I really wish the trial included stool testing. I suspect it would perform very favorably to the colonoscopy, which seems to have very modest benefits to begin with. And the stool test is infinitely easier (and cheaper on a healthcare system).
>The sensitivity of detection of carcinoma is a remarkably acceptable comparison. The multi-targeted stool DNA test is 92% sensitive for finding cancers, which is almost equal to colonoscopy, reportedly at 95%.
The stool test isn’t as good at detecting polyps but the Nordic study would have shed some light on how much that reduces cancer mortality anyway. This study suggests stool testing compares very favorably to colonoscopy.
>The sensitivity of detection of carcinoma is a remarkably acceptable comparison. The multi-targeted stool DNA test is 92% sensitive for finding cancers, which is almost equal to colonoscopy, reportedly at 95%.
https://www.facs.org/for-medical-professionals/news-publicat...
The stool test isn’t as good at detecting polyps but the Nordic study would have shed some light on how much that reduces cancer mortality anyway. This study suggests stool testing compares very favorably to colonoscopy.
https://medicine.iu.edu/news/2019/02/new-study-shows-annual-...