Related Experiment Video
Updated: Apr 12, 2026
Collection, Isolation, and Flow Cytometric Analysis of Human Endocervical Samples
Published on: July 6, 2014
Comparing endocervical curettage and endocervical brush at colposcopy
T S Dunn1, C Stevens-Simon, L D Moeller
1* Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, ‡Department of Pediatrics, and † Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Colorado Health Sciences Center, Denver, CO; § Center For Disease Control, Division of Reproductive Health, Atlanta, GA.
Objective:
To determine the sensitivity and specificity of the cytologic diagnosis obtained from the endocervical brushings (ECB) compared to the histologic information obtained from endocervical curettage (ECC).
Materials And Methods:
Of 369 patients referred for colposcopy, 105 nonpregnant women underwent conization and/or hysterectomy allowing analysis of tissue samples. The racially diverse, sociodemographically homogeneous population was 15 through 71 years old. Participants had repeat Papnicolaou smears, ECB, colposcopy (with/without directed biopsy), and ECC. The sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of ECB and ECC for diagnosing endocervical disease were compared.
Results:
No invasive cancers were missed by either ECB or ECC. The sensitivity of ECB was 93%, which exceeded that of ECC (62%) for detection of endocervical pathology. However, the negative predictive value of both ECB and ECC was excellent. The specificity of ECC (63%) exceeded that of ECB (25%) for detection of endocervical pathology. However, the positive predictive value of both ECC and ECB was poor.
Conclusion:
This study suggests that ECB can replace ECC during colposcopic evaluation of an abnormal Papnicolaou smear.▪.
