Table of Contents

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C.  20549

FORM 10-Q

x    QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d)

OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the quarterly period ended June 30, 2008

OR

o    TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d)

OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

Commission File Number:  000-32179

EXACT SCIENCES CORPORATION

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

(508) 683-1200

(Registrant’s telephone number, including area code)

        Indicate by check mark whether the registrant: (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.  Yes  x      No  o

        Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer,” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act).  Yes  o      No  x

As of August 4, 2008, the registrant had 27,243,568 shares of Common Stock outstanding.

Table of Contents

EXACT SCIENCES CORPORATION

INDEX

Table of Contents

EXACT SCIENCES CORPORATION

Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets

(Amounts in thousands, except share data - unaudited)

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these condensed consolidated financial statements.

3

Table of Contents

EXACT SCIENCES CORPORATION

Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations

(Amounts in Thousands, except per share data unaudited)

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these condensed consolidated financial statements.

4

Table of Contents

EXACT SCIENCES CORPORATION

Condensed Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows

(Amounts in thousands - unaudited)

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these condensed consolidated financial statements.

5

Table of Contents

EXACT SCIENCES CORPORATION

Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements

(Unaudited)

(1) ORGANIZATION AND BASIS OF PRESENTATION

Organization

EXACT Sciences Corporation (the “Company”) was incorporated in February 1995.  The Company has developed proprietary DNA-based technologies for use in the detection of cancer.  The Company has selected colorectal cancer as the first application of its technologies.  The Company has licensed certain of its technologies, including improvements to such technologies, on an exclusive basis through December 2010 to Laboratory Corporation of America® Holdings (“LabCorp®”) for use in a commercial testing service for the detection of colorectal cancer developed by LabCorp.  LabCorp’s first generation testing service, “PreGen-Plus™,” was a non-invasive stool-based DNA testing service for the detection of colorectal cancer in the average-risk population and was marketed by LabCorp from August 2003 through June 1, 2008.  In July 2008, LabCorp began offering “ColoSure™”, its new non-invasive laboratory developed stool-based DNA testing service for the detection of colorectal cancer in the average-risk population, which is based on the Vimentin gene, a methylated DNA marker that in published studies was shown to be associated with colorectal cancer.  The Company has devoted the majority of its efforts to date on research and development and commercialization support of its colorectal cancer detection technologies.

Basis of Presentation

The accompanying condensed consolidated financial statements of the Company are unaudited and have been prepared on a basis substantially consistent with the Company’s audited financial statements.  These condensed consolidated financial statements assume that the Company will continue as a going concern, which contemplates the realization of assets and the satisfaction of liabilities and commitments in the normal course of business, and, in the opinion of management, include all normal and recurring adjustments which are necessary to present fairly the results of operations for the reported periods.  These condensed consolidated financial statements are prepared in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) and follow the requirements of the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) for interim reporting.

The results of the Company’s operations for any interim period are not necessarily indicative of the results of the Company’s operations for any other interim period or for a full fiscal year.

The Company has generated limited operating revenues since its inception and, as of June 30, 2008, had an accumulated deficit of approximately $167.3 million.  The Company’s losses have historically resulted from costs incurred in conjunction with research, development, and clinical study initiatives, salaries and benefits associated with the hiring of personnel, the initiation of marketing programs and, prior to August 31, 2007, costs related to its sales and marketing functions to support the commercialization of its stool-based DNA screening technology.

The audit opinion with respect to the Company’s consolidated financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2007 issued by its independent registered public accounting firm included an explanatory paragraph to emphasize that there is substantial doubt about the Company’s ability to continue as a going concern.  The Company expects that its cash, cash equivalents and short-term investments on hand at June 30, 2008 will be sufficient to fund its current operations through the end of the second quarter of 2009.  This projection is based on the Company’s current cost structure and its current operating assumptions, which do not provide for any funding related to clinical validation and other studies for the Company’s Version 2 technology.  The Company has no current sources of material ongoing revenue and, accordingly, it will need to raise additional capital in the next ten months through a strategic transaction, debt or equity financing, or third-party collaboration, if any, or some combination of the foregoing, to continue operations beyond the end of the second quarter of 2009.  If the Company is unable to obtain additional capital prior to the end of the second quarter of 2009, it will not be able to sustain its operations and would likely be required to cease its operations.  In addition, if the Company’s expenses exceed its current estimates, the Company will be required to obtain additional funds even sooner.  These conditions raise substantial doubt about the Company’s ability to continue as a going concern.  The condensed consolidated financial statements included in this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q do not include any adjustments to reflect the possible future effects on the recoverability and classification of assets or the amounts and classification of liabilities or any other adjustments that might be necessary should the Company be unable to continue as a going concern.

As a result of the foregoing, the Company engaged an investment bank in the first quarter of 2008 to assist its board of directors in evaluating strategic alternatives for the Company.  On July 16, 2008, the Company announced that it revised its corporate strategy to take immediate actions to preserve existing cash while focusing on the pursuit of a strategic transaction for the business.  To date,

6

Table of Contents

the Company has not entered into any agreements or commitments for any specific strategic alternative or transaction in connection therewith.  The company’s revised corporate strategy may not result in a strategic alternative in the near future, if at all.

(2) SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES

Principles of Consolidation

The accompanying condensed consolidated financial statements include the accounts of the Company’s wholly-owned subsidiary, EXACT Sciences Securities Corporation, a Massachusetts securities corporation.  All significant intercompany transactions and balances have been eliminated in consolidation.

Use of Estimates

The preparation of financial statements in conformity with GAAP requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of revenues and expenses during the reporting period.  Actual results could differ from those estimates.

Cash and Cash Equivalents

The Company considers all highly-liquid investments with maturities of 90 days or less at the time of acquisition to be cash equivalents.  Cash equivalents primarily consist of money market funds.

Restricted Cash

At June 30, 2008 and December 31, 2007, $0.7 million of the Company’s cash has been pledged as collateral for an outstanding letter of credit in connection with the lease for the Company’s corporate headquarters.

Marketable Securities

The Company accounts for its investments in marketable securities in accordance with Statement of Financial Accounting Standards (“SFAS”) No. 115, Accounting for Certain Investments in Debt and Equity Securities.  Management determines the appropriate classification of debt securities at the time of purchase and re-evaluates such designation as of each balance sheet date.  Debt securities are classified as held-to-maturity when the Company has the positive intent and ability to hold the securities to maturity.  Marketable equity securities and debt securities not classified as held-to-maturity are classified as available-for-sale.  Available-for-sale securities are carried at fair value, with the unrealized gains and losses, net of tax, reported in other comprehensive income.  The amortized cost of debt securities in this category is adjusted for amortization of premiums and accretion of discounts to maturity computed under the effective interest method.  Such amortization is included in investment income.  Realized gains and losses and declines in value judged to be other-than-temporary on available-for-sale securities are included in investment income.  The cost of securities sold is based on the specific identification method.  Interest and dividends on securities classified as available-for-sale are included in investment income.

All of the Company’s investments are comprised of fixed income investments and all are deemed available-for-sale.  The objectives of this portfolio are to provide liquidity and safety of principal while striving to achieve the highest rate of return consistent with these two objectives.  The Company’s investment policy limits investments to certain types of instruments issued by institutions with investment grade credit ratings and places restrictions on maturities and concentration by type and issuer.  There were no realized gains or losses on the sale of available-for-sale securities during the three and six months ended June 30, 2008 and 2007.

Patent Costs

Patent costs, which have historically consisted of related legal fees, are capitalized as incurred and are amortized beginning when patents are approved over an estimated useful life of five years.  Capitalized patent costs are expensed upon disapproval, upon a decision by the Company to no longer pursue the patent or when the related intellectual property is deemed to be no longer of value to the Company.  As of June 30, 2008, the majority of the recorded value of the patent portfolio related to intellectual property licensed to LabCorp in connection with its stool-based DNA colorectal cancer screening service.

The following table summarizes activity with respect to the Company’s capitalized patents for the six months ended June 30, 2008 and 2007.  Amounts included in the table are in thousands.

7

Table of Contents

In July 2008, the Company announced that it was taking certain actions to reduce its cost structure to preserve existing cash, including suspending the clinical validation study of its Version 2 technology and eliminating approximately eight positions.  These cost reduction actions were deemed to be impairment indicators pursuant to SFAS No. 144, Accounting for the Impairment or Disposal of Long-Lived Assets (“SFAS No. 144”).  After performing the requisite impairment analysis, the Company wrote off approximately $253,000 in capitalized patents related specifically to one of the components of its Version 2 technology that is not used in LabCorp’s current ColoSure testing service.

During the three months ended March 31, 2007, the Company determined that it would likely not pursue commercialization of certain technologies and, accordingly, wrote off approximately $121,000 in capitalized patents related to these technologies.  Capitalized patents written off during the three months ended March 31, 2007 were unrelated to intellectual property licensed to LabCorp for PreGen-Plus.  During the three months ended June 30, 2007, a capitalized pending patent application, which is not critical to LabCorp’s PreGen-Plus testing service, was not approved by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, and, accordingly, the Company wrote off approximately $32,000 in connection with this patent application.

The Company applies SFAS No. 144, which requires the Company to evaluate whether events or circumstances have occurred that indicate that the estimated remaining useful life of long-lived assets and certain identifiable intangibles and goodwill may warrant revision or that the carrying value of these assets may be impaired.

Net Loss Per Share

Basic and diluted net loss per share is presented in conformity with SFAS No. 128, Earnings per Share (“SFAS No. 128”), for all periods presented.  In accordance with SFAS No. 128, basic net loss per common share was determined by dividing net loss applicable to common stockholders by the weighted average common shares outstanding during the period.  Basic and diluted net loss per share are the same because all outstanding common stock equivalents have been excluded, as they are anti-dilutive.

The following potentially issuable common shares were not included in the computation of diluted net loss per share because they would have an anti-dilutive effect due to net losses for each period:

Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation

The Company accounts for share-based payments to employees in accordance with SFAS No. 123(R), Share-Based Payment (“SFAS No. 123(R)”), which requires all share-based payments to employees, including grants of employee stock options and shares purchased under an employee stock purchase plan (if certain parameters are not met), to be recognized in the financial statements based on their fair values.  Share-based payment transactions with parties other than employees are accounted for in accordance with EITF 96-18, Accounting for Equity Instruments That Are Issued to Other Than Employees for Acquiring, or in Conjunction with Selling, Goods or Services.

8

Table of Contents

Revenue Recognition

License fees—License fees for the licensing of product rights on initiation of strategic agreements are recorded as deferred revenue upon receipt and recognized as revenue on a straight-line basis over the license period.  On June 27, 2007, the Company entered into an amendment to its exclusive license agreement with LabCorp (the “Second Amendment”) that, among other modifications to the terms of the license, extended the exclusive license period from August 2008 to December 2010, subject to carve-outs for certain named organizations.  Accordingly, the Company amortizes the remaining deferred revenue balance resulting from its license agreement with LabCorp at the time of the Second Amendment ($4.7 million) on a straight-line basis over the remaining exclusive license period, which ends in December 2010.

Product royalty fees— The Company has licensed certain of its technologies, including improvements to such technologies, on an exclusive basis through December 2010 to LabCorp.  LabCorp developed and commercially offered PreGen-Plus, a non-invasive stool-based DNA colorectal cancer screening service for the average-risk population based on the Company’s Version 1 technology, from August 2003 through June 2008.  In June 2008, LabCorp stopped offering PreGen-Plus.  On July 14, 2008, LabCorp began to commercially offer ColoSure, its next generation non-invasive, stool-based DNA testing service for the detection of colorectal cancer in the average-risk population, which is based on certain of the Company’s intellectual property.  The Company will be entitled to the same royalty and milestone structure on any sales of ColoSure as it was entitled to on sales of PreGen-Plus.

Prior to the effective date of the Second Amendment, the Company’s product royalty fees were based on a specified contractual percentage of LabCorp’s cash receipts from performing PreGen-Plus tests.  Accordingly, the Company recorded product royalty fees based on this specified percentage of LabCorp’s cash receipts, as reported to the Company each month by LabCorp.  Subsequent to the effective date of the Second Amendment, the Company’s product royalty fees are based on a specified contractual percentage of LabCorp’s net revenues from sales of PreGen-Plus through June 1, 2008, when LabCorp stopped offering PreGen-Plus, and from sales of ColoSure from and after July 2008.  Accordingly, subsequent to the effective date of the Second Amendment, the Company records product royalty fees based on the specified contractual percentage of LabCorp’s net revenues from its sales of such colorectal cancer screening tests, as reported to the Company each month by LabCorp.  The current royalty rate is 15%, subject to an increase to 17% in the event that LabCorp achieves a specified significant threshold of annual net revenues from the sales of such colorectal cancer screening tests.

Additionally, pursuant to the Second Amendment, the Company will potentially be obligated to reimburse LabCorp for certain third-party royalty payments, as described in Note 4 below.  To the extent the Company incurs liabilities in connection with this provision of the Second Amendment, the accretion of such liabilities will be recorded as a reduction in the product royalty fee line item in the Company’s consolidated statements of operations.

Product revenue—Product revenue from the sale of certain components of the Company’s Effipure™ technology to LabCorp is recognized upon transfer of the components provided that title passes, the price is fixed or determinable and collection of the receivable is probable.  LabCorp has indicated that Effipure is not used as a component in LabCorp’s ColoSure offering.

Other revenue—Revenue from milestone and other performance-based payments will be recognized as revenue when the milestone or performance is achieved and collection of the receivable is estimable and probable.

Comprehensive Loss

SFAS No. 130, Reporting Comprehensive Income, establishes presentation and disclosure requirements for comprehensive income (loss).  Comprehensive loss consists of net loss and the change in unrealized gains and losses on marketable securities.  Comprehensive loss for the three and six months ended June 30, 2008 and 2007 was as follows:

(3) FOURTH AMENDMENT TO LABCORP LICENSE AGREEMENT

On March 17, 2008, the Company entered into the fourth amendment (the “Fourth Amendment”) to its exclusive license agreement with LabCorp.  Among other things, the Fourth Amendment further clarified certain license rights of the parties, amended LabCorp’s termination rights relating to the failure to launch the Company’s Version 2 technology and restricted certain of the Company’s termination rights in the event the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) limits LabCorp’s ability to market products that incorporate technology

9

Table of Contents

licensed to LabCorp under the amended license agreement.  In addition, the Fourth Amendment eliminated certain of the Company’s termination rights for a specified period of time during which LabCorp is not marketing any stool-based DNA test for colorectal cancer as a result of preparing for a commercial launch of a stool-based DNA test for colorectal cancer based on certain of the Company’s intellectual property.

(4) CONTINGENCIES

Third Party Royalty Obligation

Pursuant to the terms of the Second Amendment, the Company will potentially be obligated to reimburse LabCorp for certain third-party royalty payments if LabCorp’s third-party royalty rate is greater than a specified royalty rate during the measuring period, as outlined in the table below.  The Company’s obligation to pay LabCorp pursuant to this provision of the Second Amendment is based on LabCorp’s sales volumes of colorectal cancer screening tests using the Company’s technology during three separate measurement periods, as defined below.  A significant increase in such sales volumes during any measurement period, as compared to historical PreGen-Plus sales volumes, could reduce the Company’s potential obligation during any measurement period, while test volumes consistent with historical PreGen-Plus sales levels could result in aggregate payments to LabCorp totaling up to $3.5 million during the measurement periods.  Until LabCorp’s sales of colorectal cancer screening tests using the Company’s technology increase to a level that would reduce this potential maximum obligation, if ever, the Company intends to record its estimated obligation under this provision of the Second Amendment as a reduction in the product royalty fee line item in its consolidated statements of operations, in accordance with EITF No. 01-09, Accounting for Consideration Given by a Vendor to a Customer (Including a Reseller of the Vendor’s Products).  Based on sales volumes of PreGen-Plus through June 1, 2008 and anticipated sales volumes of ColoSure, as of June 30, 2008, the Company’s had accrued a total of $2.0 million related to the total potential $3.5 million obligation to LabCorp, including the total potential $1.5 million obligation related to the first measurement period, which ends in December 2008, as well as $500,000 of the total potential $1.0 million obligation related to the second measurement period, which ends in December 2009.  The Company recorded charges of $0.5 million and $0.8 million, respectively, during the three and six months ended June 30, 2008 in connection with this third-party royalty obligation.  These charges were recorded under the caption “Product royalty fees” in the Company’s consolidated statements of operations.  This obligation is recorded in the Company’s consolidated balance sheets under the caption “Third-party royalty obligation.”  Future increases in this obligation, to the extent necessary, will continue to be recorded as charges to the product royalty revenue line item of the Company’s consolidated statements of operations.  Amounts included in the table are in thousands.

Employee Severance and Retention Agreements

On April 18, 2008, the Company entered into amended and restated employee retention agreements (the “Agreements”) with certain employees, including Jeffrey R. Luber, the Company’s President and Chief Executive Officer, and Charles R. Carelli, Jr., the Company’s Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer and Secretary.  The Agreements supersede and replace the prior employee retention agreements entered into between the Company and Messrs. Luber and Carelli on October 23, 2006.

For personnel remaining employed by the Company after the July 2008 cost reduction initiations (described in Note 10 below), the total potential severance and other obligations upon the occurrence of certain triggering events, including a termination without cause following a change of control of the Company, was approximately $2.0 million at June 30, 2008.  As of June 30, 2008, the Company has not recorded any amount related to the potential severance payments because no triggering events had occurred as of that date.

10

Table of Contents

(5) RESTRUCTURING

On August 31, 2007, the Company entered into a third amendment (the “Third Amendment”) to its exclusive license agreement with LabCorp that, among other things, added a potential $2.5 million milestone payment for which the Company may be eligible upon policy-level reimbursement approval from Medicare at a specified minimum reimbursement rate, inclusion of stool-based DNA screening in clinical practice guidelines and the achievement of certain increases in sales levels of ColoSure over a defined measuring period.  The Third Amendment also provided that LabCorp will assume sole responsibility, at its expense, for all commercial activities related to LabCorp’s stool-based DNA testing service, and provided that LabCorp would offer at-will employment to certain former personnel of the Company.  In connection with the Third Amendment, the Company notified six employees of their termination from the Company (the “2007 Restructuring”).  The 2007 Restructuring was principally designed to eliminate the Company’s sales and marketing functions to reduce costs and help preserve the Company’s cash resources.  In connection with the 2007 Restructuring, the Company recorded restructuring charges of approximately $0.8 million during the three months ended September 30, 2007, primarily related to one-time termination benefits arising under retention and severance agreements with each of the terminated employees.

Restructuring charges recorded during the third quarter of 2007 of $0.8 million included $0.6 million in severance and related benefit costs expected to be paid in cash through May 2008, and $0.2 million in non-cash stock-based compensation charges associated with extending the period of exercise for vested stock option awards for terminated employees.

During the fourth quarter of 2007, the Company entered into a sublease agreement (the “Sublease Agreement”) with INTRINSIX Corporation (the “Subtenant”) to sublease to the Subtenant approximately 11,834 square feet of rentable area in the Company’s corporate headquarters.  In connection with the Sublease Agreement, the Company recorded restructuring charges of approximately $0.4 million during the fourth quarter of 2007 (included opposite the caption “Facility consolidation costs” in the table below), which consist of approximately $0.3 million in future cash payments related to the difference between the Company’s committed lease payments and the estimated sublease rental income under the Sublease Agreement and approximately $0.1 million of non-cash charges related to the write-off of leasehold improvements abandoned by the Company in connection with the Sublease Agreement. The Company’s decision to enter into the Sublease Agreement was deemed to be an impairment indicator under SFAS No. 144. As a result of performing the impairment evaluations, asset impairment charges of $0.1 million were recorded to adjust the carrying value of the related leasehold improvements to their net realizable value.  Facility consolidation costs also include one time real estate transaction fees in connection with the Sublease Agreement.

Amounts remaining in the 2007 Restructuring accrual at June 30, 2008, which are expected to be paid out through July 2010, are recorded under the caption “Accrued expenses” in the Company’s condensed consolidated balance sheets.

The following table summarizes changes made to the restructuring accrual during the six months ended June 30, 2008 relating to the 2007 Restructuring and Sublease Agreement.  Amounts included in the table are in thousands.

As described in Note 10 below, the Company plans to record restructuring charges ranging from $200,000 to $300,000 during the third quarter of 2008 in connection with its July 2008 cost reduction initiatives.  The Company is pursuing efforts to further reduce its costs and may record additional restructuring charges related to such reductions in future periods.

11

Table of Contents

(6) STOCK-BASED COMPENSATION

Stock-Based Compensation Plans

The Company maintains the 1995 Stock Option Plan (“1995 Option Plan”), the 2000 Stock Option and Incentive Plan (“2000 Option Plan”) and the 2000 Employee Stock Purchase Plan (“Employee Stock Purchase Plan”).  Note 9 to the Company’s consolidated financial statements included in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007, which has been filed with the SEC, includes a description of the Company’s stock-based compensation plans.

Stock-Based Compensation Expense

The Company recorded $0.2 million and $0.5 million, respectively, in stock-based compensation during the three and six months ended June 30, 2008 in connection with the amortization of awards of common stock, restricted common stock and stock options granted to employees, non-employee directors and non-employee consultants.  The Company recorded $0.7 million and $1.1 million, respectively, in stock-based compensation during the three and six months ended June 30, 2007 in connection with the amortization of employee and non-employee director stock option awards, stock options granted to non-employee consultants, common stock issued to a collaborator, and stock-based compensation expense related to the Company’s 2007 401(k) match.

Determining Fair Value

Valuation and Amortization Method - The fair value of each option award is estimated on the date of grant using the Black-Scholes option-pricing model based on the assumptions in the table below.  The estimated fair value of employee stock options is amortized to expense using the straight-line method over the vesting period.

Expected Term - The Company uses the simplified calculation of expected life, described in the SEC’s Staff Accounting Bulletins 107 and 110, as the Company does not currently have sufficient historical exercise data on which to base an estimate of expected term.  Using this method, the expected life is determined using the average of the vesting period and the contractual life of the stock options granted.

Expected Volatility - Expected volatility is based on the Company’s historical volatility from the time of its initial public offering in January 2001 through the measurement date of the awards.

Risk-Free Interest Rate - The Company bases the risk-free interest rate used in the Black-Scholes valuation method on the implied yield currently available on U.S. Treasury zero-coupon issues with an equivalent remaining term.

Forfeitures - As required by SFAS No. 123(R), the Company records share-based compensation expense only for those awards that are expected to vest.  The Company does not need to estimate forfeitures because all share based awards vest monthly.

The fair value of each option award is estimated on the date of grant using the Black-Scholes option-pricing model based on the assumptions in the following table.

12

Table of Contents

(1)                                 The Company did not issue stock options or stock purchase rights under its stock-based compensation plans during the periods indicated.

Stock Option Activity

A summary of stock option activity under the 1995 Option Plan and the 2000 Option Plan during the six months ended June 30, 2008 is as follows:

(1)                                  The aggregate intrinsic value of options outstanding, as well as options vested and expected to vest, at June 30, 2008 is calculated as the difference between the exercise price of the underlying options and the market price of the Company’s common stock for the 54,204 options that had exercise prices that were lower than the $1.80 market price of our common stock at June 30, 2008.  The aggregate intrinsic value of options exercisable at June 30, 2008 is calculated as the difference between the exercise price of the underlying options and the market price of the Company’s common stock for the 47,953 options that had exercise prices that were lower than the $1.80 market price of our common stock at June 30, 2008.

As of June 30, 2008, there was $1.5 million of total unrecognized compensation cost related to non-vested share-based compensation arrangements granted under all equity compensation plans.  Total unrecognized compensation cost will be adjusted for future changes in forfeitures.  The Company expects to recognize that cost over a weighted average period of 1.7 years.

(7) COLORECTAL CANCER SCREENING GUIDELINES

Professional colorectal cancer screening guidelines in the United States, including those of the American Cancer Society (“ACS”), the American College of Gastroenterology and the American Gastroenterological Association, recommend regular screening by a variety of methods.  Historically, such recommendations consisted of colonoscopy, flexible sigmoidoscopy, double contrast barium enema and fecal occult blood testing (FOBT), as well as combinations of some of these methods.  On March 5, 2008, the ACS, the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer, a consortium of several organizations including representatives of the American College of Gastroenterology, American Gastroenterological Association, American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy and the American College of Physicians/Society of Internal Medicine (the “MSTF-CRC”), and the American College of Radiology announced that non-invasive, stool-based DNA screening technology has been included in the updated national colorectal cancer screening guidelines as a screening option for the detection of colorectal cancer in average risk, asymptomatic individuals age 50 and above.  These new guidelines now divide colorectal cancer screening into two groups, one including non-invasive methods for the early detection of colorectal cancer and the other including invasive techniques for the prevention and early detection of colorectal cancer.  Non-invasive technologies include fecal occult blood testing and stool-based DNA screening for individuals unwilling or unable to use invasive screening procedures.  Invasive procedures include colonoscopy, flexible sigmoidoscopy, CT colonography, and double contrast barium enema and, according to the new guidelines, are designed to detect both early cancer and adenomatous polyps and should be encouraged if resources are available and patients are willing to undergo and invasive test.  While the Company views inclusion of its stool-based DNA technology in the ACS and MSTF-CRC guidelines as a critical first step toward building sufficient demand for any stool-based DNA screening test for colorectal cancer, the Company believes that FDA clearance for its technologies, and reimbursement from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and other third-party payors will be necessary to achieve any significant increase in demand for its technologies.  In addition, the ACS and MSTF-CRC guidelines indicated that new technologies and new technical versions of approved technologies need only detect a majority of colorectal cancers in a screening population to meet guidelines criteria.  The Company has not performed a stand-alone colorectal cancer screening study of LabCorp’s ColoSure test and there can be no assurance that the guidelines groups will agree that existing studies using our Version 2 technologies, and any related data supporting ColoSure, will meet the requirements set forth in the current ACS and MSTF-CRC guidelines for inclusion of ColoSure in future guidelines of such organizations.  If the guidelines groups indicate a lack of acceptance for these more advanced technologies, such action could have a materially adverse impact on the Company’s business.

13

Table of Contents

(8) REGULATORY STATUS

From August 2003 through June 2008, LabCorp offered its PreGen-Plus testing service, which included the Effipure component from the Company, as an in-house developed laboratory test, or “homebrew” testing service.  On October 11, 2007, the FDA sent the Company a warning letter (the “Warning Letter”) with respect to the PreGen-Plus testing service, indicating that PreGen-Plus is a Class III medical device and that it cannot be commercially distributed without an appropriate pre-market approval or clearance from the FDA.  The Company’s Version 1 technology was the basis for LabCorp’s PreGen-Plus testing service.  Effective June 1, 2008, LabCorp stopped offering PreGen-Plus and indicated that it had discontinued its use of Effipure.

In addition to the Company’s Version 1 technology underlying the PreGen-Plus testing service that was offered by LabCorp, the Company has also developed a Version 2 colorectal cancer screening technology that it believes has greater sensitivity and is more cost-effective than Version 1.  In April 2008, the Company began to focus its regulatory efforts on pursuing FDA clearance for Version 2 of its technology, a two-marker version that the Company believes offers greater sensitivity and is more cost-effective than its earlier, 23 marker Version 1 technology.  In this regard, in April 2008, the Company submitted a pre-Investigational Device Exemption (“pre-IDE”) request to the FDA for its Version 2 technology.  The objective of the pre-IDE process was to seek concurrence from the FDA that a 510(k) submission followed by a de novo classification request is an appropriate regulatory path for the Company’s Version 2 technology and that the clinical and other studies proposed in its Version 2 pre-IDE submission would likely support such a de novo regulatory path.

On July 14, 2008, LabCorp announced that it would begin offering a new laboratory-developed test called ColoSure, a single-marker test that is based on certain of the Company’s Version 2 intellectual property and that does not use the Effipure component.  Also in July 2008, the Company confirmed with the FDA the clinical performance characteristics and the minimum number of average-risk colorectal cancer samples that would be required for validation of its Version 2 stool-based DNA technology for colorectal cancer screening.  In addition, based on its discussions with the FDA, the Company believes that the de novo pathway would be the appropriate regulatory path for its Version 2 technology.  The Company estimates that total costs to complete its Version 2 validation studies and the related regulatory submission process would range from $6.5 million to $8.5 million.  The FDA may ultimately determine that a pre-market approval application (“PMA”) is the appropriate path forward for the Company with respect to Version 2 of its stool-based DNA technology instead of a de novo pathway, or that additional samples, and a more expensive and time-consuming study or studies may be required for clearance or approval.  The Company believes that the studies required in connection with any approval or clearance of its Version 2 technology, regardless of whether the regulatory pathway is de novo classification or a PMA, will be material in cost and time-intensive.  There can be no assurance that FDA will ultimately approve a de novo classification request or approve a PMA.

As described in Note 10, in July 2008, the Company further reduced its cost structure by suspending the clinical validation study and other studies for its Version 2 technology and eliminating eight positions within the Company.  Because the Company does not currently have sufficient funds to complete any clinical validation or other FDA-related study of its Version 2 technology, it will need to raise additional capital through a strategic transaction, debt or equity financing, or third-party collaboration, if any, and/or some combination of any of the foregoing in order to fund any FDA regulatory clearance or approval process of its Version 2 technology.  There can be no assurance that the Company will be successful in securing any additional capital to pursue the clinical validation study for its Version 2 technology under any potential strategic transaction or capital structure.  If the Company is unable to finance the requisite clinical and other studies of its Version 2 technology, it will not be able to complete and submit its application to seek FDA approval or clearance of its Version 2 technology.

(9) FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENTS

In September 2006, the FASB issued Statement No. 157, Accounting for Fair Value Measurements (“SFAS No. 157”).  SFAS No. 157 clarifies the principle that fair value should be based on the assumptions market participants would use when pricing an asset or liability and establishes a fair value hierarchy that prioritizes the information used to develop those assumptions.  Under the standard, fair value measurements are separately disclosed by level within the fair value hierarchy.  SFAS No. 157 is effective for financial statements issued for fiscal years beginning after November 15, 2007 and interim periods within those fiscal years.  The Company adopted SFAS No. 157 on January 1, 2008 and it did not have any impact on its consolidated results of operations, financial position or cash flows.

SFAS 157 establishes a fair value hierarchy that prioritizes the inputs used to measure fair value that maximizes the use of observable inputs and minimizes the use of unobservable inputs. Observable inputs are inputs that reflect the assumptions that market participants would use in pricing the asset or liability developed based on market data obtained from sources independent of the Company. Unobservable inputs are inputs that reflect the Company’s assumptions about the assumptions market participants would use in pricing the asset or liability developed based on the best information available in the circumstances.

14

Table of Contents

The three levels of the fair value hierarchy established by SFAS 157 in order of priority are as follows:

In accordance with the disclosure provisions of SFAS No. 157, the following table presents the Company’s fair value measurements as of June 30, 2008 along with the level within the fair value hierarchy prescribed by SFAS No. 157 in which the fair value measurements in their entirety fall, segregating fair value measurements using quoted prices in active markets for identical assets or liabilities (Level 1), significant other observable inputs (Level 2), and significant unobservable inputs (Level 3).  Cash and cash equivalents are recorded at cost, which approximates fair value.  Amounts in the table are in thousands.

(10) SUBSEQUENT EVENTS

July 2008 Restructuring

On July 16, 2008, the Company implemented certain cost reduction initiatives, including the suspension of the clinical validation study for its Version 2 technology and the elimination of eight positions, or 67% of the Company’s workforce (the “2008 Restructuring”) to preserve its existing cash.  The severance costs incurred in connection with the workforce reduction will be accounted for in accordance with SFAS No. 146.

The Company estimates that the restructuring charges to be recorded in the third quarter of 2008 in connection with the workforce reduction will range from between $200,000 and $300,000 and relate to one-time employee termination benefits, including severance, outplacement and other fringe benefits.  These estimated charges will result in future cash expenditures.  In addition, as described in Note 2 above, these cost reduction actions were deemed to be impairment indicators pursuant to SFAS No. 144.  After performing the requisite impairment analysis, the Company wrote off approximately $253,000 in capitalized patents during the quarter ended June 30, 2008.  The Company is pursuing efforts to further reduce its costs and may record additional restructuring charges related to such reductions in future periods.

Delisting Notice from NASDAQ

As previously disclosed on July 11, 2008 via press release and a filing on Form 8-K, on July 10, 2008, the Company received notice from The NASDAQ Stock Market that it was not in compliance with NASDAQ Marketplace Rule 4450(b)(1)(A), which requires a listed security to maintain a minimum $50.0 million market capitalization for continued listing on The NASDAQ Global Market.

In accordance with NASDAQ Marketplace Rule 4450(e)(4), the Company was provided a period of 30 calendar days, or until August 11, 2008, to regain compliance.  Because the Company has not regained compliance by maintaining a minimum $50.0 million market value of its common stock for at least 10 consecutive business days before August 11, 2008, the Company expects to receive an additional notice of non-compliance from NASDAQ.  The Company is currently evaluating its alternatives to resolve the listing deficiency, if any, and intends to request a hearing before a NASDAQ Listing Qualifications Panel (the “Panel”) to address this

15

Table of Contents

issue.  The Company’s common stock will remain listed on The NASDAQ Global Market pending the issuance of a decision by the Panel following the hearing.  The delisting of the Company’s common stock would significantly affect the ability of investors to trade the Company’s securities and could negatively affect the value and liquidity of our common stock.  In addition, the delisting of the Company’s common stock could adversely affect its ability to enter into a strategic transaction or to raise capital on terms acceptable to the Company, or at all.  Delisting from The NASDAQ Global Market could also have other negative results, including the potential loss of confidence by licensing partners, the loss of institutional investor interest and fewer business development opportunities.

(11) NEW ACCOUNTING PRONOUNCEMENTS

In February 2007, the FASB issued Statement No. 159, The Fair Value Option for Financial Assets and Financial Liabilities—including an amendment of FASB Statement No. 115 (“SFAS No. 159”). SFAS No. 159 provides entities with an option to choose to measure eligible items at fair value at specified election dates.  If elected, an entity must report unrealized gains and losses on the item in earnings at each subsequent reporting date.  The fair value option may be applied instrument by instrument, with a few exceptions, such as investments otherwise accounted for by the equity method, is irrevocable (unless a new election date occurs); and is applied only to entire instruments and not to portions of instruments.  SFAS No. 159 is effective for the company in 2008.  The adoption of SFAS No. 159 in the first quarter of fiscal 2008 did not have any impact on the Company’s financial statements.

In June 2007, the FASB issued EITF Issue No. 07-3, Accounting for Nonrefundable Advance Payments for Goods or Services to Be Used in Future Research and Development Activities (“EITF 07-3”).  EITF 07-3 requires that nonrefundable advance payments for goods or services to be received in the future for use in research and development activities should be deferred and capitalized.  The capitalized amounts should be expensed as the related goods are delivered or the services are performed.  EITF 07-3 is effective for new contracts entered into during fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2007.  The Company adopted EITF 07-3 on January 1, 2008 and it did not have any impact on its consolidated results of operations, financial position or cash flows.

16

Table of Contents

Item 2. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations

The following discussion of the financial condition and results of operations of EXACT Sciences Corporation should be read in conjunction with the condensed consolidated financial statements and the related notes thereto included elsewhere in this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q and the audited financial statements and notes thereto and Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations included in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007, which has been filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, or SEC.

Forward-Looking Statements

This Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21E of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, that are intended to be covered by the “safe harbor” created by those sections.  Forward-looking statements, which are based on certain assumptions and describe our future plans, strategies and expectations, can generally be identified by the use of forward-looking terms such as “believes,” “expects,” “may,” “will,” “should,” “could,” “seek,” “intends,” “plans,” “estimates,” “anticipates” or other comparable terms.  Forward-looking statements in this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q include, among others, statements regarding the building of material market demand, the sufficiency of our capital resources, expected royalty fees and revenues, the potential costs and impact of U.S. Food and Drug Administration, or FDA, regulatory action on the marketing and sale of our DNA-based technologies, our expected actions with respect to continuing the listing of our common stock on the NASDAQ Global Market,  expectations regarding third-party reimbursement of tests using our technology, expected restructuring charges, our expectations concerning our commercial strategy, and the effectiveness and market acceptance of our technologies and ColoSure.  Forward-looking statements involve inherent risks and uncertainties which could cause actual results to differ materially from those in the forward-looking statements, including those risks and uncertainties described in Item 1A of this report and our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007.  We urge you to consider those risks and uncertainties in evaluating our forward-looking statements.  We caution readers not to place undue reliance upon any such forward-looking statements, which speak only as of the date made.  Except as otherwise required by the federal securities laws, we disclaim any obligation or undertaking to publicly release any updates or revisions to any forward-looking statement contained herein (or elsewhere) to reflect any change in our expectations with regard thereto or any change in events, conditions or circumstances on which any such statement is based.

Overview

EXACT Sciences Corporation develops proprietary DNA-based technologies for use in the detection of cancer.  We have selected colorectal cancer as the first application of our technologies.  We have licensed certain of our technologies, including improvements to such technologies, on an exclusive basis in the United States and Canada through December 2010 to Laboratory Corporation of America® Holdings, or LabCorp®.  LabCorp developed and commercially offered PreGen-Plus, its first generation non-invasive stool-based DNA colorectal cancer screening service for the average-risk population based on our Version 1 technology, from August 2003 through June 2008.  Effective June 1, 2008, LabCorp stopped offering PreGen-Plus.  On July 14, 2008, LabCorp began to commercially offer ColoSure™, its next generation non-invasive, stool-based DNA testing service for the detection of colorectal cancer in the average-risk population, which is based on certain of our technologies.  We are entitled to the same royalty and milestone structure on any sales of ColoSure as we were entitled to on sales of PreGen-Plus.  Since our inception in February 1995, our principal activities have included:

·                  researching and developing our technologies for colorectal cancer screening;

·                  conducting clinical studies to validate our colorectal cancer screening technologies;

·                  negotiating licenses for intellectual property of others;

·                  developing relationships with opinion leaders in the scientific and medical communities;

·                  pursuing reimbursement for stool-based DNA screening with third-party payors, including the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, or CMS;

·                  conducting market studies and analyzing various markets for our technologies;

·                  raising capital;

·                  licensing our proprietary technologies to LabCorp and others;

·                  working to further the adoption of stool-based DNA testing for colorectal cancer, including seeking inclusion of such technology in the guidelines of the major guidelines organizations;

·                  pursuing U.S. Food and Drug Administration, or FDA, clearance or approval, or exemptions therefrom for our stool-based DNA screening technology for colorectal cancer;

·                  working with LabCorp on activities in support of the commercialization of tests using our technology; and

·                  pursuing strategic alternatives for our business.

We have generated limited operating revenues since our inception and, as of June 30, 2008, we had an accumulated deficit of approximately $167.3 million.  Our losses have historically resulted from costs incurred in conjunction with our research,

17

Table of Contents

development, and clinical study initiatives, salaries and benefits associated with the hiring of personnel, the initiation of marketing programs and, prior to August 31, 2007, the build-out of our sales infrastructure to support the commercialization of stool-based DNA screening.  We expect that our losses will continue for the next several years and we may never achieve profitability.

From the date of commercial launch through June 2008, when LabCorp stopped commercially offering PreGen-Plus, LabCorp had accessioned approximately 14,900 PreGen-Plus samples, including approximately 500 in the six months ended June 30, 2008 and approximately 1,800, 3,700 and 4,000 samples during the years ended December 31, 2007, 2006 and 2005, respectively.

In addition to our Version 1 technology underlying the PreGen-Plus testing service formerly offered by LabCorp, we have also developed or licensed technologies related to a Version 2 colorectal cancer screening technology that we believe has greater sensitivity and is more cost effective than Version 1.  Our Version 2 technology includes two DNA markers, which in published studies have been shown to be associated with colorectal cancer.  These markers include the aberrant methylation of the Vimentin gene promoter region, which we refer to as Vimentin, and DIA®, or long DNA.  We have exclusive rights to the Vimentin technology through our license agreement with Case Western Reserve University, or Case Western, under which we pay a royalty and certain other fees to Case Western in return for the right to use and sublicense the Vimentin technology.  In a recent research study evaluating stool-based DNA in 82 patients with confirmed colorectal cancer and 363 colonoscopically normal individuals, our Version 2 stool-based DNA technology demonstrated sensitivity of 83 percent and specificity of 82 percent for the detection of colorectal cancer.  On July 14, 2008, LabCorp began to commercially offer ColoSure™, its next generation non-invasive, stool-based DNA testing service for the detection of colorectal cancer in the average-risk population, which is based on certain of our technologies.  LabCorp’s ColoSure testing service relies solely on the Vimentin gene and does not use the DIA marker that is also included in our Version 2 technology.

Recent Developments

Regulatory Update

From August 2003 through June 2008, LabCorp offered its PreGen-Plus testing service, which included the Effipure component from us, as an in-house developed laboratory test, or “homebrew” testing service.  On October 11, 2007, the FDA sent us a warning letter, or the Warning Letter, with respect to the PreGen-Plus testing service, indicating that PreGen-Plus is a Class III medical device and that it cannot be commercially distributed without an appropriate pre-market approval or clearance from the FDA.  Our Version 1 technology was the basis for LabCorp’s PreGen-Plus testing service.  Effective June 1, 2008, LabCorp stopped offering PreGen-Plus and indicated that it had discontinued its use of Effipure.

In addition to our Version 1 technology underlying the PreGen-Plus testing service that was offered by LabCorp, we have also developed a Version 2 colorectal cancer screening technology that we believe has greater sensitivity and is more cost-effective than Version 1.  In April 2008, we began to focus our regulatory efforts on pursuing FDA clearance for Version 2 of our technology, a two-marker version that we believe offers greater sensitivity and is more cost-effective than our earlier, 23 marker Version 1 technology.  In this regard, in April 2008, we submitted a pre-Investigational Device Exemption, or pre-IDE, request to the FDA for our Version 2 technology.  The objective of the pre-IDE process was to seek concurrence from the FDA that a 510(k) submission followed by a de novo classification request is an appropriate regulatory path for our Version 2 technology and that the clinical and other studies proposed in our Version 2 pre-IDE submission would likely support such a de novo regulatory path.

On July 14, 2008, LabCorp announced that it would begin offering a new laboratory-developed test called ColoSure, a single-marker test that is based on certain of our Version 2 intellectual property and that does not use the Effipure component.  Also in July 2008, we confirmed with the FDA the clinical performance characteristics and the minimum number of average-risk colorectal cancer samples that would be required for validation of our Version 2 stool-based DNA technology for colorectal cancer screening.  In addition, based on our discussions with the FDA, we believe that the de novo pathway would be the appropriate regulatory path for its Version 2 technology.  We estimate that total costs to complete its Version 2 validation studies and the related regulatory submission process would range from $6.5 million to $8.5 million.  The FDA may ultimately determine that a pre-market approval application, or PMA, is the appropriate path forward for us with respect to Version 2 of our stool-based DNA technology instead of a de novo pathway, or that additional samples, and a more expensive and time-consuming study or studies may be required for clearance or approval.  We believe that the studies required in connection with any approval or clearance of our Version 2 technology, regardless of whether the regulatory pathway is de novo classification or a PMA, will be material in cost and time-intensive.  There can be no assurance that FDA will ultimately approve a de novo classification request or approve a PMA.

As described under the heading “2008 Restructuring” below, in July 2008, we further reduced our cost structure by suspending the clinical validation study and other studies for our Version 2 technology and eliminating eight positions within the Company.  Because we do not currently have sufficient funds to complete any clinical validation or other FDA-related study of our Version 2 technology, we will need to raise additional capital through a strategic transaction, debt or equity financing, or third-party collaboration, if any, and/or some

18

Table of Contents

combination of any of the foregoing in order to fund any FDA regulatory clearance or approval process of our Version 2 technology.  There can be no assurance that we will be successful in securing any additional capital to pursue the clinical validation study for our Version 2 technology under any potential strategic transaction or capital structure.  If we are unable to finance the requisite clinical and other studies of its Version 2 technology, we will not be able to complete and submit our application to seek FDA approval or clearance of our Version 2 technology.

2008 Restructuring

In July 2008, we took actions to further reduce our cost structure to help preserve our cash resources, which we refer to as the 2008 Restructuring.  These actions included including suspending the clinical validation study of our Version 2 technology, eliminating eight positions, or 67% of our staff, and seeking the re-negotiation of certain fixed commitments.  We expect to record estimated restructuring charges ranging from approximately $200,000 to $300,000 in the third quarter of 2008 in connection with one-time employee termination benefits, including severance, outplacement and other fringe benefits.  These estimated charges will result in future cash expenditures.  In addition, after performing the requisite impairment analyses, we recorded non-cash impairment charges of approximately $253,000 related to our patent portfolio during the quarter ended June 30, 2008.  We continue to assess our facility needs and other operating costs and, as a result, could incur additional restructuring charges in the event we undertake additional activities to reduce facility or other operating costs.

Delisting Notice from NASDAQ

As previously disclosed on July 11, 2008 via press release and a filing on Form 8-K, on July 10, 2008, we received notice from The NASDAQ Stock Market that we were not in compliance with NASDAQ Marketplace Rule 4450(b)(1)(A), which requires a listed security to maintain a minimum $50.0 million market capitalization for continued listing on The NASDAQ Global Market.

In accordance with NASDAQ Marketplace Rule 4450(e)(4), we were provided a period of 30 calendar days, or until August 11, 2008, to regain compliance.  Because we have not regained compliance by maintaining a minimum $50.0 million market value of our common stock for at least 10 consecutive business days before August 11, 2008, we expect to receive an additional notice of non-compliance from NASDAQ.  We are currently evaluating alternatives to resolve the listing deficiency, if any, and intend to request a hearing before a NASDAQ Listing Qualifications Panel, or the Panel, to address this issue.  Our common stock will remain listed on The NASDAQ Global Market pending the issuance of a decision by the Panel following the hearing.  The delisting of our common stock would significantly affect the ability of investors to trade our securities and could negatively affect the value and liquidity of our common stock.  In addition, the delisting of our common stock could adversely affect our ability to enter into a strategic transaction or to raise capital on terms acceptable to us, or at all.  Delisting from The NASDAQ Global Market could also have other negative results, including the potential loss of confidence by licensing partners, the loss of institutional investor interest and fewer business development opportunities.

Colorectal Cancer Screening Guidelines

Professional colorectal cancer screening guidelines in the United States, including those of the American Cancer Society, or ACS, the American College of Gastroenterology and the American Gastroenterological Association, recommend regular screening by a variety of methods.  Historically, such recommendations consisted of colonoscopy, flexible sigmoidoscopy, double contrast barium enema, and fecal occult blood testing (FOBT), as well as combinations of some of these methods.  On March 5, 2008, the ACS, the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer, a consortium of several organizations including representatives of the American College of Gastroenterology, American Gastroenterological Association, American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy and the American College of Physicians/Society of Internal Medicine, or MSTF-CRC, and the American College of Radiology announced that non-invasive, stool-based DNA screening technology has been included in the updated national colorectal cancer screening guidelines as a screening option for the detection of colorectal cancer in average risk, asymptomatic individuals age 50 and above.  These new guidelines now divide colorectal cancer screening into two groups, one including non-invasive methods for the early detection of colorectal cancer and the other including invasive techniques for the prevention and early detection of colorectal cancer.  Non-invasive technologies include fecal occult blood testing and stool-based DNA screening for individuals unwilling or unable to use invasive screening procedures.  Invasive procedures include colonoscopy, flexible sigmoidoscopy, CT colonography, and double contrast barium enema and, according to the new guidelines, are designed to detect both early cancer and adenomatous polyps and should be encouraged if resources are available and patients are willing to undergo and invasive test.  While we view inclusion of our stool-based DNA technology in the ACS and MSTF-CRC guidelines as a critical first step toward building sufficient demand for any stool-based DNA screening test for colorectal cancer, we believe that FDA clearance for our technologies, and reimbursement from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and other third-party payors will be necessary to achieve any significant increase in demand for our technologies.  In addition, the ACS and MSTF-CRC guidelines indicated that new technologies and new technical versions of approved technologies need only detect a majority of colorectal cancers in a screening population to meet guidelines criteria.  We have not performed a stand-alone colorectal cancer screening study of LabCorp’s ColoSure test and there can be no assurance that the guidelines groups will agree that existing studies using our Version 2 technologies, and any related data supporting ColoSure, will meet the requirements set forth in the current ACS and MSTF-CRC guidelines for inclusion of ColoSure in future guidelines of such organizations.  If the guidelines groups indicate a lack of acceptance for these more advanced technologies, such action could have a materially adverse impact on our business.

19

Table of Contents

Our Cost Structure

In addition to the 2008 Restructuring, in October 2006 and again in July 2007, we initiated cost reduction plans and reduced our workforce and other operating expenses, which we refer to as the 2006 Restructuring and the 2007 Restructuring, respectively, to help preserve our cash resources. The 2006 Restructuring eliminated 21 positions, or 48% of our staff at that time, across all departments.  As part of the 2007 Restructuring, we eliminated our sales and marketing functions, terminated six employees, and subleased a portion of our leased space at our corporate headquarters.

Research and development expenses include costs related to scientific and laboratory personnel, research and clinical studies and reagents and supplies used in the development of our technologies and, effective as of January 1, 2006, non-cash stock-based compensation recorded pursuant to SFAS No. 123 (revised 2004), Share-Based Payment, or SFAS No. 123(R).  Although we have suspended the Version 2 clinical validation study, and took steps in 2006, 2007 and 2008 to lower research and development costs, we will still likely need to invest substantial funds in additional research, design and development, or clinical or other studies that may be required for FDA approval or clearance of our stool-based DNA screening technologies, to successfully commercialize our Version 2 technology, or any future versions of our technologies or products.  In this regard, the costs of the clinical and related technical validation studies that we believe are required by the FDA in connection with any future de novo 510(k) pre-market clearance notice for our Version 2 technology, as well as any subsequent studies or filings for other versions of our technologies, are expected to be material.  We do not have, and can make no assurance that we can raise or otherwise secure, the capital necessary to initiate the Version 2 clinical validation study or the related regulatory submission.  As a result of the cost reduction actions taken in 2008, we expect research and development costs in 2008 to be lower than 2007 levels.

Selling, general and administrative expenses have consisted primarily of non-research personnel salaries, office expenses, professional fees and, as of January 1, 2006, non-cash stock-based compensation recorded pursuant to SFAS No. 123(R).  As a result of the 2007 Restructuring, in which we eliminated our sales and marketing functions effective August 31, 2007, we do not expect to incur material sales and marketing operating expenses in 2008.  We expect general and administrative expenses in 2008 to be higher than 2007 levels, primarily as a result of increased professional fees during 2008 in connection with our efforts through July 2008 to obtain FDA regulatory clearance or approval of our Version 2 technology.

Other Factors Affecting Potential Revenue Growth

We believe that substantial funds and managerial attention will likely need to be invested in sales and marketing efforts over the next several years for our stool-based DNA screening technologies to be commercially successful.  We do not have, and we cannot assure you that LabCorp will devote, the funds or management resources that we believe are likely necessary to build sufficient demand for ColoSure.  Despite the inclusion of stool-based DNA screening in colorectal cancer screening guidelines, we do not expect material revenue growth from sales of ColoSure until such time as FDA clearance or approval is obtained, if ever, and reimbursement is provided by CMS and other third-party payors at an acceptable level.  In addition, we believe our success will also depend upon a number of additional factors that are largely out of our control, including the following:

·                  the impact that the inclusion of stool-based DNA screening in guidelines will have on prescribing physicians, third-party payors, including CMS, and health care consumers;

·                  any regulatory restrictions placed upon ColoSure or any other product or testing service based on our technologies;

·                  success in educating third-party payors, including CMS, managed care organizations, and technology assessment groups regarding stool-based DNA screening;

·                  effective negotiation and contracting by us and LabCorp with CMS and other third-party payors for coverage at acceptable levels of reimbursement for stool-based DNA screening;

·                  patient acceptance of stool-based DNA screening, including its novel sample collection process;

·                  the absence of competing technologies that offer equal or better attributes than stool-based DNA screening;

·                  stool-based DNA screening becoming a standard of care among prescribing physicians; and

·                  the quality and service of the LabCorp testing process.

As a result of the foregoing, we engaged an investment bank in the first quarter of 2008 to assist our board of directors in evaluating strategic alternatives for the Company.  On July 16, 2008, we announced our revised corporate strategy to take immediate actions to preserve existing cash while focusing on the pursuit of a strategic transaction for the business.  To date, we have not entered into any agreements or commitments for any specific strategic alternative or transaction in connection therewith.  Our revised corporate strategy may not result in a strategic alternative in the near future, if at all.

Our revenue is comprised of the amortization of up-front license fees for the licensing of certain patent rights to LabCorp under our strategic license agreement and product royalty fees on tests sold by LabCorp utilizing our technology, which has historically been based on PreGen-Plus sales but will now be based on ColoSure sales.  We expect that product royalty fees for the full year 2008 will

20

Table of Contents

be lower than amounts recorded in 2007 as a result of potential third-party royalty obligations in connection with our amended license agreement with LabCorp.  In addition, as a result of the second amendment to our license agreement with LabCorp, which also extended the exclusive license period under our agreement with LabCorp, we expect that license fee revenue for 2008 will be lower than amounts recorded in 2007 as a result of the extended amortization period over which our remaining deferred revenue will be amortized.

Reimbursement

An important component of our reimbursement strategy is to obtain a National Coverage Determination, or NCD, from CMS for inclusion of our stool-based DNA screening technologies for colorectal cancer in the Medicare program.  In December 2004, we submitted our application for a NCD on our stool-based DNA technology, as a laboratory developed test that was not cleared or approved by the FDA.  The application was accepted by CMS on August 1, 2007.  In October 2007, we received the Warning Letter from the FDA.  Following our receipt of the Warning Letter, we sought to understand what impact the Warning Letter would have on the NCD given that LabCorp, the entity commercially offering the only available stool-based DNA test, did not receive a Warning Letter and that the commercially available test remained on the market.  We also sought to subsequently withdraw the application for a NCD to preserve our options with CMS for reconsideration of our application.  CMS subsequently issued a proposed and then, on April 28, 2008, a final decision memorandum regarding our application.  In these memoranda, CMS decided to not provide national coverage for our Version 1 technology, in part because of the FDA’s determination as set forth in the Warning Letter.  However, the decision memoranda also indicated that CMS would reconsider our application for coverage of stool-based DNA screening for colorectal cancer following any such FDA clearance or approval of our DNA screening technology.  Accordingly, we intend to submit our NCD application for reconsideration following any such FDA clearance or approval and our accumulation of other information and evidence that may be necessary for such submission.  There can be no assurance that Version 2, or any subsequent versions of our technology, will be cleared or approved by the FDA.  Even if cleared or approved by the FDA, there can be no assurance that CMS will reach a positive coverage decision regarding our request for an NCD on any version of our technologies.  Moreover, even if CMS issues a positive coverage decision for any version of our stool-based DNA screening technology, such coverage does not guarantee adequate levels of reimbursement. We could incur significant costs, over an extended period of time, to obtain the necessary data for a positive coverage and reimbursement decisions from CMS.  Additionally, despite the fact that our technology is included in the ACS and MSTF-CRC guidelines, the Warning Letter may have a similar impact on private third-party payors in that those payors may defer reimbursement policy decisions with respect to our technology until such time as we obtain FDA clearance for our technologies.

In addition, at its February 2008 meeting, the CPT Editorial Panel of the American Medical Association considered a request from gastroenterology specialty physician organizations to create a category III code for a stool-based DNA test. While the CPT Editorial Panel decided to postpone discussion on the issue, the application can be reconsidered at any future meeting, unless it is withdrawn. The CPT Editorial Panel meets three times each year; the final 2008 meeting is scheduled for October. Category III codes are temporary codes which are used to designate emerging technologies, services and procedures and are issued semi-annually unlike Category I codes which are issued annually.  Payors typically do not cover services with Category III codes because they consider “emerging” technologies to be “investigational” services and are therefore not covered services.  The creation of a Category III code for our stool-based DNA technology could limit the number of payors that reimburse stool-based DNA colorectal cancer screening, which would materially limit our revenues and adversely affect our operating results and financial position.

Significant Accounting Policies

This management’s discussion and analysis of our financial condition and results of operations is based on our consolidated financial statements, which have been prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States.  The preparation of these financial statements requires us to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and the disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements as well as the reported revenues and expenses during the reporting periods.  On an ongoing basis, we evaluate our estimates and judgments, including those related to revenue recognition, certain third party royalty obligations,  and intangible assets.  We base our estimates on historical experience and on various other factors that are believed to be appropriate under the circumstances, the results of which form the basis for making judgments about the carrying value of assets and liabilities that are not readily apparent from other sources.  Actual results may differ from these estimates under different assumptions or conditions.

The notes to our consolidated financial statements included in our annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007, which has been filed with the SEC, include a summary of the significant accounting policies and methods used in the preparation of our consolidated financial statements.  As described below, we believe that that the following accounting policies and judgments are most critical to aid in fully understanding and evaluating our reported financial results.

21

Table of Contents

Revenue Recognition.

License fees - License fees for the licensing of product rights on initiation of strategic agreements are recorded as deferred revenue upon receipt and recognized as revenue on a straight-line basis over the license period.  On June 27, 2007, we entered into an amendment to our exclusive license agreement with LabCorp, or the Second Amendment, which, among other modifications to the terms of the license, extended the exclusive license period of the license with LabCorp from August 2008 through December 2010.  Accordingly, we amortize the remaining deferred revenue balance at the time of the Second Amendment ($4.7 million) on a straight-line basis over the remaining exclusive license period, which ends in December 2010.

Product royalty fees – We have licensed certain of our technologies, including improvements to such technologies, on an exclusive basis through December 2010 to LabCorp.  LabCorp developed and commercially offered PreGen-Plus, a non-invasive stool-based DNA colorectal cancer screening service for the average-risk population based on the Company’s Version 1 technology, from August 2003 through June 2008.  Effective June 1, 2008, LabCorp stopped offering PreGen-Plus.  On July 14, 2008, LabCorp began to commercially offer ColoSure, its next generation non-invasive, stool-based DNA testing service for the detection of colorectal cancer in the average-risk population, which is based on certain of our Version 2 technology.  We will be entitled to the same royalty and milestone structure on any sales of ColoSure as we were entitled to on sales of PreGen-Plus.

Prior to the effective date of the Second Amendment, our product royalty fees were based on a specified contractual percentage of LabCorp’s cash receipts from performing PreGen-Plus tests.  Accordingly, we recorded product royalty fees based on this specified percentage of LabCorp’s cash receipts, as reported to us each month by LabCorp.  Subsequent to the effective date of the Second Amendment, our product royalty fees are based on a specified contractual percentage of LabCorp’s net revenues from sales of PreGen-Plus through June 1, 2008, when LabCorp stopped offering PreGen-Plus and from sales of ColoSure from and after July 2008.  Accordingly, subsequent to the effective date of the Second Amendment, we record product royalty fees based on the specified contractual percentage of LabCorp’s net revenues from its sales of such colorectal cancer screening tests, as reported to us each month by LabCorp.  The current royalty rate is 15%, subject to an increase to 17% in the event that LabCorp achieves a specified significant threshold of annual net revenues from the sales of such colorectal cancer screening tests.

Additionally, pursuant to the Second Amendment, we will potentially be obligated to reimburse LabCorp for certain third-party royalty payments, as described in Note 4 to the condensed consolidated financial statements located elsewhere in this quarterly report of Form 10-Q.  To the extent we incur liabilities in connection with this provision of the Second Amendment, the accretion of such liabilities will be recorded as a reduction in the product royalty fee line item in our consolidated statements of operations.

Product revenue - Product revenue from the sale of certain components of our Effipure technology to LabCorp is recognized upon transfer of the components provided that title passes, the price is fixed or determinable and collection of the receivable is probable.  Effipure is not used as a component in LabCorp’s ColoSure offering.

Other revenue - Revenue from milestone and other performance-based payments will be recognized as revenue when the milestone or performance is achieved and collection of the receivable is estimable and probable.

Patent Costs.  Patent costs are capitalized as incurred and are amortized beginning when patents are issued over an estimated useful life of five years.  Capitalized patent costs are expensed upon disallowance of the patent, upon a decision by us to no longer pursue the patent, or when the related intellectual property is deemed to be no longer of value to us.  As of June 30, 2008, the majority of the recorded value of the patent portfolio related to intellectual property licensed to LabCorp in connection with its stool-based DNA colorectal cancer screening service.

The following table summarizes activity with respect to our capitalized patents for the six months ended June 30, 2008 and 2007.  Amounts included in the table are in thousands.

22

Table of Contents

During the three months ended March 31, 2007, we determined that we would likely not pursue commercialization of certain technologies and, accordingly, wrote off approximately $121,000 in capitalized patents related to these technologies.  Capitalized patents written off during the three months ended March 31, 2007 were unrelated to intellectual property licensed to LabCorp for PreGen-Plus.  During the three months ended June 30, 2007, a capitalized pending patent application, which is not critical to LabCorp’s stool-based DNA colorectal cancer screening service, was not approved by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, and, accordingly, we wrote off approximately $32,000 in connection with this patent application.

In July 2008, we took immediate actions pursuant to our revised corporate strategy to preserve existing cash while pursuing a strategic transaction for the business.  Under this revised corporate strategy, we implemented cost reduction initiatives, including suspending the clinical validation study of our Version 2 technology and eliminating eight positions.  These cost reduction actions were deemed to be impairment indicators pursuant to SFAS No. 144, Accounting for the Impairment or Disposal of Long-Lived Assets, or SFAS No. 144.  After performing the requisite impairment analysis, we wrote off approximately $253,000 in capitalized patents related specifically to one of the components of our Version 2 technology that is not used in LabCorp’s current ColoSure testing service.

We apply SFAS No. 144, which requires us to continually evaluate whether events or circumstances have occurred that indicate that the estimated remaining useful life of long-lived assets and certain identifiable intangibles may warrant revision or that the carrying value of these assets may be impaired.  Such events may include a change in the regulatory requirements for ColoSure.

Stock-Based Compensation.  We adopted SFAS No. 123(R) effective January 1, 2006 using the modified prospective transition method. SFAS No. 123(R) requires all share-based payments to employees, including grants of employee stock options and shares purchased under an employee stock purchase plan (if certain parameters are not met), to be recognized in the financial statements based on their fair values.  SFAS No. 123(R) did not change the accounting guidance for share-based payment transactions with parties other than employees provided in SFAS No. 123, as originally issued and EITF 96-18, Accounting for Equity Instruments That Are Issued to Other Than Employees for Acquiring, or in Conjunction with Selling, Goods or Services.  Prior to January 1, 2006, we accounted for stock-based compensation under the provisions of Accounting Principles Board Opinion No. 25, Accounting for Stock Issued to Employees.

We believe that full consideration has been given to all relevant circumstances that we may be subject to, and the financial statements accurately reflect our best estimate of the results of operations, financial position and cash flows for the periods presented.

Critical Accounting Estimate — Third-Party Royalty Obligation

Pursuant to the terms of the Second Amendment, we will potentially be obligated to reimburse LabCorp for certain third-party royalty payments if LabCorp’s third-party royalty rate is greater than a specified royalty rate during the measuring period, as outlined in the table below.  Our obligation to pay LabCorp pursuant to this provision of the Second Amendment is based on LabCorp’s sales volumes of colorectal cancer screening tests using our technology during three separate measurement periods, as defined below.  A significant increase in such sales volumes during any measurement period, as compared to historical PreGen-Plus sales volumes, could reduce our potential obligation during any measurement period, while test volumes consistent with historical PreGen-Plus sales levels could result in aggregate payments to LabCorp totaling up to $3.5 million during the measurement periods.  Until LabCorp’s sales of colorectal cancer screening tests using our technology increase to a level that would reduce this potential maximum obligation, if ever, we intend to record our estimated obligation under this provision of the Second Amendment as a reduction in the

23

Table of Contents

product royalty fee line item in its consolidated statements of operations, in accordance with EITF No. 01-09, Accounting for Consideration Given by a Vendor to a Customer (Including a Reseller of the Vendor’s Products).  Based on sales volumes of PreGen-Plus through June 1, 2008 and anticipated sales volumes of ColoSure, as of June 30, 2008, we had accrued a total of $2.0 million related to the total potential $3.5 million obligation to LabCorp, including the total potential $1.5 million obligation related to the first measurement period, which ends in December 2008, as well as $500,000 of the total potential $1.0 million obligation related to the second measurement period, which ends in December 2009.  We recorded charges of $0.5 million and $0.8 million, respectively, during the three and six months ended June 30, 2008 in connection with this third-party royalty obligation.  These charges were recorded under the caption “Product royalty fees” in our consolidated statements of operations.  This obligation is recorded in our consolidated balance sheets under the caption “Third-party royalty obligation.”  Future increases in this obligation, to the extent necessary, will continue to be recorded as charges to the product royalty revenue line item of our consolidated statements of operations.  Amounts included in the table are in thousands.

Recent Accounting Pronouncements

In September 2006, the FASB issued Statement No. 157, Accounting for Fair Value Measurements, or SFAS No. 157.  SFAS No. 157 clarifies the principle that fair value should be based on the assumptions market participants would use when pricing an asset or liability and establishes a fair value hierarchy that prioritizes the information used to develop those assumptions.  Under the standard, fair value measurements are separately disclosed by level within the fair value hierarchy.  SFAS No. 157 is effective for financial statements issued for fiscal years beginning after November 15, 2007 and interim periods within those fiscal years. We adopted SFAS No. 157 on January 1, 2008 and it did not have any impact on our consolidated results of operations, financial position or cash flows.

SFAS No. 157 establishes a fair value hierarchy that prioritizes the inputs used to measure fair value that maximizes the use of observable inputs and minimizes the use of unobservable inputs. Observable inputs are inputs that reflect the assumptions that market participants would use in pricing the asset or liability developed based on market data obtained from sources independent of us. Unobservable inputs are inputs that reflect our assumptions about the assumptions market participants would use in pricing the asset or liability developed based on the best information available in the circumstances.

The three levels of the fair value hierarchy established by SFAS No. 157 in order of priority are as follows:

In accordance with the disclosure provisions of SFAS No. 157, the following table presents our fair value measurements as of June 30, 2008, along with the level within the fair value hierarchy prescribed by SFAS No. 157 in which the fair value measurements in their entirety fall, segregating fair value measurements using quoted prices in active markets for identical assets or liabilities (Level 1), significant other observable inputs (Level 2), and significant unobservable inputs (Level 3).  Cash and cash equivalents are recorded at cost, which approximates fair value.  Amounts in the table are in thousands.

24

Table of Contents