tjndnd

By broker-type I mean we called one of the companies you hear advertising on the radio.  I don't want to advertise, however if you want the name I'll post it. 

I don't really know what they considered when issuing the policy.  The company that issued it was Prudential.  I am "assuming" that the more advanced the disease, the more risky is it for the insurer – and therefore it might have been declined.  I would guess that they look at every applicant's individual situation and gauge the risk.  My wife might have fallen just under their threshold I'm "guessing" because although it was 1.1mm and a level IV, it was still technically as far as we know, confined the skin and removed.  I'm sure logically they would view it as more of a risk if it had metastised to the nodes.

I'm going to read the policy over very carefully tonight, looking for any exclusions and "clauses" that would void it. I'll post a follow up.

By broker-type I mean we called one of the companies you hear advertising on the radio.  I don't want to advertise, however if you want the name I'll post it. 

I don't really know what they considered when issuing the policy.  The company that issued it was Prudential.  I am "assuming" that the more advanced the disease, the more risky is it for the insurer – and therefore it might have been declined.  I would guess that they look at every applicant's individual situation and gauge the risk.  My wife might have fallen just under their threshold I'm "guessing" because although it was 1.1mm and a level IV, it was still technically as far as we know, confined the skin and removed.  I'm sure logically they would view it as more of a risk if it had metastised to the nodes.

I'm going to read the policy over very carefully tonight, looking for any exclusions and "clauses" that would void it. I'll post a follow up.

By broker-type I mean we called one of the companies you hear advertising on the radio.  I don't want to advertise, however if you want the name I'll post it. 

I don't really know what they considered when issuing the policy.  The company that issued it was Prudential.  I am "assuming" that the more advanced the disease, the more risky is it for the insurer – and therefore it might have been declined.  I would guess that they look at every applicant's individual situation and gauge the risk.  My wife might have fallen just under their threshold I'm "guessing" because although it was 1.1mm and a level IV, it was still technically as far as we know, confined the skin and removed.  I'm sure logically they would view it as more of a risk if it had metastised to the nodes.

I'm going to read the policy over very carefully tonight, looking for any exclusions and "clauses" that would void it. I'll post a follow up.

Let me clarify my last post.  What the surgeon said specifically was – she "could" have done the SNB during the pregnancy, but would rather not have due to the risk.  At the time, my wife was 35 weeks pregnant…..and did not want to be induced.   Additionally, she was diagnosed, and within 2 days the WLE was done – so needless to say we didn't argue too much about it or have much time to research this extensively.

When we posed the question of the drainage path being disrupted, she advised that it wouldn't be an issue because of the location of the lesion.  With it being on my wifes upper arm…….she was confident that it was going to drain to the armpit area, so she wouldn't have a problem finding the correct lymph node.

Being that it's the upper arm – I could imagine it could drain to either the armpit, or neck areas, so I hope she is correct in her assumption.  Unfortunately what's done is done in terms of the WLE………so I suppose biopsying any nodes at this point is better than none.

Thanks!

Let me clarify my last post.  What the surgeon said specifically was – she "could" have done the SNB during the pregnancy, but would rather not have due to the risk.  At the time, my wife was 35 weeks pregnant…..and did not want to be induced.   Additionally, she was diagnosed, and within 2 days the WLE was done – so needless to say we didn't argue too much about it or have much time to research this extensively.

When we posed the question of the drainage path being disrupted, she advised that it wouldn't be an issue because of the location of the lesion.  With it being on my wifes upper arm…….she was confident that it was going to drain to the armpit area, so she wouldn't have a problem finding the correct lymph node.

Being that it's the upper arm – I could imagine it could drain to either the armpit, or neck areas, so I hope she is correct in her assumption.  Unfortunately what's done is done in terms of the WLE………so I suppose biopsying any nodes at this point is better than none.

Thanks!

Let me clarify my last post.  What the surgeon said specifically was – she "could" have done the SNB during the pregnancy, but would rather not have due to the risk.  At the time, my wife was 35 weeks pregnant…..and did not want to be induced.   Additionally, she was diagnosed, and within 2 days the WLE was done – so needless to say we didn't argue too much about it or have much time to research this extensively.

When we posed the question of the drainage path being disrupted, she advised that it wouldn't be an issue because of the location of the lesion.  With it being on my wifes upper arm…….she was confident that it was going to drain to the armpit area, so she wouldn't have a problem finding the correct lymph node.

Being that it's the upper arm – I could imagine it could drain to either the armpit, or neck areas, so I hope she is correct in her assumption.  Unfortunately what's done is done in terms of the WLE………so I suppose biopsying any nodes at this point is better than none.

Thanks!

Thanks for the informative response.  From everything I've read on various sites – it seems like the common theme is that the SNB shouldn't be done after the WLE (although I have no experience/knowledge in this area, the rationale why not makes 100% sense to me). 

Once the melanoma was diagnosed, the WLE was scheduled/happened so fast that we barely had any time to get 2nd opinions or clarification on the SNB being done afterwards.  After reading these sites however – we did pose this question to the surgeon.  Apparentely, they "didn't think it would be an issue", about the pathway disruption, and still are planning to do the SNB after my wife delivers.  My take on it is……..yes, they may or may not get the "correct" node, but I suppose the fact that they'll be checking one of them is better than nothing right?  And – they "might" get the correct one anyways. 

I guess we should have gotten some 2nd opinions here.  Unfortunately now however, since the WLE has been done and we can't change that, is there ANY secondary scans, blood tests, or biopsies that could help ensure that there is nothing in her lymph nodes?

Thanks again!

Thanks for the informative response.  From everything I've read on various sites – it seems like the common theme is that the SNB shouldn't be done after the WLE (although I have no experience/knowledge in this area, the rationale why not makes 100% sense to me). 

Once the melanoma was diagnosed, the WLE was scheduled/happened so fast that we barely had any time to get 2nd opinions or clarification on the SNB being done afterwards.  After reading these sites however – we did pose this question to the surgeon.  Apparentely, they "didn't think it would be an issue", about the pathway disruption, and still are planning to do the SNB after my wife delivers.  My take on it is……..yes, they may or may not get the "correct" node, but I suppose the fact that they'll be checking one of them is better than nothing right?  And – they "might" get the correct one anyways. 

I guess we should have gotten some 2nd opinions here.  Unfortunately now however, since the WLE has been done and we can't change that, is there ANY secondary scans, blood tests, or biopsies that could help ensure that there is nothing in her lymph nodes?

Thanks again!

Thanks for the informative response.  From everything I've read on various sites – it seems like the common theme is that the SNB shouldn't be done after the WLE (although I have no experience/knowledge in this area, the rationale why not makes 100% sense to me). 

Once the melanoma was diagnosed, the WLE was scheduled/happened so fast that we barely had any time to get 2nd opinions or clarification on the SNB being done afterwards.  After reading these sites however – we did pose this question to the surgeon.  Apparentely, they "didn't think it would be an issue", about the pathway disruption, and still are planning to do the SNB after my wife delivers.  My take on it is……..yes, they may or may not get the "correct" node, but I suppose the fact that they'll be checking one of them is better than nothing right?  And – they "might" get the correct one anyways. 

I guess we should have gotten some 2nd opinions here.  Unfortunately now however, since the WLE has been done and we can't change that, is there ANY secondary scans, blood tests, or biopsies that could help ensure that there is nothing in her lymph nodes?

Thanks again!

Thanks – I didn't notice anything about regression.  Would regression be considered good or bad?  I can take a closer look at the path report and update….

We wanted to get the SNB done prior to the WLE, but it was impossible due to the timing and the baby.  I think the doctors figured that the reward outweighed the risk of harming the baby with the radioactive dye.

You are right about the severity being downplayed.  I think most people think that since it typically manifests itself a t first as "external", it can just be cut out and you are good to go.  Thanks for the feedback!

Thanks – I didn't notice anything about regression.  Would regression be considered good or bad?  I can take a closer look at the path report and update….

We wanted to get the SNB done prior to the WLE, but it was impossible due to the timing and the baby.  I think the doctors figured that the reward outweighed the risk of harming the baby with the radioactive dye.

You are right about the severity being downplayed.  I think most people think that since it typically manifests itself a t first as "external", it can just be cut out and you are good to go.  Thanks for the feedback!

Thanks – I didn't notice anything about regression.  Would regression be considered good or bad?  I can take a closer look at the path report and update….

We wanted to get the SNB done prior to the WLE, but it was impossible due to the timing and the baby.  I think the doctors figured that the reward outweighed the risk of harming the baby with the radioactive dye.

You are right about the severity being downplayed.  I think most people think that since it typically manifests itself a t first as "external", it can just be cut out and you are good to go.  Thanks for the feedback!