I was in Europe and a dermatologist there recommended a biopsy on 2 moles on my right leg. I later visited BHP (bangkok hosp pattaya) and a dr there said it was not an issue. I decided to go to the local govt hospital as I have social security health entitlements and the dr decided it was best to do biopsy. The lab results are in the photo. For mole A is this something that I should be concerned about? The dr at the govt hospital who did the biopsy told me to come back in 3 months but he admitted its not his area of knowledge. What is the follow up process in these cases? Are they just going to look at the area on my leg or should they be checking my blood. When it says 'close follow up is suggested' does this mean another biopsy?

 

I think the second biopsy B is all clear.

 

thanks

A melanocyctic naevis is simply a pigmented mole, patients are often confused by the name's similarity to melanoma but it is not a melanoma. The prefix "melan-" refers to pigmentation, melanocytes are the cells which give skin its pigmentation.

 

Mild dysplasia means that this was what we term an "atypical mole". It is not cancerous but people who have had atypical moles are at above average risk for subsequent development of melanoma. In your case the dysplaisa was only mild do no need for great alarm but it would be prudent   to  have regular (e.g. annual) complete skin checks from a doctor experienced in diagnosis and treatment of skin cancers, best by far would be Dr. Anna Jaruwan at BPH.

 

No blood test and no need to worry about that specific mole as it was benign and has been fully excised, just understand that you are at slightly higher than average risk for melanoma so be quick to seek treatment if you notice any changes to existing moles or development of new lesions in future.