COLOGUARD®-FIRST OUTCOMES

Cologuard-first screening can help save more lives1,2

Real-world evidence* reinforces outcomes based on previous modeling data comparing Cologuard-first and colonoscopy-first screening.1,2†‡

An analysis using real-world data demonstrated1†:

~50%

reduced risk of CRC-related mortality with a Cologuard-first screening approach1†

In a simulated analysis:

~2x

more lives would be saved if patients screened
with the Cologuard test first2

When adherence is adjusted to approximated real-world rates, with the Cologuard test at 70% and colonoscopy at 40%2‡§

Dr Christine Molmenti, PhD, MPH, with quote on Cologuard’s role in lowering CRC rates.

Provider has been compensated for sharing her expertise and consulting for Exact Sciences.

Cologuard stool DNA test kit on a blue background.

Cologuard eligibility

Discover which of your patients are eligible to benefit from the high performance and adherence of the Cologuard test.

Explore Eligibility

Not only can Cologuard test-first screening improve outcomes for your patients, but it may help improve the efficiency of care as well.4,5

Stool-based tests, like the Cologuard test, may eliminate the CRC screening backlog more efficiently than screening colonoscopy, based on a simulated study.5

Dr Chuck Vega, MD, with a quote about Cologuard helping patients spend more time with family.

A modeling study estimated that after 3 years, the Cologuard test could5:

 

  • Detect ~127,000 more cases of CRC
  • Produce estimated treatment cost savings of $59.3 billion

Provider has been compensated for sharing his expertise and consulting for Exact Sciences.

Start CRC screening with the Cologuard test to identify and prioritize patients for colonoscopy.5,6

Patient Navigation Program

Explore the support from the Cologuard patient navigation program

Learn More
  • *Real-world evidence is the clinical evidence about the usage and potential benefits or risks of a medical product derived from analysis of real-world data. Real-world data are data relating to patient health status and/or the delivery of health care routinely collected from a variety of sources.8
  • †Based on a retrospective cohort analysis at a large health system using real-world data from the TriNetX database of patients aged 45-80 with no prior CRC diagnosis or history of colonoscopy, grouped based on stool-based screening method and matched 1:1 with a colonoscopy cohort. Propensity score matching adjusted for demographics and comorbidities. 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 significantly lower in the stool DNA group (CRC deaths: mt-sDNA n=4189, colonoscopy n=8183; OR 0.51, 95% Cl 0.49-0.52, P<0.001).1
  • ‡Based on data demonstrating how the benefits, burdens, and harms of CRC screening vary by screening modality. Three microsimulation models were used to estimate the life-years gained, CRC incidence and mortality, number of screening tests required, and complications of screening: CRC-SPIN, MISCAN, and SimCRC. All models were calibrated to SEER CRC incidence rates from 1975-1979 and adenoma prevalence from autopsy studies. Screening test characteristics were primarily based on a systematic USPSTF review. No formal sensitivity analysis on adherence rates was performed. Perfect adherence was assumed for a baseline. This analysis evaluated the effect of imperfect adherence on screening outcomes.2
  • §When adherence for both methods is assumed at the same rate, the Cologuard test and colonoscopy saved a similar number of lives.2

CI=confidence interval; CISNET=Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network; CRC-AIM=Colorectal Cancer-Adenoma Incidence and Mortality; CRC-SPIN=Colorectal Cancer Simulated Population Model for Incidence and Natural History; MISCAN=Microsimulation Screening Analysis; OR=odds ratio; SEER=Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results; SimCRC=Simulation Model of Colorectal Cancer; USPSTF=United States Preventive Services Task Force.