more people die from thin melanomas than thick melanomas

I'm not sure I think the researchers have a valid premise for the argument.  Based on the article alone, though, it does seem to validate my concern that thin lesions should be treated more aggressively. What if we are seeing more deaths from people who were originally diagnosed with a Stage 1 lesion, but were never offered an SNB?  Maybe those patients were really Stage 3 at the time of diagnosis, and had they started treatment immediately they would not have progressed to Stage 4?  I'm sure it is a risk/reward analysis. SNB has inherent risks, it is costly, etc. — but has there ever been a study done on the outcomes of SNB for Stage 1 patients?

I'm not sure I think the researchers have a valid premise for the argument.  Based on the article alone, though, it does seem to validate my concern that thin lesions should be treated more aggressively. What if we are seeing more deaths from people who were originally diagnosed with a Stage 1 lesion, but were never offered an SNB?  Maybe those patients were really Stage 3 at the time of diagnosis, and had they started treatment immediately they would not have progressed to Stage 4?  I'm sure it is a risk/reward analysis. SNB has inherent risks, it is costly, etc. — but has there ever been a study done on the outcomes of SNB for Stage 1 patients?

I'm not sure I think the researchers have a valid premise for the argument.  Based on the article alone, though, it does seem to validate my concern that thin lesions should be treated more aggressively. What if we are seeing more deaths from people who were originally diagnosed with a Stage 1 lesion, but were never offered an SNB?  Maybe those patients were really Stage 3 at the time of diagnosis, and had they started treatment immediately they would not have progressed to Stage 4?  I'm sure it is a risk/reward analysis. SNB has inherent risks, it is costly, etc. — but has there ever been a study done on the outcomes of SNB for Stage 1 patients?

To me, this study reflects what many of us who have spent time on melanoma forums have seen in real life – there are always people who turn up with advanced melanoma after having been diagnosed with a thin, stage I melanoma a few years prior.

They are not saying thin melanoma does not still have an excellent prognosis, or that thin melanoma is more deadly than thicker, just that SOME thin melanoma does turn deadly, apparently the average time frame in the study being 6 years, and my impression is that the researchers are saying we need better methods of followup in place for these patients to increase early detection.  It's true that people with thin melanoma tend to be offered minimal followup.  It sounds like in general because of the excellent prognosis, this is fine, but for a small percentage this lack of closer followup can be deadly.

To me, this study reflects what many of us who have spent time on melanoma forums have seen in real life – there are always people who turn up with advanced melanoma after having been diagnosed with a thin, stage I melanoma a few years prior.

They are not saying thin melanoma does not still have an excellent prognosis, or that thin melanoma is more deadly than thicker, just that SOME thin melanoma does turn deadly, apparently the average time frame in the study being 6 years, and my impression is that the researchers are saying we need better methods of followup in place for these patients to increase early detection.  It's true that people with thin melanoma tend to be offered minimal followup.  It sounds like in general because of the excellent prognosis, this is fine, but for a small percentage this lack of closer followup can be deadly.

To me, this study reflects what many of us who have spent time on melanoma forums have seen in real life – there are always people who turn up with advanced melanoma after having been diagnosed with a thin, stage I melanoma a few years prior.

They are not saying thin melanoma does not still have an excellent prognosis, or that thin melanoma is more deadly than thicker, just that SOME thin melanoma does turn deadly, apparently the average time frame in the study being 6 years, and my impression is that the researchers are saying we need better methods of followup in place for these patients to increase early detection.  It's true that people with thin melanoma tend to be offered minimal followup.  It sounds like in general because of the excellent prognosis, this is fine, but for a small percentage this lack of closer followup can be deadly.

Articles like this is what confuses me… First this group was trying to reassure everyone  thin melanomas have an excellent prognosis.. Matter of fact, they said they were seeing people live 20 years or longer from intial diagnosis. Now they are saying there are more deaths from thin melanomas than thick ones. I think they truly don't even know.  And until they do know for a fact they need to quit putting anything out there for the people to read. "Thin melanomas have an excellent survival rate, but more people die from them." Isn't that like an oxymoron???? We don't need any more anxiety than we already have from our diagnosis. So, they need to quit guesstimating and start finding actual cures for this horrible disease. 

Articles like this is what confuses me… First this group was trying to reassure everyone  thin melanomas have an excellent prognosis.. Matter of fact, they said they were seeing people live 20 years or longer from intial diagnosis. Now they are saying there are more deaths from thin melanomas than thick ones. I think they truly don't even know.  And until they do know for a fact they need to quit putting anything out there for the people to read. "Thin melanomas have an excellent survival rate, but more people die from them." Isn't that like an oxymoron???? We don't need any more anxiety than we already have from our diagnosis. So, they need to quit guesstimating and start finding actual cures for this horrible disease. 

Articles like this is what confuses me… First this group was trying to reassure everyone  thin melanomas have an excellent prognosis.. Matter of fact, they said they were seeing people live 20 years or longer from intial diagnosis. Now they are saying there are more deaths from thin melanomas than thick ones. I think they truly don't even know.  And until they do know for a fact they need to quit putting anything out there for the people to read. "Thin melanomas have an excellent survival rate, but more people die from them." Isn't that like an oxymoron???? We don't need any more anxiety than we already have from our diagnosis. So, they need to quit guesstimating and start finding actual cures for this horrible disease. 

I sure cannot explain their numbers.  Maybe I'm too tired to be able to read tonight.  They appear to be a mismatch of number and definitions between countries, usage of old date even thou published Thu Nov 13, 2014 12:34pm EST and they state "An estimated 76,100 new cases will be diagnosed this year and 9,710 people will die from the disease. "  The numbers of new cases I have seen estimated for 2014 are around 100,000.

They reference other news articles, not peer reviewed journals.

"Past research has found that patients with thin lesions (less than or equal to 1 millimeter) survived, on average, for 20 years after diagnosis, while those with thicker melanomas were more likely to die years sooner." WHAT DID THEY DIE FROM??  Melanoma, car wrecks, war, old age?  ??

Then they say:

"People with thin lesions died about six years after they were diagnosed, while those with thick lesions died two years after the melanoma was detected, according to the data."

   i  have sppent more time on this article than it seseerves.  It should never have been publihed.

I sure cannot explain their numbers.  Maybe I'm too tired to be able to read tonight.  They appear to be a mismatch of number and definitions between countries, usage of old date even thou published Thu Nov 13, 2014 12:34pm EST and they state "An estimated 76,100 new cases will be diagnosed this year and 9,710 people will die from the disease. "  The numbers of new cases I have seen estimated for 2014 are around 100,000.

They reference other news articles, not peer reviewed journals.

"Past research has found that patients with thin lesions (less than or equal to 1 millimeter) survived, on average, for 20 years after diagnosis, while those with thicker melanomas were more likely to die years sooner." WHAT DID THEY DIE FROM??  Melanoma, car wrecks, war, old age?  ??

Then they say:

"People with thin lesions died about six years after they were diagnosed, while those with thick lesions died two years after the melanoma was detected, according to the data."

   i  have sppent more time on this article than it seseerves.  It should never have been publihed.

I sure cannot explain their numbers.  Maybe I'm too tired to be able to read tonight.  They appear to be a mismatch of number and definitions between countries, usage of old date even thou published Thu Nov 13, 2014 12:34pm EST and they state "An estimated 76,100 new cases will be diagnosed this year and 9,710 people will die from the disease. "  The numbers of new cases I have seen estimated for 2014 are around 100,000.

They reference other news articles, not peer reviewed journals.

"Past research has found that patients with thin lesions (less than or equal to 1 millimeter) survived, on average, for 20 years after diagnosis, while those with thicker melanomas were more likely to die years sooner." WHAT DID THEY DIE FROM??  Melanoma, car wrecks, war, old age?  ??

Then they say:

"People with thin lesions died about six years after they were diagnosed, while those with thick lesions died two years after the melanoma was detected, according to the data."

   i  have sppent more time on this article than it seseerves.  It should never have been publihed.