Regression – good or bad?

Regression is a normal body process and can happen in normal moles.  It can also happen in melanoma.  It is a little bit of a mixed blessing with melanoma.  On the one hand, the body is getting rid of melanoma.  But you may never know the depth of a melanoma primary if it has extensive regression.  And as you point out, it is possible that the entire lesion may regress and that MIGHT account for people who have an unknown primary who present as stage III/IV.  That is a theory, but not yet proven.  On the flip side, a melanoma mole may regress and NOT send cells elsewhere and the owner never know they had melanoma because it spontaneously resolved on its own. 

I've had moles regress – get lighter over time.  If I didn't think they were suspicious before they regressed, I didn't worry about them at all.  Let nature take its course.  If the mole was suspicious prior to regression, hopefully I'd just have it biopsied anyway.  I don't think normal moles that regress are anything to stress about for my future.

Good and bad – I've heard it described both ways.  It adds an uncertainty factor which is never what we want to hear as melanoma warriors.

Regression is a normal body process and can happen in normal moles.  It can also happen in melanoma.  It is a little bit of a mixed blessing with melanoma.  On the one hand, the body is getting rid of melanoma.  But you may never know the depth of a melanoma primary if it has extensive regression.  And as you point out, it is possible that the entire lesion may regress and that MIGHT account for people who have an unknown primary who present as stage III/IV.  That is a theory, but not yet proven.  On the flip side, a melanoma mole may regress and NOT send cells elsewhere and the owner never know they had melanoma because it spontaneously resolved on its own. 

I've had moles regress – get lighter over time.  If I didn't think they were suspicious before they regressed, I didn't worry about them at all.  Let nature take its course.  If the mole was suspicious prior to regression, hopefully I'd just have it biopsied anyway.  I don't think normal moles that regress are anything to stress about for my future.

Good and bad – I've heard it described both ways.  It adds an uncertainty factor which is never what we want to hear as melanoma warriors.

Regression is a normal body process and can happen in normal moles.  It can also happen in melanoma.  It is a little bit of a mixed blessing with melanoma.  On the one hand, the body is getting rid of melanoma.  But you may never know the depth of a melanoma primary if it has extensive regression.  And as you point out, it is possible that the entire lesion may regress and that MIGHT account for people who have an unknown primary who present as stage III/IV.  That is a theory, but not yet proven.  On the flip side, a melanoma mole may regress and NOT send cells elsewhere and the owner never know they had melanoma because it spontaneously resolved on its own. 

I've had moles regress – get lighter over time.  If I didn't think they were suspicious before they regressed, I didn't worry about them at all.  Let nature take its course.  If the mole was suspicious prior to regression, hopefully I'd just have it biopsied anyway.  I don't think normal moles that regress are anything to stress about for my future.

Good and bad – I've heard it described both ways.  It adds an uncertainty factor which is never what we want to hear as melanoma warriors.

what about partial/focal regression?  good?  bad? 

what about partial/focal regression?  good?  bad? 

what about partial/focal regression?  good?  bad? 

I thought that partial means the regression was only in part (obviously) and focal means only in a specific or small area (as opposed to along the whole margin). It's not uncommon…apparently…for melanoma to have some regression, but it's not really a prognostic indicator. If there was evidence of a lot of regression (not just partial and not just focal) then it can mean that the Mel they removed is no longer at the max depth it reached, which can complicate staging, but if someone had only partial and focal it just means some eagle-eyed white cells got going on one part, but not all, of the primary.

There are big differences between different labs on path reports. One pathologist might have keener eyes than another (and so spot some regression that another didn't see) or it may be that the regressed area was so small (so "focal") that one pathologist doesn't think it constitutes evidence of regression at all and so dismisses it.

What matters more in a path report is the depth, mitotic rate, lymph/vascular invasion and clear margins.

I thought that partial means the regression was only in part (obviously) and focal means only in a specific or small area (as opposed to along the whole margin). It's not uncommon…apparently…for melanoma to have some regression, but it's not really a prognostic indicator. If there was evidence of a lot of regression (not just partial and not just focal) then it can mean that the Mel they removed is no longer at the max depth it reached, which can complicate staging, but if someone had only partial and focal it just means some eagle-eyed white cells got going on one part, but not all, of the primary.

There are big differences between different labs on path reports. One pathologist might have keener eyes than another (and so spot some regression that another didn't see) or it may be that the regressed area was so small (so "focal") that one pathologist doesn't think it constitutes evidence of regression at all and so dismisses it.

What matters more in a path report is the depth, mitotic rate, lymph/vascular invasion and clear margins.

I thought that partial means the regression was only in part (obviously) and focal means only in a specific or small area (as opposed to along the whole margin). It's not uncommon…apparently…for melanoma to have some regression, but it's not really a prognostic indicator. If there was evidence of a lot of regression (not just partial and not just focal) then it can mean that the Mel they removed is no longer at the max depth it reached, which can complicate staging, but if someone had only partial and focal it just means some eagle-eyed white cells got going on one part, but not all, of the primary.

There are big differences between different labs on path reports. One pathologist might have keener eyes than another (and so spot some regression that another didn't see) or it may be that the regressed area was so small (so "focal") that one pathologist doesn't think it constitutes evidence of regression at all and so dismisses it.

What matters more in a path report is the depth, mitotic rate, lymph/vascular invasion and clear margins.