Journal of Mathematical Biology

, Volume 67, Issue 6–7, pp 1457–1485 | Cite as

Bayesian calibration, validation, and uncertainty quantification of diffuse interface models of tumor growth

  • Andrea Hawkins-Daarud
  • Serge Prudhomme
  • Kristoffer G. van der Zee
  • J. Tinsley Oden
Article

Abstract

The idea that one can possibly develop computational models that predict the emergence, growth, or decline of tumors in living tissue is enormously intriguing as such predictions could revolutionize medicine and bring a new paradigm into the treatment and prevention of a class of the deadliest maladies affecting humankind. But at the heart of this subject is the notion of predictability itself, the ambiguity involved in selecting and implementing effective models, and the acquisition of relevant data, all factors that contribute to the difficulty of predicting such complex events as tumor growth with quantifiable uncertainty. In this work, we attempt to lay out a framework, based on Bayesian probability, for systematically addressing the questions of Validation, the process of investigating the accuracy with which a mathematical model is able to reproduce particular physical events, and Uncertainty quantification, developing measures of the degree of confidence with which a computer model predicts particular quantities of interest. For illustrative purposes, we exercise the process using virtual data for models of tumor growth based on diffuse-interface theories of mixtures utilizing virtual data.

Keywords

Bayesian probability Calibration Validation  Uncertainty quantification Tumor growth models 

Mathematics Subject Classification

03B42 35R60 35Q92 62F15 

References

  1. Adams BM, Bohnhoff WJ, Dalbey KR, Eddy JP, Eldred MS, Gay DM, Haskell K, Hough PD, Swiler LP (2009) DAKOTA, a multilevel parallel object-oriented framework for design optimization, parameter estimation, uncertainty quantification, and sensitivity analysis: version 5.0 user’s manual. Tech Rep SAND2010-2183, Sandia National LaboratoryGoogle Scholar
  2. Amar MB, Chatelain C, Ciarletta P (2011) Contour instabilities in early tumor growth models. Phys Rev Lett 106:148101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ambrosi D, Mollica F (2002) On the mechanics of a growing tumor. Int J Eng Sci 40(12):1297–1316MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. Ambrosi D, Preziosi L (2002) On the closure of mass balance models for tumor growth. Math Models Methods Appl Sci 12(5):737–754MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. Anderson ARA, Chaplain MAJ (1998) Continuous and discrete models of tumor-induced angiogenesis. Bull Math Biol 60:857–899CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. Araujo RP, McElwain DLS (2005) A mixture theory for the genesis of residual stresses in growing tissues I: a general forumulation. SIAM J Appl Math 65:1261–1284MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. Babuška I, Nobile F, Tempone R (2007) A stochastic collocation method for elliptic partial differential equations with random input data. SIAM J Numer Anal 45(3):1005–1034MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. Babuška I, Nobile F, Tempone R (2008) A systematic approach to model validation based on Bayesian. CMAME 197:2517–2539MATHGoogle Scholar
  9. Byrne HM, Gourley SA (1997) The role of growth factors in avascular tumour growth. Math Comput Model 4:35–55MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Byrne H, Preziosi L (2003) Modelling solid tumour growth using the theory of mixtures. Math Med Biol 20:341–366CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. Caffarelli LA, Muler NE (1995) An \(L^\infty \) bound for solutions of the Cahn–Hilliard equation. Arch Ration Mech Anal 133:129–144MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. Chaplain MAJ, Sleeman BD (1993) Modelling the growth of solid tumours and incorporating a method for their classification using nonlinear elasticity theory. J Math Biol 31:431–473MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. Coleman BD, Noll W (1963) The thermodynamics of elastic materials with heat conduction and viscosity. Arch Ration Mech Anal 13:167–178MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. Coleman HW, Steele WG (2009) Experimentation, validation, and uncertainty analysis for engineers. Wiley, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cristini V, Li X, Lowengrub JS, Wise SM (2009) Nonlinear simulations of solid tumor growth using a mixture model: invasion and branching. J Math Biol 58:723–763MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. DiMilla PA, Barbee K, Lauffenburger DA (1991) Mathematical model for the effects of adhesion and mechanics on cell migration speed. J Biophys 60:15–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Elliott C (1989) Mathematical models for phase change problems. In: Rodrigues J (ed) Proceedings of the European workshop held at Óbidos, Portugal, 1988, International Series of Numerical Mathematics, vol 88. Birkhäuser, pp 35–73Google Scholar
  18. Elliott C, Garcke H (1996) On the Cahn–Hilliard equation with degenerate mobility. SIAM J Math Anal 27(2):404–423MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. Eyre D (1998) Computational and mathematical models of microstructural evolution. In: Bullard JW, Chen LQ, Kalia RK, Stoneham AM (eds) Material Research Society Symposium Proceedings, vol 529. Materials Research Society, Warrendale, pp 39–46Google Scholar
  20. Frieboes HB, Jim F, Chuang YL, Wise SM, Lowengrub JS, Cristini V (2010) Three-dimensional multipspecies nonlinear tumor growth-II: tumor invasion and angiogenesis. J Theor Biol 264:1254–1278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gelman A, Carlin JB, Stern HS, Rubin DB (2004) Bayesian data analysis, 2nd edn. Chapman& Hall/CRC, Boca RatonMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. Ghanem RG, Spanos PD (1991) Stochastic finite elements: a spectral approach. Springer, BerlinCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. Hawkins-Daarud AJ (2011) Toward a predictive model of tumor growth. Ph.D. thesis. The University of Texas at Austin, AustinGoogle Scholar
  24. Kaipio J, Somersalo E (2005) Statistical and computational inverse problems. Springer, BerlinMATHGoogle Scholar
  25. Kleiber M, Hien TD (1992) The stochastic finite element method. Wiley, New YorkMATHGoogle Scholar
  26. Kullback S, Leibler RA (1951) On information and sufficiency. Ann Math Stat 22(1):79–86MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  27. Liu WK, Belytschko T, Mani A (1986) Random field finite elements. Int J Numer Methods Eng 23:1831–1845MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  28. Loh WL (1996) On Latin hypercube sampling. Ann Stat 25(5):2058–2080MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Oberkampf WL, Roy CJ (2010) Verification and validation in scientific computing. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  30. Oden J, Moser R, Ghattas O (2010a) Computer predictions with quantified uncertainty, part I. SIAM News 43(9)Google Scholar
  31. Oden J, Moser R, Ghattas O (2010b) Computer predictions with quantified uncertainty, part II. SIAM News 43(10)Google Scholar
  32. Oden JT, Hawkins A, Prudhomme S (2010c) General diffuse-interface theories and an approach to predictive tumor growth modeling. Math Models Methods Appl Sci 20(3):477MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  33. Prudencio E, Schulz K (2012) Euro-Par 2011 workshops, part 1, volume 7155 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer, Berlin, pp 398–407Google Scholar
  34. Roache PJ (2009) Fundamentals of verification and validation, 2nd edn. Hermosa Publishers, New MexicoGoogle Scholar
  35. Spiegelhalter DJ, Best NG, Carlin BP, van der Linde A (2002) Bayesian measures of model complexity and fit. J R Stat Soc 64(4):583–639MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  36. Tarantola A (2005) Inverse problem theory and methods for model parameter estimation. SIAM Publishers, PhiladelphiaCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  37. Ward JP, King JR (1997) Mathematical modelling of avascular tumour growth. IMA J Math Appl Med Biol 14:36–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Wise SM, Lowengrub JS, Frieboes HB, Cristini V (2008) Three-dimensional diffuse-interface simulation of multispecies tumor growth-I. Model and numerical method. J Theor Biol 253(3):523–543MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Wise SM, Wang C, Lowengrub JS (2009) An energy-stable and convergent finite-difference scheme for the phase field crystal equation. SIAM J Numer Anal 47(3):2269–2288MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  40. Wise SM (2010) Unconditionally stable finite difference, nonlinear multigrid simulation of the Cahn–Hilliard–Hele–Shaw system of equations. J Sci Comput 44:38–68MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andrea Hawkins-Daarud
    • 1
  • Serge Prudhomme
    • 2
  • Kristoffer G. van der Zee
    • 3
  • J. Tinsley Oden
    • 2
  1. 1.Northwestern UniversityChicagoUSA
  2. 2.The University of Texas at AustinAustinUSA
  3. 3.Eindhoven University of TechnologyEindhovenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations