Abstract
Virtual clinical trials (VCTs) are growing in popularity as a tool for quantitatively predicting heterogeneous treatment responses across a population. In the context of a VCT, a plausible patient is an instance of a mathematical model with parameter (or attribute) values chosen to reflect features of the disease and response to treatment for that particular patient. A number of techniques have been introduced to determine the set of model parametrizations to include in a virtual patient cohort. These methodologies generally start with a prior distribution for each model parameter and utilize some criteria to determine whether a parameter set sampled from the priors should be included or excluded from the plausible population. No standard technique exists, however, for generating these prior distributions and choosing the inclusion/exclusion criteria. In this work, we rigorously quantify the impact that VCT design choices have on VCT predictions. Rather than use real data and a complex mathematical model, a spatial model of radiotherapy is used to generate simulated patient data and the mathematical model used to describe the patient data is a two-parameter ordinary differential equations model. This controlled setup allows us to isolate the impact of both the prior distribution and the inclusion/exclusion criteria on both the heterogeneity of plausible populations and on predicted treatment response. We find that the prior distribution, rather than the inclusion/exclusion criteria, has a larger impact on the heterogeneity of the plausible population. Yet, the percent of treatment responders in the plausible population was more sensitive to the inclusion/exclusion criteria utilized. This foundational understanding of the role of virtual clinical trial design should help inform the development of future VCTs that use more complex models and real data.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Allen R, Rieger T, Musante C (2016) Efficient generation and selection of virtual populations in quantitative systems pharmacology models. CPT Pharmacometrics Syst Pharmacol 5(3):140–146. https://doi.org/10.1002/psp4.12063
An G (2004) In silico experiments of existing and hypothetical cytokine-directed clinical trials using agent-based modeling*. Crit Care Med 32(10):2050. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.CCM.0000139707.13729.7D
Barish S, Ochs MF, Sontag ED, Gevertz JL (2017) Evaluating optimal therapy robustness by virtual expansion of a sample population, with a case study in cancer immunotherapy. Proc Natl Acad Sci 114(31):6277–6286. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1703355114
Brady R, Enderling H (2019) Mathematical models of cancer: when to predict novel therapies, and when not to. Bull Math Biol 81(10):3722–3731. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11538-019-00640-x
Cassidy T, Craig M (2019) Determinants of combination GM-CSF immunotherapy and oncolytic virotherapy success identified through in silico treatment personalization. PLoS Comput Biol 15(11):1007495. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1007495
Cheng Y, Straube R, Alnaif AE, Huang L, Leil TA, Schmidt BJ (2022) Virtual populations for quantitative systems pharmacology models. In: Bai JPF, Hur J (eds) Systems medicine. Springer, New York, pp 129–179. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-0716-2265-0_8
Cho H, Lewis AL, Storey KM, Jennings R, Shtylla B, Reynolds AM, Byrne HM (2021) A framework for performing data-driven modeling of tumor growth with radiotherapy treatment. In: Segal R, Shtylla B, Sindi S (eds) Using mathematics to understand biological complexity: from cells to populations. Springer, Cham, pp 179–216. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-57129-0_8
Commissioner O.O.T (2019) FDASIA Section 907: Inclusion of Demographic Subgroups in Clinical Trials. FDA . Publisher: FDA. Accessed 2024-05-22
Commissioner O.O.T (2019) Step 3: Clinical Research. FDA . Publisher: FDA. Accessed 2024-05-22
Craig M, Gevertz JL, Kareva I, Wilkie KP (2023) A practical guide for the generation of model-based virtual clinical trials. Front Syst Biol. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsysb.2023.1174647
Creemers JHA, Ankan A, Roes KCB, Schröder G, Mehra N, Figdor CG, Vries IJM, Textor J (2023) In silico cancer immunotherapy trials uncover the consequences of therapy-specific response patterns for clinical trial design and outcome. Nat Commun 14(1):2348. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-023-37933-8
Derippe T, Fouliard S, Declèves X, Mager DE (2022) Accelerating robust plausible virtual patient cohort generation by substituting ODE simulations with parameter space mapping. J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn 49(6):625–644. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10928-022-09826-8
Everett R, Flores KB, Henscheid N, Lagergren J, Larripa K, Li D, Nardini JT, Nguyen PTT, Pitman EB, Rutter EM (2020) A tutorial review of mathematical techniques for quantifying tumor heterogeneity. Math Biosci Eng 17(4):3660–3709. https://doi.org/10.3934/mbe.2020207
Gyuk P, Vassányi I, Kósa I (2019) Blood glucose level prediction for diabetics based on nutrition and insulin administration logs using personalized mathematical models. J Healthc Eng 2019:1–12. https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/8605206
Haidar A, Wilinska ME, Graveston JA, Hovorka R (2013) Stochastic virtual population of subjects with type 1 diabetes for the assessment of closed-loop glucose controllers. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 60(12):3524–3533. https://doi.org/10.1109/TBME.2013.2272736
Jenner AL, Aogo RA, Alfonso S, Crowe V, Deng X, Smith AP, Morel PA, Davis CL, Smith AM, Craig M (2021) COVID-19 virtual patient cohort suggests immune mechanisms driving disease outcomes. PLoS Pathog 17(7):1009753. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.ppat.1009753
Ke Y, Tian T (2019) Approximate Bayesian computational methods for the inference of unknown parameters. In: Gier J, Praeger CE, Tao T (eds) 2017 MATRIX Annals. Springer, Cham, pp 515–529. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-04161-8_45
Klinke DJ (2008) Integrating epidemiological data into a mechanistic model of type 2 diabetes: validating the prevalence of virtual patients. Ann Biomed Eng 36(2):321–334. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10439-007-9410-y
Kolesova G, Stepanov A, Lebedeva G, Demin O (2022) Application of different approaches to generate virtual patient populations for the quantitative systems pharmacology model of erythropoiesis. J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn 49(5):511–524. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10928-022-09814-y
Leyshon T (2021) The ABCs of Approximate Bayesian Computation . https://towardsdatascience.com/the-abcs-of-approximate-bayesian-computation-bfe11b8ca341 Accessed 2024-05-22
Michael CT, Almohri SA, Linderman JJ, Kirschner DE (2024) A framework for multi-scale intervention modeling: virtual cohorts, virtual clinical trials, and model-to-model comparisons. Front Syst Biol. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsysb.2023.1283341
Milberg O, Gong C, Jafarnejad M, Bartelink IH, Wang B, Vicini P, Narwal R, Roskos L, Popel AS (2019) A QSP model for predicting clinical responses to monotherapy, combination and sequential therapy following CTLA-4, PD-1, and PD-L1 checkpoint blockade. Sci Rep 9(1):11286. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-47802-4
Myers RC, Augustin F, Huard J, Friedrich CM (2023) Using machine learning surrogate modeling for faster QSP VP cohort generation. CPT Pharmacometrics Syst Pharmacol 12(8):1047–1059. https://doi.org/10.1002/psp4.12999
Parikh J, Rumbell T, Butova X, Myachina T, Acero JC, Khamzin S, Solovyova O, Kozloski J, Khokhlova A, Gurev V (2022) Generative adversarial networks for construction of virtual populations of mechanistic models: simulations to study Omecamtiv Mecarbil action. J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn 49(1):51–64. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10928-021-09787-4
Pleouras DS, Sakellarios AI, Rigas G, Karanasiou G, Tsompou P, Karanasiou G, Kigka V, Kyriakidis S, Pezoulas V, Gois G et al (2021) A novel approach to generate a virtual population of human coronary arteries for in silico clinical trials of stent design. IEEE Open J Eng Med Biol 2:201–209
Rieger TR, Allen RJ, Bystricky L, Chen Y, Colopy GW, Cui Y, Gonzalez A, Liu Y, White RD, Everett RA, Banks HT, Musante CJ (2018) Improving the generation and selection of virtual populations in quantitative systems pharmacology models. Prog Biophys Mol Biol 139:15–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pbiomolbio.2018.06.002
Sayama H, Marcantonio D, Nagashima T, Shimazaki M, Minematsu T, Apgar JF, Burke JM, Wille L, Nagasaka Y, Kirouac DC (2021) Virtual clinical trial simulations for a novel KRASG12C inhibitor (ASP2453) in non-small cell lung cancer. CPT Pharmacometrics Syst Pharmacol 10(8):864–877. https://doi.org/10.1002/psp4.12661
Schmidt BJ, Casey FP, Paterson T, Chan JR (2013) Alternate virtual populations elucidate the type I interferon signature predictive of the response to rituximab in rheumatoid arthritis. BMC Bioinf 14(1):221. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2105-14-221
Sinisi S, Alimguzhin V, Mancini T, Tronci E, Leeners B (2021) Complete populations of virtual patients for in silico clinical trials. Bioinformatics 36(22–23):5465–5472. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btaa1026
Sosinsky AZ, Rich-Edwards JW, Wiley A, Wright K, Spagnolo PA, Joffe H (2022) Enrollment of female participants in United States drug and device phase 1–3 clinical trials between 2016 and 2019. Contemp Clin Trials 115:106718. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cct.2022.106718
Staff TAP FDA issues new draft guidance to industry for developing plans to enroll participants from underrepresented racial and ethnic populations. https://ascopost.com/issues/may-10-2022/fda-takes-steps-to-increase-racial-and-ethnic-diversity-in-clinical-trials/ Accessed 2024-05-26
Surendran A, Le Sauteur-Robitaille J, Kleimeier D, Gevertz J, Wilkie K, Jenner AL, Craig M (2023) Approaches to generating virtual patient cohorts with applications in oncology. In: Cesario A, D’Oria M, Auffray C, Scambia G (eds) Personalized medicine meets artificial intelligence: beyond hype, towards the metaverse. Springer, Cham, pp 97–119. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-32614-1_8
Zand R, Abedi V, Hontecillas R, Lu P, Noorbakhsh-Sabet N, Verma M, Leber A, Tubau-Juni N, Bassaganya-Riera J (2018) Development of synthetic patient populations and in silico clinical trials. In: Bassaganya-Riera J (ed) Accelerated path to cures. Springer, Cham, pp 57–77. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-73238-1_5
Zhang T, Tyson JJ (2022) Understanding virtual patients efficiently and rigorously by combining machine learning with dynamical modelling. J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn 49(1):117–131. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10928-021-09798-1
Acknowledgements
The authors thank Katie Storey for her support in implementing the cellular automaton model to generate simulated patient data. JLG acknowledges the use of the ELSA high performance computing cluster at The College of New Jersey for conducting the research reported in this paper. This cluster is funded in part by the National Science Foundation under grant numbers OAC-1826915 and OAC-2320244.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose. The code used to generate all the data presented in this manuscript is available at https://github.com/jgevertz/VCT.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Gevertz, J.L., Wares, J.R. Assessing the Role of Patient Generation Techniques in Virtual Clinical Trial Outcomes. Bull Math Biol 86, 119 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11538-024-01345-6
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11538-024-01345-6