Objective: To evaluate and compare the cytologic information obtained from the endocervical brush and the histologic information obtained from the standard endocervical curettage (ECC) used to evaluate the endocervical canal in patients with an abnormal Papanicolaou test.
Methods: Three hundred eighty-eight patients underwent evaluation of an abnormal Papanicolaou test with a repeat Papanicolaou test, a separate endocervical brush test, colposcopy, directed biopsies, and ECC. The study group comprised 101 patients who subsequently underwent conization and/or hysterectomy. The brush and ECC results were evaluated against the final pathologic findings.
Results: Sixty-five patients had a satisfactory colposcopy and 36 had an unsatisfactory colposcopy. Results for these two groups are reported separately. For the total group, the sensitivities of the ECC and brush were 49 and 93%, respectively (P < .001); the specificities were 82 and 26% (P < .001), the positive predictive values were 69 and 52% (P = .99), and the negative predictive values were 65 and 82% (P = .004).
Conclusion: The endocervical brush appears to be a sensitive test for disease in the endocervical canal but yields a high false-positive rate. The role of the brush in this setting will require further study. The ECC is more specific but is also a suboptimal test for identifying disease in the endocervical canal. (Obstet Gynecol 1993;82:573-7)
(C) 1993 The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists