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

  • György Eigner
  • Levente KovácsEmail author
Part of the Topics in Intelligent Engineering and Informatics book series (TIEI, volume 14)


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.


Tumor growth control Linear parameter varying Tensor product model transformation 


  1. 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. 2.
    P. Charlton, J. Spicer, Targeted therapy in cancer. Medicine 44(1), 34–38 (2016)Google Scholar
  3. 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. 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. 5.
    Y. Kubota, Tumor angiogenesis and antiangiogenic therapy. Keio J. Med. 61, 47–56 (2012)Google Scholar
  6. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 25.
    M.S. Grewal, A.P. Andrews, Kalman Filtering: Theory and Practice Using MATLAB, 3rd edn. (Wiley, Chichester, 2008)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  26. 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. 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. 28.
    P. Baranyi, Extension of the Multi-TP Model Transformation to Functions with Different Numbers of Variables. Complexity 2018 (2018)Google Scholar
  29. 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. 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. 31.
    A.P. White, G. Zhu, J. Choi, Linear Parameter Varying Control for Engineering Applicaitons, 1st edn. (Springer, London, 2013)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    C. Briat, Linear parameter-varying and time-delay systems. Analysis, Observation, Filtering & Control, 3 (2014)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    G.B. Thomas, R.L. Finney, M.D. Weir, F.R. Giordano, Thomas’ calculus (Addison-Wesley Reading, Boston, 2003)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    P. Baranyi, TP-model Transformation-based-control Design Frameworks (Springer, Berlin, 2016)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  35. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 65.
    M. Chilali, P. Gahinet. \(H_{\infty }\) design with pole placement constraints: an lmi approachGoogle Scholar
  66. 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. 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. 68.
    J. Löfberg, Yalmip: a toolbox for modeling and optimization in matlab, in Proceedings of the CACSD Conference, Taipei, Taiwan (2004)Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    MOSEK ApS, The MOSEK optimization toolbox for MATLAB manual. Version 7.1 (Revision 28). (2015)Google Scholar
  70. 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. 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. 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. 73.
    H. Musoff, P. Zarchan, Fundamentals of Kalman Filtering: A Practical Approach , 3rd edn. (American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2009)Google Scholar
  74. 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. 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

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Physiological Controls Research CenterResearch, Innovation and Service Center of Óbuda UniversityBudapestHungary

Personalised recommendations