The Emperor of All Maladies: A Biography of Cancer (8 page)

That winter of 1948, a severe and dismal chill descended on Boston. Snowstorms broke out, bringing Farber’s clinic to a standstill. The narrow asphalt road out to Longwood Avenue was piled with heaps of muddy sleet, and the basement tunnels, poorly heated even in the fall, were now freezing. Daily injections of antifolates became impossible, and Farber’s team backed down to three times a week. In February, when the storms abated, the daily injections started again.

Meanwhile, news of Farber’s experience with childhood leukemia was beginning to spread, and a slow train of children began to arrive at his clinic. And case by case, an incredible pattern emerged: the antifolates could drive leukemia cell counts down, occasionally even resulting in their complete disappearance—at least for a while. There were other remissions as dramatic as Sandler’s.
Two boys treated with aminopterin
returned to school.
Another child, a two-and-a-half-year-old
girl, started to “play and run about” after seven months of lying in bed. The normalcy of blood almost restored a flickering, momentary normalcy to the childhood.

But there was always the same catch. After a few months of remission, the cancer would inevitably relapse, ultimately flinging aside even the most potent of Yella’s drugs. The cells would return in the bone marrow, then burst out into the blood, and even the most active antifolates would not keep their growth down. Robert Sandler died in 1948, having responded for a few months.

Yet the remissions, even if temporary, were still genuine remissions—and historic.
By April 1948, there was just enough data
to put together a preliminary paper for the
New England Journal of Medicine
. The team had
treated sixteen patients. Of the sixteen, ten had responded. And five children—about one-third of the initial group—remained alive four or even six months after their diagnosis. In leukemia, six months of survival was an eternity.

Farber’s paper, published on June 3, 1948, was seven pages long, jam-packed with tables, figures, microscope photographs, laboratory values, and blood counts. Its language was starched, formal, detached, and scientific. Yet, like all great medical papers, it was a page-turner. And like all good novels, it was timeless: to read it today is to be pitched behind the scenes into the tumultuous life of the Boston clinic, its patients hanging on for life as Farber and his assistants scrambled to find new drugs for a dreadful disease that kept flickering away and returning. It was a plot with a beginning, a middle, and, unfortunately, an end.

The paper was received, as one scientist recalls, “
with skepticism, disbelief, and outrage
.” But for Farber, the study carried a tantalizing message: cancer, even in its most aggressive form, had been treated with a medicine, a chemical. In six months between 1947 and 1948, Farber thus saw a door open—briefly, seductively—then close tightly shut again. And through that doorway, he glimpsed an incandescent possibility. The disappearance of an aggressive systemic cancer via a chemical drug was virtually unprecedented in the history of cancer.
In the summer of 1948
, when one of Farber’s assistants performed a bone marrow biopsy on a leukemic child after treatment with aminopterin, the assistant could not believe the results. “
The bone marrow looked so normal
,” he wrote, “that one could dream of a cure.”

And so Farber did dream. He dreamed of malignant cells being killed by specific anticancer drugs, and of normal cells regenerating and reclaiming their physiological spaces; of a whole gamut of such systemic antagonists to decimate malignant cells; of curing leukemia with chemicals, then applying his experience with chemicals and leukemia to more common cancers. He was throwing down a gauntlet for cancer medicine. It was then up to an entire generation of doctors and scientists to pick it up.

We reveal ourselves
in the metaphors we choose for depicting the cosmos in miniature.

—Stephen Jay Gould

Thus, for 3,000 years and more
, this disease has been known to the medical profession. And for 3,000 years and more, humanity has been knocking at the door of the medical profession for a “cure.”

—
Fortune
, March 1937

Now it is cancer’s turn
to be the disease that doesn’t knock before it enters.

—Susan Sontag,
Illness as Metaphor

We tend to think of cancer as a “modern” illness because its metaphors are so modern. It is a disease of overproduction, of fulminant growth—growth unstoppable, growth tipped into the abyss of no control. Modern biology encourages us to imagine the cell as a molecular machine. Cancer is that machine unable to quench its initial command (to grow) and thus transformed into an indestructible, self-propelled automaton.

The notion of cancer as an affliction that belongs paradigmatically to the twentieth century is reminiscent, as Susan Sontag argued so powerfully in her book
Illness as Metaphor
, of another disease once considered emblematic of another era: tuberculosis in the nineteenth century. Both diseases, as Sontag pointedly noted, were similarly “obscene—in the original meaning of that word: ill-omened, abominable, repugnant to the senses.” Both drain vitality; both stretch out the encounter with death; in both cases,
dying
, even more than death, defines the illness.

But despite such parallels, tuberculosis belongs to another century. TB
(or consumption) was Victorian romanticism brought to its pathological extreme—febrile, unrelenting, breathless, and obsessive. It was a disease of poets:
John Keats involuting silently
toward death in a small room overlooking the Spanish Steps in Rome, or Byron, an obsessive romantic, who fantasized about dying of the disease to impress his mistresses. “
Death and disease are often beautiful
, like . . . the hectic glow of consumption,” Thoreau wrote in 1852. In Thomas Mann’s
The
Magic Mountain
, this “hectic glow” releases a feverish creative force in its victims—a clarifying, edifying, cathartic force that, too, appears to be charged with the essence of its era.

Cancer, in contrast, is riddled with more contemporary images. The cancer cell is a desperate individualist, “
in every possible sense, a nonconformist
,” as the surgeon-writer Sherwin Nuland wrote. The word
metastasis
, used to describe the migration of cancer from one site to another, is a curious mix of
meta
and
stasis
—“beyond stillness” in Latin—an unmoored, partially unstable state that captures the peculiar instability of modernity. If consumption once killed its victims by pathological evisceration (the tuberculosis bacillus gradually hollows out the lung), then cancer asphyxiates us by filling bodies with too many cells; it is consumption in its alternate meaning—the pathology of excess. Cancer is an expansionist disease; it invades through tissues, sets up colonies in hostile landscapes, seeking “sanctuary” in one organ and then immigrating to another. It lives desperately, inventively, fiercely, territorially, cannily, and defensively—at times, as if teaching
us
how to survive. To confront cancer is to encounter a parallel species, one perhaps more adapted to survival than even we are.

This image—of cancer as our desperate, malevolent, contemporary doppelgänger—is so haunting because it is at least partly true. A cancer cell is an astonishing perversion of the normal cell. Cancer is a phenomenally successful invader and colonizer in part because it exploits the very features that make
us
successful as a species or as an organism.

Like the normal cell, the cancer cell relies on growth in the most basic, elemental sense: the division of one cell to form two. In normal tissues, this process is exquisitely regulated, such that growth is stimulated by specific signals and arrested by other signals. In cancer, unbridled growth gives rise to generation upon generation of cells. Biologists use the term
clone
to describe cells that share a common genetic ancestor. Cancer, we now know, is a clonal disease. Nearly every known cancer originates from one
ancestral cell that, having acquired the capacity of limitless cell division and survival, gives rise to limitless numbers of descendants—Virchow’s
omnis cellula e cellula e cellula
repeated ad infinitum.

But cancer is not simply a clonal disease; it is a clonally
evolving
disease. If growth occurred without evolution, cancer cells would not be imbued with their potent capacity to invade, survive, and metastasize. Every generation of cancer cells creates a small number of cells that is genetically different from its parents. When a chemotherapeutic drug or the immune system attacks cancer, mutant clones that can resist the attack grow out. The fittest cancer cell survives. This mirthless, relentless cycle of mutation, selection, and overgrowth generates cells that are more and more adapted to survival and growth. In some cases, the mutations speed up the acquisition of other mutations. The genetic instability, like a perfect madness, only provides more impetus to generate mutant clones. Cancer thus exploits the fundamental logic of evolution unlike any other illness. If we, as a species, are the ultimate product of Darwinian selection, then so, too, is this incredible disease that lurks inside us.

Such metaphorical seductions can carry us away, but they are unavoidable with a subject like cancer. In writing this book, I started off by imagining my project as a “history” of cancer. But it felt, inescapably, as if I were writing not about some
thing
but about some
one
. My subject daily morphed into something that resembled an individual—an enigmatic, if somewhat deranged, image in a mirror. This was not so much a medical history of an illness, but something more personal, more visceral: its biography.

So to begin again, for every biographer must confront the birth of his subject: Where was cancer “born”? How old is cancer? Who was the first to record it as an illness?

In 1862, Edwin Smith—an unusual character: part scholar and part huckster, an antique forger and self-made Egyptologist—bought (or, some say, stole) a fifteen-foot-long papyrus from an antiques seller in Luxor in Egypt. The papyrus was in dreadful condition, with crumbling, yellow pages filled with cursive Egyptian script. It is now thought to have been written in the seventeenth century BC, a transcription of a manuscript dating back to 2500 BC. The copier—a plagiarist in a terrible hurry—had made errors as he had scribbled, often noting corrections in red ink in the margins.

Translated in 1930, the papyrus is now thought to contain the collected teachings of Imhotep, a great Egyptian physician who lived around 2625 BC. Imhotep, among the few nonroyal Egyptians known to us from the Old Kingdom, was a Renaissance man at the center of a sweeping Egyptian renaissance. As a vizier in the court of King Djozer, he dabbled in neurosurgery, tried his hand at architecture, and made early forays into astrology and astronomy. Even the Greeks, encountering the fierce, hot blast of his intellect as they marched through Egypt centuries later, cast him as an ancient magician and fused him to their own medical god, Asclepius.

But the surprising feature of the
Smith papyrus
is not magic and religion but the absence of magic and religion. In a world immersed in spells, incantations, and charms, Imhotep wrote about broken bones and dislocated vertebrae with a detached, sterile scientific vocabulary, as if he were writing a modern surgical textbook. The forty-eight cases in the papyrus—fractures of the hand, gaping abscesses of the skin, or shattered skull bones—are treated as medical conditions rather than occult phenomena, each with its own anatomical glossary, diagnosis, summary, and prognosis.

And it is under these clarifying headlamps of an ancient surgeon that cancer first emerges as a distinct disease. Describing case forty-five, Imhotep advises, “If you examine [a case] having bulging masses on [the] breast and you find that they have spread over his breast; if you place your hand upon [the] breast [and] find them to be cool, there being no fever at all therein when your hand feels him; they have no granulations, contain no fluid, give rise to no liquid discharge, yet they feel protuberant to your touch, you should say concerning him: ‘This is a case of bulging masses I have to contend with. . . . Bulging tumors of the breast mean the existence of swellings on the breast, large, spreading, and hard; touching them is like touching a ball of wrappings, or they may be compared to the unripe hemat fruit, which is hard and cool to the touch.’”