Fibrosure not mainstream?

Before I started TX 16 weeks ago I asked my PCP for a Fibrosure test because she was ordering my yearly tests anyway. She said she never heard of it. I go to Queens Long Island Medical Group which takes my HIP and many other insurance companys. I talked to someone to works in their Lab and they could't find Fibrosure or Fibrespect in the computer?

    I then asked my GI about it and he told me it is not considered a Mainstream test, and that is why they don't do it. I don't understand this because all I hear about these days is people getting Fibrosure tests.

[Yellowfin]

I just had blood taken last week for tests including Fibrosure,  I am not sure exactly what it is, but I no my doctor wanted it.

[NYCMark]

My hospital in New York City doesn't offer it either. I think it is NOT a "mainstream" test: it seems to be offered only by Labcorp, and those places that send samples to Labcorp.

Mark

[copyman]

It is a mainstream test and most major labs, quest, labcorp offer a blood test that measures liver fibrosis.  more docs are realizing these NON-invasive, SAFE tests are good to see if you have no fibrosis or cirrhosis, but are not that accurate to measure the middle stages. this is a good test to be used along with other tests like the fibroscan & biopsy.

[NYCMark]

It is true that non-invasive tests are more accurate at the extremes (no fibrosis, or cirrhosis) rather than at intermediate levels. However the original question related to Fibrosure, which is a patented test offered only by Labcorp. Other labs may offer their own versions of non-invasive tests. All are considered less accurate than liver biopsy, which continues to be the "gold standard" for assessing hepatic damage.

[copyman]

the "gold standard" is not as accurate as most people think if only one sample is taken which is the norm. it is only as accurate as the size of sample, and more importantly the pathologist who reads the sample!  soon to be replaced by the fibroSCAN as the gold standard.

[NYCMark]

There is surely a need for non-invasive tests such as Fibrosure and even MR elastography. The problem is with the relative insensitivity of these tests at the middle ranges of fibrosis, where I would guess most of us are. And you are right: biopsy is read from one location only and depends on the skill of the pathologist. One day there will be an accurate test at all ranges of fibrosis that doesn't rely on poking a hole in one's abdomen!

[jmjm530]

Not sure if fibroscan can ever be considered the "gold standard" as currently it's only tested in relation to the current gold standard which is liver biopsy. Since they can't poke dozens of holes in a living person to settle a face-off between the two -- I imagine it would have to be some sort of post mortem affair -- or at least using post mortem stats where a single probe biopsy and fibroscan would then be compared to some new standard encompassing the whole liver. BTW my Fibroscan doc said the Fibroscan readings were suprisingly consistent in all parts of the liver with the stipulation that a good reading was had -- in other words, no bone or not too much fat in the way.

-- Jim

[JRenquist]

My insurance won't pay for the fibrosure test because they said it was experimental.  Also, I can only go to quest for lab tests, and fibrosure is "owned" by labcorp.  I ended up paying for it myself. S.

[copyman]

i think quest has a blood test for fibrosis? called fibrospect or something like that

[JRenquist]

Oh thanks.  Has it been around for a while?  I only see my dr. every 6 months and he never mentioned it. I'll check into it.  S.  

[Lindaz]

I have had one done as part of a routine blood test my Hepatologist ordered.  I think it depends on where abouts you are located as to whether or not it's mainstream as it's impossible to get a fibroscan done here in Australia but routine in other places.

[nygirl7]

I've often notice that peoples biopsy results and fibro results don't match up at all.  Therefore I think it's best just to start off with the "gold standard" biopsy and later if you need more tests go for it.

Of course it would be ideal if we could all just do bloodwork instead of having holes poked in us as Jim colorfully called it - but getting the correct results are much more important.

That is why many doctors really probably don't know of it - they don't find it necessary to do more than one biopsy per course of treatment.