CHEMOTHERAPY IN PULMONARY TUBERCULOSIS
R. M. Ford
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5694/j.1326-5377.1950.tb107058.x
1950-12-01
Abstract:tarium of all modern thoracic specialists, both physicians and surgeons, and bronchoscopy is an essential step in the appraisal of many cases. However, bronchoscopic biopsy will not give more than about 40% positive yield, while in perhaps a further 20% of cases bronchoscopic evidence of malignant disease will be revealed, such as widened carina, a rigid bronchus or distortion; in most cases these latter findings indicate inoperability. In an endeavour to obtain an earlier diagnosis, recently in America attention has been focused on the examination of the sputum, or of secretions obtained through the bronchoscope, for malignant cells. The work of Papanicolaou on vaginal secretions gave impetus, and now several clinics claim highly successful results from the study of sputum cytology. To give just one example, Woolner and McDonald (1950) from the Mayo Clinic have reported the finding of cancer cells in 400 cases, later proven histologically, with only seven "false positive" results, and Clagett, one of their thoracic surgeons, has stated that sputum examination offers a positive diagnosis in 90% of cases. He quoted some impressive figures to a meeting of the Mayo Clinic which I was privileged to attend in 1948. Previously he had found that in one-third of the cases he was compelled to perform a thoracotomy for an undetermined lesion. In his last 30 cases, however, he had only two such operations. At the Mayo Clinic, diagnostic thoracotomy is now a rarity, the responsibility having shifted from the surgeon to the pathologist. I have been endeavouring in Sydney to have this important technical advance studied in several hospitals, and progress is being made. But it is difficult and requires special training. For the time being we shall have to rely often on the third method of diagnostic attack-namely, thoracotomy. In experienced hands, this carries little more risk than an exploratory laparotomy, and the clinician must not shrink from advising it. It often means, however, that the lesion is not merely incised, it is excised. If there is a lump in the lung the lung should be removed, if this is technically possible. This may mean that a simple infiammatory lesion is removed; but surely it is a happy outcome and no apology is required. In many cases, to quote an editorial in THE MEDICAL JOURNAL OF AUSTRALIA (1949), "... the hope of an early diagnosis, and of a surgical cure, will rest on exploratory thoracotomy following the finding of suspicious radiological appearances". Recent advances in thoracic surgery have raised the status of pneumonectomy from a dramatic and desperate affair to a standard procedure. It is agreed that the resectability rate for bronchial carcinoma should be about 300/0, though I fear it is still below this in our country; we are not yet diagnostically alert enough. A leading American thoracic surgeon, Alton Ochsner (1948), found that of 181 patients submitted to resection, 99 survived six months or more and 58 more than twelve months, while 11 or 7'70/0 were alive at the end of five years. These and other figures which are comparable reveal one important fact-namely, that the survival rate for bronchial carcinoma is higher than that for gastric cancer. Our thoracic surgeons are slowly improving their statistics, but they must be given better material. The varying radiological techniques, such as the taking of lateral and oblique views, the use of the Potter-Bucky diaphragm, tomography and the like are beyond my scope. However, I should like to comment briefiy on mass radiography, which must surely in times to come give a reasonable yield of operable lung tumours. Mason (1949) has recently stated his disappointment at the results of his English experience. In 1948 I happened to be in Minneapolis about three months after they had concluded a mass X-ray survey of that city. They had examined over 300,000 inhabitants, of whom 26 had proven bronchial carcinoma, while 55 were still under investigation. I do not know how many proved to be operable, but these figures seem to me to be significant and worth while. In this respect mention must be made of the subjects without symptoms but with X-ray evidence; they are becoming a real problem, and here education is badly needed, in order that patients may be persuaded to submit to investigations, and if need be to thoracotomy. Education is just as necessary for the medical attendant: how many would agree to the performance of an operation on a symptomless person? And yet it is obviously this group that will give the best surgical results. I would stress that investigation must not be prolonged. The patient with a possible bronchial carcinoma should be admitted to hospital urgently, preferably in the care of a thoracic unit. Four weeks should be an adequate study period in most cases. At the end of this time, if the diagnosis has not been ruled out, and if the patient is a fair operative "risk", then thoracotomy should be performed, with the patient and staff prepared for pneumonectomy. This, of course, presupposes judgement and experience in the personnel of the thoracic team: they must be specialists. Mistakes will be made occasionally and a needless operation performed, but many lives will be saved that would otherwise be lost by inactivity. It is as true now as when I wrote it fifteen years ago (Harvey, 1936), that "the only cure for a tumour of the lung is its removal by the surgeon's knife".