If you have a choice, go with the best. We had originally sought a second opinion from a CCC regarding treatment. We wanted to make sure that the treatment protocol was appropriate and to find out if there were less destructive treatments available. We also expected to have the cancer DX confirmed. In addition, I talked with staff that handles HN cancers at a major teaching university in our state to find out about proton therapy (not appropriate to treat J's original DX.)

The CCC reviewed the tests results and biopsy slides sent by the regional hospital's path department. Four pathologists (one of whom was the director of pathology for the CCC) agreed on the DX that it was a benign condition. Although their DX spared J from undergoing the majority of a very difficult treatment plan, it came a little late to prevent J from having a diagnostic tonsillectomy and four teeth pulled.

It is my thought that the pathologist at the regional hospital where J had his biopsy was not familiar with the most recent information regarding SCC HN. He was using a questionable factor on which to base his DX. Definitely, he was not the sharpest pencil. Neither was the RO at the same hospital who wanted to base staging and treatment on a PET scan. That he became angry that we were seeking a second opinion and that I asked questions about the pathology report was enough to make us want to run, not walk, to the nearest exit.