Advertisement

Bulletin of Mathematical Biology

, Volume 80, Issue 5, pp 1195–1206 | Cite as

Predicting Patient-Specific Radiotherapy Protocols Based on Mathematical Model Choice for Proliferation Saturation Index

  • Jan Poleszczuk
  • Rachel Walker
  • Eduardo G. Moros
  • Kujtim Latifi
  • Jimmy J. Caudell
  • Heiko Enderling
Special Issue : Mathematical Oncology

Abstract

Radiation is commonly used in cancer treatment. Over 50% of all cancer patients will undergo radiotherapy (RT) as part of cancer care. Scientific advances in RT have primarily focused on the physical characteristics of treatment including beam quality and delivery. Only recently have inroads been made into utilizing tumor biology and radiobiology to design more appropriate RT protocols. Tumors are composites of proliferating and growth-arrested cells, and overall response depends on their respective proportions at irradiation. Prokopiou et al. (Radiat Oncol 10:159, 2015) developed the concept of the proliferation saturation index (PSI) to augment the clinical decision process associated with RT. This framework is based on the application of the logistic equation to pre-treatment imaging data in order to estimate a patient-specific tumor carrying capacity, which is then used to recommend a specific RT protocol. It is unclear, however, how dependent clinical recommendations are on the underlying tumor growth law. We discuss a PSI framework with a generalized logistic equation that can capture kinetics of different well-known growth laws including logistic and Gompertzian growth. Estimation of model parameters on the basis of clinical data revealed that the generalized logistic model can describe data equally well for a wide range of the generalized logistic exponent value. Clinical recommendations based on the calculated PSI, however, are strongly dependent on the specific growth law assumed. Our analysis suggests that the PSI framework may best be utilized in clinical practice when the underlying tumor growth law is known, or when sufficiently many tumor growth models suggest similar fractionation protocols.

Keywords

Proliferation saturation index Radiation protocol Generalized logistic equation 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work is supported in part by the Personalized Medicine Award 09-33000-15-03 from the DeBartolo Family Personalized Medicine Institute Pilot Research Awards in Personalized Medicine (PRAPM).

References

  1. Ahmed KA, Correa CR, Dilling T, Caudell JJ (2014) Altered fractionation schedules in radiation treatment: a review. Semin Oncol 41(6):730–750CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alfonso JCL, Buttazzo G, Garcia-Archilla B, Herrero M, Nunez L (2014) Selecting radiotherapy dose distributions by means of constrained optimization problems. Bull Math Biol 76(5):1017–1044MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. Allison RR, Patel RM, McLawhorn RA (2014) Radiation oncology: physics advances that minimize morbidity. Future Oncol 10(15):2329–2344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Anderson AR, Quaranta V (2008) Integrative mathematical oncology. Nat Rev Cancer 8(3):227–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Benzekry S, Lamont C, Beheshti A, Tracz A, Ebos JM, Hlatky L, Hahnfeldt P (2014) Classical mathematical models for description and prediction of experimental tumor growth. PLoS Comput Biol 10(8):e1003800CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bourhis J, Overgaard J, Audry H, Ang K, Saunders M, Bernier J, Horiot J, Le Maitre A, Pajak T, Poulsen M, O’Sullivan B, Dobrowsky W, Hliniak A, Skladowski K, Hay J, Pinto L, Fallai C, Fu K, Sylvester R (2006) Hyperfractionated or accelerated radiotherapy in head and neck cancer: a meta-analysis. Lancet 368(9538):843–854CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Byrne HM, Chaplain MA (1995) Growth of nonnecrotic tumors in the presence and absence of inhibitors. Math Biosci 130(2):151–181CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. Choe SC, Zhao G, Zhao Z, Rosenblatt JD, Cho HM, Shin SU, Johnson NF (2011) Model for in vivo progression of tumors based on co-evolving cell population and vasculature. Sci Rep 1:31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Deisboeck TS, Wang Z (2007) Cancer dissemination: a consequence of limited carrying capacity? Med Hypotheses 69(1):173–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Enderling H, Chaplain MA, Hahnfeldt P (2010) Quantitative modeling of tumor dynamics and radiotherapy. Acta Biotheor 58(4):341–353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Enderling H, Park D, Hlatky L, Hahnfeldt P (2009) The importance of spatial distribution of stemness and proliferation state in determining tumor radioresponse. Math Model Nat Phenom 4(03):117–133MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. Folkman J, Hochberg M (1973) Self-regulation of growth in three dimensions. J Exp Med 138(4):745–753CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fowler J (2014) The linear-quadratic formula and progress in fractionated radiotherapy. Br J Radiol 62:679–694CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fowler JF (2010) 21 years of biologically effective dose. Br J Radiol 83(991):554–568CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gao X, McDonald JT, Hlatky L, Enderling H (2013) Acute and fractionated irradiation differentially modulate glioma stem cell division kinetics. Cancer Res 73(5):1481–1490CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gerlee P (2013) The model muddle: in search of tumor growth laws. Cancer Res 73(8):2407–2411CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gerlee P, Anderson AR (2015) The evolution of carrying capacity in constrained and expanding tumour cell populations. Phys Biol 12(5):056001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hahnfeldt P, Panigrahy D, Folkman J, Hlatky L (1999) Tumor development under angiogenic signaling: a dynamical theory of tumor growth, treatment response, and postvascular dormancy. Cancer Res 59(19):4770–4775Google Scholar
  19. Hillen T, Enderling H, Hahnfeldt P (2013) The tumor growth paradox and immune system-mediated selection for cancer stem cells. Bull Math Biol 75(1):161–184MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. Hubenak JR, Zhang Q, Branch CD, Kronowitz SJ (2015) Mechanisms of injury to normal tissue after radiotherapy: a review. Plastic Reconstr Surg 133(1):49e–56eCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kempf H, Bleicher M, Meyer-Hermann M (2015) Spatio-temporal dynamics of hypoxia during radiotherapy. PLoS One 10(8):e0133357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Laperriere NJ, Bernstein M (1994) Radiotherapy for brain tumors. CA Cancer J Clin 44(2):196108Google Scholar
  23. Murphy H, Jaafari H, Dobrovolny HM (2016) Differences in predictions of ODE models of tumor growth: a cautionary example. BMC Cancer 16(1):163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Poleszczuk J, Luddy KA, Prokopiou S, Robertson-Tessi M, Moros EG, Fishman M, Djeu J, Finkelstein SE, Enderling H (2016) Abscopal benefits of localized radiotherapy depend on activated t cell trafficking and distribution between metastatic lesions. Cancer Res 76(5):1009–1018CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Powathil GG, Adamson DJ, Chaplain MA (2013) Towards predicting the response of a solid tumour to chemotherapy and radiotherapy treatments: clinical insights from a computational model. PLoS Comput Biol 9(7):e1003120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Prokopiou S, Moros EG, Poleszczuk J, Caudell J, Torres-Roca JF, Latifi K, Lee JK, Myerson R, Harrison LB, Enderling H (2015) A proliferation saturation index to predict radiation response and personalize radiotherapy fractionation. Radiat Oncol 10:159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Qiao X, Tullgren O, Sirzen F, Lewenshon R (2003) The role of radiotherapy in treatment of stage i non-small cell lung cancer. Lung Cancer 41(1):1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ribba B, Colin T, Schnell S (2006) A multiscale mathematical model of cancer, and its use in analyzing irradiation therapies. Theor Biol Med Model 3:7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Richards F (1959) A flexible growth function for empirical use. J Exp Bot 10(2):290–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Rockne RC, Rockhill JK, Mrugala M, Spence A, Kalet I, Hendrickson K, Lai A, Cloughesy T, Alvord E Jr, Swanson KR (2010) Predicting the efficacy of radiotherapy in individual glioblastoma patients in vivo: a mathematical modeling approach. Phys Med Biol 55(12):3271–3285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Roose T, Chapman SJ, Maini PK (2007) Mathematical models of avascular tumor growth. SIAM Rev 49(2):179–208MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  32. Saunders M, Rojas A, Parmar M, Dische S, Collaborators C (2010) Mature results of a randomized trial of accelerated hyperfractionated versus conventional radiotherapy in head and neck cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 77:3–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sharma S, Bekelman J, Lin A, Lukens NJ, Roman BR, Mitra N, Swisher-McClure S (2016) Clinical impact of prolonged diagnosis to treatment interval (dti) among patients with oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma. Oral Oncol 56:17–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Stevens C, Bondy SJ, Loblaw AD (2010) Wait times in prostate cancer diagnosis and radiation treatment. Can Urol Assoc J 4(4):243–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Vaupel P, Harrison L (2004) Tumor hypoxia: causative factors, compensatory mechanisms, and cellular response. Oncol 9(S5):4–9Google Scholar
  36. Wang L, Correa CR, Hayman JA, Zhao L, Cease K, Brenner D, Arenberg D, Curtis J, Kalemkerian GP, Kong FM (2009) Time to treatment in patients with stage III non-small cell lung cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 74(3):790–795CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Wang P, Feng Y (2013) A mathematical model of tumor volume changes during radiotherapy. Sci World J 4:1322–1330Google Scholar
  38. Whelan TJ (2005) Use of conventional radiation therapy as part of breast-conserving treatment. J Clin Oncol 23(8):1718–1725CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Yankeelov TE, Quaranta V, Evans KJ, Rericha EC (2015) Toward a science of tumor forecasting for clinical oncology. Cancer Res 75(6):918–923CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Yoshimura M, Itasaka S, Harada H, Hiraoka M (2013) Microenvironment and radiation therapy. BioMed Res Int 2013:685308CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society for Mathematical Biology 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Integrated Mathematical OncologyH. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research InstituteTampaUSA
  2. 2.Department of Radiation OncologyH. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research InstituteTampaUSA
  3. 3.Nalecz Institute of Biocybernetics and Biomedical EngineeringPolish Academy of SciencesWarsawPoland

Personalised recommendations