Exact Sciences' Cancer Test Won't Be A Commercial Success

| About: EXACT Sciences (EXAS)

By Jake King

Exact Sciences (NASDAQ:EXAS) on Thursday released the long-awaited results of its DeeP-C trial examining the use of its Cologuard test in the detection of CRC and precancerous polyps. The release initially caused a sharp sell-off in shares of Exact Sciences, as the results weren't as good as investors expected, but the stock rebounded significantly by the close and is up in early trading on Friday. We believe the late-breaking positive reaction is a head fake, and that Cologuard won't become a robust commercial success in the long haul. While the product certainly works, the results of the study suggest to us that Cologuard does not have enough of a benefit over existing products, like fecal immunochemical testing, to warrant what most believe will be a 10-12x price premium. And colonoscopy, the Gold Standard in colon cancer detection, still offers by far the best screening method available. Cologuard demonstrated a 92% sensitivity (true positive rate) for the detection of colorectal cancer and 42% for the detection of pre-cancerous polyps of >1cm (66% for polyps 2cm or larger). The test demonstrated a specificity (true negative rate) of 87% in the 10,000-patient trial. The specificity of Cologuard in the trial (and the reason for EXAS' immediate sell-off) came up short of the 90% seen in earlier trials. In addition, the detection of pre-cancerous polyps was below the company's 50% goal and short of the 59% that Cologuard produced in a previous, smaller trial. Consider that Cologuard's 42% sensitivity in detecting pre-cancerous polyps is worse than flipping a coin, and that for every 10 patients screened with Cologuard, 1 will receive inaccurate news that they have cancer.

While Cologuard may become one option in the arsenal of screening tests, we think that its pricing will be prohibitive of adoption by providers when considering its marginal benefits over existing tests. Dr. Deborah Fisher of Duke University commented in a New York Times article on Thursday that existing tests for blood in the stool detect about 80% of CRCs and 20-40% of polyps and cost about $25. Additionally, FIT in the DeeP-C trial was about the same as Cologuard at detecting CRC (and had a lower yield at detecting polyps). What this means to us is that most of the CRCs detected in this trial were bleeding (common), and would have been detected by FIT without Cologuard. It then appears that Cologuard provides no benefit over FIT in detecting CRC (and is projected to cost 12x more). In our opinion, the FDA won't approve this test as anything more than another screening tool for CRC/polyps (much like FIT approval) and certainly not as an alternative to colonoscopy. And as the detection rate for CRC is about the same as FIT, we believe insurers will have a real issue with the significant additional expense of Cologuard that provides little or no improved diagnostic yield. In addition, patients have little desire to catch feces in a jar before storing it in their refrigerator overnight. Thus, we continue to believe that few physicians/patients will opt for this diagnostic alternative. There are yet four more key binary events for the company: an FDA panel, a coverage decision from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Service (CMS), an FDA decision, and market release of Cologuard. Nothing that has been presented to date has altered our opinion about Cologuard, and we believe that reality about the utility/cost-benefit of this test will eventually set in.

Disclosure: I have no positions in any stocks mentioned, and no plans to initiate any positions within the next 72 hours. I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it. I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article.

Additional disclosure: PropThink is a team of editors, analysts, and writers. This article was written by Jake King. We did not receive compensation for this article, and we have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article. Use of PropThink’s research is at your own risk. You should do your own research and due diligence before making any investment decision with respect to securities covered herein.You should assume that as of the publication date of any report or letter, PropThink, LLC and persons or entities with whom it has relation ships (collectively referred to as "PropThink") has a position in all stocks (and/or options of the stock) covered herein that is consistent with the position set forth in our research report. Following publication of any report or letter, PropThink intends to continue transacting in the securities covered herein, and we may be long, short, or neutral at any time hereafter regardless of our initial recommendation. To the best of our knowledge and belief, all information contained herein is accurate and reliable, and has been obtained from public sources we believe to be accurate and reliable, and not from company insiders or persons who have a relationship with company insiders. Our full disclaimer is available at www.propthink.com/disclaimer.