INTRODUCTION: Telecytopathology for endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) has been shown to be an alternative to rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE). Gastroenterologists (endosonographers) performing EUS-FNA can be trained to evaluate a specimen for adequacy. This study examined the ability of an endosonographer with focused cytopathologic training to assess the adequacy of pancreatic FNA specimens and transmit diagnostic images to a remotely located cytopathologist as compared to an experienced cytotechnologist. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a retrospective study of consecutive pancreatic lesions sampled by EUS-FNA reviewed by an endosonographer and a cytotechnologist. The participants were assessed based on their ability to (1) determine adequacy, (2) locate and transmit representative cell groups, (3) provide a preliminary diagnosis, and (4) provide concordance with actual diagnosis. RESULTS: 105 consecutive cases of EUS-FNA of the pancreas were analyzed, including: adenocarcinoma (n = 39), cyst (n = 17), neuroendocrine neoplasia (n = 7), pancreatitis (n = 14), benign pancreas (n = 9), other neoplasms (n = 6), suspicious/atypical (n = 3), and nondiagnostic (n = 10). The cytotechnologist demonstrated superiority in accuracy 92.7% versus 70% (P = 0.003) and subcategorization 95.0% versus 76% (P = 0.007). There was no difference in "broad" categorization (benign/malignant) between the endosonographer and cytotechnologist, 98% and 98.2% (P = 0.946), respectively. Also, there was no difference with regard to adequacy assessment (P = 0.29). A steady learning curve for the endosonographer was demonstrated in their cytologic assessment (P = 0.041). The endosonographer was shown to be able to remotely transmit diagnostic images to a pathologist. CONCLUSION: An endosonographer with limited training can examine for specimen adequacy, transmit images, and demonstrate representative cell groups. Larger studies are required though preliminary results are encouraging.