Maximizing scarce colonoscopy resources: the crucial role of stool-based tests

6Citations
Citations of this article
6Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

During the COVID-19 pandemic, health systems, including federally qualified health centers, experienced disruptions in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. National organizations called for greater use of at-home stool-based testing followed by colonoscopy for those with abnormal test results to limit (in-person) colonoscopy exams to people with acute symptoms or who were high risk. This stool-test-first strategy may also be useful for adults with low-risk adenomas who are due for surveillance colonoscopy. We argue that colonoscopy is overused as a first-line screening method in low- and average-risk adults and as a surveillance tool among adults with small adenomas. Yet, simultaneously, many people do not receive much-needed colonoscopies. Delivering the right screening tests at intervals that reduce the risk of CRC, while minimizing patient inconvenience and procedural risks, can strengthen healthcare systems. Risk stratification could improve efficiency of CRC screening, but because models that adequately predict risk are years away from clinical use, we need to optimize use of currently available technology—that is, low-cost fecal testing followed by colonoscopy for those with abnormal test results. The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the urgent need to adapt to resource constraints around colonoscopies and showed that increased use of stool-based testing was possible. Learning how to adapt to such constraints without sacrificing patients’ health, particularly for patients who receive care at federally qualified health centers, should be a priority for CRC prevention research.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Coronado, G. D., Bienen, L., Burnett-Hartman, A., Lee, J. K., & Rutter, C. M. (2024, May 1). Maximizing scarce colonoscopy resources: the crucial role of stool-based tests. Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djae022

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free