EXAS statistics vs statistics used in traditional colonoscopy or non-invasive colonoscopy:
When comparing traditional colonoscopy vs non-invasive colonoscopy I believe that they are comparing number of missed individual polyps etc.
But while EXAS statistics sound the same I suspect they are, de facto, about the whole patient. For example, imagine the following:
a) 70% of patients with any polyps have more than 1.
b) Virtual colonoscopy catches 60% of all polyps - so in the 30% of patients with just one polyp they catch it 60% of the time.
c) But if EXAS is making their calc on a per-patient basis then they might well be catching almost none of the patients with single polyps less than 1 cm and yet still claim they have a sensitivity of 60% - because they catch 90% of the patients with multiple polyps. Obviously this is a worse outcome for the patients (since the only goal of virtual colonoscopy or Cologuard is to trigger a real colonoscopy and excision.)
Note that, in fact, I expect some variant of #c to be true - that Cologuard is much more likely to catch a patient with 4 polyps less than 1 cm than it is to catch a patient with just 1 polyp. Thus I would expect that for similar sounding statistics the cologuard is not as good as virtual colonoscopy. The only question is how much so.
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.