What is the point of the biopsy if there is no treatment?

[windyridge]

[KarenRL]

In my case, the biopsy was done to get a clear diagnosis, so a treatment plan could be established. The biopsy also determined the current "stage" of fibrosis....which doesn't change the course of treatment (that I'm aware of, anyway). I think it's more of a USA thing. So, determining upon where you live and your doctor, you may or may not be given a "stage of fibrosis". I don't really know how useful that knowledge is anyway.

In my case, I will probably be having a second biopsy about a year after the first, to try to get an idea of whether or not the treatment is helping. So, that is also a reason for biopsy.

Best wishes,

Karen

[mumofthree]

The reason I was given for needing the biopsy (in UK) was for a definite diagnosis of PBC and to confirm extent of damage to liver.

There may not be a cure for PBC at this moment in time but URSO is the treatment given to slow down the progression of PBC.

[KarenRL]

Oh, I should clarify that I also have AIH, which is why they want to do another biopsy to see if treatment is working.

[Junolee]

There is treatment. It may slow progress or treat symptoms, in my case all the treatments I have had so far are helping. There is no cure right now, which is similar with lots of auto immune diseases but that doesn't mean you can't have a good quality of life. xx

[Hidden]

Got to agree with Junolee, well said.

Lou

[Hidden]

I have to agree there about why have a biopsy if the only drug available at present is urso.

A lot of patients have a biopsy if the antibodies test is returned a bit well iffy. Mine came back with a positive.

I know for me I'd not agree to having a biopsy now I have diagnosis (Dec 2010) as it is a true statement in saying that bloods taken at intervals can pretty much give a good picture. Also it has to be noted that in having a biopsy it isn't a full indication of how the whole liver as part can be perfectly normal, another not so, depends on where the biopsy is done.

[windyridge in reply to Hidden]

That is interesting. It sounds like a biopsy is a random proceedure. Since I am already on Urso I am still not convinced it is necessary, especially if there are any risks involved.

[Hidden in reply to windyridge]

Despite the medical profession saying a biopsy is safe, in my honest opinion, I have to disagree as the liver is actually punctured with a needle and that area has then to heal.

With scans and blood tests today I now think an unnecessary procedure if the diagnose has been done with a positive AMA.

[Axl888]

When I had my biopsy I was told it was to confirm diagnosis - I have both PBC and AIH. I have also heard that the liver can be different all over so would be very reluctant to repeat the procedure again.

[Juamcc]

I didn't have the biopsy just for the reasons given. 2016