Where are the math wizards/MDs? Are we looking at the odds correctly? The cologuard test finds 75% of cancers compared to the colonoscopy at 95%. But, the cologuard is done annually and the colonoscopy is completed only at 10 year intervals. I suspect the testing frequency brings the two tests results much closer. IOW, are 10 annual tests each having a 75% detection rate better than one test every decade with a 95% detection rate?
ETA: I did the math and came up with a detection rate of 98.1% for 10 annual cologuard tests. But I will yield to the math gods. 1-(.25 x .75 to the 9th) Re-reading the article posted by OP they do indicate two annual cologuard tests come close to the colonoscopy detection rate.
"
The study found that the FIT test had a sensitivity of a 75 to 80 percent, meaning it identified cancer in 75 to 80 percent of individuals who had the disease, said lead author Dr. Thomas Imperiale, a gastroenterologist at the Indiana University School of Medicine and Regenstrief Institute in Indianapolis. In comparison, colonoscopy had a sensitivity of 95 percent............. (Unlike a colonoscopy, which is recommended once every 10 years, the FIT test is recommended yearly.)..........What's more, comparing the performance of a single FIT test to a one-time application of colonoscopy as a screening method for colorectal cancer is like comparing apples to oranges, Allison told Live Science. That's because colonoscopy is recommended once every 10 years while FIT testing would be recommended every year, which would allow for the discovery of advanced tumors and early treatable cancers each year, he noted."