Advertisement

Telecytology versus in-room cytopathologist for EUS-guided FNA or fine-needle biopsy sampling of solid pancreatic lesions

Published:October 13, 2022DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2022.10.015

      Background and Aims

      Rapid on-site-evaluation (ROSE) with an in-room cytopathologist (ROSE-P) has been shown to improve the diagnostic yield of specimens obtained from patients undergoing EUS-guided FNA or fine-needle biopsy sampling (EUS-FNAB) of pancreatic lesions. Recently, there has been an increased interest and use of ROSE using telecytology (ROSE-T) to optimize clinical workflows and to address social distancing mandates created during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. The purpose of this study was to compare diagnostic outcomes of ROSE-P and ROSE-T.

      Methods

      A single-center cohort study of patients who underwent EUS-FNAB of solid pancreatic lesions with ROSE was conducted. The primary outcome was overall diagnostic yield of cancer. All patients who underwent EUS-FNAB were entered into a prospectively maintained database. Statistical analyses were performed using descriptive statistics and univariate analysis.

      Results

      There were 165 patients in each arm. There was no difference in diagnostic yield between ROSE-P and ROSE-T (96.4% vs 94.5%, P = .428). ROSE-T was associated with an increased use of 22-gauge needles (P = .006) and more needle passes (P < .001). No significant differences were found in age, gender, lesion size, needle type, procedure times, or adverse events between the 2 groups (P < .05 for all). More pancreatic tail lesions were sampled in the ROSE-P group (P < .001).

      Conclusions

      ROSE-T was not associated with any difference in final histologic diagnosis for EUS-FNAB of solid pancreatic masses. This has important implications for optimizing clinical workflows.

      Abbreviations:

      COVID-19 (coronavirus disease 2019), EUS-FNAB (EUS-guided FNA or fine-needle biopsy sampling), ROSE (rapid on-site evaluation), ROSE-P (rapid on-site evaluation with an in-room cytopathologist), ROSE-T (rapid on-site evaluation using telecytology (remote cytopathologist))
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Gastrointestinal Endoscopy
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Gonzalo-Marin J.
        • Vila J.J.
        • Perez-Miranda M.
        Role of endoscopic ultrasound in the diagnosis of pancreatic cancer.
        World J Gastrointest Oncol. 2014; 6: 360-368
        • Lin O.
        Telecytology for rapid on-site evaluation: current status.
        J Am Soc Cytopathol. 2018; 7: 1-6
        • Koul A.
        • Baxi A.C.
        • Shang R.
        • et al.
        The efficacy of rapid on-site evaluation during endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration of pancreatic masses.
        Gastroenterol Rep. 2018; 6: 45-48
        • Yang F.
        • Liu E.
        • Sun S.
        Rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) with EUS-FNA: the ROSE looks beautiful.
        Endosc Ultrasound. 2019; 8: 283-287
        • Crinò S.F.
        • Di Mitri R.
        • Nguyen N.Q.
        • et al.
        Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy with or without rapid on-site evaluation for diagnosis of solid pancreatic lesions: a randomized controlled non-inferiority trial.
        Gastroenterology. 2021; 161: 899-909
        • Buxbaum J.L.
        • Eloubeidi M.A.
        • Lane C.J.
        • et al.
        Dynamic telecytology compares favorably to rapid onsite evaluation of endoscopic ultrasound fine needle aspirates.
        Dig Dis Sci. 2012; 57: 3092-3097
        • Balassanian R.
        • Wool G.D.
        • Ono J.C.
        • et al.
        A superior method for cell block preparation for fine-needle aspiration biopsies.
        Cancer Cytopathol. 2016; 124: 508-518
        • Iglesias-Garcia J.
        • Lariño-Noia J.
        • Abdulkader I.
        • et al.
        Rapid on-site evaluation of endoscopic-ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration diagnosis of pancreatic masses.
        World J Gastroenterol. 2014; 20: 9451-9457
        • Marotti J.D.
        • Johncox V.
        • Ng D.
        • et al.
        Implementation of telecytology for immediate assessment of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspirations compared to conventional on-site evaluation: analysis of 240 consecutive cases.
        Acta Cytol. 2012; 56: 548-553
        • Mahajan A.
        • Selvaggi S.
        • Pantanowitz L.
        Psychological aspects of utilizing telecytology for rapid on-site adequacy assessments.
        J Pathol Inform. 2018; 9: 12
        • Lee J.K.
        • Lee K.T.
        • Choi E.R.
        • et al.
        A prospective, randomized trial comparing 25-gauge and 22-gauge needles for endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration of pancreatic masses.
        Scand J Gastroenterol. 2013; 48: 752-757
        • Gerke H.
        EUS-guided FNA: better samples with smaller needles?.
        Gastrointest Endosc. 2009; 70: 1098-1100
        • Madhoun M.F.
        • Wani S.B.
        • Rastogi A.
        • et al.
        The diagnostic accuracy of 22-gauge and 25-gauge needles in endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration of solid pancreatic lesions: a meta-analysis.
        Endoscopy. 2013; 45: 86-92
        • O'Toole D.
        • Palazzo L.
        • Arotçarena R.
        • et al.
        Assessment of complications of EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration.
        Gastrointest Endosc. 2001; 53: 470-474
        • Ribeiro A.
        • Goel A.
        The risk factors for acute pancreatitis after endoscopic ultrasound guided biopsy.
        Korean J Gastroenterol. 2018; 72: 135-140