. Journal of radiology . CARCINOMATA—BRYAN The pathologists report wascarcinoma of the lung, probablyprimary. The general picture ofcell type suggests more a growthoriginating from the lung tissuethan one arising in the mesothe-lium. I am deeply indebted to thephysicians with whom I had theopportunity of seeing these casesand to Dr. G. Y. Rusk, and Ophuls who have so kindlyfurnished the pathological re-ports. mary carcinoma of the lung whichwas correctly diagnosed at least ascarcinoma; and since there was butone nodule present and since nothingelse was found at autopsy, it musthave been
. Journal of radiology . CARCINOMATA—BRYAN The pathologists report wascarcinoma of the lung, probablyprimary. The general picture ofcell type suggests more a growthoriginating from the lung tissuethan one arising in the mesothe-lium. I am deeply indebted to thephysicians with whom I had theopportunity of seeing these casesand to Dr. G. Y. Rusk, and Ophuls who have so kindlyfurnished the pathological re-ports. mary carcinoma of the lung whichwas correctly diagnosed at least ascarcinoma; and since there was butone nodule present and since nothingelse was found at autopsy, it musthave been a primary carcinoma ofthe lung. It must be a rare condi-tion. One point came to my mind as I ob-served these slides. Someone severalyears ago in discussing this subject,made the statement that a thickeningof the interlobar pleura was a diag-nostic sign of carcinoma of the have forgotten who made the state-ment, but it was a very positive oneand he showed a number of slides toconfirm his theory. I began looking. R. M.—Case 7-Discussion on Papers of Drs. Bryanand Carman DR. FRANK BISSELL, Minneapolis, Minn.: My only excuse fordiscussing these two very interestingpapers is that I have been placed onthe program for that purpose. Ihave nothing to contribute. Theslides and the paper by Dr. Bryanseem to be rather convincing proofthat if a diagnosis of primary car-cinoma of the lung is to be made itmust be at the autopsy. Tn my ownpractice I recall but one case of pri- 2 -Figure 2 more diligently for that indication andfound it of considerable frequency,so I am convinced that it is not a re-liable sign of cancer. The pointbrought out by Dr. Carman of thenecessity of a pathologic examinationof these miliary carcinomatous nod-ules to differentiate them from tuber-culosis is very important. Both essayists are to be congratu-lated upon the excellent presentationsthey have made. DR. PERCY BROWN, Boston,Mass.: I have had very little experi- Page Nine PRIMARY LUNG CARCINOMATA—BR
Size: 1573px × 1588px
Photo credit: © Reading Room 2020 / Alamy / Afripics
License: Licensed
Model Released: No
Keywords: ., bookauthoramerican, bookcentury1900, bookdecade1920, bookyear1921
