Since your paragraph is a jumble of quite a lot of questions, I will separate them and touch on each briefly.
Even though it considers pneumonia, you don't think she had pneumonia, right?
Her sudden onset signs make pneumonia less likely here so that wouldn't have been on top of my differential list.
In the US, for some reason, infiltrates and tissue seem to be viewed as separate. Can you explain a little more when you have the time about what the report actually says as it says so much more than the other and I understand little of it.
Tissue and infiltrates are different. Its nodules and infiltrates that often are the same. If you meant those were different contextually, then I suppose they are trying to differentiate between abnormalities on and inside the lung tissue. Though as x-ray is two dimensional that would be difficult and not really change anything diagnostically. As for interpreting the
Would the fluid that drained from her mouth upon CPR have been compatible with the cancer and have developed from the cancer decompensation?
Yes, it would.
The initial rad report said that the infiltrates were worst in the "ventral aspect of the cranial to mid lungs". Aspiration usually falls down due to gravity and typically has a heavier concentration in the ventral areas near the sternum. Would that be what the rad report said or am I totally confused?
Dorsal is towards the back, ventral is down or towards the belly. Cranial is towards the head and caudal is towards the tail. Ventral aspect of the cranial to mid lung just means the bottom of the lung tissues closer to the head and middle of the chest. I think my spell check on my phone (all I had on me and why it was difficult to answer this weekend) may have been playing up there. Aspiration though tends to be cranial lobes but dorsal and ventral, where this goes further back and doesn't have that pattern.
If her mouth was not held closed and remained level and she didn't swallow it, wouldn't the 1/2 cc liquid have just rolled out of her mouth when I opened her teeth to give her the next dose?
It would have rolled out.
The first rad report says the worst infiltrates are in the caudorsal lungs and the ventral aspect of the cranial to mid lungs. Is that compatible with or counter to aspiration?
No, because again we expect aspiration to lead to cranial dorsal and ventral signs not caudodorsal ones.
It looks like from these two reports that pneumonia is considered in both and possible nodules are mentioned in one. What is your assessment now that we have this additional report?
My assessment hasn't changed. As I noted, pneumonia is always an x-ray differential when we are looking at lungs. But the pattern looks more like neoplasia to me.