FishProfiles.com Message Forums

Haven't been around in a while, so hello again.

Link below is to a picture of a lump on a goldfish my brother keeps in a small outdoor pond. Capacity around 50-60L, no water measurements to give and it's unfiltered.

Does the fish need to be put out of it's misery and if yes, how's best?

Ta.

http://www.arktulu.net/fishcancer.jpg

Well cancer isnt necessarily malignant or fatal, but I must admit it doesnt look good, and it does look like some vulnerable tissue that will in all likelihood lead to infection in an uncontrolled outdoor situation.

Personally I'd bring the fish into a filtered environment with a UV steriliser for the rest of its life, but then somehow I doubt thats gonna happen.

I think your brother is due a lecture on fish care. Despite the fact that most cancer is genetic, a 60 litre pond is a ridiculously small enclosure for a goldfish, and in a fish with a genetic propensity for cancer, the kind of repeated damage cause by nitrite and ammonia forces rapid cell replication during tissue loss and healing and that in itself increases chances of cancer. It may well be that your brothers care of the fish might well have caused it cancer indirectly, it could potentially have gone on for many years longer.

Its impossible at a glance to truly know if such a cancer is malignant, but on experience id say its chances of long term survival are slim , purely because of the state of the tissue surface of the cancer, and the current keeping conditions the fish is kept under. The cancerous surface will have no skin slime layer, and that means in that area the fish has no surface protection from disease, and that will almost certainly lead to a premature death at some point.

The fish should be moved to more sterile, controlled, and filtered aquaria, preferably much larger. In any event a goldfish should have more space than that, in a pond situation 300 gals or larger, ideally 1000 plus gals if unfiltered.

As for the cancer itself being a reason for euthanisation, id say no, until more physical symptoms of debilitation occur the fish should not be killed, in fact a great deal more investiture into its life quality should be considered. Non malignant cancers can be huge and not life threatening in a direct way, and a keeper with an enclosure of a good standard should be able to keep a fish with benign cancer alive indefinately, quite possibly reaching a normal longevity for the fish. Obviously this cancer is too well connected to blood supply and muscle tissue in a critical area of locomotion to be removed, so you just stick with the fish until it begins to show weakness badly. Cancer in it self is not always painful, it depends on location, and while cancers like liver, kidney, stomach, gill and spine will be painful because of the organs surrounding them, a cancer in the tissue of the caudal peduncle may not be.

Indeed the only suffering the fish may be going through is probably being caused by being in a tiny pond.

Take brother in hand methinks, and truly to task with a lesson in good fishkeeping.

Good luck with the survival of the fish, but if it comes to the end , and is at any point obviously suffering, and is weak, non-feeding, floating etc then place it in a bucket of its pondwater, and add a load of clove oil, add least 25- 30 drops and it should slip into a drug induced coma and die of respiritory failure while unconscious, or you can finish it off with a blow to be sure. Drugging the fish usually takes about 2-3 minutes, but leave it in situ for 10 until its totally dead to the world of sensation, and completely mentally asleep. Clove oil has the virtue of being cheap, and can be found in the dental section at a pharmacists.

I suppose the moral quandary here is whether the financial cost of improving the fish's living situation is really worth it, but IMHO I would make the effort. So a decision remains as to whether its purely its living situation or the keeper that it belongs to that is the problem, and whether its worth saving a diseased fish from such a situation. I'd save it, but I can see how some might think it isnt worth the bother, but it does seem like adding insult to injury to kill it. Tough choice for some and not for others, it depends on your personal situation.

Animal welfare vs money vs bad keeping. These are times when responsible people, whoever they may be, have to step up and take charge, maybe even upset a few people to get things done. Never an easy responsibility to shoulder.For some people its not their problem, for other is becomes their problem. Good luck with the choices before you, and you must do what you feel is right. Myself, id give that fish a chance, because frankly im in a position, were it me facing that problem, that I could and probably would try to give the fish a fighting chance, but hey, you can only do what you can do.

Best of luck with a tough decision.

Hope that covers everything.

Its always sad to see a fish with cancer. My sympathies.

You don't know that it's cancer. It is technically a tumour- tumour meaning undefined lump. It could be a wart-like lesion, cyst or hyperplastic scar tissue. Hard to tell without poking it.

If it's not interfereing with swimming and the fish isn't losing rapid weight then it's probably going to be alright for a while. It doesn't look necrotic, inflammed or infected in that picture.

Yes, goldfish should have more space and all that which has been said before. I'm not oging to go on about that although it may be a factor- just tell me does the pond have any shade?


*PS longhairedgit - all cancer is genetic as it's all caused by genetic damage. Whether it's inherited or not is a different matter.

<Vet in Training>
Blog under development: http://www.nearlydrferox.blogging4life.com/

There are also cancers caused by toxins and and a few viruses. A tumour is a cancer, whether its malignant or not is what is important.In this case my reference to cancer was to do with inheritance, and that is known to be a causal factor with fish, but there are certain causes you can inflict on a fish with bad care, ie> water pollution. This increases risk of cancer much in the same way that smoking would for a human in a high risk group.Not sure the distinction between inheritance and gene alteration or damage is of any relevance at all here.

It could be a wart-like lesion, cyst or hyperplastic scar tissue. Hard to tell without poking it.

Not on your nelly mate. Thats an abnormal growth with its own veins. Not sure how many non cancerous growths youve seen that dont follow the morphology of the host that have their own blood supply. No cyst ever looked like that, its extended beyond a point where it would have already burst were it a cyst, this thing has grown its own attachment, and is extending beyond the host. Bet you any money if you had it removed youd see vein structures penetrating into the host, and the cancer would look like bud growing off it. As for non cancerous hyperplastic growth in fish, nearly all of them have cellular malformity that enlarges individual cells usually causing growths that are granular surfaced. This is smooth as a baby's bum. The location is also significant, the caudal peduncle is a common place for cancers in fish, if not completely predictable, no other major organs in evidence, yet a primary spot for red pigment cell cancer, which again is a good sign its genetically inherited. You'll soon get used to seeing many cases like this once you become a vet. Been to veterinary college myself, and have most of the usual literature

Its a cancer all right, just dont know if its malignant or not. Granted without sample testing you can never be 100%conclusive, but lets face it, in this case it probably is cancer, try out a little test , try to find a piccy of a fish with a comperable lump that looks close enough and yet isnt cancer with the same features. Bet you cant find one.

PS poking it doesnt tell you anything apart from it being liquid or not, and anyone can see from that, it probably isnt. Cysts are often solid, but that varies by degrees on bodily reaction, cancers can be malleable or hard, and if you can burst it, it probably isnt cancer, but some cancers are structurally unstable, easily infected and do weep. Parasite cysts can usually be burst and a characteristic of them is a loss of bloodflow, and usually some necrosis, clearly that fish has neither. Another clue is the visible absence of immune cell reaction anywhere near or on the lump, meaning the body probably doesnt regard it as foreign tissue.Its also not the kind of harmless growth youd get on lionhead goldfish, this is distinctly "meaty". Goldfish scar tissue incidentally , does not and has never looked like that. Theres no evidence of healing there at all.

I think what your talking about needing is a proper biopsy, with a full microscopy on the infected tissue, and well, Id love to see the result of that. Lol, not even a vet yet and already drumming up some exclusive business .

Great you have an interest though! Lord knows the world needs more fish vets, especially since most existing vets and colleges are absolutely pants with fish. I remember being on a vetnursing course a few years ago where they were recommendeding 50% water changes as standard, meds for diseases that usually kill fish in droves, and said that aerators made no difference. Said lecturer has of course been exposed and booted off the course. Dont take what they teach you for granted even at vet school. Most colleges are very behind on piscines.

I'd like to know what molasseslass actually ended up doing, as this thread is very slow, but in any case.

Alow me to quote from my pathology lecture notes on neoplasia by Dr Jeanine Sandy:
Neoplasia = a genetic disease.
Tumour = a lump of swelling.

The toxins and viruses associated with cancer cause the genetic damage, which may cause a neoplasia.

I can't see veins on the pic. I can't even tell if it's solid or fluid filled, or if it's subcutaneous. I don't get to see many wounded fish as you might guess, so I use what I've seen in other species and go back to basic principles. The refelction on the water happens to be over the junction between the mass and the body.

And what I was talking about was managing the fish based on any observed effects associated with the lump- weightloss, ataxia etc, rather than worry about what it actually is, as I doubt we'd find out.

My dictionary says cysts are filled with fluid or semi solid. Is it not possible it's a blocked mucous secreting gland?

<Vet in Training>
Blog under development: http://www.nearlydrferox.blogging4life.com/

Given the thickness of the tissue in that area I doubt it, plus it would be showing a great many more signs of infection. A gland swelled to that size couldnt remain uninfected, and the tissue would be so thin as to rupture were it simply a glandular swelling. To me it clearly looks like massive excess tissue. Its either herniated tissue, which would be very unusual in that area, or its a massive growth, which is far more likely. Also the root of the gland would force scales apart, most of the swelling would be beneath the skin, not protruding from it, and as you can see there is a complete fusion of flesh over existing scales, with very little distortion of the surrounding scales, or indeed much sign of a pressure injury.

By way of a tip, when you see a number of specimens youll see that the immuno cell response tends to turn the cystic mass white or off-white in most skin tissue on piscines, this is distinctly flesh coloured. What youre hinting at would be normal for a mammal, but not so much for fish. Were going with probability in lieu of a real microscopy, and in that tissue region, with this species, in that colour variation, and with that structure, odds on its cancer.

Neoplasia = a genetic disease.
Tumour = a lump of swelling.

Ok, ok I know, I wasnt trying to alienate people with terminology. Tumour is synonymous with cancer in most cases, the scientific distiction between them is lean at best, and its generally poorly defined based on observational morphology, and depends to some degree on the level of conversation. I thought a tumour would be fine for the purposes of conversation here, lets be honest "tumour" isnt often used in any other context. Were getting belaboured in terminological irrelevances, I know what it means, you know what it means, and as to the outcome it doesnt matter a jot. It certainly makes no difference to diagnosis. All I need at my age is a reminder of first year vetmet terms lol.

Still its nice that your keeping options open, I did already consider a cyst, but having seen hundreds of comparatives in my time, this just doesnt fit the bill. Should have hit me with everted muscle tissue if you wanted to get me on this one But then, that would have to be explained causally, and then you could have gone for a bird attack, something with a recurved beak, or a cat claw attack. It would then have come down to how the long the fish has had said injury....

Now for the extra point, can you tell me how I know it isnt that?