Rapid On-site Evaluation Practice Variability Appraisal (ROSE PETAL) survey

Abstract

Background: Rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) is frequently used during diagnostic procedures in patients with or suspected to have lung cancer. There is variation in ROSE use among bronchoscopists, and discussion of ROSE results can have significant consequences for patients. This study was performed to define ROSE practice and result disclosure patterns among bronchoscopists. Methods: This cross-sectional study was performed using an electronic survey disseminated to the members of the American Association for Bronchology and Interventional Pulmonology and the Society for Advanced Bronchoscopy. The questions centered around ROSE availability, utilization, barriers, and discussion of results with patients. Results: There were 137 respondents. Most identified themselves as interventional pulmonologists (109, 80%); most respondents worked in an academic setting (71, 52%). Availability of ROSE was reported by 121 (88%) respondents. Time constraints (28%), availability of cytology (22%), and scheduling conflicts (20%) were the most reported barriers to ROSE use. Endobronchial ultrasound transbronchial needle aspiration (85%) and nonrobotic peripheral bronchoscopy (65%) were the most reported procedures that used ROSE. There was heterogeneity regarding discussion of ROSE results with the patient or their caregiver in the immediate postprocedure setting: yes - always (40, 33%), yes - sometimes (32, 26%), yes - rarely (18, 15%), or no (31, 26%). Thirty-eight respondents reported they believed ROSE was ≥90% concordant with final cytology results. Conclusions: The results confirmed the heterogeneity of practice patterns. Estimates of ROSE-final cytology concordance were lower than previously published concordance results. Notably, the discussion of ROSE results varied significantly.