Pope Leo was diagnosed with localized lung cancer, and has undergone curative surgery. I wish him the very best. There is widespread public interest in his experience and what it means for fellow never smokers.
The New York Times spoke to a half dozen lung cancer experts about the pope. I was surprised to find that despite reaching out to so many, the ultimate reporting was lopsided and inaccurate. It lacks humility.
Here's what we know.
The Vatican states that a lung nodule was discovered during routine imaging the pope was undergoing.
Since this is 2026, and since the pope is a VIP, it is possible they are referring to some type of whole body imaging or a coronary CT scan. If you're a 70-year-old who's otherwise perfectly healthy, and has no complaints, and is a never smoker, reasonable people can disagree about whether or not you need any of these scans. Whether or not any will benefit you. That calculus shifts if you've had symptoms. Then 99% of people think you need the scan. As do I. By all accounts the Pope did not have symptoms.
There are three possible scenarios for what the pope is going through. The first is: the pope was fortunately found to have a localized, early stage lung cancer, which has undergone surgical resection, and may or may not require some adjuvant therapy, but he is cured. Were it not for the providential diagnosis, this cancer would have spread and resulted in untimely death.
The second scenario, which we all hope is not the case, is that the pope indeed was diagnosed with an early stage lung cancer, adenocarcinoma, but despite these efforts made at this moment, the cancer has already spread microscopically and will reveal itself in a matter of time-- ranging from months to years. In the absence of the early diagnosis, the pope would have been diagnosed at this future date when the cancer had spread. Thus, the scan has merely added lead time to the Pope's diagnosis without possibility of benefit.
The third possibility is that, by virtue of the Pope being a non smoker, by virtue of the biases of VIP medicine, he has been diagnosed with a nodule that would not have progressed or caused harm in the rest of his natural life. Had the pope not undergone the scan, He would have lived happily for many more years to come. As a result of this imaging, he has undergone unnecessary surgery and is left with a scar, and psychological burden, but is no better off. To be clear, I'm confident a pope would be the least troubled by considerations of his own mortality, as I am sure he has transcended these mortal thoughts. But for many, this psychological burden can be fierce.
The truth is not even the Pope knows which one of the three scenarios happened. Only God knows. Certainly not the experts quoted in the times.
My objection to the New York Times coverage of this topic is that they are utterly unable to consider the third possibility. None of the experts raise it. In fact, they overwhelmingly think the only thing that could have happened to the Pope is option 1. And the article ends with a quote about how we all should be so lucky to get the scans the Pope gets.
Should help a 70-year-olds who have never smoked line up to get CT scans of the lung? Whole body. MRIs? My answer is no. They should not for the simple reason that these interventions have not demonstrated benefit.
Even in a population most likely to derive benefit- long time smokers-- ct screening for lung cancer is disputed. It has failed in a follow-up publication by Pinsky regarding the nlst to sustain a mortality benefit. The Nelson trial is a disaster. It's protocol amendment after protocol amendment with no all cancer mortality reduction. It's like duct taping a rocket and trying to fly to Mars.
Medicine is not an exact science. One of the hardest things to know in medicine is whether your patient did well because of what you did, or in spite of it. Did they do poorly despite all you did, or because of it. These are deep questions. They are nearly religious in their nature. They require open-mindedness and equanimity to consider. Those are the traits of all popes, including this one, but sadly not the news, reporters or experts quoted in the media.
I wish the very best to the Pope.
Thank you for this excellent exposition. One could say that it is a shame that such a correct and nuanced explanation was not available in the NYT article, but unfortunately that is nowadays to be expected. The impulse to indulge the progressivist mindset at the expensive of reality is a feature of the NYT’s coverage of all issues including’ the science’. Caveat emptor….
Nice to see a non sensationalist view. Mainstream media loves to bait and 99% of us - me too from time to time - lap it up. My hope for anyone in the ol pope’s situation is success and longevity as well. Signed, recovering catholic but still loves the rosary Jim!