Control by Viability in a Chemotherapy Cancer Model

  • M. Serhani
  • H. EssaadiEmail author
  • K. Kassara
  • A. Boutoulout
Regular Article


The aim of this study is to provide a feedback control, called the Chemotherapy Protocol Law, with the purpose to keep the density of tumor cells that are treated by chemotherapy below a “tolerance level” \(L_c\), while retaining the density of normal cells above a “healthy level” \(N_c\). The mathematical model is a controlled dynamical system involving three nonlinear differential equations, based on a Gompertzian law of cell growth. By evoking viability and set-valued theories, we derive sufficient conditions for the existence of a Chemotherapy Protocol Law. Thereafter, on a suitable viability domain, we build a multifunction whose selections are the required Chemotherapy Protocol Laws. Finally, we propose a design of selection that generates a Chemotherapy Protocol Law.


Cancer model Feedback control Viability Set-valued analysis 

Mathematics Subject Classification

34H05 34A60 49 J52 49K15 92C50 9C60 



We are very grateful to the editor in chief of the journal “Acta Biotheoretica”, and the anonymous reviewers for their useful remarks and constructive suggestions that improve substantially the manuscript.


  1. Afenya EK, Caldron CP (1996) A brief look at a normal cell decline and inhibition in acute leukemia. J Cancer Detect Prev 20(3):171–179Google Scholar
  2. Alberts B, Johson A, Lewis J, Raff M, Robert K, Walter P (2002) Molecular biology of the cell, 4th edn. Garland Science, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  3. Aubin JP (1990) Viability theory. Birkhäuser, BostonGoogle Scholar
  4. Aubin JP, Frankowska H (1990) Set-valued analysis. Birkhäuser, BostonGoogle Scholar
  5. Baudino B, D’agata F, Caroppo P, Castellano G, Cauda S, Manfredi M, Geda E, Castelli L, Mortara P, Orsi L, Cauda F, Sacco K, Ardito RB, Pinessi L, Geminiani G, Torta R, Bisi G (2012) The chemotherapy long-term effect on cognitive functions and brain metabolism in lymphoma patients. Q J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 56(6):559–568Google Scholar
  6. Bratus A, Fimmel AS, Todorov Y, Semenov Y, Nuernberg YS (2012) On strategies on a mathematical model for leukemia therapy. J Nonlinear Anal Real World Appl 13:1044–1059CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bratus A, Todorov Y, Yegorov I, Yurchenko D (2013) Solution of the feedback control problem in the mathematical model of leukemia therapy. J Optim Theory Appl 159:590–605CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bratus A, Yegorov I, Yurchenko D (2016) Dynamic mathematical models of therapy processes against glioma and leukemia under stochastic uncertainties. Meccanica dei Materiali e delle Strutture 6(1):131–138Google Scholar
  9. Dexter DL, Leith JT (1986) Tumor heterogeneity and drug resistance. J Clin Oncol 4(3):244–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Evan GI, Vousden KH (2001) Progress proliferation, cell cycle and apoptosis in cancer. Nature 411:342–348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gewirtz DA, Holt SE, Grant S (2007) Apoptosis, senescence and cancer. Humana Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hoffbrand AV, Petit JE (1984) Essential haematology. Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  13. Isaeva OG, Ospove VA (2009) Different strategies for cancer treatment : mathematical modeling. J Comput Math Methods Med 10:253–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kassara K (2006) A set-valued approach to control immunotherapy. J Math Comput Model 44:1114–1125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kassara K (2009) A unified set-valued approach to control immunotherapy. SIAM J Control Optim 48:909–924CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kassara K, Moustafid A (2011) Angiogenesis inhibition and tumor-immune interactions with chemotherapy by a control set-valued method. J Math Biosci 231:135–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lasley I (2011) 21st Century cancer treatement. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, Scotts ValleyGoogle Scholar
  18. Matsuda T, Takayama T, Tashiro M, Nakamura Y, Ohashi Y, Shimozuma K (2005) Mild cognitive impairment after adjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer patients-evaluation of appropriate research design and methodology to measure symptoms. Breast Cancer 12(3):279–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Matveev AS, Savkin AV (2008) Application of optimal control theory to analysis of cancer chemotherapy regimens. Syst Control Lett 46(5):4042–4048Google Scholar
  20. Ness KK, Gurney JG (2007) Adverse late effects of childhood cancer and its treatment on health and performance. Annu Rev Public Health 28:278–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Nowell PC (2002) Tumour progression: a brief historical perspective. Semin Cancer Biol 12:261–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Riah R, Fiacchini M, Alamir M (2015) Invariance-based analysis of cancer chemotherapy. IEEE conference on control application (CCA), pp 1111–1116Google Scholar
  23. Rubinow SI, Lebowitz JL (1976) A mathemathecal model of the acute myeloblastic leukemic state in man. Biophys J 16:897–910CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Schimke RT (1984) Gene amplification, drug resistance and cancer. Cancer Res 44:1735–1742Google Scholar
  25. Sun Y, Campisi J, Higano C, Beer TM, Porter P, Coleman I, True L, Nelson PS (2012) Treatment-induced damage to the tumor microenvironment promotes prostate cancer therapy resistance through WNT16B. Nat Med 18:1359–1368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Swift RJ, Wirkus SA (2006) A course in ordinary differential equations. Chapman and Hall/CRC, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  27. Tsygvintsev A, Marino S, Kirschner DE (2013) Mathematical model of gene therapy for the treatment of cancer. In: Ledzewicz U, Schättler H, Friedman A, Kashdan E (eds) Mathematical methods and models in biomedicine. Lecture notes on mathematical modelling in the life sciences. Springer, New York, NY, pp 367–385CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.TSI Team, FSJESUniversity Moulay IsmailMeknesMorocco
  2. 2.TSI Team, Faculty of SciencesUniversity Moulay IsmailMeknesMorocco
  3. 3.MACS-Systems and Control GroupUniversity Hassan IICasablancaMorocco

Personalised recommendations