Cargando…

Differences in predictions of ODE models of tumor growth: a cautionary example

BACKGROUND: While mathematical models are often used to predict progression of cancer and treatment outcomes, there is still uncertainty over how to best model tumor growth. Seven ordinary differential equation (ODE) models of tumor growth (exponential, Mendelsohn, logistic, linear, surface, Gompert...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Murphy, Hope, Jaafari, Hana, Dobrovolny, Hana M.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4768423/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26921070
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12885-016-2164-x
_version_ 1782417946913538048
author Murphy, Hope
Jaafari, Hana
Dobrovolny, Hana M.
author_facet Murphy, Hope
Jaafari, Hana
Dobrovolny, Hana M.
author_sort Murphy, Hope
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: While mathematical models are often used to predict progression of cancer and treatment outcomes, there is still uncertainty over how to best model tumor growth. Seven ordinary differential equation (ODE) models of tumor growth (exponential, Mendelsohn, logistic, linear, surface, Gompertz, and Bertalanffy) have been proposed, but there is no clear guidance on how to choose the most appropriate model for a particular cancer. METHODS: We examined all seven of the previously proposed ODE models in the presence and absence of chemotherapy. We derived equations for the maximum tumor size, doubling time, and the minimum amount of chemotherapy needed to suppress the tumor and used a sample data set to compare how these quantities differ based on choice of growth model. RESULTS: We find that there is a 12-fold difference in predicting doubling times and a 6-fold difference in the predicted amount of chemotherapy needed for suppression depending on which growth model was used. CONCLUSION: Our results highlight the need for careful consideration of model assumptions when developing mathematical models for use in cancer treatment planning.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4768423
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-47684232016-02-27 Differences in predictions of ODE models of tumor growth: a cautionary example Murphy, Hope Jaafari, Hana Dobrovolny, Hana M. BMC Cancer Research Article BACKGROUND: While mathematical models are often used to predict progression of cancer and treatment outcomes, there is still uncertainty over how to best model tumor growth. Seven ordinary differential equation (ODE) models of tumor growth (exponential, Mendelsohn, logistic, linear, surface, Gompertz, and Bertalanffy) have been proposed, but there is no clear guidance on how to choose the most appropriate model for a particular cancer. METHODS: We examined all seven of the previously proposed ODE models in the presence and absence of chemotherapy. We derived equations for the maximum tumor size, doubling time, and the minimum amount of chemotherapy needed to suppress the tumor and used a sample data set to compare how these quantities differ based on choice of growth model. RESULTS: We find that there is a 12-fold difference in predicting doubling times and a 6-fold difference in the predicted amount of chemotherapy needed for suppression depending on which growth model was used. CONCLUSION: Our results highlight the need for careful consideration of model assumptions when developing mathematical models for use in cancer treatment planning. BioMed Central 2016-02-26 /pmc/articles/PMC4768423/ /pubmed/26921070 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12885-016-2164-x Text en © Murphy et al. 2016 Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver(http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research Article
Murphy, Hope
Jaafari, Hana
Dobrovolny, Hana M.
Differences in predictions of ODE models of tumor growth: a cautionary example
title Differences in predictions of ODE models of tumor growth: a cautionary example
title_full Differences in predictions of ODE models of tumor growth: a cautionary example
title_fullStr Differences in predictions of ODE models of tumor growth: a cautionary example
title_full_unstemmed Differences in predictions of ODE models of tumor growth: a cautionary example
title_short Differences in predictions of ODE models of tumor growth: a cautionary example
title_sort differences in predictions of ode models of tumor growth: a cautionary example
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4768423/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26921070
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12885-016-2164-x
work_keys_str_mv AT murphyhope differencesinpredictionsofodemodelsoftumorgrowthacautionaryexample
AT jaafarihana differencesinpredictionsofodemodelsoftumorgrowthacautionaryexample
AT dobrovolnyhanam differencesinpredictionsofodemodelsoftumorgrowthacautionaryexample