Abstract
PROF. J. A. CROWTHER in his interesting article on "Röntgen" writes as follows: "The use of X-rays in the treatment of disease has scarcely made such satisfactory progress as its use in diagnosis". With Röntgen's first skiagram, radio-diagnosis was born; but what a priori reasons were there for supposing that X-rays would have any therapeutic value? None at all I think, yet some courageous few entered the field of exploration, and can anyone say that the results have in the circumstances really been unsatisfactory? Thirty-five years ago, all the beds in the Cancer Wing of the Middlesex Hospital were occupied by inoperable cases of cancer; there was no treatment except an almost superhuman kindness. In 1939 there was not one among the 92 patients in those wards who was not receiving active treatment, and for the great majority of them the treatment was by means of X-rays and radium. Though it cannot be claimed that these agents are a cure for cancer, the development of radiotherapy can scarcely be called unsatisfactory.
Similar content being viewed by others
Article PDF
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
RUSS, S. Röntgen Centenary. Nature 155, 548 (1945). https://doi.org/10.1038/155548a0
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/155548a0
Comments
By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.