Medicolegal Aspects Of Cancer

Our plain-English summary of Medicolegal Aspects Of Cancer, by W.C. Hueper (1955).

The study

• Author: W.C. Hueper
• Published: American Journal Of Clinical Pathology 25:205-218, February (1955)
• Type of article: Journal article
• Our copy: from Johns-Manville's own medical library, J-M no. 001862. The article is still under copyright, so we describe it here rather than post it.

In plain English

This commentary by W.C. Hueper reviewed the literature on injury (trauma) as a cause of cancer in compensation claims and lawsuits. It reported no new data and does not mention asbestos. The author argued that the idea of cancer caused directly by a single injury to normal tissue should be laid to rest, noting that mass injuries in both World Wars brought no epidemic of traumatic cancers. The author accepted that injury might trigger cancer in tissue exposed earlier to a recognized carcinogen. That required the exposure to be adequate in duration and intensity to cause latent tissue changes, the injury and cancer to share a site, and the timing to fit the tumor's growth rate. These changes could be presumed without direct evidence if an uninterrupted chain of tissue reactions led from injury to cancer. The author accepted that injury might speed an existing cancer, judged case by case. The author wrote there was no evidence that most pneumoconioses, particularly silicosis, carried an exceptional liability to lung cancer. The author concluded that medical testimony should speak of reasonable possibility, not exact scientific proof.

We wrote this plain-English summary from the full article with the help of AI, and a second AI model checked each sentence against the article. It is not the authors' wording; the abstract and the article are their own account.

What the study did and found

• Design: Commentary and narrative review of published literature (no original data); the text carries an 'Editorial Comment' heading
• Exposure: The author discussed acute and chronic physical or chemical trauma and irritation. The author also discussed environmental and occupational carcinogens: coal tar, petroleum oils, arsenicals, solar and ionizing radiation, beryllium, aromatic amines, nickel, chromium, and air and water pollutants. Asbestos is not mentioned.
• Main results:
  • The author argued that the medical and legal professions should abandon the concept of a primary acute traumatic cause of cancer, meaning cancer caused directly by a single injury to normal tissue.
  • The author noted that the mass injuries suffered by armed forces and civilians in the two World Wars were not followed by an epidemic of traumatic cancers.
  • The author stated that assuming an injury acted as a precipitating factor is contingent on showing definite earlier contact of the injured tissue with recognized carcinogens. That contact had to be adequate in duration and intensity to produce specific latent tissue changes.
  • The author added that such tissue changes may be presumed even without demonstrable and specific evidence of them. This applied when the tumor was the end of an uninterrupted chain of progressive tissue reactions running from the injury to the cancer.
  • The author described identity of the injury site and the later cancer site as an essential prerequisite.
  • The author also required that the interval between injury and tumor match the known rate of development of that type of tumor.
  • The author stated that injury to an existing cancer may, under special conditions, accelerate its local growth and spread. Each case, however, must be judged critically on its own merits.
  • The author wrote that clinical and experimental evidence throws serious doubt on the theory that chronic irritation is a primary cause of cancer. The author also wrote that there is no evidence that the majority of pneumoconioses, particularly silicosis, convey an exceptional liability to cancer of the lung.
  • The author stated that the mere demonstration of carcinogens in the environment, or exposure to them, does not establish, but may suggest, a causal relation to cancers in people living there.
  • The author stated that several factors limit how far animal experiments apply to humans: species and strain susceptibility, route of introduction, and dose and frequency.
• The authors' conclusion: The author concluded that the field was moving away from 'traumatic cancer' toward better-supported concepts of environmental cancer. Because courts and compensation boards make awards on the basis of reasonable probability, the author held that expert medical testimony should be expressed in terms of a scientifically justifiable reasonable possibility of causal relations, not exact scientific proof.

Topics

Medical terms in this study, explained in our Lexicon: Silicosis, Lung Cancer.

Browse return to medical research.