Background: My mother had a spot on her hand that concerned her a little. During a routine annual check-up, she mentioned it to her GP, who recommended she take it to a dermatologist. Mom did so. At some point, she was asked whether she just wanted the dermatologist to look at the one spot, or check her whole body. She opted for the whole body. She was told “That’s a good idea, at your age”.
(Post-appointment: “You’re in good shape for someone of your age and your complexion”–Mom is 60ish, with lots of freckles).
I had to chuckle. If I made an appointment with a dermatologist, and was asked the same question, I’d opt for the whole body, on the grounds that I’ve got several moles that I don’t think are suspicious(or I’d make an appointment to get them checked out), but if I were visiting a dermatologist anyway, I’d like a professional opinion on.
So, how about you? For the purposes of this thread, the whole body check will take slightly more time, but will not cost more out of pocket. (Treatment costs for anything which is found to be suspicious is another matter). Would you have just the present trouble spot checked? Or would you opt for the whole body screening? Why?
Whole body. What you might not think is “trouble” might be troublesome indeed.
I went to a dermatologist a couple years ago or so, concerned about a few moles. Almost in passing I mentioned one that to my eyes looked like it was disappearing - it looked like it was fading away, except for the rim which was still fully intact and not fading. The dermatologist called it a “haloed nevus” and said that was one of the two he would be removing. Sure enough, the biopsy turned up precancerous changes in the cells, and said it most likely would have become cancerous if allowed to remain. The other one, which had grown larger, was completely benign.
I work in a dermatology office, and we are instructed to always offer the whole-body check. In many cases, things are noticed that need biopsying- including melanomas. Plus, as so many patients like to think they are clever in pointing out like they’re the first to ever say it- you can’t see your own back!
I’d go for whole body. I’ve had to have a few precancerous lumps removed, and I have a family history of skin cancer. In fact, I DO have a whole body exam by a doctor every now and then. My husband and daughter examine my back regularly, too, and let me know if I’ve grown any new moles or polyps or whatever.
Definitely “whole body.” Last time I went to a dermatologist it was for my feet, but I figured since I was undressed I’d have her have a look at the landscape, as it were. I don’t have many moles, but it’s nice to have them look. It doesn’t take long, and it’s worth it.
A clarification here - “halo nevi”, which are moles with a pale (hypopigmented) border, are benign lesions and not to my knowledge any more likely to become dysplastic or malignant than any other kind of mole. The pale zone microscopically corresponds to an area of inflammation.
What the dermatologist may be concerned about is that melanomas sometimes “regress” and this is associated with a paler zone. Regression is not an indication of benign or less aggressive behavior. Still, melanomas associated with regression typically (but not always) will have other features (including larger size, irregular borders etc.) that will allow the clinician to differentiate them from halo nevi.
Oh yes, I knew it wasn’t a cause-and-effect thing. I was just pointing it out as something that wasn’t really troubling to me but coincidentally turned out to be the one to worry about.
For sure whole-body. I have fair skin (never could tan anything more than icky pale beige so stopped long ago) and I want to be sure nothing’s getting nasty on me.
I guess I’m curious why anyone would say, “No, just check this one itty bitty spot and I’ll pay you the same office call as if you check my entire body.” Doesn’t sound like a very good value to me.