That is concerning, actually, in Tiffany's first diagnosis by the RM: The implication is therefore that multiple doctors at the RM thought that the first lung nodule was not cancerous and talk of lung surgery or treatment was absent until the nodule was over 1 cm in diameter. The sooner a growth is removed, the better the prognosis, at least giving the patient more time to live.
Tiffany has a history of seemingly muddled or outright incorrect diagnoses. First of all, she was diagnosed with cancer very late, already with a T4bN1b colorectal cancer tumor that had already grown into her vagina! Why this diagnosis was revealed rather late while Tiffany had apparently been bleeding for over a year is unclear. Even a simple gynecological exam would have detected growth of a tumor into her vagina! Did she even bother to have such an exam? Was she relying solely on colonoscopies and avoiding a gynecological exam? Who knows, because she wasn't clear about that.
Tiffany also never revealed the diagnosis involving her previous stomach surgeries. On this matter, Tiffany is clearly hiding something intentionally.
Then, there was the St. George's hospital diagnosis of a Stage 4 adenocarcinoma colorectal cancer with 1 lung metastasis. Her case was then handled by the Royal Marsden because of their state-of-the-art colon surgeries with robotic assistance (the DaVinci robot). The RM gave her a stage 3 diagnosis and said the lung nodule was nothing to worry about, even though it turned out to be cancerous less than a year (approximately) after her pelvic exenteration surgery.
Well, how about if that first lung nodule had been removed when it was half the size? If it was cancerous at 1.1 cm in diameter, it was cancerous at the 5 to 7mm diameter mark as well upon initial diagnosis.
THIS is why second opinions matter and are important! If two different hospitals, both with good reputations, gave completely different conclusions about an initial lung nodule, a THIRD medical opinion could have served as the tie-breaker, so to speak. After all, this IS a question of life and death.
_______________________________________________________
Tiffany's case, easier than a 3rd opinion at the time of diagnosis:
Why didn't she RETURN to ST. George's hospital for a REBUTTAL on their part? She could have told them that the RM said her (first) lung nodule wasn't cancerous! Whoop whoop whoop! So, armed with the RM's result, WHY didn't she return to St.. George's and ask them WHY they said the first lung nodule was cancerous?
There IS a right and wrong answer here. One was right, the other was wrong. The best situation would have been if one of the hospitals had admitted an oversight or a mistake. That way, at least Tiffany would have been aware of HOW such decisions are made, and the possibility for ERROR, in case...guess what...it happens again...such as with a SECOND lung nodule now!!
and a cute puppy dog 
. Will the real Fluffy/Tiffany put their hand up? Or are all 3 related?
Which is probably nothing, was always there but doctors didn't notice it, or will just disappear like a miracle from God. Can't wait till thursday how this all wil play out, it's like an episode of a soap serie.
!
) in Spain, for example, he should start his own line of merchandise: FREE WILLY!
and everyone else who had this sitch in hand!
.
dinners!
