Some practitioners argue that a false-positive result is a problem presumably because it would lead to unnecessary procedures where a lesion is diagnosed as lung cancer but at resection, is not.5 Dr Dieter argues the opposite: His patient would not have undergone a potentially curative surgical resection because of a nodal metastasis diagnosis based on EBUS. Although his case may raise concern and make practitioners wary of their EBUS results, we have questions regarding Dr Dieter’s example. Which right-sided lymph node was positive on EBUS, mediastinal or hilar? If it was a hilar lymph node, the stage would likely be one in which curative resection was still possible despite lymph node metastasis. What made him doubt the results of the EBUS? The PET scan findings were considered positive, which supported the assumption that there was lymph node metastasis. Prior to surgical resection, should the patient have been referred for surgical confirmation with a mediastinoscopy if the EBUS-based diagnosis was in doubt? Before sending the patient for a thoracotomy, another method more invasive than EBUS but less invasive than thoracotomy to evaluate the mediastinum could have been performed. Was the lymph node that was positive at EBUS among the 18 hilar and mediastinal lymph nodes that were removed? This would verify the false-positive finding of the node sampled at EBUS. Is there any long-term follow-up on the patient to determine whether she has had subsequent recurrence?