I so enjoyed this interview. As someone who is 3 1/2 years out of surgery for a nonmucinous 1.8 cm “pure BAC (?)” I can only relate from the patient perspective about how hard it is not to actually be sure if the diagnosis on pathology is correct. I have read many times over the years that one could never be certain that the diagnosis was correct and I was always waiting for the other shoe to drop - you know - every ache and pain is a return of the cancer. I, for one, would love to have it reclassified as an in-situ carcinoma; however, I can see the difficulty in moving ahead if there are such differential diagnoses right now. I know now, in reading this interview, how very difficult it must be to differentiate between pathologies - especially when they can so closely resemble one another; or the facility simply doesn’t deal with a vast variety of different tumor types. What a huge responsibility for the pathologist. I also imagine there are huge differences in training - who is old school, who is up to date and current, as there are in other areas of medicine.

For myself, as time passed I felt much more confident that the pathology report was, indeed, correct. I was told that I was a rarity (so much so that my surgeon had to phone his senior partner to get his advice as to whether to simply do a wedge or the lobectomy); however, my surgeon had great faith in the pathology report as this particular pathologist is much revered and up to date on all things pathology! I have now come to the conclusion that at this point, for me, it really doesn’t matter anymore. I am ever hopeful that this is behind me for good. If it isn’t and it rears it’s ugly head again, I can only hope that this rare process will be diagnosed with more confidence in the final pathology across the board.

Thank you Dr. Horton for sharing your expertise, and once again, thanks Dr. West for making it possible!

Best regards,

Linda