@laura2904, I would definitely have the biopsy. A lung biopsy removes a small amount of tissue that can be used to not only tell whether you have lung cancer or not, but can also identify what type of cancer. Some types of lung cancer are best treated with neoadjuvant therapy which is a medical term meaning you'll start taking a medication before surgery. The neoadjuvant therapy may reduce the size of the tumor prior to surgery and may help ensure that other cancer cells that may be in your body don't grow large enough to be detected. All good stuff.

Weigh all that potential benefit against the potential downside of having an invasive procedure that might be unnecessary along with its expense. Thoracic oncologists are good about not recommending a biopsy unless they suspect that the tumor is cancerous. "diagnosis of exclusion" means they believe they have eliminated all other possibilities. I believe the benefit vastly outweighs the risk.

I totally understand your concern. When my doctors first proposed a biopsy, I said, "Whoa. Wait a minute. I want a second opinion from my pulmonologist." 2 days after I saw him, he called at 7 p.m. and told me to "get the biopsy." I did. It was cancer. 7 years later I'm not only still here, I'm working full-time. The long-term prognosis is much better when caught early.

Let us know what you decide and know that we're here for you no matter which path you choose. All the best and long life!