Table of Contents
Part I: The Silence of the Microscope and the Failure of a Word
A World in Black and White
For twenty years, my world has been one of quiet, ordered certainty.
It exists in the space between a glass slide and the objective lens of my microscope.
As a pathologist, my job is to find the truth in tissue.
I am a cartographer of the cellular landscape, a translator of the body’s most intimate language.
Clinicians—the surgeons, the oncologists, the family doctors—they live in the noisy, chaotic world of human interaction, of symptoms and fears.
I live in a silent world of patterns.
Hematoxylin and eosin stains turn the microscopic world into a predictable palette of pink and purple.
Under my lens, the chaotic universe of a human body resolves into distinct architectures: the neat, glandular rosettes of a healthy colon, the layered strata of normal skin, the feathery branches of lung tissue.
My role, as I have always understood it, is to be the final arbiter of reality.
When a surgeon removes a suspicious lump or a gastroenterologist snips a polyp, it is sent to my Lab.1
It is my eye, my training, that renders the final verdict.
I analyze the cells, their shape, their arrangement, their very soul, and I give them a name.
This process is the bedrock of modern medicine.
The entire edifice of a patient’s treatment plan—the surgery, the chemotherapy, the radiation—is built upon the foundation of the diagnosis I provide.2
For most of my career, I found a deep comfort in this role.
There is an elegant finality to it.
While my clinical colleagues wrestle with the shifting sands of patient emotions and the ambiguities of symptoms, I deal in absolutes.
The cells are either normal or abnormal.
The tumor is either contained or it has invaded.
It is, in the starkest terms, either benign or malignant.
These two words were the pillars of my diagnostic world.
Benign: a self-contained problem, a local anomaly, something to be watched or removed, but ultimately, not a systemic threat.
Malignant: cancer.
A word that carries the weight of a death sentence, a declaration of cellular war.
This binary system is clean.
It is efficient.
It allows the vast and complex machinery of a hospital to categorize a patient, to assign them to a treatment pathway, to give a name to their fear.
But I have come to learn that this clean, efficient system is also a lie.
Not a malicious lie, but a lie of omission, a simplification so profound that it can, in its own way, be as destructive as the disease it seeks to describe.
My journey to this understanding was not born of a scientific paper or a medical conference.
It was born of a failure—a failure of language, a failure of imagination, and a failure that has haunted me ever since.
It was a failure that forced me to see the profound paradox of my profession: that the person who holds the most definitive truth about a disease is often the most disconnected from the human being who must live with that truth.4
We pathologists are trained to see the truth in tissue, but we are rarely trained to translate that truth into a language that can be truly understood, a language that can heal rather than just define.
My Failure Story – The “Benign” Catastrophe
The case that shattered my world of black-and-white certainty was that of a young woman, an artist in her late twenties.
She had been suffering from progressively worsening headaches, a subtle loss of balance, and a strange new weakness on one side of her face.
An MRI revealed a mass, a shadow nestled against her brainstem.
The neurosurgeon performed a delicate biopsy, and the small piece of her life landed on my desk.
Under the microscope, the cells were a model of conformity.
They were uniform, slow-growing, and well-behaved.
They were not the wild, anarchic cells of a glioblastoma.
They were, by every textbook definition, the cells of a meningioma, a tumor arising from the meninges, the protective membranes that envelop the brain and spinal cord.6
My diagnosis was swift, confident, and technically flawless:
Benign Meningioma.
I signed the report and sent it off, another case closed, another piece of the puzzle solved.
The word “benign” traveled from my report to the oncologist, from the oncologist to the family.
I can picture the scene now: the sterile consultation room, the palpable relief washing over the young woman and her parents as they heard that word.
Benign.
Not cancer.
The dictionary definition is “gentle and kindly.” It sounds like a reprieve, a bullet dodged.
But a tumor does not care about a dictionary.
It cares only about the laws of physics.
And in the tightly packed, unforgiving space of the skull, there is no room for error, no room for expansion.
My diagnosis was correct, but it was also meaningless.
While the family celebrated the “good” news, the tumor continued its slow, relentless growth.
It wasn’t invading, not in the classical sense.
It was just expanding, pushing.
But in that critical location, a gentle push is as deadly as a violent assault.
It pressed upon the vital nerves controlling her breathing, her heartbeat, her consciousness.
Over the next year, the “benign” tumor slowly and inexorably stole her life.
The weakness in her face spread.
Her speech slurred.
Her vibrant, artistic world narrowed to the four walls of a hospital room.
The family was bewildered, lost in a chasm between the word they had been given and the tragic reality unfolding before them.
How could something “benign” be so cruel?
I was called to a meeting with the clinical team and the family’s advocate.
They didn’t question my diagnosis; the slides confirmed it.
They questioned my language.
They questioned the very framework we used.
I had no answers.
I could only repeat the cold, hard facts: the cells were not cancerous, they did not have the potential to spread to her liver or her lungs.
But they were killing her all the same.
The medical literature is full of these caveats, these footnotes explaining that benign tumors, particularly in the brain, can be life-threatening.7
They can press on vital organs, restrict blood flow, and cause devastating harm.6
But these footnotes are lost in the thunderous, reassuring boom of the word “benign.”
I left that meeting a different man.
My world of certainty had crumbled.
I had provided a fact, but I had failed to provide understanding.
The word, my primary tool, had become a barrier.
It had created a false sense of security that obscured the real, mechanical threat of the tumor.
It was the tyranny of terminology.
I realized the problem wasn’t just how we communicate about these growths, but the very words we use.
We needed a new language, a new map to navigate this terrifying territory.
And I, the man in the quiet lab, felt an overwhelming responsibility to find it.
Part II: The Epiphany – A City in the Cell
Deconstructing the Old Language
My failure sent me back to the fundamentals, back to the very genesis of a tumor.
I became obsessed with the journey a cell takes from a loyal citizen of the body to a rogue agent.
The binary of “benign” and “malignant” felt like describing a hurricane as either “windy” or “very windy.” It captured a single attribute but missed the entire dynamic process of its formation.
I needed to understand the spectrum, the slippery slope that leads from order to chaos.
The journey begins with a state called hyperplasia.
This is the first whisper of rebellion.
For reasons we don’t fully understand—perhaps chronic irritation or a faulty signal—cells within a tissue begin to multiply faster than normal.12
Under the microscope, the tissue architecture still looks normal, the cells themselves are well-behaved, but there are simply too many of them.
It’s a population boom, an over-crowding in a previously stable neighborhood.11
The next step down the path is dysplasia.
This is a more serious condition.
Now, it’s not just about numbers.
The cells themselves begin to look abnormal.
Their nuclei might be larger, darker, or irregularly shaped.
The once-orderly organization of the tissue starts to break down.10
It’s as if the citizens of our over-crowded neighborhood are not only too numerous, but they are also starting to ignore social conventions, becoming misshapen and unruly.
In general, the more abnormal the cells and tissue look, the greater the chance that cancer will form.11
An abnormal mole, known as a dysplastic nevus, is a perfect example.
Most will never become cancerous, but they are watched carefully because they have taken a significant step down a dangerous road.12
Finally, we arrive at carcinoma in situ, a state sometimes called “Stage 0 cancer.” Here, the cells have become so abnormal that they are, for all intents and purposes, cancer cells.
They are a chaotic, disorganized mob.
But they are still contained.
They have not yet breached a critical biological barrier called the basement membrane, a thin layer of protein that acts like a fence around the tissue.
They have not yet invaded the surrounding territory.12
Although it is not yet “invasive” cancer, because of its high potential to become so, carcinoma in situ is almost always treated aggressively.12
Looking at this progression, I saw it clearly.
The journey from health to cancer is not a switch being flipped.
It is a continuum of increasing defiance, a gradual erosion of biological law.
Our clinical terms are useful snapshots, but they fail to capture the story of a system losing control.
The black-and-white view of benign versus malignant is a clinical shorthand, a necessary simplification for a busy world.
But the reality is a spectrum of gray, a descent into cellular anarchy that our language was failing to describe.
The Urban Planning Analogy
The breakthrough—my epiphany—didn’t come from a medical journal.
It came on a rainy afternoon as I stared out my office window, looking down at the city sprawling below.
I saw the old, historic core with its neat grid of streets, surrounded by the chaotic, sprawling suburbs, crisscrossed by highways and rail lines snaking out into the countryside.
And in that moment, I saw it all.
The behavior of a tumor wasn’t just a lump of cells.
It was a complex, self-organizing system.
It was urban planning gone wrong.
This wasn’t just a poetic flight of fancy.
I later discovered that scientists were already drawing these parallels.
Studies have shown that the growth of large cities and the growth of malignant tumors are governed by eerily similar mathematical principles.14
The two key factors that dictate the growth of a city—the mass of its population and the interconnectedness of its transportation networks—are the same factors that govern the growth of cancerous tissue.14
The analogy clicked into place with a force that felt like a physical shock.
I finally had a language that could bridge the gap between the microscopic world and the human experience.
I had a new map.
A Benign Tumor is an Orderly, Self-Contained Village. Imagine a small, historic town.
It has well-defined borders.
Its citizens (the cells) are organized, specialized, and law-abiding.
The town might grow slowly, building a new house here and there, but it respects the local zoning laws.
It doesn’t build its own highways to annex the neighboring farmland.
It might become a problem if it gets too big and causes traffic jams on the local roads—like my patient’s meningioma causing pressure in her brain—but its fundamental nature is orderly and contained.
A Malignant Tumor is Uncontrolled, Invasive Urban Sprawl. This is a rogue city.
Its citizens (the cells) are lawless, primitive, and exist only to multiply.
Its growth is rapid and chaotic, ignoring all borders and property lines.
It actively destroys the neighboring communities (healthy tissue) to expand its own territory.
And most critically, it is not content with local domination.
It aggressively builds its own infrastructure—its own highways and supply lines—to send out colonists (metastases) and found new, distant settlements throughout the entire landscape of the body.
This was it.
This was the language I had been searching for.
It was a framework that could hold all the complexity, all the nuance, and all the danger, without resorting to the simplistic and often misleading labels of the past.
It was a story.
And every patient, every family, deserves to understand the story of what is happening inside their own body.
Part III: The Three Pillars of the Rogue City
With this new map in hand, the world under my microscope was transformed.
I no longer saw just cells; I saw societies.
I no longer diagnosed just conditions; I assessed civilizations.
The differences between a benign village and a malignant sprawl could be understood by examining three fundamental pillars: the nature of their citizens, the integrity of their borders, and their ambition to colonize.
Pillar 1 – The Blueprint of the Neighborhood (Cellular Nature & Genetics)
The first and most fundamental difference between the village and the sprawl lies in their citizens.
To understand a tumor, you must first understand the cells that build it.
Their character, their design, their very blueprint, dictates everything that follows.
The citizens of our benign village are what we pathologists call “well-differentiated.” This is a crucial concept.
It means that the tumor cells still look and act very much like the normal, mature cells of the tissue they originated from.10
A benign fibroma of the uterus is made of cells that still closely resemble normal uterine muscle cells.
A benign lipoma is composed of fat cells that look almost identical to normal fat cells.8
They are specialized.
They have a job, a clear identity.
When I look at them under the microscope, their shape is regular, their chromosomes are intact, and their DNA appears normal.16
Most importantly, they still listen to social cues.
Normal cells in the body are part of a community; they operate under a strict social contract.
They only grow when they receive signals telling them to, and they stop growing when they bump up against other cells, a phenomenon called contact inhibition.12
They are cooperative members of the tissue society.
The inhabitants of the malignant sprawl are the complete opposite.
They are “poorly differentiated” or even “undifferentiated.” They have undergone a profound identity crisis, losing the specialized features of their parent tissue.10
They are more primitive, more anarchic.
They have abandoned their civic duties and have reverted to a single, selfish purpose: endless replication.
This isn’t just a behavioral change; it’s written in their very core.
Malignant cells are defined by genetic instability.
They accumulate a cascade of mutations, changes in their DNA that act like a series of criminal records.
Their chromosomes can be a mess, with duplicated or deleted parts.
Some cancer cells even have double the normal number of chromosomes.12
This genetic chaos leads to a complete breakdown of the cellular social contract.
They become outlaws.
They grow in the absence of signals telling them to grow.
They ignore the “stop” signals from their neighbors.
And most sinisterly, they learn to evade the body’s natural command to die, a process called apoptosis or programmed cell death.12
While a normal cell dutifully self-destructs when it becomes old or damaged, a cancer cell achieves a kind of grotesque immortality.
It is this fundamental difference in character—the law-abiding, cooperative citizen versus the genetically unstable, antisocial anarchist—that represents the first great divergence between a benign village and a malignant city.
It’s the difference between a community and a riot.
Pillar 2 – Borders and Invasion (Local Behavior)
The character of the citizens inevitably determines the nature of the society they build, especially how it interacts with its neighbors.
This is the second pillar: the behavior at the border.
Our benign village is defined by its respect for geography.
Benign tumors are typically slow-growing and, critically, they have smooth, regular, and well-defined borders.6
Often, the body recognizes this orderly growth and walls it off, surrounding it with a protective, fibrous S.C. This makes the tumor
encapsulated, like a walled city.17
This encapsulation is a pathologist’s dream, a clear line of demarcation between the tumor and the healthy tissue.
Because of this, benign tumors do not
invade nearby tissues.
As they grow, they may push surrounding structures aside, compressing them, which is precisely why they can be so dangerous in confined areas like the brain or near a major nerve.9
But they do not actively infiltrate and destroy.
They are an expanding town pushing its fences outward, not an army tearing down the next village.
The malignant sprawl, on the other hand, is defined by its aggression and its complete disregard for borders.
Malignant tumors are typically fast-growing, though some can be deceptively slow.7
Their shape is irregular and uneven, with tendrils and fingers of cells reaching out into the surrounding landscape.11
They are not contained.
Their single most defining local characteristic is their ability to
invade and destroy adjacent healthy tissue.10
This is not a passive pushing.
It is an active, aggressive process of infiltration.
The cancer cells secrete enzymes that digest the connective tissues holding the normal neighborhood together, allowing them to muscle their way in.
This process is profoundly similar to the behavior of an invasive species in an ecosystem.21
Like Japanese knotweed overwhelming a native forest, the malignant cells don’t just occupy space; they fundamentally alter the environment to suit their own needs, destroying the native architecture in the process.
This is the critical difference between “push” and “infiltrate.” A benign tumor pushes.
A malignant tumor infiltrates and consumes.
This is why a surgeon removing a benign tumor can often cleanly shell it out, but a surgeon removing a cancer must take wide margins of what appears to be healthy tissue, because they know that microscopic platoons of cancer cells have likely already begun their infiltration beyond the visible edge of the tumor.
They are not just removing the city; they are trying to clear its invading armies from the surrounding countryside.
Pillar 3 – Highways and Colonization (Metastasis)
If the first two pillars define the local character of a tumor, the third defines its ultimate, terrifying potential.
It is the difference between a local problem and a global catastrophe.
It is the ambition to build an empire.
The benign village is, and will always be, a local phenomenon.
It is self-contained.
Its citizens do not have the ability or the ambition to travel.
A benign tumor does not spread to other parts of the body.9
If it is completely removed, it is unlikely to grow back, because it has no hidden outposts.9
Its story begins and ends in one location.
The malignant sprawl has an imperial ambition.
Its defining power is metastasis, the process by which cancer cells achieve the seemingly impossible: they leave home, survive a perilous journey through the body, and establish a new colony in a distant organ.10
This is the single capability that makes cancer so lethal.
A primary tumor, even a large one, can often be managed with surgery or radiation.
It is the metastatic colonies that are responsible for the vast majority of cancer deaths.
This is not a random or accidental process.
It is a sophisticated, multi-step invasion.
First, the cancer cells must break away from the primary sprawl.
Then, they must invade and penetrate the body’s existing transportation infrastructure—the blood vessels or the lymphatic channels.
This is like the lawless citizens of our sprawl hijacking the local bus station or freight train depot.
Once in circulation, they must survive the journey, evading the patrols of the immune system.
Finally, they must find a suitable new territory, exit the vessel, and begin the process of building a new settlement.
A lung cancer cell that travels to the liver does not become a liver cancer cell; it remains a lung cancer cell, an alien colonist building a lung cancer settlement in the foreign territory of the liver.19
But the malignant sprawl is even more cunning than that.
It doesn’t just hijack existing infrastructure; it builds its own.
In a process called angiogenesis, malignant tumors send out chemical signals that trick the body into growing new blood vessels directly into the tumor.12
This is the biological equivalent of our rogue city building its own dedicated railway lines and superhighways.
These new vessels act as a private supply chain, bringing in oxygen and nutrients to fuel the tumor’s rapid growth, and as an escape route, providing a direct path for colonizing cells to enter the bloodstream and begin their metastatic journey.12
This is the exact dynamic observed in urban planning, where the construction of new transport networks enables a city to expand far beyond its original nucleus.14
This colonizing imperative is the ultimate expression of malignancy.
It transforms a local insurgency into a systemic war.
It explains why a surgeon might remove a primary tumor, only for the cancer to reappear years later in the brain, bones, or lungs.
The seeds of the empire had already been sown.
The colonists were already on their Way.
Table: The Tale of Two Tumors: A Village vs. The Sprawl
To distill these complex ideas into a clear, comparative framework, I began using this table in my discussions with clinical colleagues.
It became a powerful tool for translating the nuanced language of pathology into a shared strategic map.
| Feature | The Benign “Village” | The Malignant “Sprawl” |
| Cells (Citizens) | Orderly, well-differentiated, genetically stable. Respect social cues.10 | Chaotic, poorly-differentiated, genetically unstable. Ignore all signals.12 |
| Growth Rate | Generally slow and predictable.6 | Often rapid and uncontrolled.7 |
| Boundaries (Borders) | Clearly defined, often encapsulated. Pushes against, but does not invade, neighboring territory.6 | Irregular, invasive borders. Actively invades and destroys neighboring tissue.11 |
| Spread (Colonization) | Stays local. Does not metastasize.9 | Metastasizes to distant sites via blood or lymph systems. Builds its own “highways” (angiogenesis) to support growth and spread.10 |
| Recurrence after Removal | Unlikely to recur if fully excised.9 | More likely to recur, as undetected “colonists” (micrometastases) may already be present elsewhere.11 |
Part IV: A New Map for a Shared Journey
The Pathologist’s Report, Reimagined
My epiphany did more than just give me a new way to think; it gave me a new way to work.
The pathology report, once a sterile document of facts and labels, became a strategic map, an intelligence briefing for the front-line troops—the oncologists, the surgeons, and most importantly, the patients themselves.
The diagnosis I provide is the foundation upon which the entire treatment plan is built, determining everything from the scope of surgery to the choice of chemotherapy.2
Now, I had a way to imbue that foundation with meaning.
I remember a case not long after my “urban planning” revelation.
A man in his 50s was diagnosed with an adenocarcinoma, a common type of malignant tumor arising from glandular cells.13
The primary tumor in his colon was small, and he and his family were struggling to understand the urgency and the aggressiveness of the proposed treatment.
They were stuck on its size.
“How can something so small be so dangerous?” they asked.
The oncologist, with whom I had shared my new framework, sat down with them.
He had my report in his hand, but he didn’t just read the labels.
He drew them a map.
“Think of this tumor as a small, but very dangerous, rogue city,” he explained.
“My colleague, the pathologist, is our intelligence expert.
He’s looked at the ‘citizens’ of this city under his microscope.
And his report tells us two critical things.
First, the citizens are highly aggressive and poorly organized—what he calls ‘intermediate-grade’.13
They don’t follow any rules.
Second, and this is the most important part, he sees evidence that they are already trying to build their own highways out of the area.
We can’t see any new colonies yet, but the construction has begun.
That’s why we need to act decisively now.
We need to remove the city and a wide margin of the surrounding countryside to ensure we get any scouting parties that have been sent O.T. And then we need to send in our own patrols—chemotherapy—to search the rest of the landscape for any colonists that might have already escaped.
We are not just fighting the city you see on the scan; we are fighting its potential to build an empire.”
In that moment, everything changed for the family.
Their fear and confusion were replaced by understanding and resolve.
They weren’t just being subjected to a brutal treatment; they were participating in a clear, logical strategy.
The analogy gave them a “why.” It transformed them from passive victims into active partners in their own care.
It was a success not of medicine, but of communication.
From Diagnosis to Dialogue
My journey began in the quiet, certain world of the microscope, a world shattered by the failure of a single word.
I started as a purveyor of facts, an isolated diagnostician who believed that truth was a sufficient offering.
I learned, through painful experience, that facts are not enough.
The greatest challenge in medicine is often not the disease itself, but the profound difficulty of communicating about it in a way that empowers rather than terrifies.23
Effective communication is a cornerstone of quality cancer care, yet it remains one of the most common unmet needs for patients and their families.25
It requires us to move beyond our technical jargon and meet patients where they are, addressing both their need for information and their deep emotional turmoil.23
The “urban planning” analogy is not a perfect model.
No analogy Is. But its power lies in its ability to create a shared mental space.
It provides a narrative structure for a chaotic and frightening experience.
It allows a patient to visualize the enemy, to understand the strategy, and to reclaim a sense of agency in a situation that feels utterly disempowering.
My role has changed.
I still spend my days in the quiet of my lab, searching for truth in tissue.
But I no longer see myself as the final word.
I see myself as the first translator.
My epiphany wasn’t just about finding a clever metaphor.
It was about discovering the profound responsibility that comes with knowledge.
It was about realizing that my job is not just to see the truth, but to help build a bridge of understanding—a bridge strong enough for the patient, their family, and the entire medical team to walk across together, armed not just with data, but with clarity, courage, and a common purpose.
The journey from a benign village to a malignant sprawl is a biological one, but navigating it is a deeply human one.
And that requires a human language.
Works cited
- Biopsies | Johns Hopkins Medicine, accessed August 1, 2025, https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/treatment-tests-and-therapies/biopsies
- Breast Cancer & Breast Pathology, accessed August 1, 2025, https://pathology.jhu.edu/breast/
- Treatment Options – Bladder Cancer – Johns Hopkins Pathology, accessed August 1, 2025, https://pathology.jhu.edu/bladder-cancer/treatment-options
- Communicating Pathology and Laboratory Errors: Anatomic Pathologists’ and Laboratory Medical Directors’ Attitudes and Experiences – Oxford Academic, accessed August 1, 2025, https://academic.oup.com/ajcp/article/135/5/760/1766306
- The need for communication between clinicians and pathologists in the context of oral and maxillofacial diseases – SciELO, accessed August 1, 2025, https://www.scielo.br/j/bor/a/jQBFHNzGj9CdPcB6nDwhptN/
- Benign Tumor: Definition, Types & Symptoms – Cleveland Clinic, accessed August 1, 2025, https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/22121-benign-tumor
- Brain tumor – Symptoms and causes – Mayo Clinic, accessed August 1, 2025, https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/brain-tumor/symptoms-causes/syc-20350084
- Benign tumors: 5 common questions – MD Anderson Cancer Center, accessed August 1, 2025, https://www.mdanderson.org/cancerwise/what-are-benign-tumors-and-four-more-questions.h00-159536589.html
- Benign Tumors – MedlinePlus, accessed August 1, 2025, https://medlineplus.gov/benigntumors.html
- What is Cancer? The Basics., accessed August 1, 2025, https://ruesch.georgetown.edu/whatiscancer/
- Benign vs Malignant Tumors: What’s the Difference? – Cancer Treatment Centers of America, accessed August 1, 2025, https://www.cancercenter.com/community/blog/2023/01/whats-the-difference-benign-vs-malignant-tumors
- What Is Cancer? – NCI, accessed August 1, 2025, https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/understanding/what-is-cancer
- Adenocarcinoma: How this type of cancer affects prognosis – Mayo Clinic, accessed August 1, 2025, https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/cancer/in-depth/adenocarcinoma/art-20580469
- Large Cities And Cancer Share An Unexpected Similarity …, accessed August 1, 2025, https://www.sciencealert.com/large-cities-and-cancer-share-an-unexpected-similarity
- What Are Neoplasms and Tumors? – American Cancer Society, accessed August 1, 2025, https://www.cancer.org/cancer/understanding-cancer/what-is-cancer/neoplasms-and-tumors.html
- Benign vs. Malignant Tumors – Baptist Health, accessed August 1, 2025, https://www.baptisthealth.com/blog/cancer-care/benign-vs-malignant-tumors
- What Is a Benign Tumor? Do I Need to Worry? – Cedars-Sinai, accessed August 1, 2025, https://www.cedars-sinai.org/blog/diagnosed-with-benign-tumor.html
- Benign peripheral nerve tumor – Symptoms and causes – Mayo Clinic, accessed August 1, 2025, https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/peripheral-nerve-tumors-benign/symptoms-causes/syc-20368680
- Tumors: Benign, premalignant, and malignant – Medical News Today, accessed August 1, 2025, https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/249141
- Nasal and paranasal tumors – Symptoms and causes – Mayo Clinic, accessed August 1, 2025, https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/nasal-paranasal-tumors/symptoms-causes/syc-20354136
- Treating cancer as an invasive species – The Jackson Laboratory, accessed August 1, 2025, https://www.jax.org/news-and-insights/2019/november/treating-cancer-as-an-invasive-species
- Comparing Invasive Species to Metastatic Cancers Inspires New Insights for Modelers | JNCI – Oxford Academic, accessed August 1, 2025, https://academic.oup.com/jnci/article/100/2/88/1131207
- Communication in Cancer Care (PDQ®) – NCI, accessed August 1, 2025, https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/coping/adjusting-to-cancer/communication-hp-pdq
- New challenges in communication with cancer patients – SUNY Empire State College, accessed August 1, 2025, https://onesearch.sunyempire.edu/discovery/fulldisplay/alma996519565604825/01SUNY_ESC:01SUNY_ESC
- Communication to adult patients undergoing cancer care by non-specialist nurses: a scoping review protocol | BMJ Open, accessed August 1, 2025, https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/14/3/e081326
- Communication Needs of Cancer Patients and/or Caregivers: A Critical Literature Review, accessed August 1, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7229568/
