Comparison of endocervical curettage and endocervical brushing

Abstract

Objective: To compare endocervical brushing with endocervical curettage with respect to diagnostic yield by histology and patient discomfort. Methods: Nonpregnant women referred for colposcopy because of abnormal Papanicolaou test results were randomized to endocervical sampling with either a metal curette (endocervical curettage [ECC]) or an endocervical brush. Extensive endocervical canal brushing was performed. All samples were submitted for histologic study. Results were evaluated against the histologic findings in electroconization specimens in a masked fashion. Pain scores were recorded using Melzack’s Present Pain Intensity Scale. Results: During the study period, 315 patients were randomized to the techniques: 157 to ECC and 158 to endocervical brushing. Of the 315 patients, 147 also underwent electroconization. Overall false-positive rates were 28.6% for endocervical brushing and 30.8% for ECC. False positives were due to contamination of the endocervical sample by lesional epithelium near the external os. The proportion of scanty specimens obtained by endocervical brushing (7.6%) was higher than that obtained by ECC (2.5%) ( P = .041). One sample obtained by brushing was insufficient for diagnosis; none obtained by ECC were insufficient. There were no statistically significant differences in the median pain scores between the two groups. Conclusion: The techniques were similar in terms of diagnostic yield and patient discomfort. Endocervical brushing had lower false-positive rates than those reported in the literature for cytologic analysis. Although ECC remains the method of choice for evaluation of the endocervical canal, brushing is an acceptable alternative.