Related Experiment Video
Updated: Mar 16, 2026
Collection, Isolation, and Flow Cytometric Analysis of Human Endocervical Samples
Published on: July 6, 2014
Lack of Agreement Between Endocervical Brush and Endocervical Curettage in Women Undergoing Repeat Endocervical
David W Doo1, Elaine H Stickrath, Sara E Mazzoni
11University of Colorado, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Aurora, Colorado; and 2Denver Health Medical Center, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Denver, Colorado.
Objective:
To evaluate agreement between an abnormal endocervical brush (ECB) collected at the time of colposcopy and subsequent endocervical curettage (ECC).
Methods:
All women evaluated for lower genital tract disease at a single academic institution were prospectively entered into a database. The database was queried for those who had a colposcopic exam with ECB between April 1, 2013, and June 15, 2015, and who subsequently returned for an ECC to further evaluate eligibility for expectant management or ablative therapy. ECB and ECC results were divided into 2 groups: "low-grade" included low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (LSIL) or atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance, and "high-grade" included high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (HSIL) or atypical squamous cells-cannot exclude high-grade. Women with atypical glandular cells and unsatisfactory ECB results were excluded. Percent agreement between ECB and ECC was calculated based on these categories.
Results:
Seventy-nine women were included: 54 (68%) had a low-grade ECB, and 25 (32%) had a high-grade ECB. Of those who had a low-grade ECB, 4 had a low-grade ECC, 3 had a high-grade ECC, and 47 were negative, resulting in an agreement of 7.4% (4/54). Of those who had a high-grade ECB, 1 had a low-grade ECC, 4 had a high-grade ECC, and 20 were negative, resulting in 16% (4/25) agreement.
Conclusions:
Our data suggest that there is poor agreement between ECC and ECB in our patient population.
