InvestorsHub Logo
Post# of 252904
Next 10
Followers 836
Posts 120305
Boards Moderated 18
Alias Born 09/05/2002

Re: biomaven0 post# 160039

Sunday, 10/11/2015 12:29:10 PM

Sunday, October 11, 2015 12:29:10 PM

Post# of 252904
EXAS—Colon Cancer Alliance blasts USPSTF’s evaluation of Cologuard:

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/colon-cancer-alliance-us-preventive-services-task-force-recommendations-300157279.html

My contemporaneous (2013) view on this matter (#msg-86983487) was that Cologuard's 87% specificity could be a problem vis-à-vis commercial uptake, and that turned out to be a pretty good call.

However, USPSTF has gone too far, IMO, by improperly defining the test's specificity (#msg-117515504) and failing to take into account the test’s 3-year interval, thereby relegating Cologuard to “alternative” rather than “recommended” status. Thus, I find the arguments in the CCA’s PR (linked above) to be valid.

“The efficient-market hypothesis may be
the foremost piece of B.S. ever promulgated
in any area of human knowledge!”

Join InvestorsHub

Join the InvestorsHub Community

Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.