## Abstract

We propose a new mathematical modeling framework based on partial differential equations to study tumor virotherapy with mediated immunity. The model incorporates both innate and adaptive immune responses and represents the complex interaction among tumor cells, oncolytic viruses, and immune systems on a domain with a moving boundary. Using carefully designed computational methods, we conduct extensive numerical simulation to the model. The results allow us to examine tumor development under a wide range of settings and provide insight into several important aspects of the virotherapy, including the dependence of the efficacy on a few key parameters and the delay in the adaptive immunity. Our findings also suggest possible ways to improve the virotherapy for tumor treatment.

### Similar content being viewed by others

## References

Andtbacka RH, Kaufman HL, Collichio F et al (2015) Talimogene laherparepvec improves durable response rate in patients with advanced melanoma. J Clin Oncol 33:2780–2788

Araujo RP, McElwain LS (2004) A history of the study of solid tumor growth: the contribution of mathematical modeling. Bull Math Biol 66:1039–1091

Chaplain M, Kuznetsov V, James Z, Stepanova A (1998) Spatio-temporal dynamics of the immune system response to cancer. In: Horn MA, Simonett G, Webb GF (eds) Mathematical models in medical and health sciences. Vanderbilt University Press, Nashville

Chiocca EA, Rabkin SD (2014) Oncolytic viruses and their application to cancer immunotherapy. Cancer Immunol Res 2:295–300

Friedman A (2007) Mathematical analysis and challenges arising from models of tumor growth. Math Models Methods Appl Sci 17:1751–1772

Friedman A, Tian JP, Fulci G, Chiocca EA, Wang J (2005) Glioma virotherapy: effects of innate immune suppression and increased viral replication capacity. Cancer Res 66:2314–2319

Fulci G, Breymann L, Gianni D et al (2006) Cyclophosphamide enhances glioma virotherapy by inhibiting innate immune responses. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 103:12873–12878

Golub GH, Van Loan CF (2012) Matrix computations. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore

Kambara H, Okano H, Chiocca EA, Saeki Y (2005) An oncolytic HSV-1 mutant expressing ICP34.5 under control of a nestin promoter increases survival of animals even when symptomatic from a brain tumor. Cancer Res 65:2832–2839

Karev GP, Novozhilov AS, Koonin EV (2006) Mathematical modeling of tumor therapy with oncolytic viruses: effects of parametric heterogeneity on cell dynamics. Biol Direct 1:30

Kasuya H, Takeda S, Nomoto S, Nakao A (2005) The potential of oncolytic virus therapy for pancreatic cancer. Cancer Gene Ther 12:725–736

Kirn DH, McCormick F (1996) Replicating viruses as selective cancer therapeutics. Mol Med Today 2:519–527

Kirn D, Hermiston T, McCormick F (1998) ONYX-015: clinical data are encouraging. Nat Med 4:1341–1342

Lawler SE, Chiocca EA (2015) Oncolytic virus-mediated immunotherapy: a combinatorial approach for cancer treatment. J Clin Oncol 33:2812–2814

Lowengrub JS, Frieboes HB, Jin F, Chuang Y-L, Li X, Macklin P, Wise SM, Cristini V (2010) Nonlinear modeling of cancer: bridging the gap bewteen cells and tumors. Nonlinearity 23:R1–R91

Marchini A, Scott EM, Rommelaere J (2016) Overcoming barriers in oncolytic virotherapy with HDAC inhibitors and immune checkpoint blockade. Viruses 8(1):9

Melcher A, Parato K, Rooney CM, Bell JC (2011) Thunder and lightning: immunotherapy and oncolytic viruses collide. Mol Ther 19:1008–1016

Novozhilov AS, Berezovskaya FS, Koonin EV, Karev GP (2006) Mathematical modeling of tumor therapy with oncolytic viruses: regimes with complete tumor elimination within the framework of deterministic models. Biol Direct 1:6

Parish CR, O’Neill ER (1997) Dependence of the adaptive immune response on innate immunity: some questions answered but new paradoxes emerge. Immunol Cell Biol 75:523–527

Parato KA, Senger D, Forsyth PA, Bell JC (2005) Recent progress in the battle between oncolytic viruses and tumours. Nat Rev Cancer 5:965–976

Pecora AL, Rizvi N, Cohen GI et al (2002) Phase I trial of intraveneous administration of PV701, an oncolytic virus, in patients with advanced solid cancers. J Clin Oncol 20:2251–2266

Press WH, Flannery BP, Teukolsky SA, Vetterling WT (1996) Numerical recipes in Fortran 90. Cambridge University Press, New York

Shah AC, Benos D, Gillespie GY, Markert JM (2003) Oncolytic viruses: clinical applications as vectors for the treatment of malignant gliomas. J Neurooncol 65:203–226

Tian JP (2011) The replicability of oncolytic virus: defining conditions on tumor virotherapy. Mathe Biosci Eng 8:841–860

Wang J, Tian JP (2008) Numerical study for a model of tumor virotherapy. Appl Math Comput 196:448–457

Wodarz D (2001) Viruses as antitumor weapons: defining conditions for tumor remission. Cancer Res 61:3501–3507

Wodarz D, Komarova N (2005) Computational biology of cancer: lecture notes and mathematical modeling. World Scientific Publishing Company, Singapore

Woller N, Gürlevik E, Ureche C-I, Schumacher A, Kühnel F (2014) Oncolytic viruses as anticancer vaccines. Front Oncol 4:188

Wu JT, Byrne HM, Kirn DH, Wein LM (2001) Modeling and analysis of a virus that replicates selectively in tumor cells. Bull Math Biol 63:731–768

World Cancer Report (2014a) Chapter 1.1. World Health Organization, 2014

World Cancer Report (2014b) Chapter 6.7. World Health Organization, 2014

## Acknowledgements

JPT and JW acknowledge partial support from the National Science Foundation under Grant Nos. 1216907 and 1216936, respectively. The authors would like to thank the anonymous referees for helpful comments which led to an improvement in this paper.

## Author information

### Authors and Affiliations

### Corresponding author

## Appendix A: Numerical Methods

### Appendix A: Numerical Methods

A difficulty in the design of numerical algorithms for the model (2) is the presence of a moving boundary, *R*(*t*), which describes the growth of the tumor with time and which has to be determined as part of the solution. To partially overcome this challenge, we choose to map the original domain with the moving boundary into a fixed domain, by introducing a new coordinate:

Obviously, Eq. (7) transforms the original domain, \( 0 \le \rho \le R(t)\), into a regular interval, \( 0 \le r \le 1 \). Based on such a mapping, we are able to develop accurate and robust numerical methods.

Equation (1) enables us to drop one variable, *N*. Using the change of coordinates, the original equations in (2) can be written as

for \(0\leqslant r\leqslant 1\) and \(t> 0\), where \(R^\prime = \frac{\hbox {d}R}{\hbox {d}t}\). The terms on the right-hand sides are:

where

The kinematic condition in Eq. (3) and boundary conditions in Eq. (4) become

The initial conditions are given below. In particular, the initial values for *R* and *V* are taken from Friedman et al. (2005), based on laboratory experiments conducted on rats with brain tumors. When the virotherapy starts, the oncolytic viruses are injected into the center of the tumor, which is measured at 2 mm at that time. Meanwhile, a Gaussian distribution centered at 0 is used to represent the initial profile of the viruses inside the tumor. Additionally, we note that all the cell densities have been normalized so that the total is \( \theta = 1\,\hbox {cell mm}^{-3}\).

The numerical simulation of Eq. (8) is essentially a time marching problem. We denote the numerical solution at the *n*th time step by

We use the second-order Adams–Bashforth method to advance *R* in time. Applying it to Eq. (10a) yields

The hyperbolic type equations, for example Eq. (8a), is solved by a leapfrog scheme:

where

and the subscript *j* refers to the *j*th spatial grid point in the radial direction. Meanwhile, we supplement the leapfrog method with a simple average in time: \( X_j^n = \frac{1}{2} (X_j^{n+1} + X_j^{n-1} ) \), implemented in our code for every 10 steps. This additional time-average procedure is introduced to overcome potential mesh drifting instability (Press et al. 1996) when applying the leapfrog method to nonlinear equations, yet retaining its second-order accuracy (Wang and Tian 2008). In addition, *Y*, \(Z_1\), and \(Z_2\) are updated in a similar way.

Once we have \(X^{n+1}\), \(Y^{n+1}\), \(Z_1^{n+1}\) and \(Z_2^{n+1}\) calculated, we compute \(U^{n+1}\) using the Trapezoidal Rule for Eq. (8f):

Finally, we solve the parabolic Eq. (8e). For convenience, we write the equation in the following form:

with

Since \(F_4\) is a linear function of \(V^{n+1}\), the above equation is a linear parabolic equation at time step \(n+1\). We use the second-order Backward Difference Formula (BDF) in time and central differences in space to approximate Eq. (14a):

The discretized equation can then be written in a tridiagonal algebraic form which can be computed efficiently (Golub and Loan 2012). Once solved, a full cycle of the time marching is completed, and the procedure repeats at the next cycle.

The methods presented here achieve second-order accuracy in both time and space and possess strong numerical stability, which allows us to conduct a careful numerical study on the complex interaction among the tumor, the viruses, and the immune systems involved in the tumor virotherapy.

## Rights and permissions

## About this article

### Cite this article

Timalsina, A., Tian, J.P. & Wang, J. Mathematical and Computational Modeling for Tumor Virotherapy with Mediated Immunity.
*Bull Math Biol* **79**, 1736–1758 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11538-017-0304-3

Received:

Accepted:

Published:

Issue Date:

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11538-017-0304-3