Contact a lawyer at Massachusetts-Lawyers.com here. Lung cancer is usually diagnosed as follows: Many patients get a chest x-ray as part of a routine physical exam. A mass in the lung is detected which then is evaluated by other tests. Usually, a CT scan follows which better defines the abnormal mass. All cancer diagnoses should and usually do have a tissue diagnosis. A physician get a little piece of tissue from the abnormal mass area and a pathologist determines if it is cancer or not. The two most common methods of getting a piece of the mass is bronchoscopy or fine needle aspiration biopsy under radiologic guidance. Once cancer is diagnosed, an appropriate treatment must be decided upon. Treatment and prognosis (how the patient is going to do) is determined by many factors. The most important determinant is the stage of the cancer. Stage is how far the tumor has spread. This can somewhat be determined without surgery, though surgery is needed in many patients for accurate staging. The second important factor is the histologic type of lung cancer. There are several different types of lung cancer, each of which have different prognoses (outcomes) and therapies. The three major types of lung cancer are squamous cell carcinoma, adenocarcinoma, and small cell undifferentiated carcinoma (oat cell carcinoma). The first two are primarily treated with surgery if the tumor has not spread too far. Oat cell is primarily treated with chemotherapy and has its own separate staging scheme. Radiation therapy is used in both groups of lung malignancies. What can go wrong is illustrated by the following case: Actual Settled Case of Medical Malpractice: Failure To Diagnose Lung Cancer The Injuries alleged: Failure to diagnose lung cancer, pain and suffering, lowered survival chance Amount of settlement: $275,000 A 53-year-old plaintiff was a patient of the a primary care physician for over 30 years. In 1994, the plaintiff saw the his physician for a complete medical exam, and had a routine chest X-ray. The radiologist allegedly told the physician that there was an upper right lobe mass and suggested a CT scan. The CT scan was interpreted as showing a large mass in the upper right lobe. The radiologist's report had a handwritten notation stating that he had called the patient and to "see chart." However, the patient's chart allegedly had no corresponding reference confirming that the doctor had notified the him of the findings and didn't refer him for any follow-up. Over the next 10 months, the doctor's chart allegedly had no other reference to the finding on the CT scan or any mention that he had notified the plaintiff of the upper right mass lobe discovered in the CT scan. About a year later in 1995, the plaintiff was seen for another annual medical exam and had another routine chest X-ray. The x-ray allegedly showed a sizable increase the upper right lobe mass. Another CT scan and bronchoscopy, revealed Stage IIIB lung cancer. At this stage a common treatment: lung resection was very unlikely to succeed. The patient underwent chemotherapy and lobectomy but, there was a metastasis to the brain and other areas and the patient had a life expectancy of only one year. The lawsuit: The plaintiff -patient claimed that the doctor negligently failed disclose the findings of the first CT scan in December 1994, which allegedly showed the upper right lobe mass. The patient claimed the doctor should have referred him for a biopsy when the radiologist allegedly showed the doctor the results of the CT Scan. The plaintiff's expert (an expert is usually someone hired to render an opinion in the lawsuit) oncologist stated his belief that the plaintiff probably did not have Stage IIIB cancer in December 1994, which would have made him a strong candidate for resection treatment which could have significantly improved his chances of survival. The Doctor's expert stated that even if treatment could have been performed in December 1994 there would have been the same outcome. He reasoned there is no cure for lung cancer and the prospects generally not good in a case where primary tumor is larger than one centimeter in diameter. The patient argued that the doctor's negligence resulted in a loss of substantial chance of survival. The case settled for $275,000. after being filed in court. The facts of this case are derived from information reported in Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly. Contact a lawyer at Massachusetts-Lawyers.com here.