What is the point of the biopsy if there is... - PBC Foundation
What is the point of the biopsy if there is no treatment?
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
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.
Oh, I should clarify that I also have AIH, which is why they want to do another biopsy to see if treatment is working.
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
Got to agree with Junolee, well said.
Lou
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.
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.
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.
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.
I didn't have the biopsy just for the reasons given. 2016
Biopsy tomorrow morning
Just got the biopsy result
Liver Biopsy - to ask or not to ask
Should I have a biopsy or scan?
