Simulating tumor volume dynamics in response to radiotherapy: Implications of model selection
From the beginning of the usage of radiotherapy (RT) for cancer treatment, mathematical modeling has been integral to understanding radiobiology and for designing treatment approaches and schedules. There has been extensive modeling of response to RT with the inclusion of various degrees of biologic...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of theoretical biology 2024-01, Vol.576, p.111656-111656, Article 111656 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | From the beginning of the usage of radiotherapy (RT) for cancer treatment, mathematical modeling has been integral to understanding radiobiology and for designing treatment approaches and schedules. There has been extensive modeling of response to RT with the inclusion of various degrees of biological complexity. In this study, we compare three models of tumor volume dynamics: (1) exponential growth with RT directly reducing tumor volume, (2) logistic growth with direct tumor volume reduction, and (3) logistic growth with RT reducing the tumor carrying capacity with the objective of understanding the implications of model selection and informing the process of model calibration and parameterization. For all three models, we: examined the rates of change in tumor volume during and RT treatment course; performed parameter sensitivity and identifiability analyses; and investigated the impact of the parameter sensitivity on the tumor volume trajectories. In examining the tumor volume dynamics trends, we coined a new metric - the point of maximum reduction of tumor volume (MRV) - to quantify the magnitude and timing of the expected largest impact of RT during a treatment course. We found distinct timing differences in MRV, dependent on model selection. The parameter identifiability and sensitivity analyses revealed the interdependence of the different model parameters and that it is only possible to independently identify tumor growth and radiation response parameters if the underlying tumor growth rate is sufficiently large. Ultimately, the results of these analyses help us to better understand the implications of model selection while simultaneously generating falsifiable hypotheses about MRV timing that can be tested on longitudinal measurements of tumor volume from pre-clinical or clinical data with high acquisition frequency. Although, our study only compares three particular models, the results demonstrate that caution is necessary in selecting models of response to RT, given the artifacts imposed by each model. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 0022-5193 1095-8541 |
DOI: | 10.1016/j.jtbi.2023.111656 |