Advertisement

Journal of Mathematical Biology

, Volume 72, Issue 6, pp 1633–1662 | Cite as

A “universal” model of metastatic cancer, its parametric forms and their identification: what can be learned from site-specific volumes of metastases

  • Leonid Hanin
  • Karen Seidel
  • Dietrich Stoevesandt
Article

Abstract

We develop a methodology for estimating unobservable characteristics of the individual natural history of metastatic cancer from the volume of the primary tumor and site-specific volumes of metastases measured before, or shortly after, the start of treatment. In particular, we address the question as to what information about natural history of cancer can and cannot be gained from this type of data. Estimation of the natural history of cancer is based on parameterization of a very general mathematical model of cancer progression accounting for primary tumor growth, shedding of metastases, their selection, latency and growth in a given secondary site. This parameterization assumes Gompertz (and, as a limiting case, exponential) growth of the primary tumor, exponential growth of metastases, and exponential distribution of metastasis latency times. We find identifiable parameters of this model and give a rigorous proof of their identifiability. As an illustration, we analyze a clinical case of renal cancer patient who developed 55 lung metastases whose volumes were measured through laborious reading of CT images. The model with maximum likelihood parameters provided an excellent fit to this data. We uncovered many aspects of this patient’s cancer natural history and showed that, according to the model, onset of metastasis occurred long before primary tumor became clinically detectable.

Keywords

Exponential tumor growth Gompertz law of tumor growth  Metastatic latency Model identifiability Natural history of cancer Poisson process 

Mathematics Subject Classification

60G 60E99 62M 62P 92C 

References

  1. Al-Hajj M, Wicha MS, Benito-Hernandez A, Morrison SJ, Clarke MF (2003) Prospective identification of tumorigenic breast cancer cells. PNAS 100(7):3983–3988CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bussolati B, Dekel B, Azzarone B, Camussi G (2013) Human renal cancer stem cells. Cancer Lett 338(1):141–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Collins AT, Berry PA, Hyde C, Stower MJ, Maitland NJ (2005) Prospective identification of tumorigenic prostate cancer stem cells. Cancer Res 65:10946–10951CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dick JE (2003) Breast cancer stem cells revealed. PNAS 100(7):3547–3549CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Fisher B (1980) Laboratory and clinical research in breast cancer: a personal adventure. The David A. Karnofsky memorial lecture. Cancer Res 40:3863–3874Google Scholar
  6. Fisher B (1999) From Halsted to prevention and beyond: advances in the management of breast cancer during the twentieth century. Eur J Cancer 35:1963–1973CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Folkman J (1974) Tumor angiogenesis factor. Cancer Res 34:2109–2113Google Scholar
  8. Gorelik E (1983) Concomitant tumor immunity and resistance to a second tumor challenge. Adv Cancer Res 39:71–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hanin LG (2002) Identification problem for stochastic models with application to carcinogenesis, cancer detection and radiation biology. Discret Dyn Nat Soc 7:177–189MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. Hanin LG, Rose J, Zaider M (2006) A stochastic model for the sizes of detectable metastases. J Theor Biol 243:407–417MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hanin LG (2008) Distribution of the sizes of metastases: mathematical and biomedical considerations. In: Tan WY, Hanin LG (eds) Handbook of cancer models with applications. World Scientific, Singapore, pp 141–169Google Scholar
  12. Hanin LG (2012) Seeing the invisible: how mathematical models uncover tumor dormancy, reconstruct the natural history of cancer and assess the effects of treatment. In: Almog N, Enderling H, Hlatky L (eds) Systems biology of tumor dormancy. Advances in experimental medicine and biology, vol 734. Springer, Berlin, pp 261–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hanin LG, Bunimovich-Mendrazitsky S (2014) Reconstruction of the natural history of metastatic cancer and assessment of the effects of surgery: Gompertzian growth of the primary tumor. Math Biosci 247:47–58MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. Hanin LG, Korosteleva O (2010) Does extirpation of the primary breast tumor give boost to growth of metastases? Evidence revealed by mathematical modeling. Math Biosci 223:133–141MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. Hanin LG, Yakovlev AY (1996) A nonidentifiability aspect of the two-stage model of carcinogenesis. Risk Anal 16:711–715CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hanin L, Zaider M (2011) Effects of surgery and chemotherapy on metastatic progression of prostate cancer: evidence from the natural history of the disease reconstructed through mathematical modeling. Cancers 3:3632–3660. http://www.mdpi.com/2072-6694/3/3/3632/
  17. Moiseenko VM (2002) “Natural history” of breast cancer growth. Pract Oncol 3(1):6–14 (in Russian)Google Scholar
  18. Prehn RT (1993) Two competing influences that may explain concomitant tumor resistance. Cancer Res 53:3266–3269Google Scholar
  19. Ross SM (1997) Introduction to probability models, 6th edn. Academic Press, San DiegozbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Leonid Hanin
    • 1
  • Karen Seidel
    • 2
  • Dietrich Stoevesandt
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Mathematics and StatisticsIdaho State UniversityPocatelloUSA
  2. 2.Halle (Saale)Germany
  3. 3.Department of Diagnostic RadiologyMartin Luther University of Halle-WittenbergHalleGermany

Personalised recommendations