THE NEUTRAI^SULFUR AND COLLOIDAL-NITRO- 

 GEN TESTS IN THE DIAGNOSIS OF CANCER* 



FREDERIC G. GOODRIDGE and MAX KAHN 



(Biochetnical Laboratories of Columbia University and the Beth Israel Hospital, 



New York City) 



Introduction. During the past few years a number of uri- 

 nary tests have been suggested for the early diagnosis of Cancer. 

 These tests have originated f rom German and Austrian laboratories ; 

 and, immediately after their publication, scientific workers in all 

 parts of the world have endeavored to confirm or disprove the value 

 of these tests, which, if specific, would aid greatly in the conquest 

 of Carcinoma. The reports of various observers have been either 

 very favorable or totally discouraging. Accordingly, it is impos- 

 sible to draw definite conclusions, at present, regarding the efficiency 

 of these laboratory methods. 



We have attempted to determine the relative values of the uri- 

 nary colloidal-nitrogen and neutral-sulfur tests; to study the per- 

 centage of positive results obtained with these methods in known 

 cases of malignancy; and to discover, if possible, whether the re- 

 sults of these tests run parallel in Cancer and non-cancerous diseases. 



Colloidal-nitrogen test. In 1892, Töpfer (i) found that 



the urine of patients suffering from Cancer contained a very large 



amount of " extractive substance," This " extractive substance " 



was calculated by first determining the quantity of total nitrogen and 



then subtracting, from this amount, the sum of the nitrogen values 



for Urea, uric acid, and ammonia, of the same urine. Bondzynski 



and Gottlieb (2), five years later, reported that the nitrogen in oxy- 



proteic acid, in the urine, was 2 to 3 percent of the total urinary 



nitrogen. Salkowski (3), and Hess and Saxl (4), using different 



procedures, concluded that the oxyproteic acid portion of the alco- 



hol-precipitable substances is increased in the urine of human beings 



suffering from Carcinoma. 



* Proceedings of the Columbia University Biochemical Association, Dec. 4, 

 1914; BiocHEM. Bull., 1915, iv, p. 217. 



118 



