PSalerno
I agree almost 100% with Spano in the last 2 comments. Cologuard every 3 years is almost identical to colonoscopy every 10 years and FIT every year is almost identical to cologuard every 3 years. Epi test is a laggard with 41% sensitivity in stage I cancer, but can be a solution for people unwilling to do a stool test.
HAL2016
Pro Colon has an overall sensitivity of 68% and 72% proven in 2 Independent studies, PRESEPT and Pivotal study and is therefore not inferior to FIT. Both studies were the Basis for FDA approval. The 48% in the Jama Report are wrong but will be corrected pretty soon.
Specificity is with 80% not that good as of FIT. But again pro Colon is for Patients who refuse stool Tests or colonoscopy. Market Potential is 23 mln. Unscreened in the U.S.
Kleeno
Maybe people don't like getting stuck with needles too.... there's a thought.... and you can't do it at home... there's another thought. And I didn't see Epi ProColon in the updated HEDIS guidelines. Doh.
Just happy to be included, "officially", in the HEDIS guidelines. Tired of all of the doubters, along with the misrepresentations regarding the benefits to the usage of Cologuard. Been a long road.... and as stated, it is all about execution now. Shorts are running thin on arguments now. Hope all is well up in cheese land.
HAL2016
Hi Kleeno,
have you actually read the report above of the entire thread? You should read this again. Being in the HEDIS guidelines is favorable, for sure. There is two criteria: rate of completion the Cologuard test and patient satisfaction. A completion rate of mere 70% is poor and shows that 30 out of 100 patients alone with the test tube (sorry bucket) at home obviously do not send the sample back. Do you know how much the effort of EXAS' call center is to scrutinize the completion of the test? I assume it's a lot.
With the anxiety of some people being stuck with a needle you could be right. However, we talk about a minority. Than we have people who never completed a vaccination or never had a blood count. In an economic sense this would be a very little number Epigenomics can cope with.
Salerno
HAL is correct here because the majority of the people is stuck with a needle every year or 2, in order to monitor general health situation. In those case they can simply add the Epi test to the other analysis without making an additional blood test. The stool test is a lot less frequent and the main purpose is the CRC screeining.
Zurück
Werbung
