fibroscan score

When I entered a clinical trial in July the study coordinator gave me a fibroscan as opposed to doing a biopsy.  She said I was .67 and that was "good".  She also referenced a colour chart that showed my score was "green" on a scale from green to yellow to orange to red.  When I asked for copies of all my baseline results it said I was F3 with severe fibrosis and this was a bit of shock to me after the fibroscan.  Is a fibrotest a different test than a fibroscan and why are the results different?  I meant to ask at my 8 wk visit this Friday but other issues arose and I forgot (just for a change :-)

[Aaron57]

just found this chart on Fibrotest ...

It does use a .0 system .. it sounds like some data might have been mixed up ..

http://www.biopredictive.com/intl/physician/fibrotest-for-hcv/view?set_language=en

[Aaron57]

Fibroscan measures liver stiffness and is gauged in Kilopascals or Kps ..  Do you have the original FS report ? Nurse might have been confused or you may have heard wrong ...It might say something like 6.7 Kps ... which would be good F1 ...
a .67 .. don't believe a reading that low is possible with FS

Fibrotest or Fibrosure is a blood test ... I personally would be more inclined to trust the Fibroscan as our blood counts move around with this virus ...

My 1 cent only

[Aaron57]

just found this chart on Fibrotest ...

It does use a .0 system .. it sounds like some data might have been mixed up ..

http://www.biopredictive.com/intl/physician/fibrotest-for-hcv/view?set_language=en

[wtbleep]

If I mixed it up and my fibroscan was 6.7 it does fit in with what I was told and shown on the colour chart but then why would my fibrotest show F3?  I realize these are not 100% accurate tests but they seem far apart on stage.

[willbb]

If the fibroscan was 6.7 ..then yes that is consistent with F1 fibrosis  and  if your fibrotest showed  F3 fibrosis..then one of the tests or  possibly both of them are incorrect.

FS is fairly good  at predicting late stage damage(cirrhosis)  but the error rate is approx.25% in middle stage damage.

Fibrotest .. is better at predicting at either end of damage  and also has errors at middle stages.

I would ask for both to be re-run  ..given the wide discrepancy between the two...or possibly ask to have a biopsy done.

Good luck...

Will

[Andiamo1]

Both those tests are better able to predict changes in fibrosis once a baseline is established, than they are at predicting the level of fibrosis on the first test.  They work best when used over a long period of time while testing regularly.

A biopsy is the most accurate test to establish the exact level of fibrosis and even those can be off, since they sample a small tissue area compared to the entire liver.  The liver is not homogenous and different areas can have different levels of fibrosis.

[Peachy48]

My original fibroscan said 19.1, then 6 mo later 9.9, then a yr later today, 6.7. all the tests have 100% accuracy, and at least 10 perfect hits. I had ONE biospy in 2001 that said I was stage 2, grade 2, (they cant bx now because I have my bp way too low), and i have 3 liver ultrasounds that say heterogenous appearance which in the comments section states that I have widespread parenchymal disease. So, the hepatologist said today that since I have had a durable SVR since 2004, that my liver might be improving, even tho I have outwards signs of cirrhosis. Palmar erthyma (sp), numerous spider nevi, terri's nails, etc..I have yet to understand any of this..I'll just go by how I feel.. mostly tired, and mostly sick, most of the time, tho I do have good days as well.. keep on everyone!