Biopsy Blues

lilacbrroller

Arrgh. I'm trying to get into a clinical trial, so I needed a test to determine if my tumors expressed something. So my onc scheduled me for a liver biopsy last week. Well, I had it done at the hospital and somehow the surgeon doing the test took out healthy liver tissue and not tumor tissue!  Arrgh. That was a big waste of time.

My onc is back from vacay on Monday so they're going to decide what to do. I'll probably have to have another biopsy done. I'll get the whole story then. I'm not sure what my rights are - if the surgeon screwed up, can I go back to the hospital and have them do it over for free? (probably not.)  

Anyone have any idea what I can do in this case?

much appreciated

Karin

geotina

Karin:

My George had run into something somwhat similar.   Steadily styrocketing CEA, went in for liver biopsy, came back as necrotic (dead) tissue.  Onc didn't feel that was right so George had to go in again for another biopsy and this one showed the cancer.  Can't remember why we did the biopsy but it was a CT guided needle biopsy.  I think others have run into the same thing.   Aggravating, oh yes.

Take care - Tina

annalexandria

How frustrating!

I haven't had a biopsy, but my sister had several, and they were never able to get live cancer cells.  It was always necrotic tissue, like Geotina mentioned.  Unfortunately I don't think they ever gave her a financial break, but maybe it would be different in the case of actually missing the tumor altogether...I would ask! (seems weird to fail to make contact in the liver, which is after all not moving all around like the intestines are...how hard is to biopsy normally, I wonder?).

I hope this can get sorted out for you soon, and you can move onto the trial.

Thinking lots of good thoughts for you~AA

lilacbrroller

annalexandria said:

How frustrating!

I haven't had a biopsy, but my sister had several, and they were never able to get live cancer cells.  It was always necrotic tissue, like Geotina mentioned.  Unfortunately I don't think they ever gave her a financial break, but maybe it would be different in the case of actually missing the tumor altogether...I would ask! (seems weird to fail to make contact in the liver, which is after all not moving all around like the intestines are...how hard is to biopsy normally, I wonder?).

I hope this can get sorted out for you soon, and you can move onto the trial.

Thinking lots of good thoughts for you~AA

hmm

thanks both of you. And i passed judgment on the Dr as being a nitwit because he did the procedure while looking at my liver under a CT scan.   Heh. How could he miss the tumors? He was looking right at them.  So maybe he didn't screw up after all.  Good to hear others' experiences with this. It doesn't seem to strange a situation now!

It has to be tested for MSI - microsatellite intensity. 

cheers

Karin

Annabelle41415

Geez

It's hard to know if they were not accurate enough or not.  It's their word against you which stinks.  I'm thinking that you should mention something about the price and fight it because I did when they didn't do a chest CT (which was supposed to be scheduled) and did only a ab/pelvic and Dr. said then should have done a chest CT too. I told her, well I pay for all that and that chest CT could have been included in the original CT because my deductible was $7,000 and they did seem to reduce it so go for it and make a stink.  It's your money and if you claim a hardship because you were going to pay for the initial one and they screwed up let them know it.  Good luck on the next one. 

Kim

annalexandria

lilacbrroller said:

hmm

thanks both of you. And i passed judgment on the Dr as being a nitwit because he did the procedure while looking at my liver under a CT scan.   Heh. How could he miss the tumors? He was looking right at them.  So maybe he didn't screw up after all.  Good to hear others' experiences with this. It doesn't seem to strange a situation now!

It has to be tested for MSI - microsatellite intensity. 

cheers

Karin

But did he get only healthy tissue?

When you get necrotic tissue, it means that the doctor did hit the tumor, but that the bit that was biopsied was already dead (common in fast growing tumors).  But if he missed the tumor completely...even when being guided by CT...Idk, Karen, that seems like cause for complaint.  Or at least a request for a discount on the next one.

I do know that even with the CT doing a biopsy on the intestines is tricky, because of the constant movement, but as far as I know the liver doesn't wiggle around all that much. 

lilacbrroller

Annabelle41415 said:

Geez

It's hard to know if they were not accurate enough or not.  It's their word against you which stinks.  I'm thinking that you should mention something about the price and fight it because I did when they didn't do a chest CT (which was supposed to be scheduled) and did only a ab/pelvic and Dr. said then should have done a chest CT too. I told her, well I pay for all that and that chest CT could have been included in the original CT because my deductible was $7,000 and they did seem to reduce it so go for it and make a stink.  It's your money and if you claim a hardship because you were going to pay for the initial one and they screwed up let them know it.  Good luck on the next one. 

Kim

mystery solved

It was in fact dead tissue that was biopsied. So in a way that is good; all that shows up on the CT scan is not necessarily cancer. Talked to my onc's office today and they said it was not active cancer.  And not a screw up, or something I'd have to stress out and fight. 

I still need a biopsy of something, so am on the trail to get one. 

sigh

Karin