I might ask more about the prominent regression part. Does the Dr think that at one time the lesion was thicker based on the prominent regression? Was the regression extensive, defined as either >50% or >75% of the lesion?
No ulceration and no mitoses are both good prognostically. 0.5 is pretty thin, but others on the forum can jump in with regard to regression. I’m not a medical professional, but from what I’ve read it seems like regression is not a clear thing prognostically. I’ve had some Doctors tell me it’s good my body/immune system was responding to the lesion, but other Doctors have told me that extensive regression is not good because that could mean the lesion was at one time deeper.
The depth is the number one prognosticator, and this is low risk. Each year or so, the pathology folks come up with a new term they think may bear looking at, regression, ulceration and mitosis are among them. But when that is unclear, it always goes back to the depth. You are low risk and that’s a wonderful thing.
The only ‘issue’ with yoru path report is the regression. But regression is only an issue when it masks true depth of a lesion, and when that happens it is generally noted in the report – it would say something like ‘depth of .5 but cannot exclude deeper lesion due to features of regression’.
No mitosis = great.
No ulceration = great.
Depth is low risk.
Pretty straight fwd but i always recommend a second opinion, this is cancer, a second opinion is so important! You have to be your own advocate and cover all yoru bases!
Viewing 6 posts - 1 through 6 (of 6 total)
The forum ‘Melanoma: Newly Diagnosed – Stages I & II’ is closed to new topics and replies.