S668 Comparative Effectiveness of Stool-Based Screening vs Colonoscopy on Long-Term Colorectal Cancer Incidence: A Retrospective Cohort Analysis

Introduction: Colorectal cancer (CRC) remains a leading cause of cancer-related mortality globally. Colonoscopy is the gold standard for screening due to its ability to detect and remove precancerous lesions. However, its invasive nature has led to increased use of stool-based screening tests—including guaiac fecal occult blood test (gFOBT), fecal immunochemical test (FIT), and stool DNA testing—for their convenience and potential to improve adherence. This study evaluated long-term CRC incidence and mortality among individuals screened exclusively by stool-based methods compared to those undergoing colonoscopy. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort analysis using the TriNetX database. Patients aged 45–80 years with no prior CRC diagnosis or history of colonoscopy were grouped based on stool-based screening method (gFOBT or FIT DNA stool ) and matched 1:1 with a colonoscopy cohort. Propensity score matching adjusted for demographics (age, sex, race) and comorbidities (alcohol use, tobacco use, diabetes, family/personal malignancy history, and lipid disorders). Primary outcomes included subsequent CRC incidence and CRC-related mortality. Odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated; significance was set at P < 0.05. Results: Following matching, the FIT (n = 1,829,596) and gFOBT (n = 1,517,107) groups had significantly higher CRC incidence than the colonoscopy group (FIT: odds ratio [OR] 1.65, 95% CI 1.58–1.74, P < 0.001; gFOBT: OR 1.84, 95% CI 1.75–1.94, P < 0.001). The stool DNA group (n = 373,740) showed no significant difference in CRC incidence versus colonoscopy (OR 1.02, 95% CI 0.90–1.16, P = 0.711). CRC mortality was higher in the FIT (OR 1.63, 95% CI 1.61–1.65, P < 0.001) and gFOBT (OR 1.84, 95% CI 1.81–1.86, P < 0.001) cohorts, but significantly lower in the stool DNA group (OR 0.51, 95% CI 0.49–0.52, P < 0.001). Conclusion: Colonoscopy remains the most effective screening modality, given its ability to detect and remove precancerous lesions directly. Although stool-based tests are less invasive and may improve screening uptake, reliance on FIT or gFOBT alone was associated with higher CRC incidence and mortality. In contrast, stool DNA testing demonstrated comparable outcomes to colonoscopy and even lower CRC mortality, suggesting its potential as a robust noninvasive alternative in CRC screening strategies.

Authors

Publication Details

Journal
The American Journal of Gastroenterology
Published
2025-10-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.14309/01.ajg.0001130132.60674.20
Citations
2
Primary Topic
Colorectal Cancer Screening and Detection
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
2.09
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

S668 Comparative Effectiveness of Stool-Based Screening vs Colonoscopy on Long-Term Colorectal Cancer Incidence: A Retrospective Cohort Analysis

Nalini M. Guda, Zachary L. Smith, Kinan Obeidat, Khaled Alsabbagh Alchirazi et al.
2 citations
The American Journal of Gastroenterology
Colorectal Cancer Screening and Detection
2.09
article

S668 Comparative Effectiveness of Stool-Based Screening vs Colonoscopy on Long-Term Colorectal Cancer Incidence: A Retrospective Cohort Analysis

Nalini M. Guda, Zachary L. Smith, Kinan Obeidat, Khaled Alsabbagh Alchirazi, Gregory Capelli, Muaz Alsabbagh
article en
2 citations

Abstract

Introduction: Colorectal cancer (CRC) remains a leading cause of cancer-related mortality globally. Colonoscopy is the gold standard for screening due to its ability to detect and remove precancerous lesions. However, its invasive nature has led to increased use of stool-based screening tests—including guaiac fecal occult blood test (gFOBT), fecal immunochemical test (FIT), and stool DNA testing—for their convenience and potential to improve adherence. This study evaluated long-term CRC incidence and mortality among individuals screened exclusively by stool-based methods compared to those undergoing colonoscopy. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort analysis using the TriNetX database. Patients aged 45–80 years with no prior CRC diagnosis or history of colonoscopy were grouped based on stool-based screening method (gFOBT or FIT DNA stool ) and matched 1:1 with a colonoscopy cohort. Propensity score matching adjusted for demographics (age, sex, race) and comorbidities (alcohol use, tobacco use, diabetes, family/personal malignancy history, and lipid disorders). Primary outcomes included subsequent CRC incidence and CRC-related mortality. Odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated; significance was set at P < 0.05. Results: Following matching, the FIT (n = 1,829,596) and gFOBT (n = 1,517,107) groups had significantly higher CRC incidence than the colonoscopy group (FIT: odds ratio [OR] 1.65, 95% CI 1.58–1.74, P < 0.001; gFOBT: OR 1.84, 95% CI 1.75–1.94, P < 0.001). The stool DNA group (n = 373,740) showed no significant difference in CRC incidence versus colonoscopy (OR 1.02, 95% CI 0.90–1.16, P = 0.711). CRC mortality was higher in the FIT (OR 1.63, 95% CI 1.61–1.65, P < 0.001) and gFOBT (OR 1.84, 95% CI 1.81–1.86, P < 0.001) cohorts, but significantly lower in the stool DNA group (OR 0.51, 95% CI 0.49–0.52, P < 0.001). Conclusion: Colonoscopy remains the most effective screening modality, given its ability to detect and remove precancerous lesions directly. Although stool-based tests are less invasive and may improve screening uptake, reliance on FIT or gFOBT alone was associated with higher CRC incidence and mortality. In contrast, stool DNA testing demonstrated comparable outcomes to colonoscopy and even lower CRC mortality, suggesting its potential as a robust noninvasive alternative in CRC screening strategies.

The American Journal of GastroenterologyVol. 120(10S2)
Openalex Percentile: Top 10%
Colorectal Cancer Screening and Detection
2.09
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.