Advertisement

Evaluation of a Mechanically Coupled Reaction–Diffusion Model for Macroscopic Brain Tumor Growth

  • Daniel AblerEmail author
  • Philippe Büchler
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Bioengineering book series (LNBE)

Abstract

The macroscopic growth of brain tumors has been studied by means of different computational modeling approaches. Glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) is the most common malignant type and is commonly modeled as a reaction–diffusion type system, accounting for its invasive growth pattern. Purely biomechanical models have been proposed to represent the mass effect caused by the growing tumor, but only a few models consider mass effect and tissue invasion effects in a single 3D model. We report first results of a comparative study that evaluates the ability of a simple computational model to reproduce the shape of pathologies found in patients. GBM invasion into brain tissue and the mechanical interaction between tumor and healthy tissue components are simulated using the finite element method (FEM). Cell proliferation and invasion are modeled as a reaction–diffusion process; simulation of the mechanic interaction relies on a linear elastic material model. Both are coupled by relating the local increase in tumor cell concentration to the generation of isotropic strain in the corresponding tissue element. The model accounts for multiple brain regions with values for proliferation, isotropic diffusion, and mechanical properties derived from literature. Tumors were seeded at multiple locations in FEM models derived from publicly available human brain atlases. Simulation results for a given tumor volume were compared to patient images. Simulated tumors showed a more symmetric growth pattern compared to their real counterparts. Resulting levels of tumor invasiveness were in agreement with simulation parameters and tumor-induced pressures of realistic magnitude were found.

Notes

Acknowledgement

The research leading to these results has received funding from the European Union Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) under grant agreement n° 600841.

References

  1. Bauer S et al (2012) Multiscale modeling for image analysis of brain tumor studies. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 59(1):25–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Burgess PK et al (1997) The interaction of growth rates and diffusion coefficients in a three-dimensional mathematical model of gliomas. J Neuropathol Exp Neurol 56(6):704–713CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Clatz O et al (2005) Realistic simulation of the 3-D growth of brain tumors in MR images coupling diffusion with biomechanical deformation. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 24(10):1334–1346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Fisher RA (1937) The wave of advance of advantageous genes. A Eug 7(4):355–369CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. CGAL, Computational geometry algorithms library, http://www.cgal.org
  6. Gooya A et al (2012) GLISTR: glioma image segmentation and registration. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 31(10):1941–1954CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gu S et al (2012) Applying a patient-specific bio-mathematical model of glioma growth to develop virtual [18F]-FMISO-PET images. Math Med Biol 29(1):31–48CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. Hatzikirou H et al (2005) Mathematical modelling of glioblastoma tumour development: a review. Math Models Methods Appl Sci 15(11):1779–1794MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. Hogea C et al (2007) Modeling glioma growth and mass effect in 3D MR images of the brain. MICCAI, Springer, pp 642–650Google Scholar
  10. Hogea C et al (2008) An image-driven parameter estimation problem for a reaction–diffusion glioma growth model with mass effects. J Math Biol 56(6):793–825Google Scholar
  11. Jain R et al (2014) The role of mechanical forces in tumor growth and therapy. Ann Rev Biomed Eng 16(1):321–346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Jbabdi S et al (2005) Simulation of anisotropic growth of low‐grade gliomas using diffusion tensor imaging. Magn Reson Med 54(3):616–624CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Mohamed A, Davatzikos C (2005) Finite element modeling of brain tumor mass-effect from 3D medical images. MICCAI, Springer, pp 400–408Google Scholar
  14. NCI–MICCAI (2013) Challenge on multimodal brain tumor segmentation. http://martinos.org/qtim/miccai2013/index.html
  15. Porz et al (2014) Multi-modal glioblastoma segmentation: man versus machine. PLoS One 9(5):e96873. http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/metrics?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0096873 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Rangel-Castillo L et al (2008) Management of intracranial hypertension. Neurol Clin 26(2):521–541CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ricard D et al (2012) Primary brain tumours in adults. Lancet 379(9830):1984–1996CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Rockne R et al (2009) A mathematical model for brain tumor response to radiation therapy. J Math Biol 58(4–5):561–578MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. Rockne R et al (2010) Predicting the efficacy of radiotherapy in individual glioblastoma patients in vivo: a mathematical modeling approach. Phys Med Biol 55(12):3271–3285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Rohlfing T et al (2010) The SRI24 multi-channel atlas of normal adult human brain structure. Human Brain Mapp 31(5):798–819CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Sizoo EM et al (2010) Symptoms and problems in the end-of-life phase of high-grade glioma patients. Neuro Oncol 12(11):1162–1166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Swanson KR et al (2000) A quantitative model for differential motility of gliomas in grey and white matter. Cell Prolif 33(5):317–329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Swanson KR et al (2002) Virtual brain tumours (gliomas) enhance the reality of medical imaging and highlight inadequacies of current therapy. Br J Cancer 86(1):14–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Swanson KR et al (2003) Virtual resection of gliomas: effect of extent of resection on recurrence. Math Comput Model 37(11):1177–1190CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  25. Swanson KR et al (2008a) Velocity of radial expansion of contrast-enhancing gliomas and the effectiveness of radiotherapy in individual patients: a proof of principle. Clin Oncol 20(4):301–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Swanson KR et al (2008b) A mathematical modelling tool for predicting survival of individual patients following resection of glioblastoma: a proof of principle. Br J Cancer 98(1):113–119MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Szeto MD et al (2009) Quantitative metrics of net proliferation and invasion link biological aggressiveness assessed by MRI with hypoxia assessed by FMISO-PET in newly diagnosed glioblastomas. Cancer Res 69(10):4502–4509CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Tracqui P et al (1995) A mathematical model of glioma growth: the effect of chemotherapy on spatio‐temporal growth. Cell Prolif 28(1):17–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Wang CH et al (2009) Prognostic significance of growth kinetics in newly diagnosed glioblastomas revealed by combining serial imaging with a novel biomathematical model. Cancer Res 69(23):9133–9140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Wittek A et al (2010) Patient-specific non-linear finite element modelling for predicting soft organ deformation in real-time; application to non-rigid neuroimage registration. Prog Biophys Mol Biol 103:292–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Woodward DE et al (1996) A mathematical model of glioma growth: the effect of extent of surgical resection. Cell Prolif 29(6):269–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for Surgical Technology and Biomechanics (ISTB)University of BernBernSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations