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.

New to this forum– how did your doctors confirm OM?

Forums Ocular Melanoma Community New to this forum– how did your doctors confirm OM?

  • Post
    Tamils
    Participant

       

       

      My father was diagnosed with stage iv melanoma last November after a lump in his skull turned out to be melanoma.  They could not find a primary on his skin.  He has had a spot behind his retina for 20 years or more, which had undergone a very tiny change, but an eye specialist ruled out ocular melanoma on inspection.  After his surgery to remove the skull met, his scans were clear.  Fast forward to his latest scans from last week, and he has two spots on the right lobe of his liver, as well as apparent lesions on various bones.  Today his oncologist, in combination with a different eye specialist who hasn't seen him for nine months, says that it's ocular melanoma, based solely on the fact that it has metastasized to the liver.  I'm not convinced it's OM.  He has good vision, so we would rather not have him lose an eye just to check on the OM status, when it's already spread anyway. 

      The doctor also said that the mets were progressing too rapidly for ipi or IL-2 to work.  He is B-RAF negative.  She recommends Temodar but says it isn't much use.  We are collecting his records as quickly as possible to get a specialist's opinion.  He is otherwise in pretty good health and is in no pain; sure ipi can take awhile to work, but don't some people respond within a month or two?  I am also looking at clinicaltrials.gov.  Any comments on treatment would also be appreciated.  Thank you so much.  I also cross-posted this to MPIP.

    Viewing 5 reply threads
    • Replies
        ThatHomeschoolDad
        Participant

          It sounds really odd that a doc would claim it's OM instead of cutaneous based solely on where it metastasized to.  That's a conclusion a liver biopsy would find.  OM such a rare bird, it's not unusual for many (most?) oncologists to be a bit off message on our little bug.

          You need to consult with Dr. Takami Sato, the Guru of Ocular Melanoma.  Here's the contact info:

           

          Renee M. Zalinsky, RN, OCN
          Senior Cancer Care Coordinator
          Jefferson Kimmel Cancer Center Network
          1015 Chestnut Street, Suite 622
          Philadelphia, PA 19107
          Direct 215-955-3158
          Fax 215-955-1020
          E-Mail: [email protected]

           

          –Tom

            Tamils
            Participant

              Thank you very much for Dr. Sato's information.  Are you saying a liver biopsy would be able to tell whether it was cutaneous or ocular?  The first met was to his skull bone, and the biopsy there just came back as 'melanoma.'  

              Tamils
              Participant

                Thank you very much for Dr. Sato's information.  Are you saying a liver biopsy would be able to tell whether it was cutaneous or ocular?  The first met was to his skull bone, and the biopsy there just came back as 'melanoma.'  

                Tamils
                Participant

                  Thank you very much for Dr. Sato's information.  Are you saying a liver biopsy would be able to tell whether it was cutaneous or ocular?  The first met was to his skull bone, and the biopsy there just came back as 'melanoma.'  

                  ThatHomeschoolDad
                  Participant

                    I would think so.  They are two different cancers.  A doc that lumps them together might not be that up to speed on OM, which is not surprising given the patient ragte of 6 per million.

                    I'm guessing, in a comp[letely-non-medical-way-that-you-should-take-with-a-boulder-sized-grain-of-salt, that if the original biopsy said cutaneous melanoma, that the liver lesions would be the same.  If there is no eye tumor, it's probably not OM.

                    Definitely probe further for the full story about their OM conclusion.

                    –Tom

                    ThatHomeschoolDad
                    Participant

                      I would think so.  They are two different cancers.  A doc that lumps them together might not be that up to speed on OM, which is not surprising given the patient ragte of 6 per million.

                      I'm guessing, in a comp[letely-non-medical-way-that-you-should-take-with-a-boulder-sized-grain-of-salt, that if the original biopsy said cutaneous melanoma, that the liver lesions would be the same.  If there is no eye tumor, it's probably not OM.

                      Definitely probe further for the full story about their OM conclusion.

                      –Tom

                      ThatHomeschoolDad
                      Participant

                        I would think so.  They are two different cancers.  A doc that lumps them together might not be that up to speed on OM, which is not surprising given the patient ragte of 6 per million.

                        I'm guessing, in a comp[letely-non-medical-way-that-you-should-take-with-a-boulder-sized-grain-of-salt, that if the original biopsy said cutaneous melanoma, that the liver lesions would be the same.  If there is no eye tumor, it's probably not OM.

                        Definitely probe further for the full story about their OM conclusion.

                        –Tom

                        Tamils
                        Participant

                          I am probing!  We are going to see the Kaiser opthalmologist who thinks it's OM on Thursday, and are sending his full records up to UCSF today to get an appointment with a mel specialist there asap, who can hopefully coordinate with the UCSF ocular oncology specialist who thought it was not OM.  I don't think they knew from the original biopsy what specific type of melanoma it was– maybe they should have been able to tell?  In any event, UCSF is going to get pathology slides too, so they can re-run tests if they need to.  Thanks, Tom.  Love your occupation on your profile!  My best wishes for your treatment; maybe we'll see you at Dr. Sato's offices one of these days.

                          Tamils
                          Participant

                            I am probing!  We are going to see the Kaiser opthalmologist who thinks it's OM on Thursday, and are sending his full records up to UCSF today to get an appointment with a mel specialist there asap, who can hopefully coordinate with the UCSF ocular oncology specialist who thought it was not OM.  I don't think they knew from the original biopsy what specific type of melanoma it was– maybe they should have been able to tell?  In any event, UCSF is going to get pathology slides too, so they can re-run tests if they need to.  Thanks, Tom.  Love your occupation on your profile!  My best wishes for your treatment; maybe we'll see you at Dr. Sato's offices one of these days.

                            Tamils
                            Participant

                              I am probing!  We are going to see the Kaiser opthalmologist who thinks it's OM on Thursday, and are sending his full records up to UCSF today to get an appointment with a mel specialist there asap, who can hopefully coordinate with the UCSF ocular oncology specialist who thought it was not OM.  I don't think they knew from the original biopsy what specific type of melanoma it was– maybe they should have been able to tell?  In any event, UCSF is going to get pathology slides too, so they can re-run tests if they need to.  Thanks, Tom.  Love your occupation on your profile!  My best wishes for your treatment; maybe we'll see you at Dr. Sato's offices one of these days.

                              dwcowing
                              Participant

                                I was referred to the UCSF ocular oncologist, Dr. Paul Stewart, for a second opinion when my ocular melanoma was diagnosed a year and a half ago. (Apparently mine was a fairly straightforward diagnosis, but it's such a rare disease that my health plan wanted a second opinion.) I found him very knowledgeable and very personable, and everyone in his office professional, skillful, and caring.

                                I am also being followed at UCSF's melanoma clinic for mets – thankfully no mets have been found at this point! Although they don't have the volume of OM patients that Dr. Sato does, as his clinic is the main OM clinic in the country, they do have some smart, good, doctors who keep up on the current research on OM, and are aware of the differences between it and cutaneous melanoma.

                                dwcowing
                                Participant

                                  I was referred to the UCSF ocular oncologist, Dr. Paul Stewart, for a second opinion when my ocular melanoma was diagnosed a year and a half ago. (Apparently mine was a fairly straightforward diagnosis, but it's such a rare disease that my health plan wanted a second opinion.) I found him very knowledgeable and very personable, and everyone in his office professional, skillful, and caring.

                                  I am also being followed at UCSF's melanoma clinic for mets – thankfully no mets have been found at this point! Although they don't have the volume of OM patients that Dr. Sato does, as his clinic is the main OM clinic in the country, they do have some smart, good, doctors who keep up on the current research on OM, and are aware of the differences between it and cutaneous melanoma.

                                  Tamils
                                  Participant

                                    My father saw Dr. Stewart in December, who thought it was not OM at that time.  We saw Dr. Phan, a very caring ocular oncology specialist, a few weeks ago, and she showed us photos of his eye taken last fall and just now.  The small spot on his eye has spread just a bit in those months, so it does make sense to me now that they think it is OM.  She said it was extremely, extremely rare that such a tiny spot as my dad had would be melanoma and would metastasize to the extent his has.  He has had the spot followed by ophthalmologists for a good 20 years.  Dr. Phan offered to refer us to Dr. Stewart again just to be absolutely sure… we believe her, but will be seeing Dr. Stewart again.  We also have an appointment in two weeks with Dr. Daud at the melanoma center, who we hope can recommend a course of treatment.

                                    My best wishes to you and hopes for continued absence of mets.

                                    Tamils
                                    Participant

                                      My father saw Dr. Stewart in December, who thought it was not OM at that time.  We saw Dr. Phan, a very caring ocular oncology specialist, a few weeks ago, and she showed us photos of his eye taken last fall and just now.  The small spot on his eye has spread just a bit in those months, so it does make sense to me now that they think it is OM.  She said it was extremely, extremely rare that such a tiny spot as my dad had would be melanoma and would metastasize to the extent his has.  He has had the spot followed by ophthalmologists for a good 20 years.  Dr. Phan offered to refer us to Dr. Stewart again just to be absolutely sure… we believe her, but will be seeing Dr. Stewart again.  We also have an appointment in two weeks with Dr. Daud at the melanoma center, who we hope can recommend a course of treatment.

                                      My best wishes to you and hopes for continued absence of mets.

                                      Tamils
                                      Participant

                                        My father saw Dr. Stewart in December, who thought it was not OM at that time.  We saw Dr. Phan, a very caring ocular oncology specialist, a few weeks ago, and she showed us photos of his eye taken last fall and just now.  The small spot on his eye has spread just a bit in those months, so it does make sense to me now that they think it is OM.  She said it was extremely, extremely rare that such a tiny spot as my dad had would be melanoma and would metastasize to the extent his has.  He has had the spot followed by ophthalmologists for a good 20 years.  Dr. Phan offered to refer us to Dr. Stewart again just to be absolutely sure… we believe her, but will be seeing Dr. Stewart again.  We also have an appointment in two weeks with Dr. Daud at the melanoma center, who we hope can recommend a course of treatment.

                                        My best wishes to you and hopes for continued absence of mets.

                                        dwcowing
                                        Participant

                                          I was referred to the UCSF ocular oncologist, Dr. Paul Stewart, for a second opinion when my ocular melanoma was diagnosed a year and a half ago. (Apparently mine was a fairly straightforward diagnosis, but it's such a rare disease that my health plan wanted a second opinion.) I found him very knowledgeable and very personable, and everyone in his office professional, skillful, and caring.

                                          I am also being followed at UCSF's melanoma clinic for mets – thankfully no mets have been found at this point! Although they don't have the volume of OM patients that Dr. Sato does, as his clinic is the main OM clinic in the country, they do have some smart, good, doctors who keep up on the current research on OM, and are aware of the differences between it and cutaneous melanoma.

                                        ThatHomeschoolDad
                                        Participant

                                          It sounds really odd that a doc would claim it's OM instead of cutaneous based solely on where it metastasized to.  That's a conclusion a liver biopsy would find.  OM such a rare bird, it's not unusual for many (most?) oncologists to be a bit off message on our little bug.

                                          You need to consult with Dr. Takami Sato, the Guru of Ocular Melanoma.  Here's the contact info:

                                           

                                          Renee M. Zalinsky, RN, OCN
                                          Senior Cancer Care Coordinator
                                          Jefferson Kimmel Cancer Center Network
                                          1015 Chestnut Street, Suite 622
                                          Philadelphia, PA 19107
                                          Direct 215-955-3158
                                          Fax 215-955-1020
                                          E-Mail: [email protected]

                                           

                                          –Tom

                                          ThatHomeschoolDad
                                          Participant

                                            It sounds really odd that a doc would claim it's OM instead of cutaneous based solely on where it metastasized to.  That's a conclusion a liver biopsy would find.  OM such a rare bird, it's not unusual for many (most?) oncologists to be a bit off message on our little bug.

                                            You need to consult with Dr. Takami Sato, the Guru of Ocular Melanoma.  Here's the contact info:

                                             

                                            Renee M. Zalinsky, RN, OCN
                                            Senior Cancer Care Coordinator
                                            Jefferson Kimmel Cancer Center Network
                                            1015 Chestnut Street, Suite 622
                                            Philadelphia, PA 19107
                                            Direct 215-955-3158
                                            Fax 215-955-1020
                                            E-Mail: [email protected]

                                             

                                            –Tom

                                            Sue33CT
                                            Participant

                                              "He has good vision, so we would rather not have him lose an eye just to check on the OM status, when it's already spread anyway."

                                              He will not have to lost his eye to diagnose OM – most people with OM do not lose their eye – to diagnosis or even to treatment for the cancer.  The diagnosis is made by subjective tests like observation, ultrasound, and looking at photos of the tumor for certain telltale characteristics.  Now the treatment for the cancer could mean removing the eye but that is only under certain circumstances. But if this is OM the eye tumor will need to be treated ASAP. As long as your Dad has the tumor in his eye – the cancer can continue to spread so that needs to be diagnosed by an OM  specialist.

                                              Sue33CT
                                              Participant

                                                "He has good vision, so we would rather not have him lose an eye just to check on the OM status, when it's already spread anyway."

                                                He will not have to lost his eye to diagnose OM – most people with OM do not lose their eye – to diagnosis or even to treatment for the cancer.  The diagnosis is made by subjective tests like observation, ultrasound, and looking at photos of the tumor for certain telltale characteristics.  Now the treatment for the cancer could mean removing the eye but that is only under certain circumstances. But if this is OM the eye tumor will need to be treated ASAP. As long as your Dad has the tumor in his eye – the cancer can continue to spread so that needs to be diagnosed by an OM  specialist.

                                                Sue33CT
                                                Participant

                                                  "He has good vision, so we would rather not have him lose an eye just to check on the OM status, when it's already spread anyway."

                                                  He will not have to lost his eye to diagnose OM – most people with OM do not lose their eye – to diagnosis or even to treatment for the cancer.  The diagnosis is made by subjective tests like observation, ultrasound, and looking at photos of the tumor for certain telltale characteristics.  Now the treatment for the cancer could mean removing the eye but that is only under certain circumstances. But if this is OM the eye tumor will need to be treated ASAP. As long as your Dad has the tumor in his eye – the cancer can continue to spread so that needs to be diagnosed by an OM  specialist.

                                                    ThatHomeschoolDad
                                                    Participant

                                                      Ditto — I didn't lose my eye.  OM mets diagnosis was a liver biopsy for me.

                                                      Granted, I'm something like 20/200 in the treated eye, so you wouldn't want me flying a helicopter near your house, but my huge blind spot is an excuse to ignore people standing to my right, so it can come in handy.

                                                      This June, I'm having a cataract out of the same eye — induced by the rasiation, so we knew it was coming.  Considering the other procedures I've had, this one should be no biggie.  Kinda like I look forward to PET scans now as good naps.

                                                      –Tom

                                                      ThatHomeschoolDad
                                                      Participant

                                                        Ditto — I didn't lose my eye.  OM mets diagnosis was a liver biopsy for me.

                                                        Granted, I'm something like 20/200 in the treated eye, so you wouldn't want me flying a helicopter near your house, but my huge blind spot is an excuse to ignore people standing to my right, so it can come in handy.

                                                        This June, I'm having a cataract out of the same eye — induced by the rasiation, so we knew it was coming.  Considering the other procedures I've had, this one should be no biggie.  Kinda like I look forward to PET scans now as good naps.

                                                        –Tom

                                                        ThatHomeschoolDad
                                                        Participant

                                                          Ditto — I didn't lose my eye.  OM mets diagnosis was a liver biopsy for me.

                                                          Granted, I'm something like 20/200 in the treated eye, so you wouldn't want me flying a helicopter near your house, but my huge blind spot is an excuse to ignore people standing to my right, so it can come in handy.

                                                          This June, I'm having a cataract out of the same eye — induced by the rasiation, so we knew it was coming.  Considering the other procedures I've had, this one should be no biggie.  Kinda like I look forward to PET scans now as good naps.

                                                          –Tom

                                                          Tamils
                                                          Participant

                                                            I'm sorry about my ignorant post about necessarily losing an eye to test for OM… I hadn't studied up on OM since the doctors had said he didn't have it.  The plan for my dad is to get some type of systemic treatment to reduce the tumors in his liver and bones, and then to treat the eye tumor when the more serious ones are under control.  The eye tumor to date is growing very slowly and is not affecting his vision yet.

                                                            Tamils
                                                            Participant

                                                              I'm sorry about my ignorant post about necessarily losing an eye to test for OM… I hadn't studied up on OM since the doctors had said he didn't have it.  The plan for my dad is to get some type of systemic treatment to reduce the tumors in his liver and bones, and then to treat the eye tumor when the more serious ones are under control.  The eye tumor to date is growing very slowly and is not affecting his vision yet.

                                                              Sue33CT
                                                              Participant

                                                                I guess because most of us are diagnosed with the OM first, we have the eye treated first – since it is the primary source for the cancer. But I wonder why, since the eye tumor will continue to spread it's cancer cells…it is not being treated immediately THEN deal with the systemic issues. Have you considered a second opinion with an ocular melanoma cancer specialist in addition to a specialists such as Dr. Sato who deals with both high risk OM patients in addtion to those whose OM has spread? 

                                                                Sue33CT
                                                                Participant

                                                                  I guess because most of us are diagnosed with the OM first, we have the eye treated first – since it is the primary source for the cancer. But I wonder why, since the eye tumor will continue to spread it's cancer cells…it is not being treated immediately THEN deal with the systemic issues. Have you considered a second opinion with an ocular melanoma cancer specialist in addition to a specialists such as Dr. Sato who deals with both high risk OM patients in addtion to those whose OM has spread? 

                                                                  Sue33CT
                                                                  Participant

                                                                    I guess because most of us are diagnosed with the OM first, we have the eye treated first – since it is the primary source for the cancer. But I wonder why, since the eye tumor will continue to spread it's cancer cells…it is not being treated immediately THEN deal with the systemic issues. Have you considered a second opinion with an ocular melanoma cancer specialist in addition to a specialists such as Dr. Sato who deals with both high risk OM patients in addtion to those whose OM has spread? 

                                                                    Tamils
                                                                    Participant

                                                                      I'm sorry about my ignorant post about necessarily losing an eye to test for OM… I hadn't studied up on OM since the doctors had said he didn't have it.  The plan for my dad is to get some type of systemic treatment to reduce the tumors in his liver and bones, and then to treat the eye tumor when the more serious ones are under control.  The eye tumor to date is growing very slowly and is not affecting his vision yet.

                                                                Viewing 5 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