Surgical Oncology in Ancient Greece and Rome: Historical Foundations and Clinical Practices

Abstract

The roots of surgical oncology date back to the classical eras of ancient Greece and Rome, where doctors first documented cancerous lesions and devised treatment strategies. This historical analysis explores the progression of oncological surgery from the Hippocratic era to the Roman Imperial period, utilizing key medical texts, archaeological data, and paleopathological insights. The research reveals that early physicians laid the groundwork for essential oncological ideas—including tumor categorization, staging guidelines, and indications for surgery—that shaped medical practice for centuries. Despite their constraints in understanding pathology and anesthesia, Greco-Roman surgeons showcased significant technical prowess in excising tumors and managing wounds.

Keywords: surgical oncology, ancient medicine, Hippocrates, Galen, Celsus, cancer history

Introduction

Cancer is among the oldest recorded diseases in human history, with signs of malignant tumors identified in archaeological remains from prehistoric times [1-5]. However, the systematic exploration of cancer began in ancient Greece’s classical era, where physicians started formulating medical theories grounded in observation and clinical experience instead of supernatural beliefs [6]. The word “cancer” is derived from the Greek term karkinos (καρκίνος), meaning crab, a nomenclature credited to Hippocrates (ca. 460–370 BC), who noted the resemblance of advanced breast tumors to crabs, with their spreading blood vessels mimicking the legs of crustaceans [7].

    To understand the evolution of surgical oncology in antiquity, one must consider the broader ancient medical landscape [8]. Greek medicine, particularly after the Hippocratic transformation, laid the groundwork for clinical observation, documentation of cases, and therapeutic practices [8]. In the subsequent Roman era, there was a preservation and integration of Greek medical insights, leading to notable advancements in surgical techniques and tools [3]. This shift from Greek theoretical medicine to Roman practical surgery fostered a unique approach to oncological conditions that effectively merged philosophical insights with surgical interventions [3].

    The importance of ancient oncological surgery goes beyond mere historical interest [6]. The foundational concepts of modern surgical oncology, such as recognizing early operable stages, the necessity of complete tumor removal, and understanding the systemic nature of cancer, can be traced back to this era [9]. Grasping these historical roots offers vital insights for today’s oncological practices and showcases the exceptional clinical skills of ancient doctors who operated without modern amenities like microscopic pathology, anesthesia, or antisepsis [6].

    This review investigates the historical evolution of surgical oncology in ancient Greece and Rome by analyzing primary medical texts, archaeological discoveries of surgical tools, and paleopathological evidence documenting cancer throughout antiquity [2]. The study synthesizes current academic research to provide a thorough overview of oncological surgical practices during this crucial phase in medical history [2].

Materials and Methods

This historical examination utilized a systematic approach to analyze primary ancient medical texts alongside secondary scholarly sources [10]. Key primary materials included the Hippocratic Corpus, notably On Airs, Waters, and Places and Aphorisms; Celsus’s De Medicina from the 1st century AD; Galen’s comprehensive writings on surgery; and the preserved contributions of Herophilus and Erasistratus via later citations [11,12]. Additionally, archaeological findings of surgical instruments from Pompeii, Rome, and various classical sites were scrutinized through published reports [13].

    Literature reviews were performed using Google Scholar, PubMed, and other academic databases, employing keywords such as “ancient Greek surgery,” “Roman medicine oncology,” “Hippocrates cancer,” “Galen surgery,” and “paleopathology cancer”. The criteria for selection included peer-reviewed journals, academic monographs, and reputable historical medical texts. Ultimately, 38 references were chosen for their pertinence to surgical oncology in classical antiquity, citation frequency, and scholarly credibility.

Paleopathological data was assessed from published case studies and systematic reviews concerning cancer in archaeological human remains [14]. The historical analysis adhered to established methodologies for ancient medical history, taking into account textual transmission, archaeological context, and comparative medical anthropology [14].

Results

Foundations of Oncological Theory in Hippocratic Medicine. Foundations of Oncological Theory in Hippocratic Medicine. The Hippocratic Corpus introduced the earliest systematic framework for understanding cancer in medical texts [6]. Hippocrates [figure 1,2,3] and his disciples documented various cancer forms, such as breast, uterine, gastric, and skin cancers, showcasing advanced clinical observation skills [6]. Notable case descriptions in the Epidemics highlighted tumor progression features, detailing aspects of malignancy such as local invasion, ulceration, and systemic manifestations [6]. 

Hippocratic views on cancer pathogenesis marked a pivotal development in medical insight [8]. The humoral theory suggested that cancer arose from an excess of black bile (melancholia), one of the four bodily humors [15]. Although this notion is inaccurate by today’s standards, it offered a logical perspective that framed cancer as a systemic issue rather than just a localized ailment [15]. The belief that cancer stemmed from a broader constitutional imbalance shaped treatment strategy, leading physicians to recommend dietary changes, purgation, and topical therapies alongside surgical methods when necessary [16]. In Hippocratic practice, surgical interventions were carefully delineated [8]. The Aphorisms noted, “it is better not to treat occult cancer; those who are treated quickly perish while untreated patients may endure longer” [17]. This understanding of the limited advantages of surgery for advanced malignancies reflects remarkable clinical insight [8]. However, for superficial tumors, surgical excision was advocated, supported by thorough descriptions of techniques involving sharp instruments and cauterization [18]. 

The Hippocratic method for treating breast cancer showcases the advanced surgical practices of that era [19]. Physicians identified various disease stages, recommending surgery only for early-stage, localized tumors lacking axillary involvement [19]. The procedures included excising the tumor with sufficient margins, although the concept of radical lymphadenectomy was not yet conceptualized [19]. Postoperative care involved managing wounds with honey, wine, and herbal solutions with antimicrobial properties [20]. However, the limited understanding of internal anatomy, due to the absence of human dissection that characterized Hippocratic medicine, left the structural basis of disease largely speculative, and paved the way for the anatomical investigations of the Alexandrian school.

The Alexandrian Transformation in Surgical Anatomy. The opening of the Museum and Library at Alexandria in the 3rd century BC represented a groundbreaking leap in surgical understanding [21]. Herophilus of Chalcedon (ca. 335–280 BC) and Erasistratus of Ceos (ca. 304–250 BC) performed systematic human dissections, yielding the first precise accounts of human anatomy, encompassing the nervous system, vascular components, and organ conditions [21]. Despite the controversies over human vivisection, these anatomical studies laid the scientific groundwork for rational surgical applications [22]. 

Herophilus’s findings had a substantial impact on oncological surgery [23]. His in-depth examinations of the liver, breast, and uterus provided critical anatomical knowledge advantageous for the localization and removal of tumors [23]. The acknowledgment of lymphatic structures, albeit with limited understanding, enhanced awareness about cancer spread [23]. Erasistratus’s physiological inquiries, particularly regarding the vascular system, influenced surgical techniques related to hemorrhage management during tumor removal [22]. The Alexandrian school also advanced surgical instruments and methodologies [13]. Archaeological records and contemporary writings reveal the invention of specialized surgical tools such as sharp blades, bone saws, forceps, and cautery devices [13]. Crafted from bronze and iron with impressive precision, these instruments allowed more advanced surgical procedures than previously achievable [13]. 

Roman Innovations in Surgical Oncology. Roman medicine harmonized Greek theoretical frameworks with practical surgical techniques [24]. The transition from Greek philosophical medicine to Roman empirical surgery fostered distinct methods for addressing oncological diseases, emphasizing technical accuracy and clinical realism [24]. Aulus Cornelius Celsus (25 BC–50 AD) epitomized this evolution in his comprehensive work, De Medicina [10]. 

Celsus’s portrayal of cancer operations in De Medicina, specifically in Books VII and VIII, offers the most thorough ancient narrative on oncological operative methods [10]. He categorized cancers into three stages: cacoethes (early, non-ulcerated), ulcerated without fungation, and fungating with odor and bleeding [25]. This observational staging model guided surgical decisions [25]. Celsus supported excision for early-stage tumors, stressing the necessity of extensive margins: “the region with cancer must be cut out in a circular manner, with wider excision being better to avoid leaving any roots” [25]. The techniques articulated by Celsus illustrate an advanced grasp of surgical principles [26]. He proposed using sharp knives over cautery for tumor excision, aware that heat could damage tissue structure and hinder proper pathological evaluation [26]. Hemostasis was maintained through ligation and pressure, alongside wine and vinegar as antiseptic rinses [27]. Postoperative care involved wound dressing with linen and honey-based treatments [27]. Celsus also detailed surgical interventions for cancers of the head and neck, encompassing tumors in the tongue, pharynx, and cervical lymph nodes [28]. These surgeries required exceptional technical expertise due to the area’s anatomical intricacies and vascular density [28]. His acknowledgment that cervical lymphadenopathy often accompanied oral cancers reflects an understanding of metastatic behaviors, even if the underlying mechanisms weren’t elucidated until later [28]. 

Claudius Galenus (Galen, 129–216 AD) embodies the comprehensive integration of Greco-Roman medical knowledge [12]. While primarily recognized as a physician and anatomist, Galen generated considerable surgical literature addressing oncology [12]. His perspective synthesized humoral theory with practical surgical experience [12]. Galen acknowledged that cancer stemmed from an “irremediable natural process” linked to an overabundance of black bile, yet he endorsed surgical removal for accessible early tumors [29]. Galen emphasized the significance of complete tumor excision in his surgical accounts [12]. He claimed, “we have cured early cancer, but significant tumors cannot be cured without surgery” [30]. This insight into surgery’s effectiveness based on cancer stage highlights extensive clinical experience [29]. Galen also described palliative measures for late-stage cancers, including the debridement of ulcerated lesions and steps to manage pain and bleeding associated with cancer [9]. 

The Roman era saw notable progress in the field of surgical tools [31]. Findings from Pompeii, Rome, and various other locales have uncovered extensive surgical instrument assemblies such as scalpels, bone saws, forceps, specula, and cautery devices [31]. Crafted from high-grade steel with ergonomic features, these tools facilitated accurate dissection and hemostatic procedures [31]. Specula designed for gynecological examinations improved visualization of cervical and uterine cancers [32].

Paleopathological Evidence of Cancer in Ancient Times. Archaeological and paleopathological investigations provide tangible proof that supports the accounts of cancer in classical history [14]. Comprehensive reviews have uncovered various instances of malignant tumors in ancient human remains, though the incidence of cancer seems lower than in contemporary populations, likely due to limited lifespan and differing environmental factors [14]. 

                The earliest recorded case of breast cancer dates back to ancient Egypt (circa 1600 BC), as noted in the Edwin Smith Papyrus [33]. Remains from the Greco-Roman era have revealed numerous instances of skeletal metastases, osteosarcomas, and soft tissue tumors preserved through natural mummification or intentional burial techniques [34]. Recent advances in molecular paleopathology have validated cancer diagnoses in historical remains using cutting-edge imaging and biomolecular methods [35].  The variety of cancer types found in archaeological samples exemplifies both preservation bias and actual epidemiological trends [36]. Breast cancer and bone tumors are the most commonly identified, aligning with their prominence in skeletal remains and documented history [36]. The relatively low occurrence of cancer in ancient populations compared to modern rates is thought to be due to shorter lifespans, with many cancers being age-related illnesses, along with reduced exposure to carcinogenic environmental influences [5].

Discussion

The evolution of surgical oncology in ancient Greece and Rome stands as a significant milestone in the history of medicine [6]. Operating without the aid of microscopic analysis, anesthesia, or blood transfusions, early physicians laid down essential oncological surgical principles that still hold relevance today [6]. The acknowledgment of cancer as a unique pathological condition, the staging and localization of tumors, and the formulation of logical surgical indications showcase advanced clinical judgment [6].

The Hippocratic perspective on cancer, although grounded in humoral theory, integrated crucial clinical insights [8]. The understanding that advanced internal cancers generally evaded surgical cure, while superficial early tumors might respond to excision, denotes a keen awareness of the disease’s natural history and surgical constraints [8]. This practical method aimed to balance potential benefits with surgical risks, paving the way for evidence-based oncological surgery [8].

The shift from Greek to Roman medicine characterized a movement from a theoretical to a practical focus in oncological procedures [3]. Celsus’s comprehensive descriptions of surgeries represent the first surgical oncology manual, offering precise guidance on tumor removal, hemostasis, and postoperative care [25]. His emphasis on achieving wide surgical margins and complete excision nearly foresaw current oncological standards by almost two millennia [25]. Galen’s integrative approach influenced medical practice for over a millennium, with both advantageous and detrimental effects [1]. His precise clinical insights and surgical notes retained vital knowledge, yet his humoral theory regarding cancer origins hindered a true understanding of malignancy [1]. The Galenic belief that cancer stemmed from systemic humoral imbalances discouraged aggressive local treatment and fostered a nihilistic view towards cancer management that lingered into the medieval era [1].

Archaeological discoveries of surgical instruments illustrate the technical expertise behind ancient oncological procedures [13]. The diverse array and quality of tools unearthed at Roman sites indicate a specialized surgical practice with standardized implements [13]. The designs of scalpels, forceps, and retractors highlight ergonomic optimization and functionality tailored for specific surgical tasks [13]. Multiple factors constrained the success of ancient oncological surgeries [20]. The lack of anesthesia limited surgical interventions to quick procedures tolerable by conscious patients [20]. While methods for controlling hemorrhage were progressive for the time, managing bleeding in vascular tumors remained a challenge [20]. The absence of antiseptic practices led to high rates of postoperative infections; however, ancient wound care techniques using honey, wine, and herbal treatments may have provided some antimicrobial properties [37]. Though paleopathological evidence is constrained by preservation biases, it suggests that cancer posed a serious health issue in classical antiquity [14]. Instances of skeletal metastasis and primary bone tumors imply that malignant diseases often reached advanced stages, aligning with descriptions found in ancient medical writings [14]. The comparatively lower incidence when contrasted with modern populations is more reflective of demographic and environmental factors than a true absence of cancer [5].

The legacy of Greco-Roman surgical oncology continues to influence modern practices [3]. Foundational principles such as tumor excision with sufficient margins, awareness of stage-related outcomes, and the balance between curative and palliative efforts originated in classical times [3]. Despite the groundbreaking technological advances that have transformed surgical capabilities, the clinical reasoning and ethical principles established by ancient practitioners remain fundamental to today’s oncological care [1].

Conclusions

Surgical oncology in ancient Greece and Rome laid the groundwork for cancer surgery techniques that would last through the ages. From Hippocrates’ clinical notes to Celsus’ surgical accounts and Galen’s thorough compilations, early physicians formulated impressively advanced methods for tackling malignant diseases. The acknowledgment of cancer as a separate pathological condition, the categorization of tumors based on anatomical location and clinical stage, along with the invention of specific surgical techniques, reflect the rational medical thought that defined classical times.

    Although ancient oncological surgery faced challenges—such as the lack of anesthesia, limited control of bleeding, and absence of pathological diagnosis—these shortcomings were somewhat mitigated by careful patient selection, skilled techniques, and thorough postoperative care [20]. Paleopathological findings indicate that cancer existed in ancient societies and that surgical efforts were made, although the success rates were inevitably constrained by the limitations of the time. 

    Comprehending the historical evolution of surgical oncology is crucial for informing modern practices [9]. The tenets set by early physicians—complete tumor removal, staged intervention, and a balance between curative and palliative strategies—remain integral to today’s oncological surgery. As the field of surgical oncology progresses with new technologies, the clinical insights and ethical principles established in antiquity continue to underpin the discipline.

References

1. Hajdu SI. Pathfinders in oncology from ancient times to the end of the Middle Ages. Cancer. 2016;122(11):1638-1650.
2. Hajdu SI, Darvishian F. Diagnosis and treatment of tumors by physicians in antiquity. Ann Clin Lab Sci. 2010;40(4):386-391.
3. Papavramidou N, Papavramidis T, Christopoulou-Aletra H. Ancient Greek and Greco-Roman methods in modern surgical treatment of cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2010;17(3):665-667.
4. Wagener DJ. The History of Oncology. Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science Publishers; 2009.
5. Capasso LL. Antiquity of cancer. Int J Cancer. 2005;113(1):2-13.
6. Karpozilos A, Pavlidis N. The treatment of cancer in Greek antiquity. Eur J Cancer. 2004;40(14):2033-2040.
7. Tsoucalas G, Sgantzos M. Hippocrates (ca 460-370 BC) on nasal cancer. J BUON. 2016;21(4):1031.
8. Karpozilos A, Pavlidis N. The treatment of cancer in Greek antiquity. Eur J Cancer. 2004;40(14):2033-2040.
9. Faguet GB. A brief history of cancer: age-old milestones underlying our current knowledge database. Int J Cancer. 2015;136(9):2022-2036.
10. Blatchford JW III. The surgery of Celsus’ De Medicina. Ann Surg Open. 2024;5(3):e262.
11. Celsus AC. De Medicina. Spencer WG, trans. London: William Heinemann; 1935.
12. Toledo-Pereyra LH. Galen’s contribution to surgery. J Hist Med Allied Sci. 1973;28(4):357-365.
13. Milne JS. Surgical Instruments in Greek and Roman Times. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1907.
14. Hunt KJ, Roberts C, Kirkpatrick C. Taking stock: A systematic review of archaeological evidence of cancers in human and early hominin remains. Int J Paleopathol. 2018;21:178-186.
15. Tsoucalas G, Karamanou M, Sgantzos M. Uterine cancer in the writings of ancient Greek physicians. J BUON. 2015;20(5):1382-1386.
16. Galmarini CM. Lessons from Hippocrates: Time to change the cancer paradigm. Int J Chronic Dis. 2020;2020:4715426.
17. Hippocrates. Aphorisms. In: Adams F, trans. The Genuine Works of Hippocrates. London: Sydenham Society; 1849.
18. Inchingolo F, Santacroce L, Ballini A, et al. Oral cancer: A historical review. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(9):3168.
19. Sakorafas GH, Safioleas M. Breast cancer surgery: an historical narrative. Part I. From prehistoric times to Renaissance. Eur J Cancer Care. 2009;18(2):127-137.
20. Nespoli A, Geroulanos S, Nardone A, et al. The history of surgical infections. Surg Infect. 2011;12(2):99-104.
21. Bay NS, Bay BH. Greek anatomist Herophilus: The father of anatomy. Anat Cell Biol. 2010;43(3):280-283.
22. Štrkalj G, Chorn D. Herophilus of Chalcedon and the practice of dissection in Hellenistic Alexandria. S Afr Med J. 2008;98(2):125-126.
23. Wiltse LL, Pait TG. Herophilus of Alexandria (325-255 BC): The father of anatomy. Spine. 1998;23(17):1901-1905.
24. Karamanou M, Androutsos G, Diamantis A. Cancer and Roman medicine. J BUON. 2009;14(3):537-542.
25. Köckerling F, Köckerling D, Lomas C. Cornelius Celsus—ancient encyclopedist, surgeon-scientist, or master of surgery? Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2013;398(8):1127-1134.
26. Talamonti G, D’Aliberti G, Cenzato M. Aulus Cornelius Celsus and the head injuries. World Neurosurg. 2020;133:193-196.

27.Papavramidou NS, Christopoulou-Aletras H. Treatment of “Hernia” in the writings of Celsus (First Century AD). World J Surg. 2005;29(10):1343-1347.

28. Kelly J, Mahalingam S. Surgical treatment of head and neck cancers in the ancient world. J Laryngol Otol. 2015;129(11):1084-1090.
29. Retsas S. Perceptions of cancer through the ages—from Hippocratic oncology to precision cancer medicine. Biomolecules. 2024;14(11):1383.
30. Galen. On the Natural Faculties. Brock AJ, trans. London: William Heinemann; 1916.
31. Marinozzi S, Carbonaro R, Messineo D, et al. The medical historical cultural foundations of western nasal surgery from ancient Greece to the Middle Ages. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2023;47(1):386-396.
32. Burešová L. An analysis of terms “physician” and “medical” in the context of La Tène period and Roman Age. Hist Sci Tech. 2022;14(1-2):1-15.
33. Tebala GD. History of colorectal surgery: A comprehensive historical review from the ancient Egyptians to the surgical robot. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2015;30(6):723-736.
34. Veiga PA. Oncology and Infectious Diseases in Ancient Egypt: The Ebers Papyrus’ Treatise on Tumours 857-877 and the Cases Found in Ancient Egyptian Human Material. Blacksburg, VA: Virginia Tech; 2009.
35. Nerlich AG. Molecular paleopathology and paleo-oncology—state of the art, potentials, limitations and perspectives. Int J Paleopathol. 2018;21:225-229.
36. Halperin EC. Paleo-oncology: the role of ancient remains in the study of cancer. Perspect Biol Med. 2004;47(1):1-14.
37. Adu-Gyamfi S. Ancient Egyptian Medicine: A Systematic Review. PhilPapers; 2015.