|
|
"jay" <jaynews@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:tq4Ue.536$Ef2.390@xxxxxxxxxxx
>I have a lot of moles (hundreds, maybe over 1000) and I have light skin,
>but avoid sunlight and use sunscreen. I'm just wondering what the goal
>should be with regard to a doctor's decision to remove any of my moles. I
>want to verify that a dermatologist should REALLY be removing moles that
>aren't actually suspected of currently being actual cancer. If a
>dermatologist should really be removing moles not suspected of currently
>being actual cancer, then under what circumstances should a mole removed?
>
> My impression is that dermatologists will remove moles that are suspected
> of being "potential precursors to cancer" without actually currently being
> cancer. Is this a valid precautionary treatment?
>
> Today, for example, a new dermatologist removed 2 of my moles but, based
> on the diagnosis codes he wrote, he suspects them to be "benign neoplasms"
> What I'm getting at here is that it would seem that the doctor does NOT
> suspect they are currently cancer if his opinion as that they are benign.
> Therefore, I assume the removal is strictly for preventative purposes. Is
> removal for preventative purposes a valid treatment or not?
>
> In the past, I have had moles removed that turned out to be "dysplastic
> nevi" otherwise known as "clarks type". No other information was given by
> the lab other than this. I have a few questions about this type of mole:
>
> 1) Has it been conclusively been proven that "dysplastic nevus or Clarks
> type" moles are REALLY precursors to cancer. AND WHAT I MEAN BY THIS IS
> CAN THE MOLES THEMSELVES REALLY DEVELOP INTO CANCER?
>
> 2) If yes to above, then is this a 100% risk that these moles themselves
> will become cancer, or, if not, then what is the risk factor?
>
> 3) Should every mole suspected of being "dysplastic otherwise known as
> clarks" be removed?
>
> 4) what other types of moles are proven to potentially "develop into
> cancer" and need to be removed?
>
> 5) Any tips on how I can determine for myself whether a doctor is REALLY
> removing a mole out of necessity vs. simply being overly aggressive?
>
> Thanks.
If you have suspicions that your doctor is being overly aggressive, I
suggest getting a second opinion when removals are advised, or even check
back with your GP.
The dermatologist should only remove moles that are suspicious (which is a
difficult line to draw - we all make mistakes) or dysplastic. In
patients like you it can be difficult to pick up changes in any mole, or any
newly appearing ones, and ordinary clinical follow-up is probably very hit
and miss. It is possible that photographic surveillance is better but I
have not been follwing the literature on this.
The dysplastic naevi put you at some risk.
Peter Moran
>
> J.
>
|
|