What? Why does this individualized patient outcome say that melanoma in situ has a 97.5 10 yr survival? Is that accurate??
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.

What? Why does this individualized patient outcome say that melanoma in situ has a 97.5 10 yr survival? Is that accurate??

› Forums › General Melanoma Community › What? Why does this individualized patient outcome say that melanoma in situ has a 97.5 10 yr survival? Is that accurate??

  • Post
Viewing 2 reply threads
  • Replies
      • May 4, 2012 at 11:26 pm
      mlbjab
      Participant

      I am sorry, the title got cut off.  I meant why does it say that melanoma in situ has a 97.5 10 yr survival?  I thougth it was incapable of spreading?

        • May 4, 2012 at 11:37 pm
        Janner
        Participant

        A true in situ is incapable of spreading.  However, you don't know if everyone in the study had that.  There may be misdiagnosis.  There may be local recurrences of in situ that spread later.  There may be extenuating factors that you don't know.  All these stats should be taken with a grain of salt.  The AJCC study data is smaller than other studies.  Check out this table.  It doesn't include stage 0 and is for the staging system before 2009, but you can see how larger studies affect the statistics.

        http://www.asco.org/ascov2/Meetings/Abstracts?&vmview=abst_detail_view&confID=26&abstractID=3499

        • May 5, 2012 at 12:33 pm
        mlbjab
        Participant

        I could not get your link to work.  I did, however, enter .5 and the same results came up.  I wonder if they have this calculator set up in a way that just lumps all lesions together that are under .5 certain depth, and maybe it does not even include in situ?  Could this be the case?

        • May 5, 2012 at 2:02 pm
        Janner
        Participant

        I would say it doesn't include in situ.  Since it does not use mitosis as a criteria, it is also most likely using older staging data.  Mitosis was included at the end of 2009.  It appears to change prognosis at .5 to .6 so it doesn't use pure staging data either, but a more granulated breakdown.

        Here is the link I was trying to include above:

        http://www.asco.org/ascov2/Meetings/Abstracts?&vmview=abst_detail_view&confID=26&abstractID=3499

        • May 5, 2012 at 2:02 pm
        Janner
        Participant

        I would say it doesn't include in situ.  Since it does not use mitosis as a criteria, it is also most likely using older staging data.  Mitosis was included at the end of 2009.  It appears to change prognosis at .5 to .6 so it doesn't use pure staging data either, but a more granulated breakdown.

        Here is the link I was trying to include above:

        http://www.asco.org/ascov2/Meetings/Abstracts?&vmview=abst_detail_view&confID=26&abstractID=3499

        • May 5, 2012 at 2:02 pm
        Janner
        Participant

        I would say it doesn't include in situ.  Since it does not use mitosis as a criteria, it is also most likely using older staging data.  Mitosis was included at the end of 2009.  It appears to change prognosis at .5 to .6 so it doesn't use pure staging data either, but a more granulated breakdown.

        Here is the link I was trying to include above:

        http://www.asco.org/ascov2/Meetings/Abstracts?&vmview=abst_detail_view&confID=26&abstractID=3499

        • May 5, 2012 at 12:33 pm
        mlbjab
        Participant

        I could not get your link to work.  I did, however, enter .5 and the same results came up.  I wonder if they have this calculator set up in a way that just lumps all lesions together that are under .5 certain depth, and maybe it does not even include in situ?  Could this be the case?

        • May 5, 2012 at 12:33 pm
        mlbjab
        Participant

        I could not get your link to work.  I did, however, enter .5 and the same results came up.  I wonder if they have this calculator set up in a way that just lumps all lesions together that are under .5 certain depth, and maybe it does not even include in situ?  Could this be the case?

        • May 4, 2012 at 11:37 pm
        Janner
        Participant

        A true in situ is incapable of spreading.  However, you don't know if everyone in the study had that.  There may be misdiagnosis.  There may be local recurrences of in situ that spread later.  There may be extenuating factors that you don't know.  All these stats should be taken with a grain of salt.  The AJCC study data is smaller than other studies.  Check out this table.  It doesn't include stage 0 and is for the staging system before 2009, but you can see how larger studies affect the statistics.

        http://www.asco.org/ascov2/Meetings/Abstracts?&vmview=abst_detail_view&confID=26&abstractID=3499

        • May 4, 2012 at 11:37 pm
        Janner
        Participant

        A true in situ is incapable of spreading.  However, you don't know if everyone in the study had that.  There may be misdiagnosis.  There may be local recurrences of in situ that spread later.  There may be extenuating factors that you don't know.  All these stats should be taken with a grain of salt.  The AJCC study data is smaller than other studies.  Check out this table.  It doesn't include stage 0 and is for the staging system before 2009, but you can see how larger studies affect the statistics.

        http://www.asco.org/ascov2/Meetings/Abstracts?&vmview=abst_detail_view&confID=26&abstractID=3499

      • May 4, 2012 at 11:26 pm
      mlbjab
      Participant

      I am sorry, the title got cut off.  I meant why does it say that melanoma in situ has a 97.5 10 yr survival?  I thougth it was incapable of spreading?

      • May 4, 2012 at 11:26 pm
      mlbjab
      Participant

      I am sorry, the title got cut off.  I meant why does it say that melanoma in situ has a 97.5 10 yr survival?  I thougth it was incapable of spreading?

Viewing 2 reply threads
  • 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