Cancer : its origin, nature, and general principles of treatment / by George Thos. Beatson.

  • George Beatson
Date:
1902
Catalogue details

Licence: In copyright

Credit: Cancer : its origin, nature, and general principles of treatment / by George Thos. Beatson. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by The University of Glasgow Library. The original may be consulted at The University of Glasgow Library.

    10/20 page 6
    notice, and I shall only briefly allude to it. As regards its nature, the general feeling is that while bacteria may be the cause, they arc not so likely to be so as those protozoa or yeast fungi which Dr. Clalloway referred to. This view has been chiefly supported, I think, by the discovery of those so-called cancer bodies of which we have just had such excellent illustrations projected on to the screen. Now, it would be impossible, in a discussion such as this, to take up all the points connected with these bodies, and I cannot go into the explanation of their meaning, but I am of Dr. Galloway's opinion that they are simply cell degenerations. The chief points that weigh with me against the parasitic theory of malignant growths are as follows :—First of all, there is that one fatal objection, the question of congenital tumours. Secondly, there is what we observe in secondary growths. In the secondary growths, if they are due to a parasite, the parasite should travel there too. That is not the the case, as has been demonstrated. Thirdly, there is the absence of toxins in the body, and that to me is a very important point. Anyone who has had experience of cancers, and especially of the early stages of tbetn, is satisfied that the system generally is not poisoned by anything of the nature of a toxin, such as one would expect to result from a parasitic growth. Therefore, J am quite strongly of the opinion that in that view we have not got the solution of the exciting cause of tumour formation. I have a strong belief in an intrinsic cause which may explain the commencement of local cell proliferation, and I may say to you at once that it is based upon the results which have been obtained in oophorectomy for mammary cancer. That procedure has been dis- cussed from a therapeutic point of view, that is to say, the question of its value as a remedial agent. That, no donbt, is a very important point. To me it is not so much so as the explanation of the fact that under that procedure masses of cancerous tissue have dis- appeared. Now, I make that statement not simply upon my own work. Others have tried it, and have obtained the same results as I have. Therefore, it is a clinical observation which cannot be altogether ignored, and I believe it is of very great importance in connection with the subject of tumour formation. Various explanations have been put forward of the fact that, if you perform oophorectomy in a case of mammary cancer, the cancerous tissue does disappear. One reason that has been given is that it is owing to a diminution of the vascularity of the part. Inasmuch as the ovary influences the part where the mamma lies, its removal lessens its vascularity, and accordingly the tumour disappears. Another view is that the oophorectomy furnishes an increased power of resistance to the other body cells. And, lastly, some have asserted that it is the mere laparotomy itself which brings about the change. Well, gentlemen, I believe these explanations are quite inadequate. I am satisfied that we require to find something of a factor much more potent, and one which will explain it much more satisfactorily.
    digitised image 1
    digitised image 2
    digitised image 3