Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Observational study reveals equitable colonoscopy follow-up after positive stool screening in rural patients, suggesting stool tests do not exacerbate rural healthcare barriers.
Background Colorectal cancer (CRC) remains a leading cause of cancer-related mortality in the United States. Although screening colonoscopy is effective, access barriers and long wait times limit its use. Stool-based fecal occult blood testing (FOBT) has emerged as an alternative screening strategy for average-risk patients. Rural populations often experience worse health care outcomes, making it important to evaluate whether implementation of stool-based screening affects follow-up care in these patients. Methods Retrospective single-institution observational study evaluating patients ≥18 years old who had a positive stool-based test between January and December 2024. Patients were categorized as rural or non-rural based on Rural-Urban Commuting Area codes derived from home ZIP codes. Primary outcomes included follow-up colonoscopy rates, time to diagnostic colonoscopy, and colonoscopy findings. Results A total of 688 patients met inclusion criteria, including 494 (72%) non-rural and 194 (28%) rural patients. Follow-up colonoscopy rates were 92% non-rural vs 88% rural, P = 0.1002. Median time from the positive stool-based test to colonoscopy was similar between groups (53 days vs 44 days, P = 0.10). Rural patients were more likely to undergo colonoscopy at an outside facility (12% vs 5%, P = 0.008). Overall polyp detection rates were comparable (91% vs 92%, P = 0.87), with similar rates of tubular and tubulovillous adenomas. Conclusions Implementation of a stool-based CRC screening strategy was successful without causing delays for rural patients, with high rates of follow-up for both rural and non-rural patients. These findings suggest that stool-based screening can reasonably implemented without increasing health care barriers for rural patients.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Duncan et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: