Cowboy-
I can point you to so many examples of misdiagnoses in lymphoma because it's an incredibly difficult dx to make, and generally the only pathologist qualified to do so is a blood or hematopathologist, and I don't know where you live but these pathologists aren't everywhere, they're mostly found at NCI-designated comprehensive cancer centers.
Now, if yours is a B-cell lymphoma, those are easier to dx accurately than T-cell lymphomas, but the consequences of a misdiagnosis is just as drastic. I wrote about misdiagnoses a while back, you can see an example in that blog entry, note the difference between prognoses in the two samples. Also check out our tip at second opinions on pathology results.
It's not limited to lymphomas. Just the other day the New York Times featured a story about a woman's breast cancer diagnosis, for which she received hardcore treatment that included excision of part of her breast ... only to learn that the pathologist was wrong- she'd never even had cancer.
As for lymphoma, we all discuss the 50 or so subtypes of lymphoma as being similar diseases, but in reality they're entirely different cancers from one another. So you get the DLBCL diagnosis, begin R-CHOP chemotherapy, a few months later you learn that it's actually Burkitt's lymphoma and you should have been getting, I don't know, like dose-escalated EPOCH, a different regimen. That's wasted time and wasted, unnecessary toxicity.
All this said, if you're being seen at a place like MD Anderson in Houston, you probably don't need to seek another opinion, because more than one of their qualified pathologists likely reviewed the slide. If you're going to Smalltown Community Hospital, then yes-- these people just don't see enough of these cancers to be any good at determining what's up.
I noted in another post to you that you seem to be in the low-risk group anyway. Doesn't mean you're safe, and cancer stats can be bunk, but the IPI (Int'l Prognostic Index) for NHL has been vetted extensively and stands up well. In fact, the cure percentages it offers are on the conservative end because the Index doesn't take into consideration the blockbuster NHL drug of the past decade, Rituxan.
In short, man there's not a whole lot you can do but the impossible- be patient. Easy for me to say, I know; I'd tell me to go f*ck myself. But let's say they gave you the chance to start chemo this afternoon. Chemo is serious, serious stuff, and it may not be the best course of action. Do you really think you're in the best frame of mind right now to make such a decision? No way, especially because your head is spinning; you're probably bouncing from site to site almost with the compulsiveness of a gambling addict; that last site was good, but the web is huge, there's gotta be another site out there with the answers I need, so you find another, but no satisfaction, then another, each one sparking your hopes before dashing them. Who among us hasn't thought that no matter the question, the web has the answer?
Finally-- and let me say, I'm not a cancer survivor, for all I know I don't have cancer and never have--- I do understand that when you live outside the cancer community you have no f**king idea just how gargantuan it is until you're forced in- either by your own dx or for me that of a loved one- and it's like holy ****, if cancer was a city it would be like Chicago O'Hare before Thanksgiving, swarms of people going every which way with their own determined agendas. Cancer lends itself so easily to metaphors because at its most basic, it's unrestrained cell growth, or as one author puts it, cancer cells are "a disorganized autonomous mob of maladjusted adolescents ... a street gang intent on mayhem." But the environment around cancer- the websites, the treatments, the research, the fear, the media representation, has that same chaotic feel. It's not something you can learn about in a night and be caught up. You won't be caught up in a year, or ten. There's no such thing.
Ross