Study Question
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.

Study Question

› Forums › General Melanoma Community › Study Question

  • Post
    • June 10, 2012 at 5:24 pm
    JC
    Participant

    Population-based 20-year survival among people diagnosed with thin melanomas in Queensland, Australia.

     

    Available clinical and histologic data from the Queensland Cancer Registry were obtained for all patients diagnosed with a single thin invasive melanoma from 1982 to 2006 and matched against national death registration data. Melanoma-specific survival estimates to December 31, 2007, were assessed, and subgroup differences in prognosis were determined by fitting multivariate Cox proportional hazard models.

     

    Population-based 20-year survival among people diagnosed with thin melanomas in Queensland, Australia.

     

    Available clinical and histologic data from the Queensland Cancer Registry were obtained for all patients diagnosed with a single thin invasive melanoma from 1982 to 2006 and matched against national death registration data. Melanoma-specific survival estimates to December 31, 2007, were assessed, and subgroup differences in prognosis were determined by fitting multivariate Cox proportional hazard models.

     

    RESULTS: Among 26,736 people in the state of Queensland diagnosed with thin melanomas, the 20-year survival was 96%

     

    maybe I'm missing something. . but if they obtained data for patients from 1982 to 2006. . . how could they know anything about 20 year survival for anyone diagnosed after 1992, as it would not have even been 20 years yet. If they obtained data for patients from 1982 to 2006. . 2006 was just 6 years ago, how can they tell anything for those people about 20 year survival?

     

Viewing 5 reply threads
  • Replies
      • June 10, 2012 at 9:39 pm
      natasha
      Participant

      Probably they monitored people diagnosed not less then 20 years before 2006?

      • June 10, 2012 at 9:39 pm
      natasha
      Participant

      Probably they monitored people diagnosed not less then 20 years before 2006?

      • June 10, 2012 at 9:39 pm
      natasha
      Participant

      Probably they monitored people diagnosed not less then 20 years before 2006?

      • June 11, 2012 at 2:59 am
      Janner
      Participant

      They monitored people diagnosed from 1982 to 1986 or somewhere in there.  They monitored those same people for 20 years looking for death registries.  96% survived.  Not sure how many people are diagnosed each year in Austrailia, but it's around 8000 per year in the US.  So 26,000 survivors seems realistic.

      I'm one of those 20 year survivors in the US.  .58mm lesion in 1992 and still here!

        • June 11, 2012 at 9:43 am
        JC
        Participant

        Did you have any mitotic rate, vertical growth phase, ulceration?  What kind of surveillance have you done for the past 20 years, any body scans/imaging?  Blood tests?  Any adjuvant therapy?

        • June 11, 2012 at 12:55 pm
        Janner
        Participant

        1992 – .58mm/Clark Level II, 1 mitosis, VGP, no regression, no ulceration

        2000 – In situ

        2001 – .88mm/Clark Level III, 1 mitosis, VGP, no regression, no ulceration

        Surveilance:  I think I had a baseline blood draw in 1992 and a baseline chest x-ray in 2001.  I've never seen the point of blood work for my stage (most stages, actually), and the same with the chest x-ray.  More invasive scans are overkill.  I get an annual physical where they can look at my basic bloodwork, but I don't have them do specific LDH related liver studies (not sure the name, but it's the factor most monitored by melanoma specialists).  I go every 6 months for a skin exam based on my three primaries, but I'd like to go to yearly.  My institution uses a 6 month schedule for those with multiple primaries so I continue to do it so I can stay with the same doctor.  I found my 3 primaries so monitoring myself is more important than my doctor's visits in my opinion.  I'm sun smart without being obsessive.  Sometimes I get a little sun and while it is never my goal, I don't stress about it.  I follow no diet regimen nor take more than a multivitamin as a supplement (on occasion).  I have tested low for vitamin D but am currently not taking supplements.  However, this is one I'd add back in but I haven't had a blood test in a while to see where I'm at.  My cutaneous oncologist doesn't test for vitamin D3 as he's not of the opinion that a baseline value has ever been scientifically established – so comparing my values against an arbitrary standard is of little use.  (My PCP actually did the vitamin D test, not my cut. onc).    I'm off to my doc today, actually, but other than a discussion of some patchy spots on my face (AK's, I'm sure),  I anticipate no biopsies or issues.

        • June 11, 2012 at 12:55 pm
        Janner
        Participant

        1992 – .58mm/Clark Level II, 1 mitosis, VGP, no regression, no ulceration

        2000 – In situ

        2001 – .88mm/Clark Level III, 1 mitosis, VGP, no regression, no ulceration

        Surveilance:  I think I had a baseline blood draw in 1992 and a baseline chest x-ray in 2001.  I've never seen the point of blood work for my stage (most stages, actually), and the same with the chest x-ray.  More invasive scans are overkill.  I get an annual physical where they can look at my basic bloodwork, but I don't have them do specific LDH related liver studies (not sure the name, but it's the factor most monitored by melanoma specialists).  I go every 6 months for a skin exam based on my three primaries, but I'd like to go to yearly.  My institution uses a 6 month schedule for those with multiple primaries so I continue to do it so I can stay with the same doctor.  I found my 3 primaries so monitoring myself is more important than my doctor's visits in my opinion.  I'm sun smart without being obsessive.  Sometimes I get a little sun and while it is never my goal, I don't stress about it.  I follow no diet regimen nor take more than a multivitamin as a supplement (on occasion).  I have tested low for vitamin D but am currently not taking supplements.  However, this is one I'd add back in but I haven't had a blood test in a while to see where I'm at.  My cutaneous oncologist doesn't test for vitamin D3 as he's not of the opinion that a baseline value has ever been scientifically established – so comparing my values against an arbitrary standard is of little use.  (My PCP actually did the vitamin D test, not my cut. onc).    I'm off to my doc today, actually, but other than a discussion of some patchy spots on my face (AK's, I'm sure),  I anticipate no biopsies or issues.

        • June 11, 2012 at 12:55 pm
        Janner
        Participant

        1992 – .58mm/Clark Level II, 1 mitosis, VGP, no regression, no ulceration

        2000 – In situ

        2001 – .88mm/Clark Level III, 1 mitosis, VGP, no regression, no ulceration

        Surveilance:  I think I had a baseline blood draw in 1992 and a baseline chest x-ray in 2001.  I've never seen the point of blood work for my stage (most stages, actually), and the same with the chest x-ray.  More invasive scans are overkill.  I get an annual physical where they can look at my basic bloodwork, but I don't have them do specific LDH related liver studies (not sure the name, but it's the factor most monitored by melanoma specialists).  I go every 6 months for a skin exam based on my three primaries, but I'd like to go to yearly.  My institution uses a 6 month schedule for those with multiple primaries so I continue to do it so I can stay with the same doctor.  I found my 3 primaries so monitoring myself is more important than my doctor's visits in my opinion.  I'm sun smart without being obsessive.  Sometimes I get a little sun and while it is never my goal, I don't stress about it.  I follow no diet regimen nor take more than a multivitamin as a supplement (on occasion).  I have tested low for vitamin D but am currently not taking supplements.  However, this is one I'd add back in but I haven't had a blood test in a while to see where I'm at.  My cutaneous oncologist doesn't test for vitamin D3 as he's not of the opinion that a baseline value has ever been scientifically established – so comparing my values against an arbitrary standard is of little use.  (My PCP actually did the vitamin D test, not my cut. onc).    I'm off to my doc today, actually, but other than a discussion of some patchy spots on my face (AK's, I'm sure),  I anticipate no biopsies or issues.

        • June 11, 2012 at 9:43 am
        JC
        Participant

        Did you have any mitotic rate, vertical growth phase, ulceration?  What kind of surveillance have you done for the past 20 years, any body scans/imaging?  Blood tests?  Any adjuvant therapy?

        • June 11, 2012 at 9:43 am
        JC
        Participant

        Did you have any mitotic rate, vertical growth phase, ulceration?  What kind of surveillance have you done for the past 20 years, any body scans/imaging?  Blood tests?  Any adjuvant therapy?

        • June 11, 2012 at 10:02 am
        JC
        Participant

        So,then this is like an ongoing study where for the people diagnosed from 1992-2006, they are still monitoring death registries?

        • June 11, 2012 at 10:02 am
        JC
        Participant

        So,then this is like an ongoing study where for the people diagnosed from 1992-2006, they are still monitoring death registries?

        • June 11, 2012 at 10:02 am
        JC
        Participant

        So,then this is like an ongoing study where for the people diagnosed from 1992-2006, they are still monitoring death registries?

      • June 11, 2012 at 2:59 am
      Janner
      Participant

      They monitored people diagnosed from 1982 to 1986 or somewhere in there.  They monitored those same people for 20 years looking for death registries.  96% survived.  Not sure how many people are diagnosed each year in Austrailia, but it's around 8000 per year in the US.  So 26,000 survivors seems realistic.

      I'm one of those 20 year survivors in the US.  .58mm lesion in 1992 and still here!

      • June 11, 2012 at 2:59 am
      Janner
      Participant

      They monitored people diagnosed from 1982 to 1986 or somewhere in there.  They monitored those same people for 20 years looking for death registries.  96% survived.  Not sure how many people are diagnosed each year in Austrailia, but it's around 8000 per year in the US.  So 26,000 survivors seems realistic.

      I'm one of those 20 year survivors in the US.  .58mm lesion in 1992 and still here!

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