

          PET scans are not good at detecting very small melanoma tumours, and this could be a
          reason for waiting a few months.

          Hope this helps

          Frank from Australia   

          • March 22, 2012 at 5:18 am
          FormerCaregiver
          Participant

            Thanks for posting the details of your pathology report. I feel that the most important
            prognostic indicator is the depth of the primary tumour.

            For details about Breslow thickness:
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breslow%27s_depth

            For info on Clark's level:
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breslow%27s_depth#Clark.27s_level

            Here is some detailed info about stages of melanoma:
            http://cancerhelp.cancerresearchuk.org/type/melanoma/treatment/stages-of-melanoma

            PET scans are not good at detecting very small melanoma tumours, and this could be a
            reason for waiting a few months.

            Hope this helps

            Frank from Australia   

            • March 22, 2012 at 5:18 am
            FormerCaregiver
            Participant

              Thanks for posting the details of your pathology report. I feel that the most important
              prognostic indicator is the depth of the primary tumour.

              For details about Breslow thickness:
              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breslow%27s_depth

              For info on Clark's level:
              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breslow%27s_depth#Clark.27s_level

              Here is some detailed info about stages of melanoma:
              http://cancerhelp.cancerresearchuk.org/type/melanoma/treatment/stages-of-melanoma

              PET scans are not good at detecting very small melanoma tumours, and this could be a
              reason for waiting a few months.

              Hope this helps

              Frank from Australia   

                • March 22, 2012 at 5:55 am
                kelsta78
                Participant

                  Thanks Frank.  I am in south west Qld, going to Brisbane to get the mole mapping done in a few weeks.

                  • March 22, 2012 at 5:55 am
                  kelsta78
                  Participant

                    Thanks Frank.  I am in south west Qld, going to Brisbane to get the mole mapping done in a few weeks.

                    • March 22, 2012 at 5:55 am
                    kelsta78
                    Participant

                      Thanks Frank.  I am in south west Qld, going to Brisbane to get the mole mapping done in a few weeks.

                    • March 22, 2012 at 12:13 pm
                    MichaelFL
                    Participant

                      I am guessing here, but I am betting this doctor was not a dermatologist as they were way wrong on this. At 1.0 MM depth and mentioning ulceration, a SNB or sentinel node biopsy should also be considered.

                      You need to find a melanoma center and get a second opinion before continuing.

                      A PET will  only find macroscopic not microscopic tumors

                      • March 22, 2012 at 12:13 pm
                      MichaelFL
                      Participant

                        I am guessing here, but I am betting this doctor was not a dermatologist as they were way wrong on this. At 1.0 MM depth and mentioning ulceration, a SNB or sentinel node biopsy should also be considered.

                        You need to find a melanoma center and get a second opinion before continuing.

                        A PET will  only find macroscopic not microscopic tumors

                        • March 22, 2012 at 12:13 pm
                        MichaelFL
                        Participant

                          I am guessing here, but I am betting this doctor was not a dermatologist as they were way wrong on this. At 1.0 MM depth and mentioning ulceration, a SNB or sentinel node biopsy should also be considered.

                          You need to find a melanoma center and get a second opinion before continuing.

                          A PET will  only find macroscopic not microscopic tumors

                          • March 23, 2012 at 4:13 pm
                          palmspringswalt
                          Participant

                            I'm sure many of us wish our path reports were as good as the one you posted.  Any melanoma can be tricky stuff so carefully weigh how agreesive or conservative treatment you have.  I too would urge you to get a second opionion at a major melanoma center (not just an area hospital that posts melanoma on their website).  It is well worth the money even if you pay for it yourself.  In my case my HMO refused to pay, I appealed, they denied, medicare overruled and forced them to pay.  Of course, I did not wait for the consult but carried on the insurance fight later.  You have a high probability of a good outcome.  This site has been very helpful to me….I would encourage you to keep reading it even though the subject may not be the most exciting!  Good Luck!!

                            • March 23, 2012 at 4:13 pm
                            palmspringswalt
                            Participant

                              I'm sure many of us wish our path reports were as good as the one you posted.  Any melanoma can be tricky stuff so carefully weigh how agreesive or conservative treatment you have.  I too would urge you to get a second opionion at a major melanoma center (not just an area hospital that posts melanoma on their website).  It is well worth the money even if you pay for it yourself.  In my case my HMO refused to pay, I appealed, they denied, medicare overruled and forced them to pay.  Of course, I did not wait for the consult but carried on the insurance fight later.  You have a high probability of a good outcome.  This site has been very helpful to me….I would encourage you to keep reading it even though the subject may not be the most exciting!  Good Luck!!

                              • March 23, 2012 at 4:13 pm
                              palmspringswalt
                              Participant

                                I'm sure many of us wish our path reports were as good as the one you posted.  Any melanoma can be tricky stuff so carefully weigh how agreesive or conservative treatment you have.  I too would urge you to get a second opionion at a major melanoma center (not just an area hospital that posts melanoma on their website).  It is well worth the money even if you pay for it yourself.  In my case my HMO refused to pay, I appealed, they denied, medicare overruled and forced them to pay.  Of course, I did not wait for the consult but carried on the insurance fight later.  You have a high probability of a good outcome.  This site has been very helpful to me….I would encourage you to keep reading it even though the subject may not be the most exciting!  Good Luck!!

                                • March 23, 2012 at 5:22 pm
                                blairashley
                                Participant

                                  I would suggest a second opinion…  Sounds like a sentinel node biopsy might be appropriate…  Better safe than sorry!

                                  • March 23, 2012 at 5:22 pm
                                  blairashley
                                  Participant

                                    I would suggest a second opinion…  Sounds like a sentinel node biopsy might be appropriate…  Better safe than sorry!

                                    • March 23, 2012 at 5:22 pm
                                    blairashley
                                    Participant

                                      I would suggest a second opinion…  Sounds like a sentinel node biopsy might be appropriate…  Better safe than sorry!

                                  Viewing 11 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