› Forums › General Melanoma Community › Melafind
- This topic has 6 replies, 3 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 8 months ago by
MichaelFL.
- Post
-
- October 4, 2011 at 12:16 am
Just saw this on the news. Has any of your derms talked about it? www.melasciences.com
Just saw this on the news. Has any of your derms talked about it? www.melasciences.com
I thought this was a dream come true! Especially for those with several atypical moles, such as myself. In fact, I can count on one hand the number of normal moles I have. My body is covered with weird looking moles. I sometimes feel like an idiot when I go to the derm because I stress and sweat about a new change in a mole, but it always turns out to be fine (except for the one HE found and it was a newer mole). My moles are notorious for change, but its never anything like shape, size, border…Etc, However, I think this tool would give me more of a peace of mind.
Funny thing is, I talked to my derm about it and he was not a huge fan! Do you think its because it will cut the $$ with the amount of his biopsy's. He created a little program of his own that does serial screening for patients like myself with high risk factors. His office basically hounds me every six months to come in for a screening. At first, I was kinda annoyed, but he then told me they have not lost a patient who participates in the screening for 15 years! All the melanomas they have caught were in their early stages. After what happened to my mom, I stopped getting annoyed.
But, I was kinda bothered that he would never consider such a great device! This could catch more Melanomas In Stiu…
What do you think?
- Replies
-
-
- October 4, 2011 at 12:42 am
My derm also isn't a fan of melafind. I know that my derm is so busy that he now only sees patients that already have at least one primary and it still is hard to get in every 3 months.
If this is the melafind that I talked to him a few months ago, he also talked about how expensive it was and a gp could not usually afford it.
I have gone every 3 months for the last 25 years. I've had multiple primaries and would rather trust my derm and from my own checks.
Linda
-
- October 4, 2011 at 12:42 am
My derm also isn't a fan of melafind. I know that my derm is so busy that he now only sees patients that already have at least one primary and it still is hard to get in every 3 months.
If this is the melafind that I talked to him a few months ago, he also talked about how expensive it was and a gp could not usually afford it.
I have gone every 3 months for the last 25 years. I've had multiple primaries and would rather trust my derm and from my own checks.
Linda
-
- October 4, 2011 at 12:54 am
Seeing as I have a good track with this guy, I would rather not leave his practice to find someone who did practice with the melafind, but I do not know if that was crazy.
-
- October 4, 2011 at 12:54 am
Seeing as I have a good track with this guy, I would rather not leave his practice to find someone who did practice with the melafind, but I do not know if that was crazy.
-
- October 4, 2011 at 2:37 am
Melafind had a 98% success rate in detecting melanoma which is higher than dermatologists, and much higher than a family doctor. In studies, Melafind correctly predicted 112 of 114 eligible melanomas for a "sensitivity" rate of 98%.
In relation to melafind, which the FDA and derms seemed to be fighting since the beginning, I, feel the same as you and I to wonder if derms would not want such a device as it will do two things: eliminate unneeded biopsies which will affect their bottom line, and put an end to dermatologists that will do biopsy after biopsy just to make a payment on their Lambourgini. Or, wait-is that the same thing?
Here are the results to the melafind trial if you or anyone wants to read them:
http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/results/NCT00434057?sect=X6015#outcome1
-
- October 4, 2011 at 2:37 am
Melafind had a 98% success rate in detecting melanoma which is higher than dermatologists, and much higher than a family doctor. In studies, Melafind correctly predicted 112 of 114 eligible melanomas for a "sensitivity" rate of 98%.
In relation to melafind, which the FDA and derms seemed to be fighting since the beginning, I, feel the same as you and I to wonder if derms would not want such a device as it will do two things: eliminate unneeded biopsies which will affect their bottom line, and put an end to dermatologists that will do biopsy after biopsy just to make a payment on their Lambourgini. Or, wait-is that the same thing?
Here are the results to the melafind trial if you or anyone wants to read them:
http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/results/NCT00434057?sect=X6015#outcome1
-
Tagged: cutaneous melanoma
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.