Module 2 Assessment
There are 3 questions in this asssment. Please click the yellow arrow to choose your answer. You will proceed to the next page if you answer correctly. Use the arrows on the top right corner to proceed to the next question.
Start Assessement
Mr. Ho is a 62-year-old man with a 30 pack-year tobacco history who quit 7 years ago. He has no other medical problems, no personal or family history of cancer, and no known occupational or environmental exposures. He presents for cardiovascular risk assessment, and a low-dose CT chest obtained for coronary calcium scoring incidentally reveals a 7 mm solid nodule in the right upper lobe with smooth margins. There are no prior chest imaging studies available for comparison. The remainder of the scan is unremarkable, with no emphysema, fibrosis, lymphadenopathy, or additional nodules.
According to the 2017 Fleischner Society guidelines, what is the most appropriate next step in management?
No follow-up required
Follow-up low-dose CT chest in 6–12 months
PET/CT immediately
Referral to thoracic surgery for biopsy or resection
Great Job!
Mr. Ho has a solid pulmonary nodule measuring 6–8 mm, which the 2017 Fleischner Society guidelines address as a distinct intermediate size category. For a single solid nodule in this size range, the guidelines recommend a follow-up CT at 6–12 months, with the interval determined by the patient's individual risk profile. A second CT at 18–24 months should then be considered if the nodule remains unchanged, particularly in higher-risk patients.Mr. Ho carries several features that place him in the higher-risk portion of this range and support follow-up closer to the 6-month end:
- Age greater than 50 years
- Substantial cumulative tobacco exposure (30 pack-years), with quit date within the past 15 years (risk remains elevated for approximately 15 years after cessation)
- Upper lobe location, which is independently associated with increased malignancy risk
- Male sex in the setting of heavy prior tobacco use
The smooth margin is a reassuring feature that lowers, but does not eliminate, concern. Smooth margins are more commonly associated with benign lesions such as granulomas, hamartomas, or intrapulmonary lymph nodes, while spiculated or lobulated margins carry higher malignant potential.
Mr. Ho returns 9 months later for his scheduled follow-up CT. The previously identified right upper lobe nodule now measures 11 mm and has developed spiculated margins.
Using the Mayo Clinic risk model variables, which of the following best describes Mr. Ho's current risk category and the most appropriate next step?
Low risk (<5%); continue CT surveillance at 12 months
Indeterminate; repeat CT in 3 months to confirm growth
High risk (>65%); refer directly to thoracic surgery without additional imaging
Intermediate risk (5–65%); obtain PET/CT to further refine risk stratification
Great Job!
Mr. Ho now has multiple Mayo Clinic model risk factors working against him: age over 50, substantial prior tobacco use, upper lobe location, increased nodule size (now greater than 8 mm), and newly developed spiculation. Documented interval growth of approximately 4 mm over 9 months is itself highly suspicious, as a growth threshold of 2 mm is considered clinically meaningful per post-2017 Fleischner Society clarifications.At this point, PET/CT becomes clinically valuable for several reasons:
- The nodule now exceeds the 8 mm threshold where PET sensitivity improves substantially
- Quantitative risk modeling using the Mayo Clinic calculator would likely place him in the intermediate-to-high risk range
- PET can help refine whether to proceed directly to biopsy versus resection
If the pretest probability is ultimately high, PET also provides critical staging information by evaluating regional lymph nodes and potential distant metastases before definitive treatment planning. An SUV greater than 2.5 would further support malignancy and strengthen the case for tissue diagnosis or surgical resection. A negative PET in this clinical context would still warrant close follow-up or biopsy given the documented growth and morphologic change, because PET cannot definitively exclude malignancy.
Consider an alternative scenario. Instead of the 7 mm solid nodule, Mr. Ho's initial CT reveals a 9 mm pure ground-glass nodule in the right upper lobe.
Which risk model would most appropriately quantify his malignancy risk, and why?
Brock University model, because it applies to both solid and subsolid nodules and accounts for ground-glass morphology
Mayo Clinic model, because it was specifically validated for upper lobe nodules
Neither model applies; management should rely solely on Fleischner guidelines
Both models perform equivalently for subsolid nodules
Great Job!
The Brock University (PanCan) model was derived from a lung cancer screening cohort and is validated for both solid and subsolid nodules, including pure ground-glass and part-solid lesions. It incorporates variables not included in the Mayo model, such as:
- Patient age and sex
- Family history of lung cancer
- CT evidence of emphysema
- Total number of nodules
- Dominant nodule features including size, location, morphology (solid, part-solid, ground-glass), and spiculation
Because the Mayo Clinic model was derived and validated only for solid nodules at least 4 mm in diameter, it would not accurately estimate risk for a pure ground-glass lesion. Subsolid nodules behave differently from solid nodules: they carry a higher overall probability of malignancy when persistent, but typically represent indolent lesions along the adenocarcinoma spectrum (adenocarcinoma in situ, minimally invasive adenocarcinoma, or lepidic-predominant adenocarcinoma) with slow growth patterns.
For this reason, Fleischner Society guidelines recommend longer surveillance intervals for subsolid nodules, with follow-up CT at 6–12 months to confirm persistence, followed by periodic imaging every 2 years for up to 5 years. PET/CT is generally less useful for pure ground-glass nodules because their low cellular density and indolent metabolism frequently produce false-negative results, regardless of whether the lesion is malignant.
Great Work! You completed Module 2.
Incorrect, Please try again
The Mayo model does include upper lobe location as a variable, but it is not validated for subsolid nodules.
Incorrect, Please try again
No follow-up would be appropriate only for solid nodules smaller than 6 mm in a low-risk patient. Mr. H's nodule exceeds this threshold, and his substantial tobacco history and upper-lobe location classify him as higher-risk. Discharging him without surveillance would miss an opportunity to detect malignancy at an early, potentially curable stage.
Incorrect, Please try again.
PET/CT is not recommended as a first-line evaluation for solid nodules in this size range. The sensitivity of FDG-PET decreases substantially for nodules smaller than 8 mm because the metabolic activity of small lesions may fall below the resolution threshold of the scanner, producing false-negative results. PET is also prone to false positives from infectious or inflammatory processes such as granulomatous disease. PET/CT becomes more clinically useful for solid nodules larger than 8 mm or when the estimated pretest probability of malignancy falls in the intermediate range (5–65%) after initial surveillance or risk modeling.
Incorrect, Please try again.
While surgical referral will likely be needed, obtaining PET/CT first provides essential staging information and helps guide the surgical approach (wedge resection versus lobectomy, need for mediastinal sampling).
Incorrect, Please try again.
Quantitative risk models are complementary to Fleischner guidelines, not mutually exclusive. Both should inform shared decision-making.
Incorrect, Please try again
Continued watchful waiting is inappropriate given documented growth and new spiculation, which together substantially increase malignancy probability.
Incorrect, Please try again.
Referral for biopsy or surgical resection is premature without either documented growth on serial imaging, a high pretest probability of malignancy based on quantitative risk modeling, or concerning morphologic features such as spiculation. Proceeding to invasive evaluation in a 7 mm smooth-margined nodule would expose the patient to procedural risks (pneumothorax, hemorrhage, surgical complications) that likely outweigh the benefit, given the relatively low baseline probability of malignancy in nodules of this size and appearance.
Incorrect, Please try again.
The growth has already been documented between the baseline and 9-month scans. Additional short-interval imaging would only delay definitive evaluation.
Incorrect, Please try again.
The models are not equivalent; their derivation populations, included variables, and applicable nodule types differ substantially.
Nodules Module 2 Assessment
B4 Symptoms
Created on April 23, 2026
Start designing with a free template
Discover more than 1500 professional designs like these:
View
Customer Service Course
View
Dynamic Visual Course
View
Dynamic Learning Course
View
Akihabara Course
Explore all templates
Transcript
Module 2 Assessment
There are 3 questions in this asssment. Please click the yellow arrow to choose your answer. You will proceed to the next page if you answer correctly. Use the arrows on the top right corner to proceed to the next question.
Start Assessement
Mr. Ho is a 62-year-old man with a 30 pack-year tobacco history who quit 7 years ago. He has no other medical problems, no personal or family history of cancer, and no known occupational or environmental exposures. He presents for cardiovascular risk assessment, and a low-dose CT chest obtained for coronary calcium scoring incidentally reveals a 7 mm solid nodule in the right upper lobe with smooth margins. There are no prior chest imaging studies available for comparison. The remainder of the scan is unremarkable, with no emphysema, fibrosis, lymphadenopathy, or additional nodules.
According to the 2017 Fleischner Society guidelines, what is the most appropriate next step in management?
No follow-up required
Follow-up low-dose CT chest in 6–12 months
PET/CT immediately
Referral to thoracic surgery for biopsy or resection
Great Job!
Mr. Ho has a solid pulmonary nodule measuring 6–8 mm, which the 2017 Fleischner Society guidelines address as a distinct intermediate size category. For a single solid nodule in this size range, the guidelines recommend a follow-up CT at 6–12 months, with the interval determined by the patient's individual risk profile. A second CT at 18–24 months should then be considered if the nodule remains unchanged, particularly in higher-risk patients.Mr. Ho carries several features that place him in the higher-risk portion of this range and support follow-up closer to the 6-month end:
- Age greater than 50 years
- Substantial cumulative tobacco exposure (30 pack-years), with quit date within the past 15 years (risk remains elevated for approximately 15 years after cessation)
- Upper lobe location, which is independently associated with increased malignancy risk
- Male sex in the setting of heavy prior tobacco use
The smooth margin is a reassuring feature that lowers, but does not eliminate, concern. Smooth margins are more commonly associated with benign lesions such as granulomas, hamartomas, or intrapulmonary lymph nodes, while spiculated or lobulated margins carry higher malignant potential.Mr. Ho returns 9 months later for his scheduled follow-up CT. The previously identified right upper lobe nodule now measures 11 mm and has developed spiculated margins.
Using the Mayo Clinic risk model variables, which of the following best describes Mr. Ho's current risk category and the most appropriate next step?
Low risk (<5%); continue CT surveillance at 12 months
Indeterminate; repeat CT in 3 months to confirm growth
High risk (>65%); refer directly to thoracic surgery without additional imaging
Intermediate risk (5–65%); obtain PET/CT to further refine risk stratification
Great Job!
Mr. Ho now has multiple Mayo Clinic model risk factors working against him: age over 50, substantial prior tobacco use, upper lobe location, increased nodule size (now greater than 8 mm), and newly developed spiculation. Documented interval growth of approximately 4 mm over 9 months is itself highly suspicious, as a growth threshold of 2 mm is considered clinically meaningful per post-2017 Fleischner Society clarifications.At this point, PET/CT becomes clinically valuable for several reasons:
- The nodule now exceeds the 8 mm threshold where PET sensitivity improves substantially
- Quantitative risk modeling using the Mayo Clinic calculator would likely place him in the intermediate-to-high risk range
- PET can help refine whether to proceed directly to biopsy versus resection
If the pretest probability is ultimately high, PET also provides critical staging information by evaluating regional lymph nodes and potential distant metastases before definitive treatment planning. An SUV greater than 2.5 would further support malignancy and strengthen the case for tissue diagnosis or surgical resection. A negative PET in this clinical context would still warrant close follow-up or biopsy given the documented growth and morphologic change, because PET cannot definitively exclude malignancy.Consider an alternative scenario. Instead of the 7 mm solid nodule, Mr. Ho's initial CT reveals a 9 mm pure ground-glass nodule in the right upper lobe.
Which risk model would most appropriately quantify his malignancy risk, and why?
Brock University model, because it applies to both solid and subsolid nodules and accounts for ground-glass morphology
Mayo Clinic model, because it was specifically validated for upper lobe nodules
Neither model applies; management should rely solely on Fleischner guidelines
Both models perform equivalently for subsolid nodules
Great Job!
The Brock University (PanCan) model was derived from a lung cancer screening cohort and is validated for both solid and subsolid nodules, including pure ground-glass and part-solid lesions. It incorporates variables not included in the Mayo model, such as:
- Patient age and sex
- Family history of lung cancer
- CT evidence of emphysema
- Total number of nodules
- Dominant nodule features including size, location, morphology (solid, part-solid, ground-glass), and spiculation
Because the Mayo Clinic model was derived and validated only for solid nodules at least 4 mm in diameter, it would not accurately estimate risk for a pure ground-glass lesion. Subsolid nodules behave differently from solid nodules: they carry a higher overall probability of malignancy when persistent, but typically represent indolent lesions along the adenocarcinoma spectrum (adenocarcinoma in situ, minimally invasive adenocarcinoma, or lepidic-predominant adenocarcinoma) with slow growth patterns. For this reason, Fleischner Society guidelines recommend longer surveillance intervals for subsolid nodules, with follow-up CT at 6–12 months to confirm persistence, followed by periodic imaging every 2 years for up to 5 years. PET/CT is generally less useful for pure ground-glass nodules because their low cellular density and indolent metabolism frequently produce false-negative results, regardless of whether the lesion is malignant.Great Work! You completed Module 2.
Incorrect, Please try again
The Mayo model does include upper lobe location as a variable, but it is not validated for subsolid nodules.
Incorrect, Please try again
No follow-up would be appropriate only for solid nodules smaller than 6 mm in a low-risk patient. Mr. H's nodule exceeds this threshold, and his substantial tobacco history and upper-lobe location classify him as higher-risk. Discharging him without surveillance would miss an opportunity to detect malignancy at an early, potentially curable stage.
Incorrect, Please try again.
PET/CT is not recommended as a first-line evaluation for solid nodules in this size range. The sensitivity of FDG-PET decreases substantially for nodules smaller than 8 mm because the metabolic activity of small lesions may fall below the resolution threshold of the scanner, producing false-negative results. PET is also prone to false positives from infectious or inflammatory processes such as granulomatous disease. PET/CT becomes more clinically useful for solid nodules larger than 8 mm or when the estimated pretest probability of malignancy falls in the intermediate range (5–65%) after initial surveillance or risk modeling.
Incorrect, Please try again.
While surgical referral will likely be needed, obtaining PET/CT first provides essential staging information and helps guide the surgical approach (wedge resection versus lobectomy, need for mediastinal sampling).
Incorrect, Please try again.
Quantitative risk models are complementary to Fleischner guidelines, not mutually exclusive. Both should inform shared decision-making.
Incorrect, Please try again
Continued watchful waiting is inappropriate given documented growth and new spiculation, which together substantially increase malignancy probability.
Incorrect, Please try again.
Referral for biopsy or surgical resection is premature without either documented growth on serial imaging, a high pretest probability of malignancy based on quantitative risk modeling, or concerning morphologic features such as spiculation. Proceeding to invasive evaluation in a 7 mm smooth-margined nodule would expose the patient to procedural risks (pneumothorax, hemorrhage, surgical complications) that likely outweigh the benefit, given the relatively low baseline probability of malignancy in nodules of this size and appearance.
Incorrect, Please try again.
The growth has already been documented between the baseline and 9-month scans. Additional short-interval imaging would only delay definitive evaluation.
Incorrect, Please try again.
The models are not equivalent; their derivation populations, included variables, and applicable nodule types differ substantially.