I picked up a copy of the biopsy.
Under Specimens 4 (Sigmoid) and 5 (Rectum), the diagnosis is "Active Chronic Colitis. Negative for dysplasia"
Under Specimens 1 (Ascending Colon), 2 (Transverse Colon), and 3 (Descending Colon), the diagnosis is "Colonic Mucosa with no diagnostic abnormalities. No evidence of idiopathic inflammatory bowel diseas, lymphocytic colitis or collagenous colitis. Negative for dysplasia or malignancy."
Most of you know far more about
this than me, but the biopsy seems to indicate Proctosigmoiditis, not Left-Sided Colitis, right?
Maybe my GI doesn't differentiate between the two? I think he is a great doctor overall, but hasn't been very thorough with my diagnosis.
I'd want clarification as the wording is definetly confusing. Certainly the biopsies are another piece of the puzzle and unless you have that report than you're not looking at everything used for your diagnosis.
Everything before the comma suggests a diagnosis of ulcerative colitis with proctosigmoiditis. Everything starts at the rectum and extends 30 cms (rectum and sigmoid involvement). They saw marked bleeding when the scope touched the mucosa surface (aka friability)n they saw swelling (aka edema), and redness (aka erthema) of mucosal surfaces. All typical, storybook UC findings suggestive of continuous inflammation. All you're missing is ulcers (characteristic of ulcerative colitis).
Everything gets more than a bit weird after the comma. Bad grammar and a bit muddled. Does it mean: That there was random, spaced spots of inflammation seen (proximally) to the ceceum? TI was normal? If so then you don't have ulcerative colitis.
It's possible they saw only random redness (erthema) and it was only from the prep, and biopsies confirmed it was not inflammation.
I'd call and ask for the biopsy report. And offer them a free grammar and spelling lesson ;-P