Forum Replies Created
- Replies
-
-
- March 18, 2014 at 2:40 pm
Hey Dean, I am going to throw my two cents in as well. My grandfather and my mother both had melanoma (both survived, no problems). I have countless moles that are weird. So I knew I was at risk, and acted accordingly. I went to a dermotologist every six months. In 2000, I noticed a mole that was changing, went to my doc, had it biopsied, it was melanoma, then had a wide excision done. Boom, problem over. Fast forward, 2014, I am going through it again. Because I go every six months for a full body check, the melanoma has not spread to my lymph node system.
I asked my doc in 2000 if I should get genetic testing done to see if I was at higher risk. He said: if test comes back that you are at higher risk, I will have you come in every six months. If the test comes back that you are not at higher risk, I will have you come in every six months. DUH!! So, no testing for me haha.
Melanoma is one of the "better" cancers to be at risk for, because early detection is the key. If you KNOW you are at risk, you go get checked and stay on top of it. My dermo in 2000 also told me that if a melanoma started growing the very day after my six month check, it would still be surgically removable at the next six month check.
So you are not silly!! I am so glad you reached out for help because hopefully you have found comfort. Since your mother in law died from the disease, it is totally understandable. But now your wife is forewarned. And your children, when they come, will have sunscreen on them all the time I bet! My grandad, my mom, and I did not. My own children did. They have never been sunburned!! Wish I could say the same, but it was a different time.
You guys are in my thoughts and I wish you only the best as you go through the wonderful journey of life and marriage and parenthood!!
-
- March 18, 2014 at 2:40 pm
Hey Dean, I am going to throw my two cents in as well. My grandfather and my mother both had melanoma (both survived, no problems). I have countless moles that are weird. So I knew I was at risk, and acted accordingly. I went to a dermotologist every six months. In 2000, I noticed a mole that was changing, went to my doc, had it biopsied, it was melanoma, then had a wide excision done. Boom, problem over. Fast forward, 2014, I am going through it again. Because I go every six months for a full body check, the melanoma has not spread to my lymph node system.
I asked my doc in 2000 if I should get genetic testing done to see if I was at higher risk. He said: if test comes back that you are at higher risk, I will have you come in every six months. If the test comes back that you are not at higher risk, I will have you come in every six months. DUH!! So, no testing for me haha.
Melanoma is one of the "better" cancers to be at risk for, because early detection is the key. If you KNOW you are at risk, you go get checked and stay on top of it. My dermo in 2000 also told me that if a melanoma started growing the very day after my six month check, it would still be surgically removable at the next six month check.
So you are not silly!! I am so glad you reached out for help because hopefully you have found comfort. Since your mother in law died from the disease, it is totally understandable. But now your wife is forewarned. And your children, when they come, will have sunscreen on them all the time I bet! My grandad, my mom, and I did not. My own children did. They have never been sunburned!! Wish I could say the same, but it was a different time.
You guys are in my thoughts and I wish you only the best as you go through the wonderful journey of life and marriage and parenthood!!
-
- March 18, 2014 at 2:40 pm
Hey Dean, I am going to throw my two cents in as well. My grandfather and my mother both had melanoma (both survived, no problems). I have countless moles that are weird. So I knew I was at risk, and acted accordingly. I went to a dermotologist every six months. In 2000, I noticed a mole that was changing, went to my doc, had it biopsied, it was melanoma, then had a wide excision done. Boom, problem over. Fast forward, 2014, I am going through it again. Because I go every six months for a full body check, the melanoma has not spread to my lymph node system.
I asked my doc in 2000 if I should get genetic testing done to see if I was at higher risk. He said: if test comes back that you are at higher risk, I will have you come in every six months. If the test comes back that you are not at higher risk, I will have you come in every six months. DUH!! So, no testing for me haha.
Melanoma is one of the "better" cancers to be at risk for, because early detection is the key. If you KNOW you are at risk, you go get checked and stay on top of it. My dermo in 2000 also told me that if a melanoma started growing the very day after my six month check, it would still be surgically removable at the next six month check.
So you are not silly!! I am so glad you reached out for help because hopefully you have found comfort. Since your mother in law died from the disease, it is totally understandable. But now your wife is forewarned. And your children, when they come, will have sunscreen on them all the time I bet! My grandad, my mom, and I did not. My own children did. They have never been sunburned!! Wish I could say the same, but it was a different time.
You guys are in my thoughts and I wish you only the best as you go through the wonderful journey of life and marriage and parenthood!!
-
- March 15, 2014 at 12:31 am
I had no idea that a "scar" could be melanoma! It was raised and a little bit red, but that can happen from any number of things (scratch, jewelry irritation, etc). In fact, I think that is how "desmoplastic melanoma" presents! So yes, I will be keeping a closer eye on my dozens of scars.
-
- March 15, 2014 at 12:31 am
I had no idea that a "scar" could be melanoma! It was raised and a little bit red, but that can happen from any number of things (scratch, jewelry irritation, etc). In fact, I think that is how "desmoplastic melanoma" presents! So yes, I will be keeping a closer eye on my dozens of scars.
-
- March 15, 2014 at 12:31 am
I had no idea that a "scar" could be melanoma! It was raised and a little bit red, but that can happen from any number of things (scratch, jewelry irritation, etc). In fact, I think that is how "desmoplastic melanoma" presents! So yes, I will be keeping a closer eye on my dozens of scars.
-
- March 15, 2014 at 12:30 am
Now that makes sense! Thank you for taking all my ramblings, translating them into English, and serving them up so I can understand.
My new oncologist said no more shave biopsies, they must be at least punch biopsies inthe future. My dermo has cut and shaved so many moles from me ๐ I am sure I have avoided plenty of other potential sites.
-
- March 15, 2014 at 12:30 am
Now that makes sense! Thank you for taking all my ramblings, translating them into English, and serving them up so I can understand.
My new oncologist said no more shave biopsies, they must be at least punch biopsies inthe future. My dermo has cut and shaved so many moles from me ๐ I am sure I have avoided plenty of other potential sites.
-
- March 15, 2014 at 12:30 am
Now that makes sense! Thank you for taking all my ramblings, translating them into English, and serving them up so I can understand.
My new oncologist said no more shave biopsies, they must be at least punch biopsies inthe future. My dermo has cut and shaved so many moles from me ๐ I am sure I have avoided plenty of other potential sites.
-
- March 14, 2014 at 9:58 pm
Thanks Janner. I guess I need more help reading path reports! The initial shave biopsy was actually of a scar from a previously removed "atypical lentiginous and nested melanoctic hyperplasia". in 2012. The shave biopsy from 2014 was listed as invasive non-ulcerated, with an area of spindle cells, possibly representing desmoplastic area. As I mentioned, it was 0.62mm but tumor was present at margins.
The Wide Area Excision says "residual malignant melanoma", 0.32mm, clarks level III, so I have no idea where that measurment of 0.32 fits in. I thought it would be added to the original 0.62 but doc said no, we won't ever know what original depth was. Again, from the wide exicision path report: Predominant cystology: epithelioid, no spindled component identified, surgical margins: peripheral margin is positive for melanoma in situ (C5). Whatever C5 means. Another description is superficial spreading. I don't see the words: Lentigo Maligma anywhere…unless that is what the ORIGINAL 2012 "thing" was.
Thanks for wading thru this with me!
-
- March 14, 2014 at 9:58 pm
Thanks Janner. I guess I need more help reading path reports! The initial shave biopsy was actually of a scar from a previously removed "atypical lentiginous and nested melanoctic hyperplasia". in 2012. The shave biopsy from 2014 was listed as invasive non-ulcerated, with an area of spindle cells, possibly representing desmoplastic area. As I mentioned, it was 0.62mm but tumor was present at margins.
The Wide Area Excision says "residual malignant melanoma", 0.32mm, clarks level III, so I have no idea where that measurment of 0.32 fits in. I thought it would be added to the original 0.62 but doc said no, we won't ever know what original depth was. Again, from the wide exicision path report: Predominant cystology: epithelioid, no spindled component identified, surgical margins: peripheral margin is positive for melanoma in situ (C5). Whatever C5 means. Another description is superficial spreading. I don't see the words: Lentigo Maligma anywhere…unless that is what the ORIGINAL 2012 "thing" was.
Thanks for wading thru this with me!
-
- March 14, 2014 at 9:58 pm
Thanks Janner. I guess I need more help reading path reports! The initial shave biopsy was actually of a scar from a previously removed "atypical lentiginous and nested melanoctic hyperplasia". in 2012. The shave biopsy from 2014 was listed as invasive non-ulcerated, with an area of spindle cells, possibly representing desmoplastic area. As I mentioned, it was 0.62mm but tumor was present at margins.
The Wide Area Excision says "residual malignant melanoma", 0.32mm, clarks level III, so I have no idea where that measurment of 0.32 fits in. I thought it would be added to the original 0.62 but doc said no, we won't ever know what original depth was. Again, from the wide exicision path report: Predominant cystology: epithelioid, no spindled component identified, surgical margins: peripheral margin is positive for melanoma in situ (C5). Whatever C5 means. Another description is superficial spreading. I don't see the words: Lentigo Maligma anywhere…unless that is what the ORIGINAL 2012 "thing" was.
Thanks for wading thru this with me!
-