Article on 20-year survival for people with thin (1mm or less) mels 96% – 2012, from Queensland/Australia

yes, be vigilant, but not scared nor paranoid, and believe that you're in the 96% since you probably are

yes, be vigilant, but not scared nor paranoid, and believe that you're in the 96% since you probably are

yes, be vigilant, but not scared nor paranoid, and believe that you're in the 96% since you probably are

I would also suspect that of the "thin" melanomas that progress, some had the initial pathology read wrong

Mat, may I just ask why you were going to oncology appointments for 10 years with such a thin melanoma?

Here in the UK, you would never get to see an oncologist with a stage 1 melanoma less than 1mm and you would only get follow up with a dermatologist for a year before then being discharged if stage 1a or three years if 1b.  These are the national guidelines.

I had a good dermatologist and a good oncologist (who was also a melanoma specialist).  I also had good health insurance and was vigilant, particularly in the early years.  Unfortunately, I was also quite unlucky.  So, the overall point is take comfort in the statistics, but pay close attention to your body.  If I would've had my left arm x-rayed in January 2013, then folks would've been able to diagnose my bone tumor and Stage 4 melanoma much earlier (versus July 2013 with a heavy tumor burden).  Presumably I would've had additional treatment options (versus moving right to BRAF-MEK).  I'm not living in the past here; just letting you know that reasonably vigilant and intelligent people end-up in the 4 percent.

I had a good dermatologist and a good oncologist (who was also a melanoma specialist).  I also had good health insurance and was vigilant, particularly in the early years.  Unfortunately, I was also quite unlucky.  So, the overall point is take comfort in the statistics, but pay close attention to your body.  If I would've had my left arm x-rayed in January 2013, then folks would've been able to diagnose my bone tumor and Stage 4 melanoma much earlier (versus July 2013 with a heavy tumor burden).  Presumably I would've had additional treatment options (versus moving right to BRAF-MEK).  I'm not living in the past here; just letting you know that reasonably vigilant and intelligent people end-up in the 4 percent.

probably will read more about the 4% on MPIP than the 96% who aren't posting on the board anymore, so it might seem skewed what you read here, it would seem like everybody progresses

probably will read more about the 4% on MPIP than the 96% who aren't posting on the board anymore, so it might seem skewed what you read here, it would seem like everybody progresses

Mat,

 It might be interesting to get those orginal slides read again by another expert.

Mat,

 It might be interesting to get those orginal slides read again by another expert.

Not that interesting.  I had a wide excision and sentinel lymphoma node testing done within a week or two–all clear.  I'm not going to respond to further posts on this thread (been there, done that).  I've given you the information in an attempt to be helpful.  Do what you want with it.  Good luck.

Not that interesting.  I had a wide excision and sentinel lymphoma node testing done within a week or two–all clear.  I'm not going to respond to further posts on this thread (been there, done that).  I've given you the information in an attempt to be helpful.  Do what you want with it.  Good luck.

Not that interesting.  I had a wide excision and sentinel lymphoma node testing done within a week or two–all clear.  I'm not going to respond to further posts on this thread (been there, done that).  I've given you the information in an attempt to be helpful.  Do what you want with it.  Good luck.

Mat,

 It might be interesting to get those orginal slides read again by another expert.

probably will read more about the 4% on MPIP than the 96% who aren't posting on the board anymore, so it might seem skewed what you read here, it would seem like everybody progresses

Mat-  in terms of melanoma pathology mine is similar to yours.6 mm/ 2 mitosis excised from my back 6 months ago.   My question for u is about your progression.  So u were perfectly fine for 10 years and then it suddenly returned?  Did u even think about Mel after your initial diagnosis?  As the years went by fic u assume it was gone?  I can't imagine what u are going through at this time but my thought are with u.  They say when Mel recurs after a long time u have a great chance of beating it and I'm sure u will!  Godspeed my friend- Mark

Mat-  in terms of melanoma pathology mine is similar to yours.6 mm/ 2 mitosis excised from my back 6 months ago.   My question for u is about your progression.  So u were perfectly fine for 10 years and then it suddenly returned?  Did u even think about Mel after your initial diagnosis?  As the years went by fic u assume it was gone?  I can't imagine what u are going through at this time but my thought are with u.  They say when Mel recurs after a long time u have a great chance of beating it and I'm sure u will!  Godspeed my friend- Mark

Mat-  in terms of melanoma pathology mine is similar to yours.6 mm/ 2 mitosis excised from my back 6 months ago.   My question for u is about your progression.  So u were perfectly fine for 10 years and then it suddenly returned?  Did u even think about Mel after your initial diagnosis?  As the years went by fic u assume it was gone?  I can't imagine what u are going through at this time but my thought are with u.  They say when Mel recurs after a long time u have a great chance of beating it and I'm sure u will!  Godspeed my friend- Mark

I had a good dermatologist and a good oncologist (who was also a melanoma specialist).  I also had good health insurance and was vigilant, particularly in the early years.  Unfortunately, I was also quite unlucky.  So, the overall point is take comfort in the statistics, but pay close attention to your body.  If I would've had my left arm x-rayed in January 2013, then folks would've been able to diagnose my bone tumor and Stage 4 melanoma much earlier (versus July 2013 with a heavy tumor burden).  Presumably I would've had additional treatment options (versus moving right to BRAF-MEK).  I'm not living in the past here; just letting you know that reasonably vigilant and intelligent people end-up in the 4 percent.

not to mention a SLNB for such a thin melanoma. . .surprised insurance would cover that

not to mention a SLNB for such a thin melanoma. . .surprised insurance would cover that

not to mention a SLNB for such a thin melanoma. . .surprised insurance would cover that

Mat, may I just ask why you were going to oncology appointments for 10 years with such a thin melanoma?

Here in the UK, you would never get to see an oncologist with a stage 1 melanoma less than 1mm and you would only get follow up with a dermatologist for a year before then being discharged if stage 1a or three years if 1b.  These are the national guidelines.

Mat, may I just ask why you were going to oncology appointments for 10 years with such a thin melanoma?

Here in the UK, you would never get to see an oncologist with a stage 1 melanoma less than 1mm and you would only get follow up with a dermatologist for a year before then being discharged if stage 1a or three years if 1b.  These are the national guidelines.

I would also suspect that of the "thin" melanomas that progress, some had the initial pathology read wrong

I would also suspect that of the "thin" melanomas that progress, some had the initial pathology read wrong

maybe i'm confused but i thought the "4%'ers" were people who were truly Stage I at diagnosis who then later progressed, whereas if your sentinel node biopsy was positive then you would have been Stage III, not Stage I.  am i missing something?

The point, in this case is:  If I hadn't had the sentinel lymph node biopsy because my 0.6mm primary lesion was so thin and therefore I "didn't need it" ….I would not have learned – for some amount of time (I fear it wouldn't have been that long)…that I was Stage III rather than Stage I, now would I?!!!  However, getting the positive node out….I feel….gave me 3 years before I developed another thin "second primary"…(Upon sentinel node evaluation there…I had no positive nodes in that basin)…and another 3 years before becoming a Stage IV melanoma patient with brain and lung mets.  My question, for those against sentinel node biopsy for thin lesions is this:  How do you KNOW that you are only Stage 1 if you don't check your nodes?  Truth be told, for me in 2003, it did not help me by way of treatment, since at that time the only treatment available for melanoma was interferon or IL2.  However, today….the array of effective treatments for patients with metastasis to nodes is very different.  Knowing that I had melanoma cells to a node, vs ONLY a thin melanoma lesion that had been removed, would certainly change the treatment I would pursue!  Yet, even for me…back in the day….I am convinced that getting what melanoma cells I could OUT of my body, rather than letting them sit there and do their thing…gave me time.  Cherry picking (ie surgical removal of mets) is still considered a very effective first step in melanoma treatment!  Just my thoughts and circumstance.  Wishing you all my best.  C

The point, in this case is:  If I hadn't had the sentinel lymph node biopsy because my 0.6mm primary lesion was so thin and therefore I "didn't need it" ….I would not have learned – for some amount of time (I fear it wouldn't have been that long)…that I was Stage III rather than Stage I, now would I?!!!  However, getting the positive node out….I feel….gave me 3 years before I developed another thin "second primary"…(Upon sentinel node evaluation there…I had no positive nodes in that basin)…and another 3 years before becoming a Stage IV melanoma patient with brain and lung mets.  My question, for those against sentinel node biopsy for thin lesions is this:  How do you KNOW that you are only Stage 1 if you don't check your nodes?  Truth be told, for me in 2003, it did not help me by way of treatment, since at that time the only treatment available for melanoma was interferon or IL2.  However, today….the array of effective treatments for patients with metastasis to nodes is very different.  Knowing that I had melanoma cells to a node, vs ONLY a thin melanoma lesion that had been removed, would certainly change the treatment I would pursue!  Yet, even for me…back in the day….I am convinced that getting what melanoma cells I could OUT of my body, rather than letting them sit there and do their thing…gave me time.  Cherry picking (ie surgical removal of mets) is still considered a very effective first step in melanoma treatment!  Just my thoughts and circumstance.  Wishing you all my best.  C

The point, in this case is:  If I hadn't had the sentinel lymph node biopsy because my 0.6mm primary lesion was so thin and therefore I "didn't need it" ….I would not have learned – for some amount of time (I fear it wouldn't have been that long)…that I was Stage III rather than Stage I, now would I?!!!  However, getting the positive node out….I feel….gave me 3 years before I developed another thin "second primary"…(Upon sentinel node evaluation there…I had no positive nodes in that basin)…and another 3 years before becoming a Stage IV melanoma patient with brain and lung mets.  My question, for those against sentinel node biopsy for thin lesions is this:  How do you KNOW that you are only Stage 1 if you don't check your nodes?  Truth be told, for me in 2003, it did not help me by way of treatment, since at that time the only treatment available for melanoma was interferon or IL2.  However, today….the array of effective treatments for patients with metastasis to nodes is very different.  Knowing that I had melanoma cells to a node, vs ONLY a thin melanoma lesion that had been removed, would certainly change the treatment I would pursue!  Yet, even for me…back in the day….I am convinced that getting what melanoma cells I could OUT of my body, rather than letting them sit there and do their thing…gave me time.  Cherry picking (ie surgical removal of mets) is still considered a very effective first step in melanoma treatment!  Just my thoughts and circumstance.  Wishing you all my best.  C

maybe i'm confused but i thought the "4%'ers" were people who were truly Stage I at diagnosis who then later progressed, whereas if your sentinel node biopsy was positive then you would have been Stage III, not Stage I.  am i missing something?

maybe i'm confused but i thought the "4%'ers" were people who were truly Stage I at diagnosis who then later progressed, whereas if your sentinel node biopsy was positive then you would have been Stage III, not Stage I.  am i missing something?