› Forums › Cutaneous Melanoma Community › How increased are my odds for another melanoma if I’ve already had one?
- This topic has 52 replies, 9 voices, and was last updated 6 years, 8 months ago by
Nicole78.
- Post
-
- June 19, 2012 at 8:44 pm
Are my odds of another higher than for my siblings since I've already had one? We have same skin type, same type of moles. We have skin that tans, doesn't burn easily. We do freckle and have multiple freckles but not that many moles. I am a little confused as to how increased my odds are and how carefully I should be watching for a new one after my in situ diagnosis?
Are my odds of another higher than for my siblings since I've already had one? We have same skin type, same type of moles. We have skin that tans, doesn't burn easily. We do freckle and have multiple freckles but not that many moles. I am a little confused as to how increased my odds are and how carefully I should be watching for a new one after my in situ diagnosis?
- Replies
-
-
- June 19, 2012 at 9:38 pm
From what I have read the probability of getting a second melanoma ranges from 4-8%. The good news is it will likely be another very non-lethal one since I would assume you are having regular skin exams now. Here is a very good article on the subject.
http://archderm.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=477743
Regarding your family, it is hard to say. My mother had melanoma but the Onc says that is not enough family history and my tumor did not carry any marker that would indicate familiar melanoma. I have lots of sun damage, and that's the bottom line for me. It's been 2 years now for me so if this article is correct, I may not see a second primary. But with my former love of the sun I'm not taking chances!
I try not to worry about things I can't change.
Mary
Stage 3
-
- June 19, 2012 at 9:38 pm
From what I have read the probability of getting a second melanoma ranges from 4-8%. The good news is it will likely be another very non-lethal one since I would assume you are having regular skin exams now. Here is a very good article on the subject.
http://archderm.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=477743
Regarding your family, it is hard to say. My mother had melanoma but the Onc says that is not enough family history and my tumor did not carry any marker that would indicate familiar melanoma. I have lots of sun damage, and that's the bottom line for me. It's been 2 years now for me so if this article is correct, I may not see a second primary. But with my former love of the sun I'm not taking chances!
I try not to worry about things I can't change.
Mary
Stage 3
-
- June 19, 2012 at 10:42 pm
Okay, that is low odds. That is same as survival for stage 1 melanoma. So I have same odds of another primary as someone stage 1 has of dying. And I do read on here stage 1 does not generally have risk of dying. I will keep up annual exams from my doctor but won't change my lifestyle.
-
- June 19, 2012 at 10:42 pm
Okay, that is low odds. That is same as survival for stage 1 melanoma. So I have same odds of another primary as someone stage 1 has of dying. And I do read on here stage 1 does not generally have risk of dying. I will keep up annual exams from my doctor but won't change my lifestyle.
-
- June 19, 2012 at 10:42 pm
Okay, that is low odds. That is same as survival for stage 1 melanoma. So I have same odds of another primary as someone stage 1 has of dying. And I do read on here stage 1 does not generally have risk of dying. I will keep up annual exams from my doctor but won't change my lifestyle.
-
- June 19, 2012 at 9:38 pm
From what I have read the probability of getting a second melanoma ranges from 4-8%. The good news is it will likely be another very non-lethal one since I would assume you are having regular skin exams now. Here is a very good article on the subject.
http://archderm.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=477743
Regarding your family, it is hard to say. My mother had melanoma but the Onc says that is not enough family history and my tumor did not carry any marker that would indicate familiar melanoma. I have lots of sun damage, and that's the bottom line for me. It's been 2 years now for me so if this article is correct, I may not see a second primary. But with my former love of the sun I'm not taking chances!
I try not to worry about things I can't change.
Mary
Stage 3
-
- June 20, 2012 at 3:30 am
Your odds of a second primary run in the 8-10% range depending on the source. If you have a strong family history or if you have dysplastic nevus syndrome (lots of atypical moles), your risk is higher. You are also at much higher risk for the other types of skin cancer now. While they have a better survival rate, they can be disfiguring when removed. If you are the only one in your family with melanoma, your kids would have a 2-3 times higher likelihood than the general population to get melanoma. It's a little less clear with siblings, but if they share the same skin type and sun habits as you, their risk would probably be similar. Changing your lifestyle is up to you, and it also depends on what you mean. Being sun smart is probably a really good idea. Any tan is basically skin damage. Being "healthy" just makes sense, but diet/supplements/etc don't have much in the way of scientific study to say they'll decrease your risk of recurrence or a second primary. Moderation is always a great mantra to consider. Watch your moles for CHANGE and watch for that "ugly duckling" mole that stands out.
-
- June 20, 2012 at 3:01 pm
No, I have no links for anything like that. Most risks are "relative risks". Say for instance you have red hair. That has a relative risk of maybe 5% (don't remember actual figures). You have a 5% higher risk than someone with black hair. Say you have blue eyes. That might have a 3% relative risk. If you have red hair and blue eyes, your risk isn't 8%. It isn't cummulative. It's a relative risk only. The same thing goes for having atypical nevi or AK's. SK's are totally benign so not really in the equation. BCC and SCC increase the risk as well. But you can't make any assumptions that having all of these factors will make you much higher risk than someone who only has one or two factors. Maybe, maybe not. Each factor is independently evaluated against the general non-melanoma population and I haven't seen data where multiple factors are included to evaluate risk.
-
- June 20, 2012 at 3:01 pm
No, I have no links for anything like that. Most risks are "relative risks". Say for instance you have red hair. That has a relative risk of maybe 5% (don't remember actual figures). You have a 5% higher risk than someone with black hair. Say you have blue eyes. That might have a 3% relative risk. If you have red hair and blue eyes, your risk isn't 8%. It isn't cummulative. It's a relative risk only. The same thing goes for having atypical nevi or AK's. SK's are totally benign so not really in the equation. BCC and SCC increase the risk as well. But you can't make any assumptions that having all of these factors will make you much higher risk than someone who only has one or two factors. Maybe, maybe not. Each factor is independently evaluated against the general non-melanoma population and I haven't seen data where multiple factors are included to evaluate risk.
-
- June 21, 2012 at 12:23 am
Janner, I have never read the 2-3 times higher risk for children if a parent has melanoma. My Onc. (Dr Hamid, Angeles Clinic) has pretty much discounted any connection between my mother having it and my having it. Wondering if anyone has any back-up for this. I know Janner usually has right on info. Just curious.
Mary
Stage 3
-
- June 21, 2012 at 12:23 am
Janner, I have never read the 2-3 times higher risk for children if a parent has melanoma. My Onc. (Dr Hamid, Angeles Clinic) has pretty much discounted any connection between my mother having it and my having it. Wondering if anyone has any back-up for this. I know Janner usually has right on info. Just curious.
Mary
Stage 3
-
- June 21, 2012 at 12:23 am
Janner, I have never read the 2-3 times higher risk for children if a parent has melanoma. My Onc. (Dr Hamid, Angeles Clinic) has pretty much discounted any connection between my mother having it and my having it. Wondering if anyone has any back-up for this. I know Janner usually has right on info. Just curious.
Mary
Stage 3
-
- June 21, 2012 at 3:42 am
I participated in a high risk familial melanoma study. The institution I go to does a lot of genetic research – it's their focus. These are the notes I took at the study and from the video they created:
Risk Factors for Melanoma These are compared to the normal caucasian population who do not have melanoma. These are relative risks, not cumulative. If several people in your family have melanoma: 35-70 times greater risk to develop melanoma If you've had a previous Primary melanoma: 8.5 times greater risk to develop melanoma If you have a family history of just 1 person in your family: 2-3 times as likely to develop melanoma If you have Type I skin (always burns, never tans), freckles, blue eyes, red hair: 7.4-10 times more likely to get melanoma If you've had one blistering sunburn: You are at 2 to 3 times greater risk than the average caucasian without blistering sunburn history. Many/Unusual Moles 2 to 12 times greater chance of getting melanoma 90% of melanomas are sporadic meaning their is no genetic defect. Other reasons why MM may cluster in families: Shared environment Shared sun exposure Normal features that are inherited Clues for an Inherited Risk of MM: Several family members with melanoma Melanoma in many generations Melanoma occuring at a younger than usual age One person with one or more melanoma primaries Many/Unusual looking moles The presence of certain other related types of cancer within the family NOT ALL families have all of these clues, but even having 1 or more of these clues in a family makes it more likely that there is an inherited risk for melanoma. P16 Gene Mutation: People born with the P16 mutation are thought to have an increased risk of melanoma. 75% chance of developing melanoma, small increased risk of other related cancers.
-
- June 21, 2012 at 3:42 am
I participated in a high risk familial melanoma study. The institution I go to does a lot of genetic research – it's their focus. These are the notes I took at the study and from the video they created:
Risk Factors for Melanoma These are compared to the normal caucasian population who do not have melanoma. These are relative risks, not cumulative. If several people in your family have melanoma: 35-70 times greater risk to develop melanoma If you've had a previous Primary melanoma: 8.5 times greater risk to develop melanoma If you have a family history of just 1 person in your family: 2-3 times as likely to develop melanoma If you have Type I skin (always burns, never tans), freckles, blue eyes, red hair: 7.4-10 times more likely to get melanoma If you've had one blistering sunburn: You are at 2 to 3 times greater risk than the average caucasian without blistering sunburn history. Many/Unusual Moles 2 to 12 times greater chance of getting melanoma 90% of melanomas are sporadic meaning their is no genetic defect. Other reasons why MM may cluster in families: Shared environment Shared sun exposure Normal features that are inherited Clues for an Inherited Risk of MM: Several family members with melanoma Melanoma in many generations Melanoma occuring at a younger than usual age One person with one or more melanoma primaries Many/Unusual looking moles The presence of certain other related types of cancer within the family NOT ALL families have all of these clues, but even having 1 or more of these clues in a family makes it more likely that there is an inherited risk for melanoma. P16 Gene Mutation: People born with the P16 mutation are thought to have an increased risk of melanoma. 75% chance of developing melanoma, small increased risk of other related cancers.
-
- June 21, 2012 at 3:42 am
I participated in a high risk familial melanoma study. The institution I go to does a lot of genetic research – it's their focus. These are the notes I took at the study and from the video they created:
Risk Factors for Melanoma These are compared to the normal caucasian population who do not have melanoma. These are relative risks, not cumulative. If several people in your family have melanoma: 35-70 times greater risk to develop melanoma If you've had a previous Primary melanoma: 8.5 times greater risk to develop melanoma If you have a family history of just 1 person in your family: 2-3 times as likely to develop melanoma If you have Type I skin (always burns, never tans), freckles, blue eyes, red hair: 7.4-10 times more likely to get melanoma If you've had one blistering sunburn: You are at 2 to 3 times greater risk than the average caucasian without blistering sunburn history. Many/Unusual Moles 2 to 12 times greater chance of getting melanoma 90% of melanomas are sporadic meaning their is no genetic defect. Other reasons why MM may cluster in families: Shared environment Shared sun exposure Normal features that are inherited Clues for an Inherited Risk of MM: Several family members with melanoma Melanoma in many generations Melanoma occuring at a younger than usual age One person with one or more melanoma primaries Many/Unusual looking moles The presence of certain other related types of cancer within the family NOT ALL families have all of these clues, but even having 1 or more of these clues in a family makes it more likely that there is an inherited risk for melanoma. P16 Gene Mutation: People born with the P16 mutation are thought to have an increased risk of melanoma. 75% chance of developing melanoma, small increased risk of other related cancers.
-
- June 21, 2012 at 2:23 pm
I don't remember the entire list (there were about 8 of them), but having pancreatic cancer and melanoma in one family were the two most stressed. With the p16 genetic defect (realize this is only 2-4% of the melanoma population who have this defect), the risk of pancreatic cancer runs 11-17%. Normal risk for just anyone is <1%. So having both in one family raises red flags for the p16 genetic defect.
-
- June 21, 2012 at 2:23 pm
I don't remember the entire list (there were about 8 of them), but having pancreatic cancer and melanoma in one family were the two most stressed. With the p16 genetic defect (realize this is only 2-4% of the melanoma population who have this defect), the risk of pancreatic cancer runs 11-17%. Normal risk for just anyone is <1%. So having both in one family raises red flags for the p16 genetic defect.
-
- June 21, 2012 at 2:23 pm
I don't remember the entire list (there were about 8 of them), but having pancreatic cancer and melanoma in one family were the two most stressed. With the p16 genetic defect (realize this is only 2-4% of the melanoma population who have this defect), the risk of pancreatic cancer runs 11-17%. Normal risk for just anyone is <1%. So having both in one family raises red flags for the p16 genetic defect.
-
- June 22, 2012 at 8:13 am
NO one in my family had cancer…ever…until my mom…she died at 45 with cervical cancer…then my son died at 16 with Desmoplastic Small Round Cell Sarcoma…my moms sister had breast cancer and is surviving. Then I have stage 4 melanoma and now my brother 3 years my senior just found out he has tonsil cancer…he goes back Tuesday to find out the specifics…I had blistering sun burns as a kid…easy enough because I do have red hair, freckles, fair skin and blue eyes…my brother and I have no kids with red hair but the grand kids… lol most of them have the bright red hair blue eyes and fair complexion…I believe they are at an elevated risk….
-
- June 22, 2012 at 8:13 am
NO one in my family had cancer…ever…until my mom…she died at 45 with cervical cancer…then my son died at 16 with Desmoplastic Small Round Cell Sarcoma…my moms sister had breast cancer and is surviving. Then I have stage 4 melanoma and now my brother 3 years my senior just found out he has tonsil cancer…he goes back Tuesday to find out the specifics…I had blistering sun burns as a kid…easy enough because I do have red hair, freckles, fair skin and blue eyes…my brother and I have no kids with red hair but the grand kids… lol most of them have the bright red hair blue eyes and fair complexion…I believe they are at an elevated risk….
-
- June 22, 2012 at 8:13 am
NO one in my family had cancer…ever…until my mom…she died at 45 with cervical cancer…then my son died at 16 with Desmoplastic Small Round Cell Sarcoma…my moms sister had breast cancer and is surviving. Then I have stage 4 melanoma and now my brother 3 years my senior just found out he has tonsil cancer…he goes back Tuesday to find out the specifics…I had blistering sun burns as a kid…easy enough because I do have red hair, freckles, fair skin and blue eyes…my brother and I have no kids with red hair but the grand kids… lol most of them have the bright red hair blue eyes and fair complexion…I believe they are at an elevated risk….
-
- June 20, 2012 at 3:01 pm
No, I have no links for anything like that. Most risks are "relative risks". Say for instance you have red hair. That has a relative risk of maybe 5% (don't remember actual figures). You have a 5% higher risk than someone with black hair. Say you have blue eyes. That might have a 3% relative risk. If you have red hair and blue eyes, your risk isn't 8%. It isn't cummulative. It's a relative risk only. The same thing goes for having atypical nevi or AK's. SK's are totally benign so not really in the equation. BCC and SCC increase the risk as well. But you can't make any assumptions that having all of these factors will make you much higher risk than someone who only has one or two factors. Maybe, maybe not. Each factor is independently evaluated against the general non-melanoma population and I haven't seen data where multiple factors are included to evaluate risk.
-
- June 20, 2012 at 3:30 am
Your odds of a second primary run in the 8-10% range depending on the source. If you have a strong family history or if you have dysplastic nevus syndrome (lots of atypical moles), your risk is higher. You are also at much higher risk for the other types of skin cancer now. While they have a better survival rate, they can be disfiguring when removed. If you are the only one in your family with melanoma, your kids would have a 2-3 times higher likelihood than the general population to get melanoma. It's a little less clear with siblings, but if they share the same skin type and sun habits as you, their risk would probably be similar. Changing your lifestyle is up to you, and it also depends on what you mean. Being sun smart is probably a really good idea. Any tan is basically skin damage. Being "healthy" just makes sense, but diet/supplements/etc don't have much in the way of scientific study to say they'll decrease your risk of recurrence or a second primary. Moderation is always a great mantra to consider. Watch your moles for CHANGE and watch for that "ugly duckling" mole that stands out.
-
- June 20, 2012 at 3:30 am
Your odds of a second primary run in the 8-10% range depending on the source. If you have a strong family history or if you have dysplastic nevus syndrome (lots of atypical moles), your risk is higher. You are also at much higher risk for the other types of skin cancer now. While they have a better survival rate, they can be disfiguring when removed. If you are the only one in your family with melanoma, your kids would have a 2-3 times higher likelihood than the general population to get melanoma. It's a little less clear with siblings, but if they share the same skin type and sun habits as you, their risk would probably be similar. Changing your lifestyle is up to you, and it also depends on what you mean. Being sun smart is probably a really good idea. Any tan is basically skin damage. Being "healthy" just makes sense, but diet/supplements/etc don't have much in the way of scientific study to say they'll decrease your risk of recurrence or a second primary. Moderation is always a great mantra to consider. Watch your moles for CHANGE and watch for that "ugly duckling" mole that stands out.
-
- June 21, 2012 at 3:16 am
How long is piece of string?
What are the odds of your siblings winning the lottery because you did?
It is well advised to watch ones skin. But no matter what, just because you did, does not mean any one else will..
Your odds are just as good as mine. Neither one of us getting out of here alive.
Watch your skin for changes, but put this in your head that In Situ is melanoma zero…………….in other words, you do not have melanoma.
Consider it a friendly shot across the bow of your bathtub boat. You do not have melanoma. Yes, you may in the future, but it is unlikely, but you must be aware of the possibility.
No one here has a crystal ball that can portend the future.
Be smart, be safe, but please do not obsess because you DO NOT have Melanoma right now.
Okay?
Charlie S
-
- June 21, 2012 at 3:16 am
How long is piece of string?
What are the odds of your siblings winning the lottery because you did?
It is well advised to watch ones skin. But no matter what, just because you did, does not mean any one else will..
Your odds are just as good as mine. Neither one of us getting out of here alive.
Watch your skin for changes, but put this in your head that In Situ is melanoma zero…………….in other words, you do not have melanoma.
Consider it a friendly shot across the bow of your bathtub boat. You do not have melanoma. Yes, you may in the future, but it is unlikely, but you must be aware of the possibility.
No one here has a crystal ball that can portend the future.
Be smart, be safe, but please do not obsess because you DO NOT have Melanoma right now.
Okay?
Charlie S
-
- June 21, 2012 at 10:36 pm
I am the orignial poster. It seems other anonymous is posting in my thread. i haven't asked all other questions.
So you are saying in situ not real melanoma? So are those who had only in situ melanoma only at risk for other in situs maybe this is just how their moles are? Maybe you can have lots of in situs which some say are just pathologically odd moles, but maybe it isn't really a cancer?
-
- June 22, 2012 at 1:30 am
Look, I didn't make the rules, but every seminar, webinar, symposium, every piece of medical literature, pathology reviews, demapathology reports is that In-Situ is Melanoma O————–that is Melanoma Zero.
This has always been controversial, but I don't get it. In-Situ is Melanoma Zero, so in my mind that means one does not have melanoma, and why this No Melanoma/Melanoma diagnosis even exists. To me it is just an extension of pre-cancerous…………….which is kind of like being pre-pregnant…………..either you are or you are not.
At a MRF sponsered symposium at the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill I heard a dermapath say very clearly that In-Situ is NOT melanoma.
Again, I didn't make the rules, but this seems to be a labeling issue that ASCO should resolve, because as it is now, it instills unfounded fear, confusion, and offers no intelligent way forward for an informed and proactive patient.
So yes, I am saying, according to my interpretation of the available science, In-Sit is NOT melanoma.
For all the naysayers, rail at me all you want, but consider the scientific evidence. In-Situ is NOT a diagnosis of Melanoma.as presently defined by those that define such things.
This, in no way is an attempt to negate the fears of those with a In-Situ dx. What I would sugest is you ask your doctor this question "Is this or is this not Melanoma?"
And no, for the poster that inquired about 1-A, 1-A is a genuine Melanoma diagnosis, if the path supports it.
Cheers,
Charlie S
-
- April 17, 2018 at 12:15 pm
Hi, I’ve been diagnosed with melanoma in Situ so that was the shock of my life 🙁 I could only see the bad things in front 🙁 I had the excision , on the back I had a dysplastic one and had that removed as well and waiting now for one on my nipples which I really hope to come back ok , I had enough already 🙁 the amount of stress and anxiety is huge , you just can’t see ahead 🙁 so I really hope the last one they found will be fine 🙁 there is the fear that they will find another one, or that the melanoma will form inside the body and other things like these 🙁 it’s so good to discuss about these problems and I’m so thankful for your support. Thank you
-
- June 22, 2012 at 1:30 am
Look, I didn't make the rules, but every seminar, webinar, symposium, every piece of medical literature, pathology reviews, demapathology reports is that In-Situ is Melanoma O————–that is Melanoma Zero.
This has always been controversial, but I don't get it. In-Situ is Melanoma Zero, so in my mind that means one does not have melanoma, and why this No Melanoma/Melanoma diagnosis even exists. To me it is just an extension of pre-cancerous…………….which is kind of like being pre-pregnant…………..either you are or you are not.
At a MRF sponsered symposium at the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill I heard a dermapath say very clearly that In-Situ is NOT melanoma.
Again, I didn't make the rules, but this seems to be a labeling issue that ASCO should resolve, because as it is now, it instills unfounded fear, confusion, and offers no intelligent way forward for an informed and proactive patient.
So yes, I am saying, according to my interpretation of the available science, In-Sit is NOT melanoma.
For all the naysayers, rail at me all you want, but consider the scientific evidence. In-Situ is NOT a diagnosis of Melanoma.as presently defined by those that define such things.
This, in no way is an attempt to negate the fears of those with a In-Situ dx. What I would sugest is you ask your doctor this question "Is this or is this not Melanoma?"
And no, for the poster that inquired about 1-A, 1-A is a genuine Melanoma diagnosis, if the path supports it.
Cheers,
Charlie S
-
- June 22, 2012 at 1:30 am
Look, I didn't make the rules, but every seminar, webinar, symposium, every piece of medical literature, pathology reviews, demapathology reports is that In-Situ is Melanoma O————–that is Melanoma Zero.
This has always been controversial, but I don't get it. In-Situ is Melanoma Zero, so in my mind that means one does not have melanoma, and why this No Melanoma/Melanoma diagnosis even exists. To me it is just an extension of pre-cancerous…………….which is kind of like being pre-pregnant…………..either you are or you are not.
At a MRF sponsered symposium at the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill I heard a dermapath say very clearly that In-Situ is NOT melanoma.
Again, I didn't make the rules, but this seems to be a labeling issue that ASCO should resolve, because as it is now, it instills unfounded fear, confusion, and offers no intelligent way forward for an informed and proactive patient.
So yes, I am saying, according to my interpretation of the available science, In-Sit is NOT melanoma.
For all the naysayers, rail at me all you want, but consider the scientific evidence. In-Situ is NOT a diagnosis of Melanoma.as presently defined by those that define such things.
This, in no way is an attempt to negate the fears of those with a In-Situ dx. What I would sugest is you ask your doctor this question "Is this or is this not Melanoma?"
And no, for the poster that inquired about 1-A, 1-A is a genuine Melanoma diagnosis, if the path supports it.
Cheers,
Charlie S
-
- June 21, 2012 at 10:36 pm
I am the orignial poster. It seems other anonymous is posting in my thread. i haven't asked all other questions.
So you are saying in situ not real melanoma? So are those who had only in situ melanoma only at risk for other in situs maybe this is just how their moles are? Maybe you can have lots of in situs which some say are just pathologically odd moles, but maybe it isn't really a cancer?
-
- June 21, 2012 at 10:36 pm
I am the orignial poster. It seems other anonymous is posting in my thread. i haven't asked all other questions.
So you are saying in situ not real melanoma? So are those who had only in situ melanoma only at risk for other in situs maybe this is just how their moles are? Maybe you can have lots of in situs which some say are just pathologically odd moles, but maybe it isn't really a cancer?
-
- June 21, 2012 at 3:16 am
How long is piece of string?
What are the odds of your siblings winning the lottery because you did?
It is well advised to watch ones skin. But no matter what, just because you did, does not mean any one else will..
Your odds are just as good as mine. Neither one of us getting out of here alive.
Watch your skin for changes, but put this in your head that In Situ is melanoma zero…………….in other words, you do not have melanoma.
Consider it a friendly shot across the bow of your bathtub boat. You do not have melanoma. Yes, you may in the future, but it is unlikely, but you must be aware of the possibility.
No one here has a crystal ball that can portend the future.
Be smart, be safe, but please do not obsess because you DO NOT have Melanoma right now.
Okay?
Charlie S
-
Tagged: cutaneous melanoma
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.