higher recurrence rates than what I thought
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.

higher recurrence rates than what I thought

› Forums › General Melanoma Community › higher recurrence rates than what I thought

  • Post
Viewing 11 reply threads
  • Replies
      • February 20, 2013 at 3:05 pm
      Janner
      Participant

      It IS way less than that in this day and age.  This study was from the 50's and the 60's.  The guidelines for removal were different then.  There was no Sentinel Node Biopsy (SNB) back then – it wasn't introduced until the 90's.  Things are changing so rapidly in the melanoma field that historical survival rates are useless now.  New treatments that exist aren't included in them.  Same with everything else.  You HAVE to look at dates to see how old things are because 60 years ago is not any indication of what you'd see today.

      • February 20, 2013 at 3:05 pm
      Janner
      Participant

      It IS way less than that in this day and age.  This study was from the 50's and the 60's.  The guidelines for removal were different then.  There was no Sentinel Node Biopsy (SNB) back then – it wasn't introduced until the 90's.  Things are changing so rapidly in the melanoma field that historical survival rates are useless now.  New treatments that exist aren't included in them.  Same with everything else.  You HAVE to look at dates to see how old things are because 60 years ago is not any indication of what you'd see today.

      • February 20, 2013 at 3:05 pm
      Janner
      Participant

      It IS way less than that in this day and age.  This study was from the 50's and the 60's.  The guidelines for removal were different then.  There was no Sentinel Node Biopsy (SNB) back then – it wasn't introduced until the 90's.  Things are changing so rapidly in the melanoma field that historical survival rates are useless now.  New treatments that exist aren't included in them.  Same with everything else.  You HAVE to look at dates to see how old things are because 60 years ago is not any indication of what you'd see today.

      • February 20, 2013 at 4:48 pm
      JC
      Participant

      but unless the Breslows were incorrect, regardless of when the study was done, it is what it is, right?  also, as far as new treatments. . . Breslows that thin don't receive any treatments, so it wouldn't matter right?

      • February 20, 2013 at 4:48 pm
      JC
      Participant

      but unless the Breslows were incorrect, regardless of when the study was done, it is what it is, right?  also, as far as new treatments. . . Breslows that thin don't receive any treatments, so it wouldn't matter right?

      • February 20, 2013 at 4:48 pm
      JC
      Participant

      but unless the Breslows were incorrect, regardless of when the study was done, it is what it is, right?  also, as far as new treatments. . . Breslows that thin don't receive any treatments, so it wouldn't matter right?

        • February 20, 2013 at 5:27 pm
        Janner
        Participant

        They were looking at Clark's Levels which are subjective (and no longer used).  And margins are they key.  Melanoma was not as prevalent then.  What margins were used?  Back then, they used to do a total LND as treatment.  This is a small study and old and not applicable to today.  Compare it against this study from 2004 where stage IA had 22,000+ study participants as opposed to 256.

        http://www.asco.org/ASCOv2/Meetings/Abstracts?&vmview=abst_detail_view&confID=26&abstractID=3499

        • February 20, 2013 at 5:27 pm
        Janner
        Participant

        They were looking at Clark's Levels which are subjective (and no longer used).  And margins are they key.  Melanoma was not as prevalent then.  What margins were used?  Back then, they used to do a total LND as treatment.  This is a small study and old and not applicable to today.  Compare it against this study from 2004 where stage IA had 22,000+ study participants as opposed to 256.

        http://www.asco.org/ASCOv2/Meetings/Abstracts?&vmview=abst_detail_view&confID=26&abstractID=3499

        • February 20, 2013 at 5:27 pm
        Janner
        Participant

        They were looking at Clark's Levels which are subjective (and no longer used).  And margins are they key.  Melanoma was not as prevalent then.  What margins were used?  Back then, they used to do a total LND as treatment.  This is a small study and old and not applicable to today.  Compare it against this study from 2004 where stage IA had 22,000+ study participants as opposed to 256.

        http://www.asco.org/ASCOv2/Meetings/Abstracts?&vmview=abst_detail_view&confID=26&abstractID=3499

        • February 21, 2013 at 11:23 am
        JC
        Participant

        are you referring to the WLE margins?  in a lot of cases anyway, the biopsy removed all of the tumor with thin lesions, the WLE is just for good measure but rarely finds any additional cancer cells, so I'm not sure how much margins mattered when talking about thin lesions

        • February 21, 2013 at 11:23 am
        JC
        Participant

        are you referring to the WLE margins?  in a lot of cases anyway, the biopsy removed all of the tumor with thin lesions, the WLE is just for good measure but rarely finds any additional cancer cells, so I'm not sure how much margins mattered when talking about thin lesions

        • February 21, 2013 at 11:23 am
        JC
        Participant

        are you referring to the WLE margins?  in a lot of cases anyway, the biopsy removed all of the tumor with thin lesions, the WLE is just for good measure but rarely finds any additional cancer cells, so I'm not sure how much margins mattered when talking about thin lesions

        • February 21, 2013 at 2:03 pm
        Janner
        Participant

        WLE tissue is never analyzed to the same degree as biopsy tissue.  They look for "gross" cells, not individual ones.  So even if the WLE says clean margins or nothing found, that doesn't mean melanoma wasn't in the sample. 

        • February 21, 2013 at 2:03 pm
        Janner
        Participant

        WLE tissue is never analyzed to the same degree as biopsy tissue.  They look for "gross" cells, not individual ones.  So even if the WLE says clean margins or nothing found, that doesn't mean melanoma wasn't in the sample. 

        • February 21, 2013 at 2:03 pm
        Janner
        Participant

        WLE tissue is never analyzed to the same degree as biopsy tissue.  They look for "gross" cells, not individual ones.  So even if the WLE says clean margins or nothing found, that doesn't mean melanoma wasn't in the sample. 

      • February 21, 2013 at 11:12 am
      JC
      Participant

      this is more recent and even it says 15%

       

      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1360111/

       

      • February 21, 2013 at 11:12 am
      JC
      Participant

      this is more recent and even it says 15%

       

      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1360111/

       

      • February 21, 2013 at 11:12 am
      JC
      Participant

      this is more recent and even it says 15%

       

      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1360111/

       

        • February 21, 2013 at 2:06 pm
        Janner
        Participant

        15% includes 6.6% who were stage III at diagnosis.  They had positive sentinel nodes at the start.

        • February 21, 2013 at 2:06 pm
        Janner
        Participant

        15% includes 6.6% who were stage III at diagnosis.  They had positive sentinel nodes at the start.

        • February 21, 2013 at 2:06 pm
        Janner
        Participant

        15% includes 6.6% who were stage III at diagnosis.  They had positive sentinel nodes at the start.

      • February 25, 2013 at 3:55 pm
      JC
      Participant

      TABLE II: Survival of Melanoma Patients by Tumor Thickness

       

      http://lifemath.net/cancer/about/techreports/technical_report_11.pdf

      • February 25, 2013 at 3:55 pm
      JC
      Participant

      TABLE II: Survival of Melanoma Patients by Tumor Thickness

       

      http://lifemath.net/cancer/about/techreports/technical_report_11.pdf

      • February 25, 2013 at 3:55 pm
      JC
      Participant

      TABLE II: Survival of Melanoma Patients by Tumor Thickness

       

      http://lifemath.net/cancer/about/techreports/technical_report_11.pdf

Viewing 11 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