Mathematical modeling of radiotherapy: impact of model selection on estimating minimum radiation dose for tumor control

被引:7
作者
Kutuva, Achyudhan R. [1 ,2 ]
Caudell, Jimmy J. [3 ]
Yamoah, Kosj [3 ]
Enderling, Heiko [1 ,3 ]
Zahid, Mohammad U. [1 ]
机构
[1] H Lee Moffitt Canc Ctr & Res Inst, Dept Integrated Math Oncol, Tampa, FL 33612 USA
[2] Univ Florida, Dept Microbiol & Cell Sci, Gainesville, FL USA
[3] H Lee Moffitt Canc Ctr & Res Inst, Dept Radiat Oncol, Tampa, FL USA
来源
FRONTIERS IN ONCOLOGY | 2023年 / 13卷
关键词
radiotherapy; mathematical modeling; oncology; personalized oncology; model comparison; LINEAR-QUADRATIC MODEL; CANCER; GROWTH; RADIOSENSITIVITY; THERAPY; HEAD;
D O I
10.3389/fonc.2023.1130966
中图分类号
R73 [肿瘤学];
学科分类号
100214 ;
摘要
IntroductionRadiation therapy (RT) is one of the most common anticancer therapies. Yet, current radiation oncology practice does not adapt RT dose for individual patients, despite wide interpatient variability in radiosensitivity and accompanying treatment response. We have previously shown that mechanistic mathematical modeling of tumor volume dynamics can simulate volumetric response to RT for individual patients and estimation personalized RT dose for optimal tumor volume reduction. However, understanding the implications of the choice of the underlying RT response model is critical when calculating personalized RT dose.MethodsIn this study, we evaluate the mathematical implications and biological effects of 2 models of RT response on dose personalization: (1) cytotoxicity to cancer cells that lead to direct tumor volume reduction (DVR) and (2) radiation responses to the tumor microenvironment that lead to tumor carrying capacity reduction (CCR) and subsequent tumor shrinkage. Tumor growth was simulated as logistic growth with pre-treatment dynamics being described in the proliferation saturation index (PSI). The effect of RT was simulated according to each respective model for a standard schedule of fractionated RT with 2 Gy weekday fractions. Parameter sweeps were evaluated for the intrinsic tumor growth rate and the radiosensitivity parameter for both models to observe the qualitative impact of each model parameter. We then calculated the minimum RT dose required for locoregional tumor control (LRC) across all combinations of the full range of radiosensitvity and proliferation saturation values.ResultsBoth models estimate that patients with higher radiosensitivity will require a lower RT dose to achieve LRC. However, the two models make opposite estimates on the impact of PSI on the minimum RT dose for LRC: the DVR model estimates that tumors with higher PSI values will require a higher RT dose to achieve LRC, while the CCR model estimates that higher PSI values will require a lower RT dose to achieve LRC.DiscussionUltimately, these results show the importance of understanding which model best describes tumor growth and treatment response in a particular setting, before using any such model to make estimates for personalized treatment recommendations.
引用
收藏
页数:9
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] The clinical outcome correlations between radiation dose and pretreatment metabolic tumor volume for radiotherapy in head and neck cancer: A retrospective analysis
    Yang, Shih-Neng
    Chiou, Yu-Rou
    Zhang, Geoffrey G.
    Chou, Kuei-Ting
    Huang, Tzung-Chi
    MEDICINE, 2017, 96 (26)
  • [42] Modeling Freedom From Progression for Standard-Risk Medulloblastoma: A Mathematical Tumor Control Model With Multiple Modes of Failure
    Brodin, N. Patrik
    Vogelius, Ivan R.
    Bjork-Eriksson, Thomas
    af Rosenschold, Per Munck
    Bentzen, Soren M.
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RADIATION ONCOLOGY BIOLOGY PHYSICS, 2013, 87 (02): : 422 - 429
  • [43] OPTIMAL CONTROL OF A MATHEMATICAL MODEL FOR CANCER CHEMOTHERAPY UNDER TUMOR HETEROGENEITY
    Wang, Shuo
    Schattler, Heinz
    MATHEMATICAL BIOSCIENCES AND ENGINEERING, 2016, 13 (06) : 1223 - 1240
  • [44] Radiotherapy planning for glioblastoma based on a tumor growth model: implications for spatial dose redistribution
    Unkelbach, Jan
    Menze, Bjoern H.
    Konukoglu, Ender
    Dittmann, Florian
    Ayache, Nicholas
    Shih, Helen A.
    PHYSICS IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY, 2014, 59 (03) : 771 - 789
  • [45] Forecasting tumor and vasculature response dynamics to radiation therapy via image based mathematical modeling
    David A. Hormuth
    Angela M. Jarrett
    Thomas E. Yankeelov
    Radiation Oncology, 15
  • [46] Histology, Tumor Volume, and Radiation Dose Predict Outcomes in NSCLC Patients After Stereotactic Ablative Radiotherapy
    Shiue, Kevin
    Cerra-Franco, Alberto
    Shapiro, Ronald
    Estabrook, Neil
    Mannina, Edward M.
    Deig, Christopher R.
    Althouse, Sandra
    Liu, Sheng
    Wan, Jun
    Zang, Yong
    Agrawal, Namita
    Ioannides, Pericles
    Liu, Yongmei
    Zhang, Chen
    DesRosiers, Colleen
    Bartlett, Greg
    Ewing, Marvene
    Langer, Mark P.
    Watson, Gordon
    Zellars, Richard
    Kong, Feng-Ming
    Lautenschlaeger, Tim
    JOURNAL OF THORACIC ONCOLOGY, 2018, 13 (10) : 1549 - 1559
  • [47] Estimating the impact post randomization changes in staff behavior in infection prevention trials: a mathematical modeling approach
    Lofgren, Eric T.
    BMC INFECTIOUS DISEASES, 2017, 17
  • [48] Estimating the impact of post randomization changes in staff behavior in infection prevention trials: a mathematical modeling approach
    Eric T. Lofgren
    BMC Infectious Diseases, 17
  • [49] The Impact of Tumor Volume and Radiotherapy Dose on Outcome in Previously Irradiated Recurrent Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Head and Neck Treated With Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy
    Rwigema, Jean-Claude M.
    Heron, Dwight E.
    Ferris, Robert L.
    Andrade, Regiane S.
    Gibson, Michael K.
    Yang, Yong
    Ozhasoglu, Cihat
    Argiris, Athanassios E.
    Grandis, Jennifer R.
    Burton, Steven A.
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY-CANCER CLINICAL TRIALS, 2011, 34 (04): : 372 - 379
  • [50] Mathematical modeling and optimal control problems in brain tumor targeted drug delivery strategies
    Belmiloudi, Aziz
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BIOMATHEMATICS, 2017, 10 (04)