Advertisement

Translating Mathematical Modeling of Tumor Growth Patterns into Novel Therapeutic Approaches for Breast Cancer

  • Elizabeth ComenEmail author
  • Patrick G. Morris
  • Larry Norton
Article

Abstract

In breast cancer, mortality is driven by the metastatic process, whereby some cancer cells leave their primary site of origin and travel to distant vital organs. Despite improved screening and therapies to treat breast cancers, metastasis continues to undermine these advances. The pervasive albatross of metastasis necessitates improved prevention and treatment of metastasis. To this end, clinicians routinely employ post-operative or adjuvant therapy to decrease the risk of future metastasis and improve the chance for cure. This article evaluates the limitations of breast cancer therapies within the context of growth curves, and in doing so, provides new insight into the metastatic process as well as more effective means for therapeutic delivery. Two critical developments evolve from this mathematical analysis: first, the use of dose dense chemotherapy to improve survival among breast cancer patients; and second, the theory of self-seeding, which fundamentally changes our understanding of metastasis and the trajectory of drug development.

Keywords

Metastasis Self-seeding Norton-Simon hypothesis Dose-dense chemotherapy Breast cancer 

References

  1. 1.
    Stewart BW KP. World Cancer Report. In IARC Press. 2003.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Skipper HE, Schabel Jr FM, Wilcox WS, Skipper HE, Schabel Jr FM, Wilcox WS. Experimental evaluation of potential anticancer agents. Xiii. On the criteria and kinetics associated with “Curability” of experimental leukemia. Cancer Chemother Rep. 1964;35:1–111.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Skipper HE. Laboratory models: some historical perspective. Cancer Treat Rep. 1986;70:3–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Simpson-Herren L, Lloyd HH. Kinetic parameters and growth curves for experimental tumor systems. Cancer Chemother Rep. 1970;54:143–74.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Norton L. Cancer stem cells, self-seeding, and decremented exponential growth: theoretical and clinical implications. Breast Dis. 2008;29:27–36.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Demicheli R, Terenziani M, Valagussa P, et al. Local recurrences following mastectomy: support for the concept of tumor dormancy. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1994;86:45–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Norton L, Simon R. Tumor size, sensitivity to therapy, and design of treatment schedules. Cancer Treat Rep. 1977;61:1307–17.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gompertz B. On the nature of the function expressive of the law of human mortality, and on a new mode of determining the value of life contingencies. Phil Trans Roy Soc London. 1832;123:513–85.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Norton L. A Gompertzian model of human breast cancer growth. Cancer Res. 1988;48:7067–71.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Norton L, Simon R. Growth curve of an experimental solid tumor following radiotherapy. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1977;58:1735–41.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Norton L. Implications of kinetic heterogeneity in clinical oncology. Semin Oncol. 1985;12:231–49.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Zsebo KM, Cohen AM, Murdock DC, et al. Recombinant human granulocyte colony stimulating factor: molecular and biological characterization. Immunobiology. 1986;172:175–84.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Morris PG, McArthur HL, Hudis C, Norton L. Dose-dense chemotherapy for breast cancer: what does the future hold? Future Oncol. 2010;6:951–65.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hudis C, Fornier M, Riccio L, et al. 5-year results of dose-intensive sequential adjuvant chemotherapy for women with high-risk node-positive breast cancer: a phase II study. J Clin Oncol. 1999;17:1118.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hudis C, Seidman A, Baselga J, et al. Sequential dose-dense doxorubicin, paclitaxel, and cyclophosphamide for resectable high-risk breast cancer: feasibility and efficacy. J Clin Oncol. 1999;17:93–100.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fornier MN, Seidman AD, Theodoulou M, et al. Doxorubicin followed by sequential paclitaxel and cyclophosphamide versus concurrent paclitaxel and cyclophosphamide: 5-year results of a phase II randomized trial of adjuvant dose-dense chemotherapy for women with node-positive breast carcinoma. Clin Cancer Res. 2001;7:3934–41.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Citron ML, Berry DA, Cirrincione C, et al. Randomized trial of dose-dense versus conventionally scheduled and sequential versus concurrent combination chemotherapy as postoperative adjuvant treatment of node-positive primary breast cancer: first report of Intergroup Trial C9741/Cancer and Leukemia Group B Trial 9741. J Clin Oncol. 2003;21:1431–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hudis C, Citron ML, Berry D. Five year follow-up of INT C9741: dose dense chemotherapy is safe and effective. Breast Cancer Res. 2005;94 suppl 91:S20.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Venturini M, Del Mastro L, Aitini E, et al. Dose-dense adjuvant chemotherapy in early breast cancer patients: results from a randomized trial. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2005;97:1724–33.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Burnell M, Levine MN, Chapman JA, et al. Cyclophosphamide, epirubicin, and Fluorouracil versus dose-dense epirubicin and cyclophosphamide followed by Paclitaxel versus Doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide followed by Paclitaxel in node-positive or high-risk node-negative breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2009;28:77–82.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Moebus V, Jackisch C, Lueck HJ, et al. Intense dose-dense sequential chemotherapy with epirubicin, paclitaxel, and cyclophosphamide compared with conventionally scheduled chemotherapy in high-risk primary breast cancer: mature results of an AGO phase III study. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:2874–80.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sparano JA, Wang M, Martino S, et al. Weekly paclitaxel in the adjuvant treatment of breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2008;358:1663–71.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hudis C, Modi S. Preoperative chemotherapy for breast cancer: miracle or mirage? JAMA. 2007;298:2665–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Untch M, Mobus V, Kuhn W, et al. Intensive dose-dense compared with conventionally scheduled preoperative chemotherapy for high-risk primary breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:2938–45.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Morris PG, Hudis CA. Trastuzumab-related cardiotoxicity following anthracycline-based adjuvant chemotherapy: how worried should we be? J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:3407–10.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Romond EH, Perez EA, Bryant J, et al. Trastuzumab plus adjuvant chemotherapy for operable HER2-positive breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2005;353:1673–84.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Slamon D, Eiermann W, Robert N et al. Phase III Randomized Trial Comparing Doxorubicin and Cyclophosphamide Followed by Docetaxel (AC?T) with Doxorubicin and Cyclophosphamide Followed by Docetaxel and Trastuzumab (AC?TH) with Docetaxel, Carboplatin and Trastuzumab (TCH) in Her2neu Positive Early Breast Cancer Patients: BCIRG 006 Study. San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium 2009; Abstract 62.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Piccart-Gebhart MJ, Procter M, Leyland-Jones B, et al. Trastuzumab after adjuvant chemotherapy in HER2-positive breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2005;353:1659–72.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Joensuu H, Kellokumpu-Lehtinen PL, Bono P, et al. Adjuvant docetaxel or vinorelbine with or without trastuzumab for breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2006;354:809–20.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Dang C, Fornier M, Sugarman S, et al. The safety of dose-dense doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide followed by paclitaxel with trastuzumab in HER-2/neu overexpressed/amplified breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:1216–22.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Morris PG, Dickler M, McArthur HL, et al. Dose-dense adjuvant Doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide is not associated with frequent short-term changes in left ventricular ejection fraction. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:6117–23.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kummel S, Krocker J, Kohls A, et al. Dose-dense adjuvant chemotherapy for node-positive breast cancer in women 60 years and older: feasibility and tolerability in a subset of patients in a randomized trial. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2006;58:166–75.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Zauderer M, Patil S, Hurria A. Feasibility and toxicity of dose-dense adjuvant chemotherapy in older women with breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2009;117:205–10.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Drullinsky P, Fornier MN, Sugarman S et al. Dose-dense (DD) cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil (CMF) at 14-day intervals: A pilot study of every 14- and 10–11-day dosing intervals for women with early-stage breast cancer. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 2009; Abstract 590.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Fornier MN, Seidman AD, Lake D, et al. Increased dose density is feasible: a pilot study of adjuvant epirubicin and cyclophosphamide followed by paclitaxel, at 10- or 11-day intervals with filgrastim support in women with breast cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2007;13:223–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Norton L, Massague J. Is cancer a disease of self-seeding? Nat Med. 2006;12:875–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Kim MY, Oskarsson T, Acharyya S, et al. Tumor self-seeding by circulating cancer cells. Cell. 2009;139:1315–26.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Klein CA. Parallel progression of primary tumours and metastases. Nat Rev Cancer. 2009;9:302–12.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Stoecklein NH, Klein CA. Genetic disparity between primary tumours, disseminated tumour cells, and manifest metastasis. Int J Cancer. 2010;126:589–98.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Doron Y, Gruszkiewicz J. Metastasis of invasive carcinoma of the breast to an extradural meningioma of the cranial vault. Cancer. 1987;60:1081–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Bernstein RA, Grumet KA, Wetzel N. Metastasis of prostatic carcinoma to intracranial meningioma. Case report. J Neurosurg. 1983;58:774–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Sella A, Ro JY. Renal cell cancer: best recipient of tumor-to-tumor metastasis. Urology. 1987;30:35–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Cenkowski M, Gibson IW, Lategan B, Czaykowski PM. Tumor-to-tumor metastasis: report of a case of renal cell carcinoma metastasizing to a pancreatic endocrine neoplasm. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29:e303–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Newton PK, Mason J, Bethel K, et al. A stochastic Markov chain model to describe lung cancer growth and metastasis. PLoS One. 2012;7:e34637.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Halsted WS. The results of radical operations for the cure of carcinoma of the breast. Ann Surg. 1907;46:1–19.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Irving A. Results of treating 1,178 patients with breast cancer by radical mastectomy and postoperative irradiation where metastases to axillary lymph nodes occurred. J Surg Oncol. 1979;12:137–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Schoppmann SF, Bayer G, Aumayr K, et al. Prognostic value of lymphangiogenesis and lymphovascular invasion in invasive breast cancer. Ann Surg. 2004;240:306–12.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Shapiro DM, Fugmann RA. A role for chemotherapy as an adjunct to surgery. Cancer Res. 1957;17:1098–101.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Fisher B. Biological and clinical considerations regarding the use of surgery and chemotherapy in the treatment of primary breast cancer. Cancer. 1977;40:574–87.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Giuliano AE, Hawes D, Ballman KV, et al. Association of occult metastases in sentinel lymph nodes and bone marrow with survival among women with early-stage invasive breast cancer. JAMA. 2011;306:385–93.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Giuliano AE, Hunt KK, Ballman KV, et al. Axillary dissection vs no axillary dissection in women with invasive breast cancer and sentinel node metastasis: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2011;305:569–75.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Wo JY, Chen K, Neville BA et al. Effect of Very Small Tumor Size on Cancer-Specific Mortality in Node-Positive Breast Cancer. J Clin Oncol 2011.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Hernandez-Aya LF, Chavez-Macgregor M, Lei X et al. Nodal Status and Clinical Outcomes in a Large Cohort of Patients With Triple-Negative Breast Cancer. J Clin Oncol 2011.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Minn AJ, Gupta GP, Siegel PM, et al. Genes that mediate breast cancer metastasis to lung. Nature. 2005;436:518–24.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Bos PD, Zhang XH, Nadal C, et al. Genes that mediate breast cancer metastasis to the brain. Nature. 2009;459:1005–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Zhang XH, Wang Q, Gerald W, et al. Latent bone metastasis in breast cancer tied to Src-dependent survival signals. Cancer Cell. 2009;16:67–78.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Bloom HJG, Richardson WW. Histological grading and prognosis in breast cancer: a study of 1409 cases of which 359 have been followed for 15 years. Br J Cancer. 1957;11:359–77.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Group ECO. A Randomized Phase III Trial of the Value of Early Local Therapy for the Intact Primary Tumor in Patients With Metastatic Breast Cancer E2108. In. 2011.Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Neuman HB, Morrogh M, Gonen M, et al. Stage IV breast cancer in the era of targeted therapy: does surgery of the primary tumor matter? Cancer. 2010;116:1226–33.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Bafford AC, Burstein HJ, Barkley CR, et al. Breast surgery in stage IV breast cancer: impact of staging and patient selection on overall survival. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2009;115:7–12.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Paik S, Shak S, Tang G, et al. A multigene assay to predict recurrence of tamoxifen-treated, node-negative breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2004;351:2817–26.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    van de Vijver MJ, He YD, van’t Veer LJ, et al. A gene-expression signature as a predictor of survival in breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2002;347:1999–2009.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Sotiriou C, Pusztai L. Gene-expression signatures in breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2009;360:790–800.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Perry MC. The chemotherapy source book. Philadelphia: Wolters Kluwer Health/Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2008.Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Comen E, Norton L, Massague J. Clinical implications of cancer self-seeding. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2011;8:369–77.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Elizabeth Comen
    • 1
    Email author
  • Patrick G. Morris
    • 1
  • Larry Norton
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of MedicineMemorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center and the Weill College of Medicine of Cornell UniversityNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations