The Fleischner Society, an international organization dedicated to thoracic imaging, periodically releases guidelines to standardize the management of incidentally detected pulmonary nodules. The recommendations published in 2017 provided an updated framework for assessing and following up on these nodules, based on size, morphology, and patient risk factors.
These guidelines are important because they offer a structured approach to evaluating pulmonary nodules, helping to reduce unnecessary imaging and invasive procedures while ensuring timely detection of lung cancer. The recommendations take into account the probability of malignancy based on nodule characteristics and patient history, allowing clinicians to tailor surveillance strategies appropriately. Prior to these guidelines, approaches to nodule management were often variable, potentially leading to over- or under-treatment.
The recommendations address several key areas, including the criteria for defining solid, subsolid, and multiple nodules, as well as specific algorithms for management based on nodule size and the presence of risk factors. A crucial component involves distinguishing between pure ground-glass nodules, part-solid nodules, and solid nodules, as each carries a different likelihood of malignancy and requires a different approach to surveillance.
1. Nodule size assessment
The Fleischner Society’s 2017 recommendations placed significant emphasis on nodule size assessment, representing a cornerstone of the updated guidelines. Rather than viewing size in isolation, the guidelines integrated it with other factors like nodule type (solid, subsolid), location, and patient risk profile to determine appropriate management strategies. Consider a 6mm solid nodule in a young, never-smoker versus the same-sized nodule in a 70-year-old with a history of heavy smoking. The guidelines recognized that the malignancy risk is vastly different, dictating different follow-up intervals or even immediate surveillance cessation for the low-risk individual. Thus, the act of accurately measuring the nodule became not just a technical exercise, but a critical step impacting subsequent patient care decisions.
The precision of nodule measurement, emphasized by the guidelines, directly influences the application of specific follow-up algorithms. For example, a nodule measured at 7mm might trigger a different follow-up schedule than one measured at 6mm, even though the difference is relatively small. Radiologists are therefore tasked with careful, reproducible measurements. Furthermore, the recommendations provided clarity on how to measure part-solid nodules, advocating for measuring the solid component rather than the entire nodule diameter for determining management. This distinction is critical because the solid component is more indicative of potential malignancy.
In summary, nodule size assessment, when viewed through the lens of the Fleischner Society recommendations, transforms from a simple measurement into a pivotal factor in risk stratification and management planning. The guidelines offer a structured approach, but ultimately, careful and consistent nodule measurement is essential for successful implementation and optimal patient outcomes. The recommendations helped to ensure better and specific follow-up for pulmonary nodules.
2. Subsolid nodule management
Before 2017, the approach to subsolid pulmonary nodules those hazy opacities sometimes described as ground-glass or part-solid lacked a unified strategy. Imaging practices varied widely, and the path forward for patients often depended heavily on individual physician preference. The arrival of the Fleischner Society’s 2017 guidelines changed this landscape, providing a standardized framework for evaluating and managing these often-indolent yet potentially malignant lesions. The link between the recommendations and subsolid nodule management is profound; the former essentially defined the latter. The absence of such guidance led to both over-treatment (unnecessary surgeries) and under-treatment (missed or delayed diagnoses). The 2017 recommendations addressed this gap directly, changing the course of clinical practice.
One crucial element was the differentiation between pure ground-glass nodules (GGNs) and part-solid nodules. The recommendations highlighted the often slow-growing nature of pure GGNs and suggested longer surveillance intervals compared to solid nodules of similar size. This allowed clinicians to avoid aggressive interventions for lesions with a low likelihood of progression. Consider the case of a patient with a persistent 8mm ground-glass nodule detected incidentally. Before the 2017 guidelines, such a finding might have prompted a biopsy. Post-2017, the Fleischner Society recommendations would advocate for continued monitoring with CT scans, potentially avoiding an invasive procedure. For part-solid nodules, the focus shifted to measuring the solid component, as its size is more indicative of the nodule’s malignant potential. The recommendations provided specific intervals for follow-up based on this solid component’s size.
The legacy of these guidelines extends beyond the immediate management of identified subsolid nodules. The clarity and precision they offered fostered a shared understanding within the medical community, improved communication between radiologists and clinicians, and ultimately contributed to better patient outcomes. While challenges remain such as the need for improved diagnostic techniques to differentiate benign from malignant subsolid nodules early in their development the Fleischner Society’s 2017 recommendations provided a crucial step forward, ushering in an era of more rational, evidence-based management of these complex pulmonary findings. The guidance helped ensure a better care for the patients.
3. Risk factor stratification
The 2017 guidelines of the Fleischner Society didn’t simply provide a checklist for nodule sizes; they wove a more nuanced narrative that deeply considered the patient. Risk factor stratification emerged not as an optional addendum, but as a foundational principle influencing the entire management strategy. It acknowledged that a nodule’s behavior is not solely dictated by its dimensions, but rather by the environment in which it resides – the patient’s own risk profile.
-
Smoking History
Smoking, an old adversary in the realm of pulmonary health, remains a key determinant. A lifelong smoker presents a vastly different landscape than a never-smoker when a pulmonary nodule appears. The guidelines accounted for this, acknowledging the heightened risk of malignancy in individuals with a significant smoking history. For instance, a small nodule in a heavy smoker might warrant closer scrutiny and more frequent follow-up imaging than the same-sized nodule in someone who has never smoked. This stratification based on smoking history allowed clinicians to tailor surveillance intensity to the individual’s risk, avoiding unnecessary interventions in lower-risk populations while ensuring timely detection in those at higher risk.
-
Age
Time, an inevitable companion, also factored into the equation. Older individuals, statistically, bear a greater risk of malignancy. The guidelines recognized this age-related increase in risk, adjusting surveillance protocols accordingly. A nodule discovered in an octogenarian would likely prompt a different management approach compared to an identical nodule found in a young adult. The underlying rationale is rooted in the higher prevalence of lung cancer in older populations. By considering age as a risk factor, the Fleischner Society recommendations promoted age-appropriate care, balancing the need for early detection with the potential harms of over-investigation in older patients.
-
History of Cancer
The presence of prior malignancy, particularly lung cancer or other cancers known to metastasize to the lungs, elevated the risk profile. The guidelines highlighted the importance of considering a nodule as a potential metastasis in patients with a relevant cancer history. This required a more vigilant approach, often involving shorter follow-up intervals or consideration of biopsy to confirm or exclude metastasis. A patient with a history of breast cancer, for example, would warrant a more cautious approach to a newly discovered pulmonary nodule due to the possibility of metastatic disease. Stratifying based on prior cancer history allowed for the prompt identification of metastatic lesions, potentially improving outcomes through timely intervention.
-
Other Risk Factors
Beyond smoking, age, and cancer history, the Fleischner Society recommendations acknowledged the influence of other factors, albeit with less prescriptive guidance. Occupational exposures to carcinogens, a family history of lung cancer, and the presence of underlying lung diseases like emphysema could all contribute to a higher risk profile. These “other” risk factors added a layer of complexity to the stratification process, requiring clinicians to exercise their judgment and consider the totality of the patient’s circumstances. While the guidelines didn’t provide specific algorithms for these factors, they emphasized the importance of incorporating them into the overall risk assessment, reinforcing the principle that nodule management should be individualized and patient-centered.
Ultimately, the integration of risk factor stratification within the 2017 Fleischner Society recommendations served as a reminder that imaging findings must always be interpreted within the broader clinical context. The guidelines moved beyond a purely size-based approach, embracing a more holistic perspective that considered the individual patient’s risk of harboring or developing lung cancer. This shift towards personalized nodule management represented a significant advancement in the field, paving the way for more effective and efficient utilization of imaging resources and, most importantly, improved patient outcomes.
4. Part-solid nodule approach
Prior to the Fleischner Society’s 2017 guidelines, the management of part-solid nodules, those radiological enigmas exhibiting both ground-glass and solid components, was characterized by inconsistency. Physicians grappled with the question of which component to prioritize when determining follow-up. This ambiguity often led to either overly aggressive interventions or, conversely, a delayed recognition of potentially aggressive malignancies. The recommendations sought to inject clarity into this confusing landscape, offering a structured methodology for approaching these complex lesions.
-
Measuring the Solid Component
The core innovation of the 2017 guidelines regarding part-solid nodules centered on prioritizing the measurement of the solid component. The reasoning behind this was that the solid portion generally reflects the more aggressive, invasive aspect of the nodule, and thus provides a better indicator of potential malignancy. Consider the hypothetical case of a nodule measuring 12mm overall, but with a solid component of only 5mm. Under prior practices, the overall size might have prompted more immediate concern. The guidelines, however, directed attention to the 5mm solid component, potentially leading to a less aggressive initial follow-up strategy. This shift in focus allowed for a more tailored approach, mitigating the risk of unnecessary procedures for indolent lesions while ensuring adequate surveillance for those with concerning solid growth.
-
Initial Follow-Up Intervals
Based on the size of the solid component, the guidelines established specific follow-up intervals. Nodules with small solid components (e.g., less than 6mm) typically warranted longer intervals for repeat imaging, often several months, to assess for growth or change. Conversely, larger solid components necessitated shorter intervals, prompting more frequent monitoring. This graduated approach allowed clinicians to calibrate surveillance intensity based on the perceived risk. The guidelines acted as a compass, guiding physicians through the complex terrain of part-solid nodule management, preventing them from getting lost in a sea of uncertainty and promoting a more standardized, evidence-based approach.
-
Persistence and Evolution
The recommendations emphasized the importance of assessing the persistence and evolution of part-solid nodules over time. Unlike transient inflammatory changes, true neoplastic nodules tend to persist and may exhibit growth, particularly in the solid component. The guidelines provided a framework for interpreting these changes, outlining criteria for determining whether a nodule should be considered stable, growing, or resolving. This dynamic assessment was crucial, as it allowed clinicians to differentiate between benign and potentially malignant lesions, informing decisions regarding biopsy or more aggressive interventions. The recommendations instilled a sense of watchful waiting, advocating for continued observation to discern the true nature of the nodule before resorting to invasive procedures.
-
Multidisciplinary Collaboration
Finally, the Fleischner Society implicitly encouraged a multidisciplinary approach to part-solid nodule management. The interpretation of these complex lesions often required the expertise of radiologists, pulmonologists, and thoracic surgeons, working in concert to formulate the optimal management strategy. The guidelines provided a common language and a shared framework, facilitating communication and ensuring that all relevant perspectives were considered. This collaborative approach was particularly important in cases where the nodule exhibited concerning features or when the patient had significant comorbidities that influenced treatment decisions. The recommendations served as a catalyst for teamwork, fostering a culture of shared responsibility and promoting patient-centered care.
In essence, the guidelines transformed the management of part-solid nodules from a subjective art into a more objective science. By emphasizing the measurement of the solid component, establishing clear follow-up intervals, and promoting a multidisciplinary approach, the guidelines provided a structured pathway for navigating these complex lesions. The recommendations represented a significant step forward in the quest to improve lung cancer detection and management, offering a beacon of clarity in the often-murky world of pulmonary imaging.
5. Ground-glass opacity monitoring
The tale of ground-glass opacities (GGOs) within the landscape of pulmonary nodule management takes a pivotal turn with the arrival of the Fleischner Society recommendations of 2017. Before this, the approach to these hazy, often subtle findings on CT scans lacked a consistent narrative. Some were aggressively pursued, others were left largely unmonitored. These recommendations established a more deliberate plotline, charting a course for observation and intervention guided by evidence and risk assessment.
-
Defining Persistence: The Key to the Story
The narrative hinges on the concept of persistence. A fleeting opacity, perhaps representing inflammation or a transient infection, is a minor character in the story. However, a GGO that lingers, observed over months, transforms into a central figure demanding closer attention. The Fleischner Society recommendations provided a framework for defining persistence, typically requiring stability on follow-up imaging after a defined interval. This differentiation allowed for a more judicious use of resources, focusing surveillance on those GGOs most likely to represent pre-invasive or early-stage lung cancer.
-
The Long Game: Extended Surveillance Protocols
Unlike solid nodules, GGOs, particularly pure GGOs, often exhibit a slow growth pattern. The recommendations acknowledged this indolent nature, advocating for longer surveillance intervals than those prescribed for solid nodules of comparable size. Imagine a GGO detected incidentally on a scan performed for an unrelated reason. The guidelines would typically suggest follow-up imaging at several-month intervals, extending over years, rather than immediate biopsy or aggressive intervention. This extended observation period allowed for the natural history of the GGO to unfold, permitting clinicians to discern those that remain stable from those that exhibit worrisome growth or transformation.
-
The Suspicious Transformation: Solid Component Emergence
A critical plot twist occurs when a GGO, initially pure in its ground-glass appearance, begins to develop a solid component. This transformation elevates the concern for malignancy significantly. The Fleischner Society recommendations highlighted this change, emphasizing the need for closer monitoring and consideration of biopsy in such cases. The emergence of a solid component signaled a potential shift from a pre-invasive state to a more aggressive, invasive cancer. The recommendations served as a warning, prompting clinicians to act decisively when this ominous sign appeared.
-
Risk Stratification: The Influence of the Patient’s Backstory
The narrative is further enriched by the patient’s individual risk factors. A GGO in a young, never-smoker carries a different weight than a similar finding in an elderly individual with a history of heavy smoking. The Fleischner Society recommendations integrated risk stratification into the monitoring protocol, acknowledging that the likelihood of malignancy is influenced by factors such as age, smoking history, and family history of lung cancer. This personalized approach allowed for tailored surveillance, ensuring that those at higher risk receive closer attention while minimizing unnecessary interventions in lower-risk individuals.
In conclusion, the Fleischner Society recommendations of 2017 reshaped the story of ground-glass opacity monitoring, providing a framework for evidence-based decision-making. The emphasis on persistence, extended surveillance intervals, the significance of solid component emergence, and the integration of risk stratification transformed a previously ambiguous landscape into a more well-defined narrative, ultimately aiming to improve patient outcomes through judicious observation and timely intervention.
6. Multiple nodules consideration
The year is 2017. The Fleischner Society, a venerable assembly of thoracic imaging experts, unveils its latest recommendations, a comprehensive guide designed to standardize the often-murky world of pulmonary nodule management. Within its pages lies a chapter dedicated to a particularly perplexing scenario: the presence of multiple nodules. Prior to this, the approach to multiple nodules was often a fragmented affair, lacking the clarity and consistency demanded by evidence-based medicine. The recommendations sought to rectify this, providing a structured framework for evaluating and managing patients presenting with a constellation of lung lesions. The importance of this section cannot be overstated; the behavior and significance of multiple nodules are markedly different than that of a solitary lesion, requiring a distinct diagnostic and surveillance strategy.
The challenge posed by multiple nodules lies in differentiating between benign and malignant etiologies. While a single nodule might raise suspicion for primary lung cancer, the presence of several nodules often points toward alternative diagnoses, such as metastatic disease, granulomatous infections (like tuberculosis or fungal infections), or benign conditions like hamartomas. The Fleischner Society recommendations emphasized the need to consider the clinical context, patient history, and radiological characteristics of the nodules to arrive at an accurate diagnosis. Imagine a patient presenting with a history of breast cancer, now exhibiting multiple pulmonary nodules. The recommendations would prompt a thorough investigation for metastatic disease, potentially involving biopsies of accessible lesions. Conversely, a patient with a history of travel to an area endemic for fungal infections might warrant serological testing and observation, rather than immediate aggressive intervention. The practical significance of this approach is substantial; it minimizes unnecessary procedures in patients with benign disease while ensuring timely diagnosis and treatment for those with malignant conditions. The guidelines suggested a systematic approach to avoid unnecessary clinical and economic burden.
The 2017 recommendations offered guidance on determining the dominant nodule, if any, and on the appropriate follow-up intervals based on the size and characteristics of the largest lesions. They also cautioned against relying solely on size criteria, stressing the importance of assessing nodule morphology, distribution, and growth patterns. While the recommendations provided a valuable framework, they also acknowledged the inherent complexity of multiple nodule management. The guidelines required careful integration of clinical data, radiological findings, and, in some cases, pathological confirmation to arrive at the optimal management strategy. The Fleischner Society recommendations did not provide a definitive solution for every scenario but instilled a rigorous, evidence-based approach to the evaluation and management of patients with multiple pulmonary nodules. The legacy of these guidelines continues to shape clinical practice, ensuring that patients receive individualized care based on the best available evidence. The key is to maintain a balance between over testing and missing a malignancy.
7. Reduced follow-up imaging
Before 2017, the path following an incidentally discovered pulmonary nodule often involved a seemingly endless series of CT scans. Concerns regarding potential malignancy drove this practice, resulting in significant radiation exposure and anxiety for patients, alongside a considerable burden on healthcare resources. The Fleischner Society recommendations of 2017 sought to rewrite this narrative, ushering in an era of more judicious imaging practices. The cornerstone of this shift was the concept of risk stratification, meticulously detailed within the recommendations. By carefully assessing nodule size, morphology (solid versus subsolid), and patient-specific risk factors (smoking history, age, presence of other medical conditions), the guidelines provided a framework for determining the appropriate frequency and duration of follow-up imaging.
The recommendations specifically outlined scenarios where reduced follow-up imaging was not only acceptable but actively encouraged. Small, stable solid nodules in low-risk individuals, for example, might require no further surveillance beyond an initial confirmatory scan. Subsolid nodules, particularly pure ground-glass opacities exhibiting minimal growth over time, were also subjected to less frequent monitoring. This targeted approach stood in stark contrast to the blanket, one-size-fits-all approach that had previously prevailed. Imagine a 40-year-old never-smoker with a 5mm solid nodule discovered incidentally. Prior to the 2017 recommendations, this patient might have faced a year or more of repeated CT scans. Under the new guidelines, surveillance could be safely discontinued after a single follow-up scan confirmed stability, sparing the patient unnecessary radiation exposure and emotional distress. This reduction in imaging frequency freed up valuable resources, allowing radiologists to focus their attention on higher-risk cases requiring more intensive monitoring. Moreover, minimizing radiation exposure is beneficial for all patients. This consideration reflects a commitment to patient-centered care.
The implementation of the 2017 Fleischner Society recommendations significantly impacted clinical practice, leading to a measurable decrease in the number of follow-up CT scans performed for incidentally detected pulmonary nodules. Challenges remain, however. Some clinicians and patients may be hesitant to embrace reduced follow-up imaging, fearing that a potentially malignant nodule might be missed. Effective communication and shared decision-making are, therefore, crucial to ensuring that patients understand the rationale behind the recommendations and feel comfortable with the proposed management plan. Further research is also needed to refine risk stratification models and identify additional factors that can help to predict nodule behavior. Nonetheless, the Fleischner Society recommendations of 2017 represent a landmark achievement in the field of pulmonary nodule management, successfully balancing the need for early cancer detection with the imperative to minimize unnecessary harm. The recommendations have shifted the paradigm to a more individualized approach.
Frequently Asked Questions Regarding Pulmonary Nodule Management
The management of incidentally discovered pulmonary nodules often inspires questions. These questions often emerge from a place of genuine concern, a desire to understand the complex interplay between medical recommendations and individual health. Addressing these concerns is paramount to ensuring informed decision-making and promoting patient confidence.
Question 1: Do the Fleischner Society recommendations mandate invasive procedures for all pulmonary nodules?
The recommendations serve as a guide, not a rigid decree. They emphasize risk stratification, meaning that management is tailored to the individual patient and nodule characteristics. Small, stable nodules in low-risk individuals often require no intervention, while larger or suspicious nodules may warrant further investigation.
Question 2: If a pulmonary nodule is found, does that automatically mean lung cancer?
A pulmonary nodule is simply an abnormal spot in the lung. Many nodules are benign, resulting from old infections, inflammation, or other non-cancerous causes. The recommendations help clinicians assess the likelihood of malignancy based on specific characteristics.
Question 3: The guidelines recommend observation. What does that entail for daily routines?
Observation, in the context of pulmonary nodule management, primarily involves periodic follow-up imaging, usually with CT scans. There is generally no impact on daily routines. Maintain a healthy lifestyle and follow any advice given by your healthcare provider regarding smoking cessation or other risk factors.
Question 4: Are the follow-up intervals are suggested by the Fleischner Society fixed in stone?
The follow-up intervals recommended by the Fleischner Society are guidelines, not mandates. Healthcare providers should consider these suggestions in the context of individual patient factors. If there is a good reason to suspect rapid change of nodule, then shorter intervals will be implemented.
Question 5: With modern techniques and improvements will this change?
Guidelines are not something fixed in time. It is common that society recommendations are updated, and Fleischner society did it multiple times. With new knowledge and techniques, it is likely that the recommendations will change to provide better care.
Question 6: If reduced imaging is suggested, does it risk progression or overlooking potential growth?
Reduced follow-up imaging is recommended only for very low-risk cases. By following recommendations by experienced people and new findings. Follow-up imaging is an important step, however, too much scanning has negatives side effects and too few might miss a malignancy. That is why is it important to follow a well-designed guideline and recommendations.
In summary, the recommendations offer a framework for navigating the complexities of pulmonary nodule management. Understanding the principles of risk stratification, the role of imaging, and the importance of individual patient factors empowers individuals to engage actively in their healthcare journey.
The following section will delve into the practical applications of the recommendations in real-world clinical scenarios.
Insights from the Fleischner Society
The management of pulmonary nodules is a field where vigilance meets measured restraint. It’s a delicate balance, influenced profoundly by the 2017 Fleischner Society recommendations. Heed these insights, gleaned from years of expert consensus, as they offer a path through uncertainty.
Tip 1: Prioritize the Patient’s History. The recommendations underscored the critical role of individual patient factors. A nodules significance is inextricably linked to the patient’s age, smoking history, and prior medical conditions. Consider two identical nodules, one found in a young, never-smoking individual and the other in a long-term smoker. The former warrants a less aggressive approach, while the latter demands heightened vigilance. This individualized approach prevents unnecessary interventions.
Tip 2: Discern Solid from Subsolid. The distinction between solid and subsolid nodules is paramount. Solid nodules, dense and opaque, generally require shorter follow-up intervals. Subsolid nodules, appearing hazy and indistinct, often exhibit slower growth patterns and may warrant extended surveillance. This differentiation, codified in the 2017 recommendations, steers clinical decision-making away from a one-size-fits-all mentality.
Tip 3: Focus on the Solid Component in Part-Solid Nodules. When confronted with a part-solid nodule, prioritize the measurement of its solid component. This more aggressive aspect is a stronger predictor of malignancy than the overall nodule size. The recommendations emphasize this distinction, guiding clinicians toward appropriate follow-up intervals based on the solid component’s dimensions.
Tip 4: Embrace Extended Surveillance for Ground-Glass Opacities. Ground-glass opacities (GGOs) often defy conventional wisdom. These hazy lesions tend to grow slowly, demanding patience and a long-term surveillance strategy. The recommendations advocate for extended follow-up intervals for stable GGOs, avoiding premature interventions in these often-indolent entities.
Tip 5: Understand the Implications of Multiple Nodules. The presence of multiple nodules alters the diagnostic landscape. While a solitary nodule may raise concerns for primary lung cancer, multiple nodules often suggest metastatic disease, infection, or benign conditions. The recommendations stress the importance of considering the clinical context and radiological characteristics to differentiate between these possibilities.
Tip 6: Minimize Unnecessary Imaging. The recommendations actively discourage excessive imaging. Risk stratification allows for reduced follow-up in low-risk individuals, minimizing radiation exposure and associated anxiety. Embrace this judicious approach, reserving more frequent imaging for those with higher-risk profiles.
Tip 7: Consult with a Multidisciplinary Team. Pulmonary nodule management is rarely a solitary endeavor. Complex cases benefit from a multidisciplinary approach involving radiologists, pulmonologists, and thoracic surgeons. This collaborative effort ensures that all perspectives are considered, leading to informed and patient-centered decisions.
By internalizing these insights, one can navigate the complexities of pulmonary nodule management with greater confidence and precision. The 2017 Fleischner Society recommendations offer a framework for informed decision-making, promoting a balance between vigilance and judicious restraint. The key is to always know the details by this article.
With these tips in mind, consider the lasting impact of the Fleischner Society’s work as this article draws to a close.
Fleischner Society Recommendations 2017
The journey through the landscape of incidentally discovered pulmonary nodules, guided by the Fleischner Society’s 2017 recommendations, reveals a profound shift in clinical practice. Gone is the era of indiscriminate imaging, replaced by a strategy steeped in risk stratification and tailored surveillance. The emphasis on nodule size, morphology, and patient-specific risk factors has transformed a once-murky field into one characterized by evidence-based decision-making.
The recommendations serve as a constant reminder to balance vigilance with measured restraint, ensuring timely detection of malignancy while minimizing unnecessary interventions. As the world of thoracic imaging continues to evolve, with new technologies and insights emerging, the core principles enshrined in the 2017 recommendations will endure: a commitment to patient-centered care, informed decision-making, and a relentless pursuit of improved outcomes. The future is never guaranteed to work, and we always need to improve the science that we currently know and are using.The key is to always review with constant updates. The recommendations will always be a foundation to build more details.
