Telecytology Versus Conventional Rapid On-site Evaluation for Endobronchial Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration: A Single Institution’s Experience

Abstract

IntroductionTelecytology (TC) has the advantage of allowing cytopathologists to remotely support multiple sites rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) concurrently and represents a potential solution for an increased clinical demand for ROSE. In this study, we share our comparative experience of using TC vs conventional (in-person) ROSE for endobronchial ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EBUS-FNA). Materials and MethodsWe evaluated 475 consecutive cases of EBUS-FNA that underwent TC ROSE from May 2020 to August 2021 along with 475 consecutive cases which had conventional ROSE from November 2019 to August 2021 at the University of Michigan. Concordant rates of preliminary and final diagnoses were calculated and compared between TC and conventional methods. ResultsWhile there was no significant difference in preliminary diagnostic rates of non-diagnostic, benign, atypical, and malignant categories between the TC and conventional cohorts, a significantly lower proportion of TC cases received a preliminary suspicious for malignancy diagnosis (2%) compared to the conventional group (4%) (p=0.03). The concordance rate of preliminary and final diagnoses in TC and conventional ROSE was 96% and 94%, respectively. The average total number of passes per procedure did not differ significantly between TC and conventional ROSE (4.9 vs 4.7). While a relatively higher number of TC-ROSE cases collected dedicated passes compared with conventional ROSE (49% vs 40%), the difference was not statistically significant. ConclusionsThe performance of TC ROSE for EUS-FNA is comparable to that of conventional ROSE with similar performance metrics and therefore can be used as a feasible substitute.