TREATMENT OF CANCER

Taranaki Daily News, 11 October 1928, Page 13

TREATMENT OF CANCER

EFFECT OF USE OF LEAD SCIENTISTS AT VARIANCE. SOME DANGERS OF THE DRUG. London, August 2. When the lead treatment was discussed at the International Cancer Conference there was considerable difference of opinion between medical men, some even denouncing it altogether, says the New Zealand Herald’s correspondent. Professor W. Blair Bell, of Liverpool University, claimed that it had been repeatedly shown experimentally that the growth of plants and aimals was very definitely cheeked by lead. Moreover, ho and others had obtained experimental and clinical evidence that lead might cause a necrosis of cancer cells in favourable circumstances. Although much work had been done by his colleagues, Professor Lewis and his associates, with a wiew to discovering in what way lead acted on normal growing tissues and on malignant cells, no very definite conclusions had as yet been reached; but it appeared possible that the action in regard to eancer was both local and constitutional. The position at present was that lead inhibited growth and affected the cancer cell deleteriously. “Whether this selective action is associated with growth processes only, or in addition, as we think probable, with some special function or constitution of the cancer cell, remains to be finally proved; the question has, however, an important bearing on the chemo-thera-pcutic aspect of the subject.” Even though they had reached the stage of believing that lead was detrimental to the cancer cell they had still far to go; but there was a considerable body of opinion supporting the view that by itself lead, even in the crude preparations now used, could cause the disappearance and apparent cure of malignant neoplasms in favourable circumstances, and sometimes could beneficially affect leukaemia and other neoplastic conditions. “AN IMPORTANT DISCOVERY.” Professor Francis C. Wood, of Columbia University, said that it was evident from Professor Blair Bell's carefullyworded reports that the method was not at present one of general applicability, because of the high degree of clinical skill necessary for the proper treatment of patients, and the dangers of the drug itself. Nevertheless, the fact that it was possible to cure even a relatively small number of otherwise hopeless patients was so important a discovery that every assistance should be offered Professor Blair Bell and hie colleagues in the arduous work of ultimately defining the best practice of administration, in studying the method of action of tho lead, and in attempting to improve the product. The fact that lead was not an effec- | tive therapeutic agent in curing certain animal tumours, said Professor Wood, did not prove that this metal would not cure human tumours, for the virulence and growth-rate of the animal tumours were much greater than similar types in man; hence the final clinical observations. Dr. Burton T. Simpson, of the New York State Institute for the study of malignant diseases, after giving details of 19 cases of malignancy treated with colloidal lead prepared according to Professor Blair Bell's method, said the lack of clinical improvement, together with the severe anaemia and the discomfort caused to the patients, had caused them to abandon that method of treatment. PATIENTS PHYSICAL WRECKS. Mr. J. B. Hume, St. Bartholcmew’s hospital, described the results of lead treatment on 20 cases at that hospital. He admitted that the number was small, the explanation being that the results obtained were so unsatisfactory that the physicians, and surgeons would not permit their cases to be treated. Even the strongest patients were converted into physical wrecks. In many of the cases the growths increased very rapidly under the treatment. “Consideration of the facts, and reflection on the work in general,” Mr. Hume said, “lead us to conclusions that are highly unfavourable to the method that we have been testing. In ail the cases examined post-mortem the liver showed signs of severe damage, and the fact that several of the other cases were jaundiced during life makes it highly probable that it is impossible to administer a sufficiently large amount of lead to produce resorption of malignant tissue without causing the death of the patient from hepatic insufficiency.” Dr. Stanley Wlard (Cancer Hospital) suggested that Professor Blair Bell had been carried away by an observation which had never been corroborated. Although his statements were very striking, the results claimed for surpassed those of anyone else who had attempted his method of treatment. Unfortunately his accounts of the cases which he had published did not carry conviction, so that his claims must be received with caution. Dr. A. P. Thomson (Birmingham) said that in 15 cases which had come under his notice an improvement was observed —very marked in five cases. .He quoted the case of a man who had a very severe malignant growth in the mouth. Under lead treatment the man was apparently cured. He also recovered weight, and J was able to return to work. The patient I had a recurrence of the trouble three months ago, and during the last month he had received further treatment, and the trouble had disappeared. He felt that Profesor Bell's claim was a valid one.