Historical origins of current concepts of carcinogenesis.

The first attempts to understand the causes of cancer were based on generalizations of what might now be termed a "holistic" nature, and hereditary influences were recognized at an early stage; these views survive principally through a supposed positive connection between psychological factors such as stress and diminished ability to combat the progressive development of tumors through some form of immunologically mediated rejection of potentially cancerous cells. While evidence for immunosurveillance is generally accepted, it is now widely regarded as almost wholly confined to instances where tumor viruses are involved as causative agents. The earliest theorists drew an analogy between the processes of carcinogenesis and of evolution; the cancer cells acquired the ability to outstrip their normal counterparts in their capacity for proliferation. This was even before evolution had been interpreted as involving a continuous succession of mutations. Evidence was already to hand before the end of the 18th century that exogenous agents, notably soot, a product of the "industrial revolution," could cause skin cancer. Somewhat over 100 years later, another industrial innovation, the manufacture of synthetic dyestuffs, implicated specific chemical compounds that could act systemically to cause bladder cancer. Meanwhile, the 19th century saw the establishment of the fundamentals of modern medical science; of particular relevance to cancer was the demonstration that it involved abnormalities in the process of cell division. The commencement of the 20th century was marked by a rediscovery of the concept of mutation; and it was proposed that cancer originated through uncontrolled division of somatically mutated cells. At around this time, two further important exogenous causative agents were discovered: X-rays and tumor viruses. In the late 1920s, x-radiation became the first established exogenous cause of mutagenesis. The discoverer of this phenomenon, H. J. Muller, suggested that while mutation in a single cell was the primary causative mechanism in carcinogenesis, its generally observed logarithmic increase in incidence with age reflected a "multihit" process, and that multiple successive mutations were required in the progeny of the original mutants. He also recognized that the rate of proliferation of potentially cancerous cells would markedly influence the probability of their subsequent mutation. These considerations are essentially the foundation of the generally accepted view of carcinogenesis that now seems unlikely to be superseded. However, this acceptance did not come about unopposed. The analogy between carcinogenesis and evolution was disliked by many biologists because it embodied the concept that cancer was an inevitable consequence of our evolutionary origins.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)