› Forums › General Melanoma Community › What? Why does this individualized patient outcome say that melanoma in situ has a 97.5 10 yr survival? Is that accurate??
- This topic has 12 replies, 2 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 9 months ago by
Janner.
- Post
-
- May 4, 2012 at 11:10 pm
- Replies
-
-
- May 4, 2012 at 11:26 pm
I am sorry, the title got cut off. I meant why does it say that melanoma in situ has a 97.5 10 yr survival? I thougth it was incapable of spreading?
-
- May 4, 2012 at 11:37 pm
A true in situ is incapable of spreading. However, you don't know if everyone in the study had that. There may be misdiagnosis. There may be local recurrences of in situ that spread later. There may be extenuating factors that you don't know. All these stats should be taken with a grain of salt. The AJCC study data is smaller than other studies. Check out this table. It doesn't include stage 0 and is for the staging system before 2009, but you can see how larger studies affect the statistics.
http://www.asco.org/ascov2/Meetings/Abstracts?&vmview=abst_detail_view&confID=26&abstractID=3499
-
- May 5, 2012 at 12:33 pm
I could not get your link to work. I did, however, enter .5 and the same results came up. I wonder if they have this calculator set up in a way that just lumps all lesions together that are under .5 certain depth, and maybe it does not even include in situ? Could this be the case?
-
- May 5, 2012 at 2:02 pm
I would say it doesn't include in situ. Since it does not use mitosis as a criteria, it is also most likely using older staging data. Mitosis was included at the end of 2009. It appears to change prognosis at .5 to .6 so it doesn't use pure staging data either, but a more granulated breakdown.
Here is the link I was trying to include above:
http://www.asco.org/ascov2/Meetings/Abstracts?&vmview=abst_detail_view&confID=26&abstractID=3499
-
- May 5, 2012 at 2:02 pm
I would say it doesn't include in situ. Since it does not use mitosis as a criteria, it is also most likely using older staging data. Mitosis was included at the end of 2009. It appears to change prognosis at .5 to .6 so it doesn't use pure staging data either, but a more granulated breakdown.
Here is the link I was trying to include above:
http://www.asco.org/ascov2/Meetings/Abstracts?&vmview=abst_detail_view&confID=26&abstractID=3499
-
- May 5, 2012 at 2:02 pm
I would say it doesn't include in situ. Since it does not use mitosis as a criteria, it is also most likely using older staging data. Mitosis was included at the end of 2009. It appears to change prognosis at .5 to .6 so it doesn't use pure staging data either, but a more granulated breakdown.
Here is the link I was trying to include above:
http://www.asco.org/ascov2/Meetings/Abstracts?&vmview=abst_detail_view&confID=26&abstractID=3499
-
- May 5, 2012 at 12:33 pm
I could not get your link to work. I did, however, enter .5 and the same results came up. I wonder if they have this calculator set up in a way that just lumps all lesions together that are under .5 certain depth, and maybe it does not even include in situ? Could this be the case?
-
- May 5, 2012 at 12:33 pm
I could not get your link to work. I did, however, enter .5 and the same results came up. I wonder if they have this calculator set up in a way that just lumps all lesions together that are under .5 certain depth, and maybe it does not even include in situ? Could this be the case?
-
- May 4, 2012 at 11:37 pm
A true in situ is incapable of spreading. However, you don't know if everyone in the study had that. There may be misdiagnosis. There may be local recurrences of in situ that spread later. There may be extenuating factors that you don't know. All these stats should be taken with a grain of salt. The AJCC study data is smaller than other studies. Check out this table. It doesn't include stage 0 and is for the staging system before 2009, but you can see how larger studies affect the statistics.
http://www.asco.org/ascov2/Meetings/Abstracts?&vmview=abst_detail_view&confID=26&abstractID=3499
-
- May 4, 2012 at 11:37 pm
A true in situ is incapable of spreading. However, you don't know if everyone in the study had that. There may be misdiagnosis. There may be local recurrences of in situ that spread later. There may be extenuating factors that you don't know. All these stats should be taken with a grain of salt. The AJCC study data is smaller than other studies. Check out this table. It doesn't include stage 0 and is for the staging system before 2009, but you can see how larger studies affect the statistics.
http://www.asco.org/ascov2/Meetings/Abstracts?&vmview=abst_detail_view&confID=26&abstractID=3499
-
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.