Advertisement

Clinical & Experimental Metastasis

, Volume 31, Issue 8, pp 991–999 | Cite as

Improving treatment strategies for patients with metastatic castrate resistant prostate cancer through personalized computational modeling

  • Jill Gallaher
  • Leah M. Cook
  • Shilpa Gupta
  • Arturo Araujo
  • Jasreman Dhillon
  • Jong Y. Park
  • Jacob G. Scott
  • Julio Pow-Sang
  • David Basanta
  • Conor C. Lynch
Review
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

Metastatic castrate resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) is responsible for the majority of prostate cancer deaths with the median survival after diagnosis being 2 years. The metastatic lesions often arise in the skeleton, and current treatment options are primarily palliative. Using guidelines set forth by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), the medical oncologist has a number of choices available to treat the metastases. However, the sequence of those treatments is largely dependent on the patient history, treatment response and preferences. We posit that the utilization of personalized computational models and treatment optimization algorithms based on patient specific parameters could significantly enhance the oncologist’s ability to choose an optimized sequence of available therapies to maximize overall survival. In this perspective, we used an integrated team approach involving clinicians, researchers, and mathematicians, to generate an example of how computational models and genetic algorithms can be utilized to predict the response of heterogeneous mCRPCs in bone to varying sequences of standard and targeted therapies. The refinement and evolution of these powerful models will be critical for extending the overall survival of men diagnosed with mCRPC.

Keywords

Metastatic castrate resistant prostate cancer Bone metastasis Computational biology Genetic algorithms Heterogeneity Therapy sequence optimization Overall survival 

List of abbreviations

ADT

Androgen deprivation therapy

AR

Androgen receptor

GA

Genetic algorithm

JAK/STAT

Janus kinase/Signal transducers and activators of transcription

mCRPC

Metastatic castrate resistant prostate cancer

NCCN

National comprehensive cancer network

ODE

Ordinary differential equation

PSA

Prostate serum antigen

PTEN

Phosphatase and tensin homolog

RANKL

Receptor activator of nuclear kappa B ligand

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Drs. Alexander R. A. Anderson and Tom Sellers for the organization and support of the 2nd IMO workshop. This work was supported in part by the Moffitt Cancer Center and RO1CA143094

Conflict of interest

The authors disclose that they have no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    American Cancer Society (2013) Cancer facts and figures. http://www.cancer.org
  2. 2.
    Mohler J et al (2010) NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology: prostate cancer. J Nat Compr Canc Netw 8(2):162–200Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Trewartha D, Carter K (2013) Advances in prostate cancer treatment. Nat Rev Drug Discov 12(11):823–824Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Floc’h N et al (2012) Dual targeting of the Akt/mTOR signaling pathway inhibits castration-resistant prostate cancer in a genetically engineered mouse model. Cancer Res 72(17):4483–4493Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Tam L et al (2007) Expression levels of the JAK/STAT pathway in the transition from hormone-sensitive to hormone-refractory prostate cancer. Br J Cancer 97(3):378–383Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kroon P et al (2013) JAK-STAT blockade inhibits tumor initiation and clonogenic recovery of prostate cancer stem-like cells. Cancer Res 73(16):5288–5298Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Drake JM et al (2013) Metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer reveals intrapatient similarity and interpatient heterogeneity of therapeutic kinase targets. Proc Nat Acad Sci USA 110(49):E4762–E4769Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Intergated Mathematical Department at Moffitt Cancer Center. http://labpages.moffitt.org/imo/new/
  9. 9.
    Gunawardena J (2014) Models in biology: accurate descriptions of our pathetic thinking. BMC Biol 12:29PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Smaletz O et al (2002) Nomogram for overall survival of patients with progressive metastatic prostate cancer after castration. J Clin Oncol (official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology) 20(19):3972–3982Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wang JZ et al (2010) A generalized linear-quadratic model for radiosurgery, stereotactic body radiation therapy, and high-dose rate brachytherapy. Sci Transl Med 2(39):39ra48Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Leder K et al (2014) Mathematical modeling of PDGF-driven glioblastoma reveals optimized radiation dosing schedules. Cell 156(3):603–616Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ross DM et al (2013) Safety and efficacy of imatinib cessation for CML patients with stable undetectable minimal residual disease: results from the TWISTER study. Blood 122(4):515–522Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Morken JD et al (2014) Mechanisms of resistance to intermittent androgen deprivation in patients with prostate cancer identified by a novel computational method. Cancer Res 74(14):3673–3683Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Zhao B et al (2014) Addressing genetic tumor heterogeneity through computationally predictive combination therapy. Cancer Discov 4(2):166–174Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rockne R et al (2010) Predicting the efficacy of radiotherapy in individual glioblastoma patients in vivo: a mathematical modeling approach. Phys Med Biol 55(12):3271–3285Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mundy GR (2002) Metastasis to bone: causes, consequences and therapeutic opportunities. Nat Rev Cancer 2(8):584–593Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Cheng L et al (2004) Androgen withdrawal inhibits tumor growth and is associated with decrease in angiogenesis and VEGF expression in androgen-independent CWR22Rv1 human prostate cancer model. Anticancer Res 24(4):2135–2140Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Costelloe CM et al (2010) Cancer response criteria and bone metastases: RECIST 1.1. MDA PERCIST J Cancer 1:80–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bianconi E et al (2013) An estimation of the number of cells in the human body. Ann Hum Biol 40(6):463–471Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Blaszczyk N et al (2004) Osteoblast-derived factors induce androgen-independent proliferation and expression of prostate-specific antigen in human prostate cancer cells. Clin Cancer Res 10(5):1860–1869Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Dagvadorj A et al (2008) Transcription factor signal transducer and activator of transcription 5 promotes growth of human prostate cancer cells in vivo. Clin Cancer Res 14(5):1317–1324Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Agarwal C et al (2007) Silibinin inhibits constitutive activation of Stat3, and causes caspase activation and apoptotic death of human prostate carcinoma DU145 cells. Carcinogenesis 28(7):1463–1470Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Mostaghel EA et al (2011) Resistance to CYP17A1 inhibition with abiraterone in castration-resistant prostate cancer: induction of steroidogenesis and androgen receptor splice variants. Clin Cancer Res 17(18):5913–5925Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Dahlman KB et al (2012) Modulators of prostate cancer cell proliferation and viability identified by short-hairpin RNA library screening. PLoS ONE 7(4):e34414Google Scholar
  26. 27.
    Mukherjee A, Rotwein P (2009) Akt promotes BMP2-mediated osteoblast differentiation and bone development. J Cell Sci 122(Pt 5):716–726Google Scholar
  27. 28.
    Gerland K et al (2000) Activation of the Jak/Stat signal transduction pathway in GH-treated rat osteoblast-like cells in culture. Mol Cell Endocrinol 168(1–2):1–9Google Scholar
  28. 29.
    Kostenuik PJ et al (2009) Denosumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody to RANKL, inhibits bone resorption and increases BMD in knock-in mice that express chimeric (murine/human) RANKL. J Bone Miner Res 24(2):182–195Google Scholar
  29. 30.
    O’Donnell A et al (2004) Hormonal impact of the 17alpha-hydroxylase/C(17,20)-lyase inhibitor abiraterone acetate (CB7630) in patients with prostate cancer. Br J Cancer 90(12):2317–2325Google Scholar
  30. 31.
    McCall J (2005) Genetic algorithms for modelling and optimisation. J Comput Appl Math 184(1):205–222Google Scholar
  31. 32.
    Bentley PJ (1999) Evolutionary design by computers. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco, USAGoogle Scholar
  32. 33.
    Brown JE, Coleman RE (2012) Denosumab in patients with cancer-a surgical strike against the osteoclast. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 9(2):110–118Google Scholar
  33. 34.
    Pal SK, Stein CA, Sartor O (2013) Enzalutamide for the treatment of prostate cancer. Expert Opin Pharmacol 14(5):679–685Google Scholar
  34. 35.
    Kantoff PW, Mohler JL (2013) New developments in the management of prostate cancer. J Nat Compr Canc Netw 11(5 suppl):653–657Google Scholar
  35. 36.
    Araujo A et al (2014) An integrated computational model of the bone microenvironment in bone-metastatic prostate cancer. Cancer Res 74(9):2391–2401Google Scholar
  36. 37.
    Sweeney C et al (2014) Impact on overall survival (OS) with chemohormonal therapy versus hormonal therapy for hormone-sensitive newly metastatic prostate cancer (mPrCa): An ECOG-led phase III randomized trial. J Clin Oncol 32:5s (suppl; abstr LBA2)Google Scholar
  37. 38.
    Sharma M, Chuang WW, Sun Z (2002) Phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase/Akt stimulates androgen pathway through GSK3beta inhibition and nuclear beta-catenin accumulation. J Biol Chem 277(34):30935–30941Google Scholar
  38. 39.
    Parfitt AM et al (1987) Bone histomorphometry: standardization of nomenclature, symbols, and units. Report of the ASBMR Histomorphometry Nomenclature Committee. J Bone Miner Res 2(6):595–610Google Scholar
  39. 40.
    Nishiyama T (2014) Serum testosterone levels after medical or surgical androgen deprivation: a comprehensive review of the literature. Urol Oncol 32(1):38.e17–38.e28Google Scholar
  40. 41.
    Dahut WL et al (2004) Randomized phase II trial of docetaxel plus thalidomide in androgen-independent prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 22(13):2532–2539Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jill Gallaher
    • 1
  • Leah M. Cook
    • 2
  • Shilpa Gupta
    • 3
  • Arturo Araujo
    • 1
  • Jasreman Dhillon
    • 3
  • Jong Y. Park
    • 4
  • Jacob G. Scott
    • 1
    • 5
  • Julio Pow-Sang
    • 3
  • David Basanta
    • 1
  • Conor C. Lynch
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Integrated Mathematical Oncology, SRBH. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research InstituteTampaUSA
  2. 2.Tumor Biology Department, SRBH. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research InstituteTampaUSA
  3. 3.Department of Genitourinary OncologyH. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research InstituteTampaUSA
  4. 4.Department of Cancer EpidemiologyH. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research InstituteTampaUSA
  5. 5.Wolfson Center for Mathematical BiologyMathematical Institute, University of OxfordOxfordUK

Personalised recommendations