Clinical assessment of the MOD-MEM cancer test in controls with non-malignant diseases

Abstract

A control series of 105 patients in hospital with non-malignant diseases was used in a limited clinical assessment of the MOD-MEM test. Twenty-seven positive results could be explained on the basis of destruction of nervous parenchyma, tissue necrosis, tuberculosis, malignant disease, etc. The remaining 13 unexplained positives showed a sex and age distribution in agreement with that predicted from cancer registration statistics if the MOD-MEM test detects cancer about 16 years before the clinical appearance of the disease.

Cellular Immunity to Encephalitogenic Factor as Measured by Macrophage Migration Inhibition During Tumour Induction and Growth

“…The gross and microscopic appearances of the rat livers were similar to those described by other workers using 3'-Me-DAB and related carcinogens (Orr, 1940;Richardson and Borsos-Nachtnebel, 1951;Price, Miller and Miller, 1959;(Goldfarb, 1973) and, in particular the finding of cholangiocarcinoma and not hepatocellular carcinoma by Reddy, Buschmann and Chomet (1977). These workers have applied a variety of interpretations to the spectrum of changes seen, and the difficulties of classification are reflected in this study.…”

“…However, it is not clear at which point in the neoplastic process such sensitivity becomes apparent and this remains one of the outstanding problems related to the delayed hypersensitivity response to this antigen in malignant disease. Data from Field, Caspary and Shepherd (1972) and Pritchard et al (1976) suggest that sensitivity manifests itself many years before the appearance of clinicallv detectable tumour. An early lymphocyte response to EF during tumour development was also reported by Singer et al (1975) and Porzsolt, Muhlberger and Ax (1975), who detected sensitization to EF in a large proportion of women with cervical dysplasia.…”

Effect of lymphocyte supernatants on the electrophoretic mobility of erythrocytes: significance in cancer diagnosis

“…cm (Seaman & Uhlenbruck, 1963); this compares with the value determined for the tanned and stabilized cells in the preparation used in this studyof 1-20+0-03 ,um/sec/ V. cm.…”

“…Preece & Light (1974) have described results verifying the test. Rawlins et al (1976), while agreeing with the general conclusions of Field & Caspary (1970), had some reservations regarding the numbers of false positives and false negatives in their results. However, others (Crozier et al, 1976;Arvilommi et al, 1977;Forrester et al, 1977) have been unable to obtain reproducible differences in response between cancer patients and normal controls, in spite of a systematic approach to the difficulties inherent in the test.…”

“…Naturally such a test is difficult to reproduce successfully, and lends itself to many differences of opinion as to reasons for success or failure. The question of the application of the MEM test to the clinical diagnosis of cancer is also still largely unresolved, since here also there are many differences of opinion as to the reproducibility and reliability of the test (see Pritchard et al, 1976;Rawlins et al, 1976; and review by Moore & Lajtha, 1977).…”