Monitoring noise-resonant effects in cancer growth influenced by external fluctuations and periodic treatment
- 141 Downloads
We investigate a mathematical model describing the growth of tumor in the presence of immune response of a host organism. The dynamics of tumor and immune cells populations is based on the generic Michaelis-Menten kinetics depicting interaction and competition between the tumor and the immune system. The appropriate phenomenological equation modeling cell-mediated immune surveillance against cancer is of the predator-prey form and exhibits bistability within a given choice of the immune response-related parameters. Under the influence of weak external fluctuations, the model may be analyzed in terms of a stochastic differential equation bearing the form of an overdamped Langevin-like dynamics in the external quasi-potential represented by a double well. We analyze properties of the system within the range of parameters for which the potential wells are of the same depth and when the additional perturbation, modeling a periodic treatment, is insufficient to overcome the barrier height and to cause cancer extinction. In this case the presence of a small amount of noise can positively enhance the treatment, driving the system to a state of tumor extinction. On the other hand, however, the same noise can give rise to return effects up to a stochastic resonance behavior. This observation provides a quantitative analysis of mechanisms responsible for optimization of periodic tumor therapy in the presence of spontaneous external noise. Studying the behavior of the extinction time as a function of the treatment frequency, we have also found the typical resonant activation effect: For a certain frequency of the treatment, there exists a minimum extinction time.
PACS05.40.-a Fluctuation phenomena, random processes, noise, and Brownian motion 87.17.Aa Modeling, computer simulation of cell processes 87.15.A-Theory, modeling, and computer simulation
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 2.R.O. Dillman, Future Drugs 5, 6 1041 (2005)Google Scholar
- 3.R.M. Thorn, C.S. Henney, J. Immunol. 117, 6 2213 (1976)Google Scholar
- 4.P.M. Moy, E.C. Holmes, S.H. Golub, Cancer Research, 45, 1 57 (1985)Google Scholar
- 13.R. Lefever, R. Garay, Local description of immune tumor rejection, Dev. Cell Biol., edited by A.J. Valleron, P.D.M. Macdonald (Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1978), Vol. 2Google Scholar
- 15.I. Prigogine, R. Lefever, Comp. Biochem. Physiol. 67B, 389 (1980)Google Scholar
- 17.W. Ebeling, B. Röder, L. Schimansky-Geier, Studia Biophys. 113, 1–2 151 (1986)Google Scholar
- 18.E. Gudowska-Nowak, Acta Phys. Pol. A. 64, 341 (1983)Google Scholar
- 19.E. Gudowska-Nowak, Acta Phys. Pol. A. 65, 573 (1984)Google Scholar
- 25.C.R. Doering, J.C. Gadoua, Phys. Rev. Lett. 69, 2318 (1992); M. Bier, R.D. Astumian, Phys. Rev. Lett. 71, 1649 (1993); P. Reimann, Phys. Rev. Lett. 74, 4576 (1995); M. Marchi et al., Phys. Rev. E 54, 3479 (1996); J. Iwaniszewski, Phys. Rev. E 54, 3173 (1996); M. Bogu~n’a, J.M. Porra, J. Masoliver, K. Lindenberg, Phys. Rev. E 57, 3990 (1998); R.N. Mantegna, B. Spagnolo, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 3025 (2000); P. Pechukas, P. Hänggi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 73, 2772 (1994)CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
- 30.M.D. Hiroki Shirato et al., Int. J. Radiation Oncology Biol. Phys. 56, 240 (2003)Google Scholar