Aa
Fibroscan
Does anyone know if Fibroscan has been approved for general use, of is it still being evaluated and tested?
I'm desperate for a good non-invasive test that shows fibrosis level.
I'm desperate for a good non-invasive test that shows fibrosis level.
And with all respect for Hector, in matter of diagnose, investigations or treatment I would rely on a Specialist advice. A Liver specialist
So what is the Australian Public System covering? Or the private one. I am sure you have done your Fibroscan through the Public System as I have done it as well here in New Zealand. Biopsy it is not necessary and to be honest I cannot really see how a biopsy will be better since it is only a reflection of one spot.
Since with the Fibroscan you do several readings and it is based on an average , it will give you far more chances to get an accurate picture of what is happening. From the 10 readings I had, couple of the were very high and a few very low. So probably I do have a few spots were the liver is scarred but as a whole it is not a cirrhotic liver. A biopsy from the spots with a high reading would have put me to cirrhosis. So I really find a non invasive method being far better.
Ultrasounds are really useless to ***** the level of fibrosis. According to US I was great and fine (figure that), where in fact the fibrosis is severe and had the hep C probably for many many years. So I prefer not to be caught in a sense of false security. Sure, I would love to pretend that my liver is great based on the CT scans and ultrasounds I had but that would not serve me
So just to understand: who recommend it you the Fibroscan and who the ultrasound.
Dr in Radiology has nothing to do with diagnosing liver disease.
Since with the Fibroscan you do several readings and it is based on an average , it will give you far more chances to get an accurate picture of what is happening. From the 10 readings I had, couple of the were very high and a few very low. So probably I do have a few spots were the liver is scarred but as a whole it is not a cirrhotic liver. A biopsy from the spots with a high reading would have put me to cirrhosis. So I really find a non invasive method being far better.
Ultrasounds are really useless to ***** the level of fibrosis. According to US I was great and fine (figure that), where in fact the fibrosis is severe and had the hep C probably for many many years. So I prefer not to be caught in a sense of false security. Sure, I would love to pretend that my liver is great based on the CT scans and ultrasounds I had but that would not serve me
So just to understand: who recommend it you the Fibroscan and who the ultrasound.
Dr in Radiology has nothing to do with diagnosing liver disease.
Buy the way,The Australian Public health system,or the private health companies, niether will cover this procedure and it has been in use 4 years here,so that gives you some Idea of how much faith they put in it.
Because a fibroscam is blind vibration and an ultrasound is a visual site of your liver blood flow spleen texture and the Dr that had my ultra sound from a year earlier and every year before that had a comparison to go buy,the Fibroscam Had registered me 21 five times over the severe cirrhosis number for Cirrhosis for a Fubro scam,ultra sound showed No Hypertention normal blood flow spleen was well defined and visable,No sign of nodulation,( a sign of cirrhosis)
and according to the fibroscam I should have had stage 4 cirrhosis,and don't tell me a Dr. of radiology has not seen a cirrhotic liver before,they've seen [plenty my final diagnosis from a comparetive ultrasound from one done by the same people a year before was a slightly enlarged liver.Ask any medical professional,your liver shrinks with stage 4 cirrhosis not enlarges,read about them you will see they get false positives
that's how I know.I gave Hector all the information of the ultra sound and he said it was good,.
and according to the fibroscam I should have had stage 4 cirrhosis,and don't tell me a Dr. of radiology has not seen a cirrhotic liver before,they've seen [plenty my final diagnosis from a comparetive ultrasound from one done by the same people a year before was a slightly enlarged liver.Ask any medical professional,your liver shrinks with stage 4 cirrhosis not enlarges,read about them you will see they get false positives
that's how I know.I gave Hector all the information of the ultra sound and he said it was good,.
Thank you for weighing in on this.
My understanding is that there is no one perfect method. Each method has it's benefits.
A biopsy takes a miniscule amount of tissue and extrapolates that represents the liver in it's entirety.
My understanding is that a fibroscan can find areas (for example) that might show advanced damage or minimal damage. If one took a biopsy from either of these areas one might get very different liver damage staging results.
In this way a fibroscan is superior, or in it's cost and lack of invasiveness. I believe that it is true that there is both calibration sensitivity issues which can skew results. Also the operator can also affect the scores, and perhaps even interpretation of the scores the machine gives.
In light of that, if one traveled and got tests from various machines with various operators, it might make the test less useful and accurate.
*Fibrosure*, a blood test is another such tools for evaluation. In this case the blood is drawn, tested and scores run in an algorithm which approximates liver damage staging. Therefore, since many of these scores fluxuate throughout the day, the end score may also. Differing labs processing the tests can also vary.
My liver panel blood was drawn at the same time as my fibrosure test, but the fibrosure test scores showed approximately a 10% higher ALT.
I don't think we should take any of these tests as absolute. There is margin of error in all of them.
willy
My understanding is that there is no one perfect method. Each method has it's benefits.
A biopsy takes a miniscule amount of tissue and extrapolates that represents the liver in it's entirety.
My understanding is that a fibroscan can find areas (for example) that might show advanced damage or minimal damage. If one took a biopsy from either of these areas one might get very different liver damage staging results.
In this way a fibroscan is superior, or in it's cost and lack of invasiveness. I believe that it is true that there is both calibration sensitivity issues which can skew results. Also the operator can also affect the scores, and perhaps even interpretation of the scores the machine gives.
In light of that, if one traveled and got tests from various machines with various operators, it might make the test less useful and accurate.
*Fibrosure*, a blood test is another such tools for evaluation. In this case the blood is drawn, tested and scores run in an algorithm which approximates liver damage staging. Therefore, since many of these scores fluxuate throughout the day, the end score may also. Differing labs processing the tests can also vary.
My liver panel blood was drawn at the same time as my fibrosure test, but the fibrosure test scores showed approximately a 10% higher ALT.
I don't think we should take any of these tests as absolute. There is margin of error in all of them.
willy
Have an Answer?
You are reading content posted in the Hepatitis C Community
Learn about this treatable virus.
Getting tested for this viral infection.
3 key steps to getting on treatment.
4 steps to getting on therapy.
What you need to know about Hep C drugs.
How the drugs might affect you.
These tips may up your chances of a cure.
A list of national and international resources and hotlines to help connect you to needed health and medical services.
Herpes sores blister, then burst, scab and heal.
Herpes spreads by oral, vaginal and anal sex.
STIs are the most common cause of genital sores.
Condoms are the most effective way to prevent HIV and STDs.
PrEP is used by people with high risk to prevent HIV infection.
