Help interpreting pathology report – atypical mole (Att Janner?)
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.

Help interpreting pathology report – atypical mole (Att Janner?)

› Forums › General Melanoma Community › Help interpreting pathology report – atypical mole (Att Janner?)

  • Post
    • December 14, 2016 at 4:04 am
    mannines
    Participant

      Hello all

      thank you in advance if you are able to help. 

      I had a mole biopsied and the pathology report didn't state whether it was mild, moderate or severely dysplastic.  It was a punch biopsy of a 2mm mole with 1mm margins.

      The clinic said all margins were clear and that no further excision is required, however, I'm seeking a second option (from this forum and another dr) as the report was vague.  Any interpretation of the report would be much appreciated.

      REPORT:
      Skin with increased pigmentation of tthe basal cell layer and a junctional melanocytic proliferation composed of nested groups along the tips of elongated and variably fused rete ridges. There is also lamellar fibroplaysia, mild chronic inflammation, pigment incontinence and a few banal melanocytes in the upper dermis.. There is no confluence, mitototic figures or pagetoid scatter seen.

      Conclusion: Compound melanocytic naevus, dysplastic

      This is a fantastic forum and source of information and comfort which I have been reading over the past few weeks. 

      Any advice appreciated and I will update also with 2nd opinion from Dr when I get it.  I know aypical moles are contentious in terms of their ability to turn into melanoma and also that there is no general consensus on treatment so I'm finding it all a bit 'grey'…

      Best wishes to everyone here

    Viewing 2 reply threads
    • Replies
        • December 14, 2016 at 2:11 pm
        Janner
        Participant

          There is nothing about this path report that screams worrisome to me.  If I had clean margins (like this one does), I'd just move on.  Not all pathologists classify atypical moles as mild, moderate or severe and that doesn't mean the report is lacking if it doesn't.  (It makes it easier for us but we're not really the audience this pathologist is writing for).  The description itself usually indicates more worrisome architecture or cellular atypia and this one specifically rules out typical melanoma features.  (I am not a medical person or pathologist).

            • December 15, 2016 at 1:11 pm
            mannines
            Participant
              Many thanks for taking the time to reply Janner – much appreciated
              • December 15, 2016 at 1:11 pm
              mannines
              Participant
                Many thanks for taking the time to reply Janner – much appreciated
                • December 15, 2016 at 1:11 pm
                mannines
                Participant
                  Many thanks for taking the time to reply Janner – much appreciated
                  • December 26, 2016 at 3:38 am
                  mannines
                  Participant
                    Hi Janner/all – advice needed am more worried than before.

                    In my first post I mentioned that I was going to get a 2nd opinion from a derm as I found the initial pathology report for my dysplastic nevus to be a little vague.

                    Well that derm called me xmas eve (great timing) to say that the team of specialists on review felt that the mole was mild / mild to moderate (I had spoken to the first pathologist myself who said it was mild).

                    My original path report apparently didnt mention any cellular atypia which they found on review.

                    He also said that they were going to run some new slides as ‘sometimes when we look deeper we find some worrying things’. Added that if it was on his arm he would want it cut out.

                    I am now obviously a bit concerned as to why they would a) upgrade and level of atypia and b) think they needed to run further tests. The clinic where I had the punch biopsy done said no further excision is required.

                    I tend to suffer from health anxiety so I realise I’m probably blowing this out of proportion but looking for any advice here.

                    Many thanks

                    • December 26, 2016 at 3:38 am
                    mannines
                    Participant
                      Hi Janner/all – advice needed am more worried than before.

                      In my first post I mentioned that I was going to get a 2nd opinion from a derm as I found the initial pathology report for my dysplastic nevus to be a little vague.

                      Well that derm called me xmas eve (great timing) to say that the team of specialists on review felt that the mole was mild / mild to moderate (I had spoken to the first pathologist myself who said it was mild).

                      My original path report apparently didnt mention any cellular atypia which they found on review.

                      He also said that they were going to run some new slides as ‘sometimes when we look deeper we find some worrying things’. Added that if it was on his arm he would want it cut out.

                      I am now obviously a bit concerned as to why they would a) upgrade and level of atypia and b) think they needed to run further tests. The clinic where I had the punch biopsy done said no further excision is required.

                      I tend to suffer from health anxiety so I realise I’m probably blowing this out of proportion but looking for any advice here.

                      Many thanks

                      • December 26, 2016 at 3:38 am
                      mannines
                      Participant
                        Hi Janner/all – advice needed am more worried than before.

                        In my first post I mentioned that I was going to get a 2nd opinion from a derm as I found the initial pathology report for my dysplastic nevus to be a little vague.

                        Well that derm called me xmas eve (great timing) to say that the team of specialists on review felt that the mole was mild / mild to moderate (I had spoken to the first pathologist myself who said it was mild).

                        My original path report apparently didnt mention any cellular atypia which they found on review.

                        He also said that they were going to run some new slides as ‘sometimes when we look deeper we find some worrying things’. Added that if it was on his arm he would want it cut out.

                        I am now obviously a bit concerned as to why they would a) upgrade and level of atypia and b) think they needed to run further tests. The clinic where I had the punch biopsy done said no further excision is required.

                        I tend to suffer from health anxiety so I realise I’m probably blowing this out of proportion but looking for any advice here.

                        Many thanks

                      • December 14, 2016 at 2:11 pm
                      Janner
                      Participant

                        There is nothing about this path report that screams worrisome to me.  If I had clean margins (like this one does), I'd just move on.  Not all pathologists classify atypical moles as mild, moderate or severe and that doesn't mean the report is lacking if it doesn't.  (It makes it easier for us but we're not really the audience this pathologist is writing for).  The description itself usually indicates more worrisome architecture or cellular atypia and this one specifically rules out typical melanoma features.  (I am not a medical person or pathologist).

                        • December 14, 2016 at 2:11 pm
                        Janner
                        Participant

                          There is nothing about this path report that screams worrisome to me.  If I had clean margins (like this one does), I'd just move on.  Not all pathologists classify atypical moles as mild, moderate or severe and that doesn't mean the report is lacking if it doesn't.  (It makes it easier for us but we're not really the audience this pathologist is writing for).  The description itself usually indicates more worrisome architecture or cellular atypia and this one specifically rules out typical melanoma features.  (I am not a medical person or pathologist).

                      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