# Control by Viability in a Chemotherapy Cancer Model

- 61 Downloads

## Abstract

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.

## Keywords

Cancer model Feedback control Viability Set-valued analysis## Mathematics Subject Classification

34H05 34A60 49 J52 49K15 92C50 9C60## Notes

### Acknowledgements

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.

## References

- 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
- 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
- Aubin JP (1990) Viability theory. Birkhäuser, BostonGoogle Scholar
- Aubin JP, Frankowska H (1990) Set-valued analysis. Birkhäuser, BostonGoogle Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Dexter DL, Leith JT (1986) Tumor heterogeneity and drug resistance. J Clin Oncol 4(3):244–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Evan GI, Vousden KH (2001) Progress proliferation, cell cycle and apoptosis in cancer. Nature 411:342–348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Gewirtz DA, Holt SE, Grant S (2007) Apoptosis, senescence and cancer. Humana Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Hoffbrand AV, Petit JE (1984) Essential haematology. Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
- Isaeva OG, Ospove VA (2009) Different strategies for cancer treatment : mathematical modeling. J Comput Math Methods Med 10:253–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Kassara K (2006) A set-valued approach to control immunotherapy. J Math Comput Model 44:1114–1125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Kassara K (2009) A unified set-valued approach to control immunotherapy. SIAM J Control Optim 48:909–924CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 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
- Lasley I (2011) 21st Century cancer treatement. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, Scotts ValleyGoogle Scholar
- 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
- Matveev AS, Savkin AV (2008) Application of optimal control theory to analysis of cancer chemotherapy regimens. Syst Control Lett 46(5):4042–4048Google Scholar
- 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
- Nowell PC (2002) Tumour progression: a brief historical perspective. Semin Cancer Biol 12:261–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Riah R, Fiacchini M, Alamir M (2015) Invariance-based analysis of cancer chemotherapy. IEEE conference on control application (CCA), pp 1111–1116Google Scholar
- Rubinow SI, Lebowitz JL (1976) A mathemathecal model of the acute myeloblastic leukemic state in man. Biophys J 16:897–910CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Schimke RT (1984) Gene amplification, drug resistance and cancer. Cancer Res 44:1735–1742Google Scholar
- 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
- Swift RJ, Wirkus SA (2006) A course in ordinary differential equations. Chapman and Hall/CRC, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
- 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