Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
INTRODUCTION: Multitarget stool DNA (MT-sDNA) tests (i.e., Cologuard) serve as screening tests for colorectal cancer (CRC) and are recommended by the US Preventive Services Task Force every 1-3 years. In this study, in a primary care setting, our aim was to evaluate the diagnostic performance of MT-sDNA testing and colonoscopy findings after a positive MT-sDNA testing result. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of electronic health record data including all patients who underwent MT-sDNA tests (Cologuard; Exact Sciences, Madison, WI) at 35 network primary care facilities from Winter of 2019 to Spring of 2023. Patients who were at high risk and had a prior colonoscopy or prior negative MT-sDNA test result were excluded. Assessment of pathology was as previously described, including for advanced adenomas and CRC. RESULTS: Among the 5,827 patients for whom MT-sDNA testing was ordered, 3,119 patients completed the test; 482 (15%) had a positive MT-sDNA test, most of whom were women, had an average age of 65 years, and were predominantly White (Supplemental Figure 1, Table 1). Among these 482 patients, 277 (57%) had a follow-up screening colonoscopy, with 253 patients having complete colonoscopy data. Ten patients (4%) had CRC, 61 (24%) had advanced adenomas, and 184 patients (73%) had neither. The sigmoid colon was the most common site for CRC, with 8 of 10 patients having tumor, node, metastasis stage ≥1 CRC. DISCUSSION: The rate of colon cancer detection (10/5,827 [0.2%] patients for whom it was ordered and 10/3,119 [0.3%] who completed the test) was lower than expected in a screening cohort. Most patients who completed MT-sDNA testing had a false-positive result for advanced adenomas or CRC (73%). Together, these findings raise questions about the effectiveness of screening based on MT-sDNA testing in an average risk population.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Rao et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: