BackgroundAfter identifying incidental mediastinal lymph nodes, decisions need to be made regarding the required follow-up imaging, the intervals at which this imaging should be performed, the types of imaging and procedures needed, and when to discontinue the follow-up. The purpose of this study is to determine the majority opinion on the management of these findings and provide recommendations for future management of incidental mediastinal lymphadenopathy.MethodologySixty-two healthcare providers from a variety of specializations were surveyed on their preference for diagnostic workup and subsequent follow-up following the finding of incidental mediastinal lymphadenopathy on computed tomography (CT) of the chest.ResultsFor thoracic lymphadenopathy of unclear etiology and patients who are not offered endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA), most providers (47/62, 75.8%) initiate the CT scan follow-up at size 10 to 14 mm. Of those patients, 51.6% (32/62) of providers repeat the initial CT scan in three months and 41.9% (26/62) repeat the initial CT scan in six months. If the follow-up CT chest shows stable lymphadenopathy, 47.5% (29/62) repeat a CT chest every six months and 37% (23/62) repeat a CT chest every 12 months. The majority of providers (42/62, 67.7%) do not use positron emission tomography (PET)-CT for the initial evaluation of isolated thoracic lymphadenopathy and follow-up of lymphadenopathy with increasing size. For thoracic lymph nodes with a maximum diameter of 10 mm, only 4.8% (3/62) of providers continue CT screening after 24 months, while 24.6% (15/62) of providers continue CT screening after 24 months for sizes greater than 20 mm. Regarding the timing of EBUS-TBNA, 40.3% (25/62) of providers consider referring/performing this procedure at lymph nodes of size 11-15 mm, followed by 21% (13/62) of providers referring/performing the procedure at size 10 mm.ConclusionsThe majority of providers initiate CT scan follow-ups at 10 to 14 mm size for patients with isolated thoracic lymphadenopathy. The majority of providers do not use PET-CT for the initial evaluation of isolated thoracic lymphadenopathy. We found variable responses from providers regarding the timing of follow-up intervals and total duration. There is a need for consensus guidelines regarding the management of thoracic lymphadenopathy of unclear etiology.