This site or third-party tools used by this make use of cookies necessary for the operation and useful for the purposes described in the cookie policy. By clicking on "I accept" you consent to the use of cookies.

The solitary nodule of the lung, follow-up

  1. Gastroepato
  2. Pneumology
  3. The solitary nodule of the lung
  4. The solitary nodule of the lung
  5. Classification of lung tumors: histological types
  6. Lung cancer, why?
  7. Lung cancer, what to do?

notes by  dr Claudio Italiano

Evaluation of risk factors

The stratification of patient risk takes on critical importance to define the probabilities of a carcinoma.
This stratification must be carried out before any examination is carried out.
To this end, numerous models have been developed and validated, which estimate the probability of malignancy of the nodules based on factors such as:

- age of the patient
- cigarette smoke
- the neoplastic history
-the size, shape and location of the nodules.

Differential diagnosis

The differential diagnosis is made towards other lesions, usually phlogistic, tuberculous, mycetomas, luetic rubbers and, above all, in the nodules related to the pulmonary interstitial pathologies, very widespread.
- Calcific lung abscess
- tuberculoma
- luetic rubber
- mycetoma
- parasitic
- asbestosis
- incident nodules of interstitiopathies, in pneumoconiosis, are small and multiple nodules, with a ground-like lung.
- nodules in the course of anthracosis (accumulation of coal dust)
- asbestosis

How to study nodular lesions

see also >> solitary pulmonary nodules

Solitary nodules of the lung can be followed with imaging tests such as chest radiographs, computed tomography (TQ tomography with positron emission with fluorine-deoxy-glucose (fluorodeoxygIucose -positron emission tomography, FDG-PET).

The choice of imaging modality is based on the guidelines formulated by ACCP. Some concepts can be drawn from this review. To exclude false-positive results, chest radiographs should always be evaluated in different projections. To evaluate the initial appearance of the nodule and to determine the doubling time of its size, a review of previous available radiographic examinations is useful.

The chest radiograph is potentially able to display nodules of a diameter of up to 5-6 mm; however, the method presents a high rate of false-negative results. Up to 20% c of non-small cell lung carcinomas are retrospectively identified in the reexamination of chest radiographs that were initially considered normal.

 The chest CT scan has higher specificity and sensitivity than radiography.
The CT also allows an assessment of surrounding structures. All patients with a solitary nodule of the lung that is poorly characterized on chest radiographs must undergo a CT scan.

CT is the imaging modality of choice to re-evaluate pulmonary nodules previously identified on the chest radiograph, as well as to follow the nodules as a function of time, in order to evaluate any changes in size.

PET-FDG is a method of non-invasive imaging that is typically used in the field of oncology for the diagnosis, staging and evaluation of the response to treatment of various neoplastic forms. FDG is selectively captured by malignant tumor cells, allowing its visualization by PET

In the lung parenchyma window we can evaluate the following characteristics of a NP:

 Dimensions
 Margins (smooth, lobulated, irregular, spiculated)
 Form (spherical, not spherical)
 Density (solid, partially solid, to "frosted glass")

In the mediastinal / soft tissue window we can evaluate the following characteristics of an NP:
 Fat components
 Calcifications (diffuse, central, "pop corn", laminar, pinpoint, eccentric)
 Post-contrast enhancement

Algorithms for setting up follow-up

The 2017 Fleischner Society (2017) guidelines on NP management of solitary lung nodules provide two distinct algorithms for setting patient follow-up.

 The choice between the two algorithms depends on the size of the nodule, less than 8 mm or greater than or equal to 8 mm, with an increased probability of malignancy of the lesions.

The rationale of the new guidelines is based on the assumption that the follow-up of one or more incidental nodules should be performed only if the probability of malignancy is greater than or equal to 1% for which it is not recommended in the nodules, both solids and not solid, smaller than 6 mm even in high-risk patients.

They are considered risk factors for malignancy of an NP:
- seat in the upper lobes,
- spiculated margins,
- smoking,
- old age,
- familiarity with pulmonary neoplasm.

In summary, for solid NPs of 6-8 mm, in patients at low risk, only one follow-up examination (6-12 months) is usually sufficient, in case of stability; in the case of nodules of suspected morphology or of uncertain stability, a further check at 18-24 months from the baseline can be indicated.
 For 6-8 mm solid NPs, in patients at high risk, a follow-up examination at 6-12 months and a follow-up at 18-24 months is required. The second test is usually sufficient, in case of certain stability, to exclude the risk of neoplasia; in the case of nodules of suspected morphology or of uncertain stability a further check may be indicated.
For solid NPs> 8 mm, regardless of the risk, a three-month CT scan may be proposed, or alternatively a TC-PET assessment or a biopsy
The guidelines also apply to patients who can not undergo surgery.
Since the only potentially definitive treatment of lung cancer is surgical excision, the algorithm recommends a more limited evaluation in these patients.
For patients with nodules smaller than 8 mm, specific follow-up protocols are recommended based on the size of the lesion: less than 4 mm, between 4 mm and less than 6 mm, between 6 mm and less than 8 mm.
The indication to interrupt the follow-up after 2 years is based on the fact that the malignant pulmonary nodules typically have a doubling time of less than one year; therefore, a stable lesion at a 2-year follow-up, without suspected morphologic features and in a low-risk patient may be considered benign.
In high-risk patients with stable lesions of less than 8 mm, the performance of FDG PET may also be considered; this indication is not however specifically provided for in the guidelines.
Two nodular neoplastic lesions are visible at the right lung, under the port-au-cath, personal case
Due to the reduced sensitivity of the method in the evaluation of lesions smaller than 8-1 0 mm.
All patients with nodules showing substantial growth during follow-up, or with positive results (high metabolic activity) to FDG-PET should undergo further evaluation, typically with surgical biopsy, needle biopsy or bronchoscopy.
As discussed above, patients with nodules larger than 8 mm are followed according to a different algorithm.
The nodules should initially be evaluated by comparison with previous imaging exams, so as to be able to determine any changes in their size as a function of time.
Nodules of stable size for more than 2 years can be followed without any intervention, with the exception of cases in which morphological evaluation suggests malignancy (eg frosted glass opacity, irregular margins).


In patients who can not undergo surgery, however, a biopsy can be considered, to define a diagnosis, and radiotherapy or palliative care can be undertaken.
The follow-up protocol of potential patients for surgical intervention is defined based on the pre-test probabilities of the malignancy of the nodule (using the predictive model, discussed above, based on risk factors: age of the patient; cigarette smoke, previous history of carcinomas, size, morphology and location of the nodule). "
This assessment allows a risk stratification: high probability of malignancy (over 60%); low probability (less than 5%); intermediate probability (between 5 and 60%), which affects the majority of patients. To subdivide these patients into a low-risk group and a high-risk group, further tests are required.

cfr index pneumology