User perception of endocervical sampling: A randomized comparison of endocervical evaluation with the curette vs cytobrush
Manuela Undurraga, Rosa Catarino, Isabelle Navarria, Yasmine Ibrahim, Evelyne Puget, Isabelle Royannez Drevard, Jean-Claude Pache, Jean-Christophe Tille, Patrick Petignat, Manuela Undurraga, Rosa Catarino, Isabelle Navarria, Yasmine Ibrahim, Evelyne Puget, Isabelle Royannez Drevard, Jean-Claude Pache, Jean-Christophe Tille, Patrick Petignat
Abstract
Objectives: To evaluate whether the endocervical brush (ECB) is better accepted by patients and health care providers for endocervical evaluation when compared to the endocervical curette (ECC), without a decrease in the quality of sampling.
Methods: Two hundred patients with cervical dysplasia were randomized at the colposcopy clinic of the University Hospital of Geneva into two groups according to technique. Patients and physicians' preference regarding the technique as well as the quality of samples were assessed. ECB samples were analyzed using both cytological (cell block) and histologic analysis, while ECC samples were analyzed using standard histologic analysis.
Results: Of the 200 patients, 89 were randomized to ECC, 101 to ECB and 10 were excluded due to incomplete information or cervical stenosis. Physicians preferred ECB against ECC, classifying it more frequently as an easy technique (94.1% vs.61.4%, p<0.001). Physicians more frequently evaluated the ECB as little or not uncomfortable for patients (28.7% vs.10.2%, p<0.001), though patients themselves didn't express a preference for either technique. From a quality standpoint, the brush allowed for a better quality of samples, with a lower rate of inadequate samples (2.0% vs 14.3%, p = 0.002) and greater amount of material.
Conclusion: Endocervical sampling using ECB seems to be easier to perform and provides better quality samples. ECB can therefore be an acceptable alternative to ECC in standard practice.
Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01435590.
Conflict of interest statement
Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Figures
References
- Bernard W. Stewart B.W, Wild C.P. editors, World Cancer Report 2014. Lyon: International Agency for Research on Cancer and WHO press; 2014. Chapter 5.12.
- Bernard W. Stewart B.W, Wild C.P. editors, World Cancer Report 2014. Lyon: International Agency for Research on Cancer and WHO press; 2014. Chapter 5.12. Chapter 1.1.)
- Ligue Suisse Contre le Cancer. Le cancer en Suisse: les chiffres. 2014 [update October 2014; cited 2017 Jan 30]; .
- Maksem J.A., Endocervical curetting vs. endocervical brushing as case finding methods. Diagnostic Cytopathology, 2006. 34(5): p. 313–6. doi:
- Klam S., Arseneau J., Mansour N., Franco E., Ferenczy A, Comparison of endocervical curettage and endocervical brushing. Obstetrics and Gynecology, 2000. 96(1): p. 90–4.
- Gibson C.A., Trask C.E., House P., Smith S.F., Foley M. Nicholas C., Endocervical sampling: a comparison of endocervical brush, endocervical curette, and combined brush with curette techniques. Journal of Lower Genital Tract Disease, 2001. 5(1): p. 1–6.
- Goksedef B.P., Api M., Kaya O., Gorgen H., Tarlaci A., Cetin A., Diagnostic accuracy of two endocervical sampling method: randomized controlled trial. Archives Gynecology and Obstetrics, 2013. 287(1): p. 117–22.
- Isabelle, N., Jacot-Guillarmod M., Recommandations pour la prise en charge des pathologies cervicales, in Dépistage, traitement et surveillance, Editor Groupement Romand de la Société Suisse de Gynécologie et Obstétrique, 2010
- Massad L.S., Einstein M.H., Huh W.H., Katki H.A, Kinney W.K., Schiffman M et al., 2012 updated consensus guidelines for the management of abnormal cervical cancer screening tests and cancer precursors. Obstetetrics and Gynecology, 2013. 121(4): p. 829–46.
- Cutler W.B., Burki R.E., Kolter J., Chambliss C., Mammography for symptomless women—not so wise? Climacteric, 2013. 16(3): p. 313–5. doi:
- Howat W.J., Wilson B.A., Tissue fixation and the effect of molecular fixatives on downstream staining procedures. Methods, 2014. 70(1): p. 12–9. doi:
- Rossini P.G., Vicentini M., New cervical cancer screening guidelines on both sides of the Atlantic. European Medical Journal Oncology, 2013. 1: p. 80–90.
- Mogensen S.T., Bak M., Dueholm M., Frost L., Knoblauch N.O., Praest J., et al., Cytobrush and endocervical curettage in the diagnosis of dysplasia and malignancy of the uterine cervix. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica, 1997. 76(1): p. 69–73.
- Doo D.W., Strichrath E.H., Mazzoni S.E, Alston M.J., Lack of agreement between endocervical brush and endocervical curettage in women undergoing repeat endocervical sampling. Journal of Lower Genital Tract Disease, 2016. 20(4): p. 296–9. doi:
- Lastra R.R., Meykler S.E., Baloch Z.W., Barroeta J.E., Increasing the sensitivity of endocervical curettings by performing ThinPrep® pap on transport container fluid: is diagnostic material going down the drain?. Cytophathology, 2015. 26(6): p. 368–72.
- Risse E.K., Holierhoek J.P., Meijer-Marres E.M., Ouwerkerk-Noordam E., Boon M.E., Increased diagnostic accuracy of atypical glandular cells in cervical liquid-based cytology using cell blocks. Cytopathology, 2011. 22(4): p. 253–60. doi:
Source: PubMed