Aa
Liver Biopsy and I've Missed You All
Hello Friends!
This will be posted on both the Medical Community as well as the Social Support, as medical discussion and support is being sought.
A long break has been taken from here, and for that I apologize. A lot has been on my mind, and well... I just needed to take some time to enjoy life before deciding on what to do... My stats are in my profile. (For those not remembering me.) My hepatologist typically treats a 2b WITHOUT a biopsy. (??!!) I said, "No". Originally I considered waiting to have my biopsy taken at the end of this summer (as some of you may remember). Because of my reluctance in starting treatment, and expressing my desire to wait a few years, he ordered a biopsy.
The liver biopsy wasn’t as big of a deal as I anticipated. It was ultrasound guided. A light sedation was given. (I don’t know what it was, I was totally awake but RELAXED!). Actually the shot given to numb the area hurt more than the procedure itself. Tiny slivers from three different areas of the liver were remove. (Why? I don't know.) That just felt like a dull pressure.
I asked that the results be faxed but instead the nurse practitioner emailed me with this:
NURSE PRACTITIONER: "Dr. **** advises your biopsy results will be discussed with you in detail during your March 28th appointment. Briefly, I can state this: Stage 0-1 minimal scarring (no significant fibrosis) w/Grade 1. Feel free to call me after 3:30 on Monday. And, in answer to your question, yes, he still would like to discuss treatment."
Does this make sense?
I hope all my friends here are doing as well as can be expected. Each of you have continued to be in my thoughts!
~Anwaar
This will be posted on both the Medical Community as well as the Social Support, as medical discussion and support is being sought.
A long break has been taken from here, and for that I apologize. A lot has been on my mind, and well... I just needed to take some time to enjoy life before deciding on what to do... My stats are in my profile. (For those not remembering me.) My hepatologist typically treats a 2b WITHOUT a biopsy. (??!!) I said, "No". Originally I considered waiting to have my biopsy taken at the end of this summer (as some of you may remember). Because of my reluctance in starting treatment, and expressing my desire to wait a few years, he ordered a biopsy.
The liver biopsy wasn’t as big of a deal as I anticipated. It was ultrasound guided. A light sedation was given. (I don’t know what it was, I was totally awake but RELAXED!). Actually the shot given to numb the area hurt more than the procedure itself. Tiny slivers from three different areas of the liver were remove. (Why? I don't know.) That just felt like a dull pressure.
I asked that the results be faxed but instead the nurse practitioner emailed me with this:
NURSE PRACTITIONER: "Dr. **** advises your biopsy results will be discussed with you in detail during your March 28th appointment. Briefly, I can state this: Stage 0-1 minimal scarring (no significant fibrosis) w/Grade 1. Feel free to call me after 3:30 on Monday. And, in answer to your question, yes, he still would like to discuss treatment."
Does this make sense?
I hope all my friends here are doing as well as can be expected. Each of you have continued to be in my thoughts!
~Anwaar
MO: Also when your liver is not working properly, it has a domino effect on your entire body. Yes its true alot of times we do feel very healthy, but thats how HCV got its name "The Silent killer."
------------
Not in the mood for another one of those "debates", but I don't buy your comments on the immune system at all, and in fact many of us are dealing with immune system problems *after* treatment that we didn't have before, and that's from the interferon. Would love to say I feel better after treatment than before, but I don't and am not alone.
As to the above statement, my understanding of why Hepatitis C is called the "Silent Killer" is because many people simply don't know they have Hepatitis C until they reach stage 4 cirrhosis. Not because it somehow is killing you along the way. "Anwaar" knows she has it, is seeing a liver specialist, and I'm sure she will monitor her liver on a regular basis should she decide not to treat. We do agree, that it's her choice.
-- Jim
------------
Not in the mood for another one of those "debates", but I don't buy your comments on the immune system at all, and in fact many of us are dealing with immune system problems *after* treatment that we didn't have before, and that's from the interferon. Would love to say I feel better after treatment than before, but I don't and am not alone.
As to the above statement, my understanding of why Hepatitis C is called the "Silent Killer" is because many people simply don't know they have Hepatitis C until they reach stage 4 cirrhosis. Not because it somehow is killing you along the way. "Anwaar" knows she has it, is seeing a liver specialist, and I'm sure she will monitor her liver on a regular basis should she decide not to treat. We do agree, that it's her choice.
-- Jim
Hi!
Good to see you. IMO treat now. Though you feel good, you have to remember that your immune system is in constant overdrive. If you tx, your immune system will be in OVERDRIVE for 24 weeks and thats it and then back to normal,,,,,waiting lets say 5 years or more to tx,,,your immune system is constantly trying to rid the virus. This is how autoimmune issues start. Also when your liver is not working properly, it has a domino effect on your entire body. Yes its true alot of times we do feel very healthy, but thats how HCV got its name "The Silent killer."
There was a really great debate between Jim and mikesimon and if anyone has the thread handy, maybe they can post it. You will see both sides of the coin - "Tx now,, or "Watch and wait" approach... I got out the popcorn while reading that one. I'm serious,(not about the popcorn tho lol) its a great read. It was like watching a political debate on TV and you walk away saying,,,OH man, both candidates were good, both made good points,,,who the heck should I vote for?? I even was going to make a suggestion to MH to maybe consider making their debate a permanent page somewhere, where all people coming to the forum would be able to see the discussion,,,and the reason I say this is because what the two of them said in ONE thread covered it all and more. It would be (and was) thought provoking and would cause people to search even more on their own as to whether they should treat or not if it had a special page for all to see when comming to the forum. Did I wet your appetite?? Don't ya feel like reading the thread?? Well if Jim, mike or anyone can find it,,,maybe they will post it. I remember it was a thread started by Copyman, but I don't remember the title.
Whatever you decide to do,,,I wish you well. It is YOUR choice,,but try to get as much info and opinions as you can and weigh it ALL.
MO
Good to see you. IMO treat now. Though you feel good, you have to remember that your immune system is in constant overdrive. If you tx, your immune system will be in OVERDRIVE for 24 weeks and thats it and then back to normal,,,,,waiting lets say 5 years or more to tx,,,your immune system is constantly trying to rid the virus. This is how autoimmune issues start. Also when your liver is not working properly, it has a domino effect on your entire body. Yes its true alot of times we do feel very healthy, but thats how HCV got its name "The Silent killer."
There was a really great debate between Jim and mikesimon and if anyone has the thread handy, maybe they can post it. You will see both sides of the coin - "Tx now,, or "Watch and wait" approach... I got out the popcorn while reading that one. I'm serious,(not about the popcorn tho lol) its a great read. It was like watching a political debate on TV and you walk away saying,,,OH man, both candidates were good, both made good points,,,who the heck should I vote for?? I even was going to make a suggestion to MH to maybe consider making their debate a permanent page somewhere, where all people coming to the forum would be able to see the discussion,,,and the reason I say this is because what the two of them said in ONE thread covered it all and more. It would be (and was) thought provoking and would cause people to search even more on their own as to whether they should treat or not if it had a special page for all to see when comming to the forum. Did I wet your appetite?? Don't ya feel like reading the thread?? Well if Jim, mike or anyone can find it,,,maybe they will post it. I remember it was a thread started by Copyman, but I don't remember the title.
Whatever you decide to do,,,I wish you well. It is YOUR choice,,but try to get as much info and opinions as you can and weigh it ALL.
MO
Hi Jim: Thanks for your response. Not being familiar with biopsy results, your comment, "a better result could not have been expected".. was great to read!!!! To say the least... (a sigh of relief)
I don't understand this hepatologist's logic in treating with what still appears, at least, to me, a barbaric treatment. I 'listen' to the side effects and the post treatment effects here in this discussion group (both past/present) and cringe. I am 29 and in perfect health, with no symptoms of tje virus. Do you feel I need to treat? I mean, I ask this to anyone here willing to give their opinion. Because that is what I want (is your thoughts and opinions). Am I missing something? Should I treat? Because my gut instinct is saying wait for a few years to see what is working then (in the future).... Do my intuitive/instinct appears sound to you? I am going to factor in a lot... and take my time in making this decision.
Anything that is offered, is appreciated. Thank you.
~Anwaar
I don't understand this hepatologist's logic in treating with what still appears, at least, to me, a barbaric treatment. I 'listen' to the side effects and the post treatment effects here in this discussion group (both past/present) and cringe. I am 29 and in perfect health, with no symptoms of tje virus. Do you feel I need to treat? I mean, I ask this to anyone here willing to give their opinion. Because that is what I want (is your thoughts and opinions). Am I missing something? Should I treat? Because my gut instinct is saying wait for a few years to see what is working then (in the future).... Do my intuitive/instinct appears sound to you? I am going to factor in a lot... and take my time in making this decision.
Anything that is offered, is appreciated. Thank you.
~Anwaar
Probably should add for those not familiar -- that the logic to treat all geno 2's, regardless of liver damage, is because they have approx an 80% chance of SVR (cure) with only 24 weeks of treatment. That compared to geno 1's, who have more like a 50% chance of SVR with 48 weeks of treatment. The risk/reward ratio in terms of treating is obviously then stacked much higher for geno 2's than geno 1's.
A big congratulations, a better result could not have been expected.
Since your doctor generally treats geno 2's without a biopsy -- and this is not uncommon -- his inclination no doubt is to treat all geno 2's regardless of liver damage (or lack of liver damage). I'm pretty sure that's why he still wants to discuss treatment and wouldn't read anything more into that.
The logic for treating geno 2's without biopsy is that since you're going to treat anyway why add an invasive procedure to the menu. Of course this assumes that a geno 2 -- even with no liver damage -- is planning on treating. But that's another discussion. That said, there is an argument for biopsy, even if the intent is to treat, and that is to use as guidance in terms of how agressively to treat, especially if side effects start to get tough on treatment.
All the best,
-- Jim
Since your doctor generally treats geno 2's without a biopsy -- and this is not uncommon -- his inclination no doubt is to treat all geno 2's regardless of liver damage (or lack of liver damage). I'm pretty sure that's why he still wants to discuss treatment and wouldn't read anything more into that.
The logic for treating geno 2's without biopsy is that since you're going to treat anyway why add an invasive procedure to the menu. Of course this assumes that a geno 2 -- even with no liver damage -- is planning on treating. But that's another discussion. That said, there is an argument for biopsy, even if the intent is to treat, and that is to use as guidance in terms of how agressively to treat, especially if side effects start to get tough on treatment.
All the best,
-- Jim
Have an Answer?
You are reading content posted in the Hepatitis Social Community
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.
