› Forums › General Melanoma Community › New here
- This topic has 5 replies, 4 voices, and was last updated 6 years, 9 months ago by
hawkdawg.
- Post
-
- July 31, 2018 at 10:48 pm
Can't exactly say I am glad to be here, but I am glad that the board exists! Posting about my wife.
She is an otherwise healthy 58 year old white woman with a melanoma in situ 10 years ago that was excised without further incident.
Now, though, she was recently diagnosed with a melanoma tumor on her cheek, Breslow Depth 1.55 mm, mitotic rate of 1.0, no ulceration. Tumor has been excised with margins, waiting on the SNB. Any thoughts on the likelihood of SN involvement with these numbers??
Thanks for any input. We are worried sick, of course…. 🙁
'
- Replies
-
-
- August 1, 2018 at 12:09 am
Hay HawkDawg, good to meet you under "crazy" circumstances, i too am facing the challenge of my life,now stage 4 and in both lungs & currently being treated {since Nov2017} with Immunal Therapy. I cant quite answer your nerve racking questions {im sure yer outta yer mind with all this} but, give it a day or so, theres a few folks here who know our shared desease, abd can explain & offer up different stuff to either consider trying or bring up to her Oncologist…fingers crossed bro…Mike
-
- August 1, 2018 at 4:14 pm
There may be times you must engage in speculation.
There are times when you should best resist the temptation to do so.
And times when it doesn't matter either way.
I would say this is the second option.
Good luck waiting on results, hopefully you get the Tom Petty result, and this is the hardest part.
-
-
- August 4, 2018 at 12:04 am
-
- August 8, 2018 at 1:54 am
Thanks, but I don't think Clark level is predictive any more. From what I can tell from the studies, Breslow depth and mitotic rate, possibly ulcerization, tumor location and age have value. It's interesting that the younger you are the greater the likelihood of SN positivity. And head and neck tumors are slihtly LESS likely to spread to the SN than tumors elsewhere. Besides, when I plugged in her numbers to this nonagram, no matter what Clark level I used (since my biopsy did not measure it), the highest number I could come up with was 8%. I don't think that is right–too low. Seems from what I can tell a range of 10 to 30% is more realistic. Those numbers aren't bad, but it's a roll of the dice we don't want to lose, for sure…
-
-
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.