Is this statistic 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.

Is this statistic accurate?

› Forums › General Melanoma Community › Is this statistic accurate?

  • This topic has 18 replies, 5 voices, and was last updated 13 years ago by W..
  • Post
    • November 14, 2012 at 10:51 am
    JC
    Participant

    "Globally near 40% of CMM patients develop clinical metastases 5 years or so after initial treatment". """dddddd  I

     

    "Globally near 40% of CMM patients develop clinical metastases 5 years or so after initial treatment". """dddddd  I

     

    I didn't think it was as high as 40%, that seems quite high. . I thought more than 60% were caught in "early" "curable" stages

Viewing 11 reply threads
  • Replies
      • November 14, 2012 at 12:00 pm
      POW
      Participant

      The key word here is "globally". If you think about all of the people all over the world who don't know about melanoma and/or do not have access to effective treatment, I suppose that statistic could be correct. But for people who are alert and aware and have access to a good dermatologist, their lesions are caught early and their outcomes are excellent.

      • November 14, 2012 at 12:00 pm
      POW
      Participant

      The key word here is "globally". If you think about all of the people all over the world who don't know about melanoma and/or do not have access to effective treatment, I suppose that statistic could be correct. But for people who are alert and aware and have access to a good dermatologist, their lesions are caught early and their outcomes are excellent.

      • November 14, 2012 at 12:00 pm
      POW
      Participant

      The key word here is "globally". If you think about all of the people all over the world who don't know about melanoma and/or do not have access to effective treatment, I suppose that statistic could be correct. But for people who are alert and aware and have access to a good dermatologist, their lesions are caught early and their outcomes are excellent.

      • November 14, 2012 at 1:51 pm
      Janner
      Participant

      Statistics are statistics and it would be nice to see how they obtained the data before commenting.  Without the background information, it is hard to make any type of assessment.

      • November 14, 2012 at 1:51 pm
      Janner
      Participant

      Statistics are statistics and it would be nice to see how they obtained the data before commenting.  Without the background information, it is hard to make any type of assessment.

      • November 14, 2012 at 1:51 pm
      Janner
      Participant

      Statistics are statistics and it would be nice to see how they obtained the data before commenting.  Without the background information, it is hard to make any type of assessment.

      • November 14, 2012 at 2:40 pm
      Fen
      Participant

       

      This is the quote from the article.

      Globally near 40% of CMM patients develop clinical metastases 5 years or so after initial treatment. However, the disease-free interval before appearance of metastases possibly elapses 10 to 25 years or over. Any unusually long latency period between the primary CMM treatment and metastatic occurrence is commonly thought to result from clinical CMM dormancy [27].

      The statistics don't seem to be cited to any source.  The second sentence cites a recent article, but it is about "smouldering melanoma".  I skimmed that article and found the following:

      Globally about 40% of patients who develop MM metastases do so more than 5 years after primary 

      I think the "more than" is important, but equally important is that the second article did not cite that statistic to a source either so we still can't tell how that data was derived.   

        • November 15, 2012 at 6:31 pm
        W.
        Participant

        I think this is the important sentence:

        > "Globally about 40% of patients who develop MM metastases do so more than 5 years after primary "

        So it does NOT say that 40% of MM patients develops metastases. It only says that of those who DO, it is after more than 5 years for 40% of them.

        The other article cites this as

        > "Globally near 40% of CMM patients develop clinical metastases 5 years or so after initial treatment".

        which is very unclear or even outright wrong.

        Unfortunately, slopiness like this is not really uncommon in scientic articles on the internet. 

        • November 15, 2012 at 6:31 pm
        W.
        Participant

        I think this is the important sentence:

        > "Globally about 40% of patients who develop MM metastases do so more than 5 years after primary "

        So it does NOT say that 40% of MM patients develops metastases. It only says that of those who DO, it is after more than 5 years for 40% of them.

        The other article cites this as

        > "Globally near 40% of CMM patients develop clinical metastases 5 years or so after initial treatment".

        which is very unclear or even outright wrong.

        Unfortunately, slopiness like this is not really uncommon in scientic articles on the internet. 

        • November 15, 2012 at 6:31 pm
        W.
        Participant

        I think this is the important sentence:

        > "Globally about 40% of patients who develop MM metastases do so more than 5 years after primary "

        So it does NOT say that 40% of MM patients develops metastases. It only says that of those who DO, it is after more than 5 years for 40% of them.

        The other article cites this as

        > "Globally near 40% of CMM patients develop clinical metastases 5 years or so after initial treatment".

        which is very unclear or even outright wrong.

        Unfortunately, slopiness like this is not really uncommon in scientic articles on the internet. 

      • November 14, 2012 at 2:40 pm
      Fen
      Participant

       

      This is the quote from the article.

      Globally near 40% of CMM patients develop clinical metastases 5 years or so after initial treatment. However, the disease-free interval before appearance of metastases possibly elapses 10 to 25 years or over. Any unusually long latency period between the primary CMM treatment and metastatic occurrence is commonly thought to result from clinical CMM dormancy [27].

      The statistics don't seem to be cited to any source.  The second sentence cites a recent article, but it is about "smouldering melanoma".  I skimmed that article and found the following:

      Globally about 40% of patients who develop MM metastases do so more than 5 years after primary 

      I think the "more than" is important, but equally important is that the second article did not cite that statistic to a source either so we still can't tell how that data was derived.   

      • November 14, 2012 at 2:40 pm
      Fen
      Participant

       

      This is the quote from the article.

      Globally near 40% of CMM patients develop clinical metastases 5 years or so after initial treatment. However, the disease-free interval before appearance of metastases possibly elapses 10 to 25 years or over. Any unusually long latency period between the primary CMM treatment and metastatic occurrence is commonly thought to result from clinical CMM dormancy [27].

      The statistics don't seem to be cited to any source.  The second sentence cites a recent article, but it is about "smouldering melanoma".  I skimmed that article and found the following:

      Globally about 40% of patients who develop MM metastases do so more than 5 years after primary 

      I think the "more than" is important, but equally important is that the second article did not cite that statistic to a source either so we still can't tell how that data was derived.   

      • November 15, 2012 at 5:08 pm
      JC
      Participant

      Stage for Stage, what are the actual survival rates?  I have seen rates stated that really vary. . I've seen rates for early stages anywhere from 80-99%. . .I've seen rates for later stages vary widely too. .  is there one "accepted" source/set of numbers?

      • November 15, 2012 at 5:08 pm
      JC
      Participant

      Stage for Stage, what are the actual survival rates?  I have seen rates stated that really vary. . I've seen rates for early stages anywhere from 80-99%. . .I've seen rates for later stages vary widely too. .  is there one "accepted" source/set of numbers?

      • November 15, 2012 at 5:08 pm
      JC
      Participant

      Stage for Stage, what are the actual survival rates?  I have seen rates stated that really vary. . I've seen rates for early stages anywhere from 80-99%. . .I've seen rates for later stages vary widely too. .  is there one "accepted" source/set of numbers?

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.