 Dr. Keserooni, that was awesome and informative. Thank you so much. Do you have time for a couple of questions? We've got- Absolutely. Oh, awesome. If you want, you can pop open that Q&A box and I can tee you up while you do that. The first question is, should the association of occupational lung diseases be given priority? Yeah, we get asked a lot of questions about people with occupational health exposures and their lung cancer risk. At this time, occupational risks are not included in the eligibility criteria for lung cancer screening. We do hope in the future that by the development of risk calculators that can include other things, such as occupational risk, such as high levels of radot exposure or family history can be used in risk cancer, lung cancer risk assessment and help to bring in other risks into the screen eligible population. In a follow-up case of lung cancer, say post-chemo, is there a development of consolidation or clustered central lobular nodules? And how confidently can we exclude a lipidic tumor spread versus infection? Yeah, lung cancer post-treatment CTs can be very challenging to interpret, whether it's fine news related to chemotherapy or as we now know, immunotherapy, which can mimic lung cancer and this question is very pertinent in that space or the post-SBRT findings. I think it's very important that when there is uncertainty, you mention both of them, that you describe the findings. So first obviously we are very trained in description and that you mentioned that this could be either infection or post-treatment related abnormality. The oncologists are very attuned to medication related lung injury, particularly after meant to immunotherapy and they will certainly do a detailed work about their patient to look and see if they have signed their symptom infection to help determine next steps. So I think our job is to describe very well and to give the options and that allows the treating physicians to put that in context of the treatment they're having in the patient symptoms. If six millimeters cut off for solid nodule, do you even mention nodules less than that in your screening reports? That's a great question, I get this regularly. The reason we like to mention nodules that are under six millimeters is because you want to be able to one, pay attention to them in your follow-ups and two, because the smaller nodules still make somebody a category two and not a category one. Just having nodules itself makes a patient at higher risk for cancer. And if you screen somebody who has no nodules at all and that's the difference between category one and category two. We do recommend in lung rants that you report up to the sixth largest or highest risk lesions, perhaps they're speculated or growing. In the LCAP program, they use, have used six nodules as the number of nodules they recommend. And we basically recommend having a list, the lobe, the size of the nodule, the density, the image number it's on and give that list. If you're using some of the nodule detection tools, you can in some cases set those up to directly import into your reporting system. It all depends on what tools you have, but a minimum lobe, size, density, image number and up to six nodules. I think once you're getting down to, once you're beyond four to six nodules, reporting any more as a declining benefit, but it's basically to get on the record that this is a nodule form and that's why they're category two. Got another category question for you from the chat. What category would be one to two millimeter distal endotracheal nodule? So if it's one to two millimeters and it doesn't have any air bubbles in, it would be a category two because it's small by size. And the last question, lung nodule management in a case of known extra thoracic cancer. Drew, what are your thoughts on that? Yeah, this question is also a very common one. If somebody is, let's say they're in their disease-free surveillance state and they say they have melanoma and they're five years disease-free or breast cancer or prostate cancer and now you have a nodule and you're trying to figure out is it related to the cancer or is it something else? If they're being seen by oncologists, we feel pretty comfortable or the cancer treatment team, if that's where the referrals are coming from, we feel very comfortable describing the nodule and recommend it be followed based on the nature of the underlying malignancy. In fact, we even have a line in our reports as a standard pick list that way so that we put that in the hands of the oncologists. They may be aware of other features that increase the risk of recurrence in that patient. They might want to follow it more closely for that reason. And people certainly are on any active form of cancer treatment. We always defer to the oncology practitioners or the oncology team in making the decisions about how to follow up nodules in patients with an extra thoracic cancer. Awesome. Thank you so much for answering all those questions and for the informative lecture. Dr. Kazerni, this has been awesome. I hope you enjoyed it. Thanks so much for having me today and look forward to seeing some of you take up the master's program in the future.