I keep reading that in the past 10 years only about 50% of people, who where diagnosed as stage I and stage II, where given a Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy.
So when you hear statistics for stage I as haveing a 5 year survival rate of 92% and 10 year rate of 83%, how accurate can that be? I mean how many people were staged I and II who really may have been stage III at the time of diagnosis? Wouldn’t that drastically effect the survival rates?
Does this make sense? Am I missing something? Can anyone speak to that?
Most of what I have seen has 10 year survival rate for Stage I better than 83%. . still in the 90s. There was a Queensland study that showed 20 year survival rate of early thin melanoma at like 96% I think.
I guess I used the rates we were given for Stage Ib which are a little lower than Stage Ia rates. My real questions is about those who where actually a Stage III at the time of diagnosis but didn’t know it because they did not have a SLNB….are they throwing off the numbers??
Of course some of them are but that is why the larger the sample the better. Statistics are a funny thing, the can be treated in a number of ways and when it comes down to applying them to one individual they really don’t work very well.
Absolutely agree that statistics are not useful when it comes to individuals. You have to be careful of the source too and that they use a huge number to make their determinations. Best to live in the moment and be grateful for each day than ponder if or when your number may be up.
Viewing 6 posts - 1 through 6 (of 6 total)
The forum ‘Melanoma: Newly Diagnosed – Stages I & II’ is closed to new topics and replies.