Further study of cancer patients

Press, Volume CXIV, Issue 33521, 30 April 1974, Page 2

Further study of cancer patients

<Aew Zealand Preu Aisoctatior. > AUCKLAND, April 29. Of 202 cancer patients treated by Dr Milan Brych at Auckland Hospital a year ago. only 96 are still alive, the inquiry into Dr Brych’s treatment methods was told today.

Mr E. W. H. Gifford, one of two surgeons who made the original study of patients treated by Dr Bry ch early in 1973, said that he and his colleague, Mr J. F. Carter, made a follow-up review earlier this month. “Our findings are that m » large proportion of the rases which showed promising initial response to the treatment, the followi. „ months 'aw a recrudescence of the diseaseMr Gifford said.

"In a certain number of cases the improvement has been maintained. In a considerable number, progression of the disease has resulted in death ”

Figure sought However, in reply to Mr! K. Ryan, appearing for Dr E.-ych, Mr Gifford said he! was unable to state how 1 many of the cancer patients; who had died since July, 1973 (the tune immunotherapy was stopped) were still under Dr Brych’s control Mr Ryan: You understand' the importance of whether: the treatment has been con-; tinued since July. 1973? j Mr Gifford: I have no information on this question. Mr Ryan: It is important for our purposes to kno •’ how many were continuing; with Dr Brych’s treatment.: Professor R. D. Wright I fthe cancer expert conduct-: Ing the inquiry): The answer Is that Mr Gifford does not, know, if Mr Carter also does * rot know we will have to J ask them to find out. I think' It is a most important question. “Diape! myth” Earlier. Mr C. R. Pidgeon, for the Auckland Hospital' Board, told the inquiry that! one purpose of presenting the' updated Gifford-Carter report was to "dispel the myth of! the miracle cure.” “This point must be made,; and it must be made quite; clear,” Mr Pidgeon emphaused. Mr Gifford, who also Identified himself as chairman of the medical executive of the Cancer Society, said' the follow-up investigation ahowed that of the 202' patients originally studied,! 106. or 52.4 per cent, had now' died. Of the others, 60 (297 per eent) had active cancer, and 36 (17.9 per cent) were in! remission. "From this survey it has J become apparent that the; results in this senes are cer-l tainly no better than those obtained in other centres throughout the world, and that chemo-immunotherapy has not provided a major; breakthrough in the manage-’ tnent of malignant disease,” Mr Gifford said. “The place of immunotherapy in this series remains anproven. "We feel the variety of rhemotherapeutic agents •hould be extended to include established regimes which have been used with success

in other units, with appropriate expansion of the present facilities. "Research projects should be established to explore the place immunotherapy has in the management of malignant disease.” Asked by Mr C. M. Nichol-; son. counsel assisting the inquiry, whether he thought that the immunotherapy aspect of Dr Brych’s treatments should have been allowed to continue, Mr Gifford said, “I think there are a great many people thinking that ultimately immunotherapy is going to be a very valuable form of treatment for disease—or rather, that it may become so. "At the moment we do not feel there is any evidence that it is taking a major pan now. “But other forms of treatment are unsatisfactory and if we can later develop immunotherapy to the stage where it can really help patients, we should take every advantage of working towards that particular end.”

“Aot in favour Mr Nicholson: But did vou think that it (Dr Brych’s immunotherapy treatment) (should cease? , Mr Gifford: My personal opinion is that no form of treatment which is not set out in a way which is understandable by a scientific committee or assessed by the hospital ethical committee should continue. Therefore 1 was not in favour of the immunotherapy continuing last July.

Cross-examined by Mr' Rvan. Mr Gifford agreed that when he made his original survey between January and May last year, the staff in the radiotherapy department where Dr Brych worked were extremely busy. The department could well have done with more staff, particularly so that better documentation could have been made.

Mr Gifford also agreed that throughout the survey, Dr Brych and the whole department had been very ’helpful. “Not scientific'' Asked how he had come to ■ the conclusion that ail but lone of the patients w’ho had i died had succumbed to canjcer. Mr Gifford said he and Mr Carter had studied anything that was available in writing about the manner of death. They were not scientific conclusions but the findings were “as close as we could get to the situation.” When Mr Carter went to the witness stand he was asked by Mr Ryan about a letter he wrote last June 28 to Professor E. M. Nanson. chairman of the committee to which the Gifford-Carter report was submitted. This letter set out Mr Carter’s personal views. If Dr Brych’s treatment in Ward 11 was to continue, the letter said, then it should be confined to patients with disseminated cancer in which no other treatment had been successful. ’ The materials which Dr Brych used in his treatment were prepared in his home

laboratory and Mr Carter was not sure that a licence should: not be obtained for the preparation of materials for use' on humans. After 18 months of having : a "free hand.” with his treatment. Dr Brych should now provide an adequate account of his work, to the satisfaction of his critics, said the letter. To Mr Ryan. Mr Carter said it seemed to him thatj some of the problems over Dr Brych’s methods had arisen because Dr Brych had; come to New Zealand as a re-; fugee only about five years’ ago. speaking no English. Public laughter There was derisive laughter from the public gallery when Mr Carter said that Dr Brych was probably unaware of what was expected in medical circles in New Zealand, and was also unaware of what it was customary for doctors in this country to tell, or not to tell, members of the public. Mr Carter (angrily): I don’t think this is a laughing matter. It is very serious and I find this very distasteful.

i Mr Carter added that he had proceeded to make Dr > Brych aware of what was expected of him. He had told Dr Brych that he could not continue his trials unless he accepted the rules and regulations followed by medical people in New Zealand. Citing what he called "sweeping statements,” Mr Carter said Dr Brych had claimed he could cure Hodgkins disease with one injection of immunotherapy, and [that he could cure heart disease with immunotherapy.