Recent Advances in Intelligent Engineering pp 223-252 | Cite as

# A TP-LPV-LMI Approach to Control of Tumor Growth

## Abstract

By using advanced control techniques to control physiological systems sophisticated control regimes can be realized. There are several challenges need to be solved in these approaches, however. Most of the time, the lack of information of the internal dynamics, the nonlinear behavior of the system to be controlled and the variabilities coming from that simple fact that people are different and their specifics vary in time makes the control design difficult. Nevertheless, the use of appropriate methodologies can facilitate to find solutions to them. In this study, our aim is to introduce different techniques and by combining them we show an effective way for control design with respect to physiological systems. Our solution stands on four pillars: transformation of the formulated model into control oriented model (COM) form; use the COM for linear parameter varying (LPV) kind modeling to handle unfavorable dynamics as linear dependencies; tensor product modeling (TPM) to downsize the computational costs both from modeling and control design viewpoint; and finally, using linear matrix inequalities (LMI) based controller design to satisfy predefined requirements. The occurring TP-LPV-LMI controller is able to enforce a given, nonlinear system to behave as a selected reference system. In this study, the detailed control solution is applied for tumor growth control to maintain the volume of the tumor.

## Keywords

Tumor growth control Linear parameter varying Tensor product model transformation## References

- 1.K. Xing, S. Lisong, Molecular targeted therapy of cancer: the progress and future prospect. Front. Lab. Med.
**1**(2), 69–75 (2017)Google Scholar - 2.P. Charlton, J. Spicer, Targeted therapy in cancer. Medicine
**44**(1), 34–38 (2016)Google Scholar - 3.N.S. Vasudev, A.R. Reynolds, Anti-angiogenic therapy for cancer: current progress, unresolved questions and future directions. Angiogenesis
**17**(3), 471–494 (2014)Google Scholar - 4.A.M.E. Abdalla, L. Xiao, M.W. Ullah, M. Yu, C. Ouyang, G. Yang, Current challenges of cancer anti-angiogenic therapy and the promise of nanotherapeutics. Theranostics
**8**(2), 533–548 (2018)Google Scholar - 5.Y. Kubota, Tumor angiogenesis and antiangiogenic therapy. Keio J. Med.
**61**, 47–56 (2012)Google Scholar - 6.J. Sápi, Controller-managed automated therapy and tumor growth model identification in the case of antiangiogenic therapy for most effective, individualized treatment. Ph.D. Thesis, Óbuda University, Budapest, Hungary, 2015Google Scholar
- 7.C. Ionescu, R. De Keyser, J. Sabatier, A. Oustaloup, F. Levron, Low frequency constant-phase behavior in the respiratory impedance. Biomed. Signal Process.
**6**(2), 197–208 (2011)Google Scholar - 8.D. Copot, R. De Keyser, J. Juchem, C.M. Ionescu, Fractional order impedance model to estimate glucose concentration: in vitro analysis. ACTA Polytech. Hung.
**14**(1), 207–220 (2017)Google Scholar - 9.L. Kovács, A robust fixed point transformation-based approach for type 1 diabetes control. Nonlinear Dyn.
**89**(4), 2481–2493 (2017)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar - 10.C. Ionescu, A. Lopes, D. Copot, J.A.T. Machado, J.H.T. Bates, The role of fractional calculus in modeling biological phenomena: a review. Commun. Nonlinear Sci.
**51**, 141–159 (2017)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar - 11.A. Dineva, J.K. Tar, A. Várkonyi-Kóczy, V. Piuri, Adaptive controller using fixed point transformation for regulating propofol administration through wavelet-based anesthetic value, in
*2016 IEEE International Symposium on Medical Measurements and Applications (MeMeA)*(IEEE, 2016), pp. 1–6Google Scholar - 12.F.S. Lobato, V.S. Machado, V. Steffen, Determination of an optimal control strategy for drug administration in tumor treatment using multi-objective optimization differential evolution. Comput. Methods Programs Biomed.
**131**, 51–61 (2016)Google Scholar - 13.D. Drexler, J. Sápi, L. Kovács, Potential benefits of discrete-time controller-based treatments over protocol-based cancer therapies. Acta Polytech. Hung.
**14**(1), 11–23 (2017)Google Scholar - 14.J. Klamka, H. Maurer, A. Swierniak, Local controllability and optimal control for a model of combined anticancer therapy with control delays. Math. Biosci. Eng.
**14**(1), 195–216 (2017)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar - 15.D.A. Drexler, J. Sápi, L. Kovács, Modeling of tumor growth incorporating the effects of necrosis and the effect of bevacizumab. Complexity
**2017**, 1–10 (2017)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar - 16.D. Drexler, J. Sápi, L. Kovács, Positive nonlinear control of tumor growth using angiogenic inhibition. IFAC-PapersOnLine
**50**(1), 15068–15073 (2017). (20th IFAC World Congress)Google Scholar - 17.J. Kuti, Generalization of tensor product model based control analysis and synthesis. Ph.D. Thesis, Applied Informatics and Applied Mathemathics Doctoral School, Óbuda University, Budapest, Hungary, 2018Google Scholar
- 18.P.H. Colmegna, R.S. Sanchez-Pena, R. Gondhalekar, E. Dassau, F.J. Doyle, Switched LPV glucose control in type 1 diabetes. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng.
**63**(6), 1192–1200 (2016)Google Scholar - 19.L. Kovács, Linear parameter varying (LPV) based robust control of type-I diabetes driven for real patient data. Knowl-Based Syst.
**122**, 199–213 (2017)Google Scholar - 20.S. Boyd, L. El Ghaoui, E. Feron, V. Balakrishnan,
*Linear Matrix Inequalities in System and Control Theory*, vol. 15 (Siam, 1994)Google Scholar - 21.G. Herrmann, M.C. Turner, I. Postlethwaite, Linear matrix inequalities in control, in
*Mathematical Methods for Robust and Nonlinear Control*(Springer, Berlin, 2007), pp. 123–142Google Scholar - 22.P. Baranyi, Y. Yam, P. Varlaki,
*Tensor Product Model Transformation in Polytopic Model-Based Control*, 1st edn. (CRC Press, USA, 2013)zbMATHGoogle Scholar - 23.A. Szollosi, P. Baranyi, Influence of the tensor product model representation of qLPV models on the feasibility of linear matrix inequality based stability analysis. Asian J. Control
**20**(1), 531–547 (2018)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar - 24.Gy. Eigner, L. Kovács, Linear matrix inequality based control of tumor growth, in
*2017 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics*, ed. by L. Deng (IEEE Systems, Man and Cybernetics Society, New York, 2017), pp. 1734–1739Google Scholar - 25.M.S. Grewal, A.P. Andrews,
*Kalman Filtering: Theory and Practice Using MATLAB*, 3rd edn. (Wiley, Chichester, 2008)zbMATHGoogle Scholar - 26.P. Hahnfeldt, D. Panigrahy, J. Folkman, L. Hlatky, Tumor development under angiogenic signaling: a dynamical theory of tumor growth, treatment response, and postvascular dormancy. Cancer Res.
**59**, 4770–4775 (1999)Google Scholar - 27.J. Sápi, D.A. Drexler, L. Kovács, Potential benefits of discrete-time controller based treatments over protocol-based cancer therapies. Acta Polytech. Hung.
**14**(1), 11–23 (2017)Google Scholar - 28.P. Baranyi, Extension of the Multi-TP Model Transformation to Functions with Different Numbers of Variables. Complexity
**2018**(2018)Google Scholar - 29.R. Tóth, Modeling and identification of linear parameter-varying systems, in
*Lecture Notes in Control and Information Sciences*, vol. 403 (Springer, Berlin, 2010)Google Scholar - 30.O. Sename, P. Gáspár, J. Bokor, Robust control and linear parameter varying approaches, application to vehicle dynamics, in
*Lecture Notes in Control and Information Sciences*, vol. 437 (Springer, Berlin, 2013)Google Scholar - 31.A.P. White, G. Zhu, J. Choi,
*Linear Parameter Varying Control for Engineering Applicaitons*, 1st edn. (Springer, London, 2013)zbMATHGoogle Scholar - 32.C. Briat,
*Linear parameter-varying and time-delay systems*. Analysis, Observation, Filtering & Control, 3 (2014)Google Scholar - 33.G.B. Thomas, R.L. Finney, M.D. Weir, F.R. Giordano,
*Thomas’ calculus*(Addison-Wesley Reading, Boston, 2003)Google Scholar - 34.P. Baranyi,
*TP-model Transformation-based-control Design Frameworks*(Springer, Berlin, 2016)zbMATHGoogle Scholar - 35.L-E. Hedrea, C-A. Bojan-Dragos, R-E. Precup, R-C. Roman, E.M. Petriu, C. Hedrea, Tensor product-based model transformation for position control of magnetic levitation systems, in
*2017 IEEE 26th International Symposium on Industrial Electronics (ISIE)*(IEEE, 2017), pp. 1141–1146Google Scholar - 36.L-E. Hedrea, C-A. Bojan-Dragos, R-E. Precup, T-A. Teban, Tensor product-based model transformation for level control of vertical three tank systems, in
*2017 IEEE 21st International Conference on Intelligent Engineering Systems (INES)*(IEEE, 2017), pp. 000113–000118Google Scholar - 37.J. Kuti, P. Galambos, P. Baranyi, Minimal volume simplex (MVS) convex hull generation and manipulation methodology for TP model transformation. Asian J. Control
**19**(1), 289–301 (2017)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar - 38.P. Galambos, P. Baranyi, TP model transformation: a systematic modelling framework to handle internal time delays in control systems. Asian J. Control
**17**(2), 1–11 (2015)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar - 39.J. Kuti, P. Galambos, P. Baranyi, Control analysis and synthesis through polytopic tensor product model: a general concept. IFAC-PapersOnLine
**50**(1), 6558–6563 (2017)Google Scholar - 40.S. Campos, V. Costa, L. Tôrres, R. Palhares, Revisiting the TP model transformation: interpolation and rule reduction. Asian J. Control
**17**(2), 392–401 (2015)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar - 41.Q. Weiwei, H. Bing, L. Gang, Z. Pengtao, Robust model predictive tracking control of hypersonic vehicles in the presence of actuator constraints and input delays. J. Frankl. Inst.
**353**(17), 4351–4367 (2016)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar - 42.X. Liu, X. Xin, Z. Li, Z. Chen, Near optimal control based on the Tensor-product technique. IEEE Trans. Circuits II
**64**(5), 560–564 (2017)Google Scholar - 43.X. Liu, Y. Yu, Z. Li, H. Iu, Polytopic H\(_\infty \) filter design and relaxation for nonlinear systems via tensor product technique. Signal Process.
**127**, 191–205 (2016)Google Scholar - 44.X. Liu, Y. Yu, Z. Li, H. Iu, T. Fernando, A novel constant gain Kalman filter design for nonlinear systems. Signal Process.
**135**, 158–167 (2017)Google Scholar - 45.P.S. Saikrishna, R. Pasumarthy, N.P. Bhatt, Identification and multivariable gain-scheduling control for cloud computing systems. IEEE Trans. Control Syst. Technol.
**25**(3), 792–807 (2017)Google Scholar - 46.Gy. Eigner, I. Böjthe, P. Pausits, L. Kovács. Investigation of the TP modeling possibilities of the Hovorka T1DM model, in
*2017 IEEE 15th International Symposium on Applied Machine Intelligence and Informatics (SAMI)*(IEEE, 2017), pp. 259–264Google Scholar - 47.Gy. Eigner, P. Pausits, L. Kovács, Control of T1DM via tensor product-based framework, in
*2016 IEEE 17th International Symposium on Computational Intelligence and Informatics (CINTI)*(IEEE, 2016), pp. 55–60Google Scholar - 48.Gy. Eigner, I. Rudas, A. Szakál, L. Kovács, Tensor product based modeling of tumor growth, in
*2017 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (SMC)*(IEEE, 2017), pp. 900–905Google Scholar - 49.Gy. Eigner, I. Rudas, L. Kovács, Investigation of the tp-based modeling possibility of a nonlinear icu diabetes model, in
*2016 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (SMC)*(IEEE, 2016), pp. 3405–3410Google Scholar - 50.L Kovács, Gy. Eigner, Convex polytopic modeling of diabetes mellitus: a tensor product based approach, in
*2016 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (SMC)*(IEEE, 2016), pp. 003393–003398Google Scholar - 51.J. Klespitz, I. Rudas, L. Kovács, LMI-based feedback regulator design via TP transformation for fluid volume control in blood purification therapies, in
*2015 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (SMC)*(IEEE, 2015), pp. 2615–2619Google Scholar - 52.S. Kuntanapreeda, Tensor product model transformation based control and synchronization of a class of fractional-order chaotic systems. Asian J. Control
**17**(2), 371–380 (2015)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar - 53.G. Zhao, D. Wang, Z. Song, A novel tensor product model transformation-based adaptive variable universe of discourse controller. J. Frankl. Inst.
**353**(17), 4471–4499 (2016)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar - 54.W. Qin, B. He, Q. Qin, G. Liu, Robust active controller of hypersonic vehicles in the presence of actuator constraints and input delays, in
*2016 35th Chinese Control Conference (CCC)*(IEEE, 2016), pp. 10718–10723Google Scholar - 55.T. Wang, B. Liu. Different polytopic decomposition for visual servoing system with LMI-based predictive control, in
*2016 35th Chinese Control Conference (CCC)*(IEEE, 2016), pp. 10320–10324Google Scholar - 56.T. Wang, W. Zhang, The visual-based robust model predictive control for two-DOF video tracking system, in
*2016 Chinese Control and Decision Conference (CCDC)*(IEEE, 2016), pp. 3743–3747Google Scholar - 57.T. Jiang, D. Lin, Tensor product model-based gain scheduling of a missile autopilot. Trans. Jpn. Soc. Aeronaut. Space Sci.
**59**(3), 142–149 (2016)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar - 58.J. Pan, L. Lu, TP model transformation via sequentially truncated higher-order singular value decomposition. Asian J. Control
**17**(2), 467–475 (2015)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar - 59.R.-E. Precup, E.M. Petriu, M.-B. Rădac, S. Preitl, L.-O. Fedorovici, C.-A. Dragoş, Cascade control system-based cost effective combination of tensor product model transformation and fuzzy control. Asian J. Control
**17**(2), 381–391 (2015)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar - 60.Sz. Nagy, Z. Petres, P. Baranyi, H. Hashimoto, Computational relaxed TP model transformation: restricting the computation to subspaces of the dynamic model. Asian J. Control
**11**(5), 461–475 (2009)Google Scholar - 61.J. Cui, K. Zhang, T. Ma, An efficient algorithm for the tensor product model transformation. Int. J. Control Autom.
**14**(5), 1205–1212 (2016)Google Scholar - 62.A. Szollosi, P. Baranyi, Influence of the tensor product model representation of qLPV models on the feasibility of linear matrix inequality. Asian J. Control
**18**(4), 1328–1342 (2016)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar - 63.S. Boyd, L. El Ghaoui, E. Feron, V. Balakrishnan,
*Linear Matrix Inequalities in System and Control Theory*, vol. 15. Studies in Applied Mathematics (SIAM, Philadelphia, 1994)Google Scholar - 64.K. Tanaka, H.O. Wang,
*Fuzzy Control Systems Design and Analysis: A Linear Matrix Inequality Approach*, 1st edn. (Wiley, Chichester, 2001)Google Scholar - 65.M. Chilali, P. Gahinet. \(H_{\infty }\) design with pole placement constraints: an lmi approachGoogle Scholar
- 66.J.G. VanAntwerp, R.D. Braatz, A tutorial on linear and bilinear matrix inequalities. J. Process. Control
**10**, 363–385 (2000)Google Scholar - 67.P. Gahinet, M. Chilali, P. Apkarian, Robust pole placement in LMI regions. IEEE Trans. Autom. Control
**44**(12), 2257–2270 (1999)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar - 68.J. Löfberg, Yalmip: a toolbox for modeling and optimization in matlab, in
*Proceedings of the CACSD Conference, Taipei, Taiwan*(2004)Google Scholar - 69.MOSEK ApS, The MOSEK optimization toolbox for MATLAB manual. Version 7.1 (Revision 28). (2015)Google Scholar
- 70.J.K. Tar, J. Bitó, L. Nádai, J.A. Tenreiro Machado, Robust fixed point transformations in adaptive control using local basin of attraction. Acta Polytech. Hung.
**6**(1), 21–37 (2009)Google Scholar - 71.B. Siciliano, L. Sciavicco, L. Villani, G. Oriolo,
*Robotics-Modelling, Planning and Control*, Advanced Textbooks in Control and Signal Processing (Springer, Berlin, 2009)Google Scholar - 72.Y. Tagawa, J.Y. Tu, D.P. Stoten, Inverse dynamics compensation via simulation of feedback control systems. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part I J. Syst. Control Eng.
**225**(1), 137–153 (2011)Google Scholar - 73.H. Musoff, P. Zarchan,
*Fundamentals of Kalman Filtering: A Practical Approach*, 3rd edn. (American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2009)Google Scholar - 74.J. Hartikainen, A. Solin, S. Särkkä,
*Optimal Filtering with Kalman Filters and Smoothers a Manual for the Matlab toolbox EKF/UKF*. (Aalto University, 2011)Google Scholar - 75.L. Kovács, Gy. Eigner, Tensor Product Model Transformation based Par-allel Distributed Control of Tumor Growth. Acta Polytech. Hung.
**15**(3), 101–123 (2018)Google Scholar