BACKGROUND:?A?previous?report?has?identiifed?a?signiifcantly?higher?sensitivity?of?cancer?detection?for?dedicated?grasping?basket?than?brushing?at?endoscopic?retrograde?cholangiopancreato- graphy?(ERCP).?This?study?aimed?to?compare?the?diagnostic?accuracy?of?Geenen?brush?and?Dormia?basket?cytology?in?the?differential?diagnosis?of?bile?duct?stricture.METHOD:? The? current? study? enrolled? one? hundred? and?fourteen?patients?who?underwent?ERCP?with?both?Geenen?brush?and?Dormia?basket?cytology?for?the?differential?diagnosis?of?bile?duct?stricture?at?our?institution?between?January?2008?and?December?2012.RESULTS:?We?adopted?sequential?performances?of?cytologic?samplings? by? using? initial? Geenen? brush? and? subsequent?Dormia?basket?cytology?in?59?patients?and?initial?Dormia?basket?and?subsequent?Geenen?brush?cytology?in?55?patients.?Presampling?balloon?dilatations?and?biliary?stentings?for?the?stricture?were?performed?in?17?(14.9%)?and?107?patients?(93.9%),?respectively.?The?sensitivity,?speciifcity,?positive?predictive?value,?negative?predictive?value,?and?accuracy?of?Geenen?brush?cytology?for?the?diagnosis?of?malignant?bile?duct?stricture?were?75.0%,?100.0%,?100.0%,?66.7%?and?83.3%,?respectively,?and?those?of?Dormia?basket?cytology?were?64.5%,?100.0%,?100.0%,?58.5%?and?76.3%,?respectively?(P=0.347?and?0.827?for?sensitivity?and?accuracy,?respectively).?The?good?and?excellent?cellular?yields?(≥?grade?2)?were?obtained?by?Geenen?brush?and?Dormia?basket?cytology?in?88?(77.2%)?and?79?(69.3%)?patients,?respectively.CONCLUSION:?The? sensitivity,? speciifcity? and? accuracy? of?biliary?sampling?with?a?Dormia?basket?are?comparable?to?those?with?conventional?Geenen?brush?cytology?in?the?detection?of?malignant?bile?duct?stricture.