Comparison of endocervical curettage and endocervical brushing

To compare endocervical brushing with endocervical curettage with respect to diagnostic yield by histology and patient discomfort.

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.

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.

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.