Current advances in mathematical modeling of anti-cancer drug penetration into tumor tissues

Frontiers in Oncology

Volumn 3 NOV, Issue , 2013, Pages

  Kim, MunJu ^a   Gillies, Robert J ^a   Rejniak, Katarzyna A ^a,b  

^a H LEE MOFFITT CANCER CENTER AND RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDA   (United States)

Author keywords

Drug distribution; Drug penetration; Drug pharmacodynamics; Mathematical modeling; Solid tumor; Tumor microenvironment

Indexed keywords

ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENT;

ANISOTROPY; CYTOTOXICITY; DRUG PENETRATION; DRUG RELEASE; DRUG TRANSPORT; FLUORESCENCE MICROSCOPY; MATHEMATICAL MODEL; MICROCIRCULATION; PHARMACODYNAMICS; REVIEW; SIMULATION; TUMOR RECURRENCE; TUMOR VOLUME; VASCULARIZATION;

EID: 84891067126     PISSN: None     EISSN: 2234943X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2013.00278     Document Type: Review

References (87)

1. Mould DR, Upton RN. Basic concepts in population modeling, simulation, and model-based drug development. CPT Pharmacometr Syst Pharmacol (2012) 1:e6. doi: 10.1038/psp.2012.4. Epub 2012/01/01
2. Mould DR, Upton RN. Basic concepts in population modeling, simulation, and model-based drug development-part 2: introduction to pharmacokinetic modeling methods. CPT Pharmacometr Syst Pharmacol (2013) 2:e38. doi:10.1038/psp.2013.14. Epub 2013/07/28
3. Silva AS, Kam Y, Khin ZP, Minton SE, Gillies RJ, Gatenby RA. Evolutionary approaches to prolong progression-free survival in breast cancer. Cancer Res (2012) 72(24):6362-70. doi:10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-12-2235. Epub 2012/10/16
4. Song B, Yuan H, Pham SV, Jameson CJ, Murad S. Nanoparticle permeation induces water penetration, ion transport, and lipid flip-flop. Langmuir (2012) 28(49):16989-7000. doi:10.1021/la302879r. Epub 2012/11/23
5. Thurber GM, Weissleder R. A systems approach for tumor pharmacokinetics. PLoS One (2011) 6(9):e24696. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0024696. Epub 2011/09/22
6. Huynh L, Masereeuw R, Friedberg T, Ingelman-Sundberg M, Manivet P. In silico platform for xenobiotics ADME-T pharmacological properties modeling and prediction. Part I: beyond the reduction of animal model use. Drug Discov Today (2009) 14(7-8):401-5. doi:10.1016/j.drudis.2009.01.009. Epub 2009/04/03
7. Kerns EH, Di L. Drug-Like Properties: Concepts, Structure Design and Methods: From ADME to Toxicity Optimization. Amsterdam: Academic Press (2008). 526 p.
8. Butcher EC, Berg EL, Kunkel EJ. Systems biology in drug discovery. Nat Biotechnol (2004) 22(10):1253-9. doi:10.1038/nbt1017. Epub 2004/10/08
9. Beresford AP, Selick HE, Tarbit MH. The emerging importance of predictive ADME simulation in drug discovery. Drug Discov Today (2002) 7(2):109-16. doi:10.1016/S1359-6446(01)02100-6. Epub 2002/01/16
10. Kuh HJ, Jang SH, Wientjes MG, Au JL. Computational model of intracellular pharmacokinetics of paclitaxel. J Pharmacol Exp Ther (2000) 293(3):761-70. Epub 2000/06/28
11. Rippley RK, Stokes CL. Effects of cellular pharmacology on drug distribution in tissues. Biophys J (1995) 69(3):825-39. doi:10.1016/S0006-3495(95)79956-8. Epub 1995/09/01
12. Au JL, Jang SH, Zheng J, Chen CT, Song S, Hu L, et al. Determinants of drug delivery and transport to solid tumors. J Control Release (2001) 74(1-3):31-46. doi:10.1016/S0168-3659(01)00308-X. Epub 2001/08/08
13. Primeau AJ, Rendon A, Hedley D, Lilge L, Tannock IF. The distribution of the anticancer drug doxorubicin in relation to blood vessels in solid tumors. Clin Cancer Res (2005) 11(24):8782-8. doi:10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-05-1664
14. Minchinton AI, Tannock IF. Drug penetration in solid tumours. Nat Rev Cancer (2006) 6(8):583-92. doi:10.1038/nrc1893. Epub 2006/07/25
15. Cardenas-Rodriguez J, Li Y, Galons JP, Cornnell H, Gillies RJ, Pagel MD, et al. Imaging biomarkers to monitor response to the hypoxia-activated prodrug TH-302 in the MiaPaCa2 flank xenograft model. Magn Reson Imaging (2012) 30(7):1002-9. doi:10.1016/j.mri.2012.02.015. Epub 2012/05/05
16. Saggar JK, Fung AS, Patel KJ, Tannock IF. Use of molecular biomarkers to quantify the spatial distribution of effects of anticancer drugs in solid tumors. Mol Cancer Ther (2013) 12(4):542-52. doi:10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-12-0967
17. Thurber GM, Yang KS, Reiner T, Kohler RH, Sorger P, Mitchison T, et al. Single-cell and subcellular pharmacokinetic imaging allows insight into drug action in vivo. Nat Commun (2013) 4:1504. doi:10.1038/ncomms2506. Epub 2013/02/21
18. Xi L, Grobmyer SR, Zhou G, Qian W, Yang L, Jiang H. Molecular photoacoustic tomography of breast cancer using receptor targeted magnetic iron oxide nanoparticles as contrast agents. J Biophotonics (2012). doi:10.1002/jbio.201200155
19. Weissleder R, Pittet MJ. Imaging in the era of molecular oncology. Nature (2008) 452(7187):580-9. doi:10.1038/nature06917
20. Gillies RJ, Anderson AR, Gatenby RA, Morse DL. The biology underlying molecular imaging in oncology: from genome to anatome and back again. Clin Radiol (2010) 65(7):517-21. doi:10.1016/j.crad.2010.04.005. Epub 2010/06/15
21. Morse DL, Gillies RJ. Molecular imaging and targeted therapies. Biochem Pharmacol (2010) 80(5):731-8. doi:10.1016/j.bcp.2010.04.011. Epub 2010/04/20
22. McGuire MF, Enderling H, Wallace DI, Batra JS, Jordan M, Kumar S, et al. Formalizing an integrative multidisciplinary cancer therapy discovery workflow. Cancer Res (2013) 73(2):6111-7. doi:10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-13-0310
23. Enderling H, Rejniak KA. Simulating cancer: computational models in oncology. Front Oncol (2013) 3:233. doi:10.3389/fonc.2013.00233
24. Choe SC, Zhao G, Zhao Z, Rosenblatt JD, Cho HM, Shin SU, et al. Model for in vivo progression of tumors based on co-evolving cell population and vasculature. Sci Rep (2011) 1:31. doi:10.1038/srep00031. Epub 2012/02/23
25. Frieboes HB, Chaplain MA, Thompson AM, Bearer EL, Lowengrub JS, Cristini V. Physical oncology: a bench-to-bedside quantitative and predictive approach. Cancer Res (2011) 71(2):298-302. doi:10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-10-2676. Epub 2011/01/13
26. Liu C, Krishnan J, Stebbing J, Xu XY. Use of mathematical models to understand anticancer drug delivery and its effect on solid tumors. Pharmacogenomics (2011) 12(9):1337-48. doi:10.2217/pgs.11.71. Epub 2011/09/17
27. Michor F, Liphardt J, Ferrari M, Widom J. What does physics have to do with cancer? Nat Rev Cancer (2011) 11(9):657-70. doi:10.1038/nrc3092. Epub 2011/08/19
28. Byrne HM. Dissecting cancer through mathematics: from the cell to the animal model. Nat Rev Cancer (2010) 10(3):221-30. doi:10.1038/nrc2808. Epub 2010/02/25
29. Swierniak A, Kimmel M, Smieja J. Mathematical modeling as a tool for planning anticancer therapy. Eur J Pharmacol (2009) 625(1-3):108-21. doi:10.1016/j.ejphar.2009.08.041
30. Stylianopoulos T, Soteriou K, Fukumura D, Jain RK. Cationic nanoparticles have superior transvascular flux into solid tumors: insights from a mathematical model. Ann Biomed Eng (2013) 41(1):68-77. doi:10.1007/s10439-012-0630-4
31. Pries AR, Hopfner M, le Noble F, Dewhirst MW, Secomb TW. The shunt problem: control of functional shunting in normal and tumour vasculature. Nat Rev Cancer (2010) 10(8):587-93. doi:10.1038/nrc2895
32. Pries A, Secomb T. Modeling structural adaptation of microcirculation. Microcirculation (2008) 15(8):753-64. doi:10.1080/10739680802229076
33. Baish JW, Stylianopoulos T, Lanning RM, Kamoun WS, Fukumura D, Munn LL, et al. Scaling rules for diffusive drug delivery in tumor and normal tissues. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A (2011) 108(5):1799-803. doi:10.1073/pnas.1018154108. Epub 2011/01/13
34. Gevertz JL. Computational modeling of tumor response to vascular-targeting therapies-part I: validation. Comput Math Methods Med (2011) 2011:830515. doi:10.1155/2011/830515. Epub 2011/04/05
35. Gevertz J. Optimization of vascular-targeting drugs in a computational model of tumor growth. Phys Rev E Stat Nonlin Soft Matter Phys (2012) 85(4 Pt 1):041914. doi:10.1103/PhysRevE.85.041914. Epub 2012/06/12
36. Sinek JP, Sanga S, Zheng X, Frieboes HB, Ferrari M, Cristini V. Predicting drug pharmacokinetics and effect in vascularized tumors using computer simulation. J Math Biol (2009) 58(4-5):485-510. doi:10.1007/s00285-008-0214-y. Epub 2008/09/11
37. Wu M, Frieboes HB, McDougall SR, Chaplain MAJ, Cristini V, Lowengrub J. The effect of interstitial pressure on tumor growth: coupling with the blood and lymphatic vascular systems. J Theor Biol (2013) 320:131-51. doi:10.1016/j.jtbi.2012.11.031
38. Pozrikidis C. Leakage through a permeable capillary tube into a poroelastic tumor interstitium. Eng Anal Bound Elem (2013) 37(4):728-37. doi:10.1016/j.enganabound.2013.01.011
39. van de Ven AL, Wu M, Lowengrub J, McDougall SR, Chaplain MA, Cristini V, et al. Integrated intravital microscopy and mathematical modeling to optimize nanotherapeutics delivery to tumors. AIP Adv (2012) 2(1):11208. doi:10.1063/1.3699060. Epub 2012/04/11
40. Frieboes HB, Wu M, Lowengrub J, Decuzzi P, Cristini V. A computational model for predicting nanoparticle accumulation in tumor vasculature. PLoS One (2013) 8(2):e56876. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0056876. Epub 2013/03/08
41. Kim B, Han G, Toley BJ, Kim CK, Rotello VM, Forbes NS. Tuning payload delivery in tumour cylindroids using gold nanoparticles. Nat Nanotechnol (2010) 5(6):465-72. doi:10.1038/nnano.2010.58. Epub 2010/04/13
42. Webb SD, Owen MR, Byrne HM, Murdoch C, Lewis CE. Macrophage-based anti-cancer therapy: modelling different modes of tumour targeting. Bull Math Biol (2007) 69(5):1747-76. doi:10.1007/s11538-006-9189-2
43. Owen MR, Stamper IJ, Muthana M, Richardson GW, Dobson J, Lewis CE, et al. Mathematical modeling predicts synergistic antitumor effects of combining a macrophage-based, hypoxia-targeted gene therapy with chemotherapy. Cancer Res (2011) 71(8):2826-37. doi:10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-10-2834. Epub 2011/03/03
44. El-Kareh AW, Secomb TW. A theoretical model for intraperitoneal delivery of cisplatin and the effect of hyperthermia on drug penetration distance. Neoplasia (2004) 6(2):117-27. doi:10.1593/neo.03205. Epub 2004/05/14
45. Gasselhuber A, Dreher MR, Negussie A, Wood BJ, Rattay F, Haemmerich D. Mathematical spatio-temporal model of drug delivery from low temperature sensitive liposomes during radiofrequency tumour ablation. Int J Hyperthermia (2010) 26(5):499-513. doi:10.3109/02656731003623590. Epub 2010/04/10
46. Rockne R, Rockhill JK, Mrugala M, Spence AM, Kalet I, Hendrickson K, et al. Predicting the efficacy of radiotherapy in individual glioblastoma patients in vivo: a mathematical modeling approach. Phys Med Biol (2010) 55(12):3271-85. doi:10.1088/0031-9155/55/12/001. Epub 2010/05/21
47. Neal ML, Trister AD, Ahn S, Baldock A, Bridge CA, Guyman L, et al. Response classification based on a minimal model of glioblastoma growth is prognostic for clinical outcomes and distinguishes progression from pseudoprogression. Cancer Res (2013) 73(10):2976-86. doi:10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-12-3588. Epub 2013/02/13
48. Venkatasubramanian R, Henson MA, Forbes NS. Integrating cell-cycle progression, drug penetration and energy metabolism to identify improved cancer therapeutic strategies. J Theor Biol (2008) 253(1):98-117. doi:10.1016/j.jtbi.2008.02.016. Epub 2008/04/12
49. Stylianopoulos T, Diop-Frimpong B, Munn LL, Jain RK. Diffusion anisotropy in collagen gels and tumors: the effect of fiber network orientation. Biophys J (2010) 99(10):3119-28. doi:10.1016/j.bpj.2010.08.065. Epub 2010/11/18
50. Stylianopoulos T, Poh MZ, Insin N, Bawendi MG, Fukumura D, Munn LL, et al. Diffusion of particles in the extracellular matrix: the effect of repulsive electrostatic interactions. Biophys J (2010) 99(5):1342-9. doi:10.1016/j.bpj.2010.06.016. Epub 2010/09/08
51. Ziemys A, Kojic M, Milosevic M, Kojic N, Hussain F, Ferrari M, et al. Hierarchical modeling of diffusive transport through nanochannels by coupling molecular dynamics with finite element method. J Comput Phys (2011) 230(14):5722-31. doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2011.03.054
52. Ziemys A, Kojic M, Milosevic M, Ferrari M. Interfacial effects on nanoconfined diffusive mass transport regimes. Phys Rev Lett (2012) 108(23):236102. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.236102
53. Mahadevan TS, Milosevic M, Kojic M, Hussain F, Kojic N, Serda R, et al. Diffusion transport of nanoparticles at nanochannel boundaries. J Nanopart Res (2013) 15(3):1477. doi:10.1007/s11051-013-1477-9
54. Bauer AL, Jackson TL, Jiang Y. A cell-based model exhibiting branching and anastomosis during tumor-induced angiogenesis. Biophys J (2007) 92(9):3105-21. doi:10.1529/biophysj.106.101501. Epub 2007/02/06
55. Bauer AL, Jackson TL, Jiang Y. Topography of extracellular matrix mediates vascular morphogenesis and migration speeds in angiogenesis. PLoS Comput Biol (2009) 5(7):e1000445. doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000445. Epub 2009/07/25
56. Dallon JC, Sherratt JA. A mathematical model for fibroblast and collagen orientation. Bull Math Biol (1998) 60(1):101-29. doi:10.1006/bulm.1997.0027. Epub 1998/05/09
57. Dallon JC, Sherratt JA, Maini PK. Mathematical modelling of extracellular matrix dynamics using discrete cells: fiber orientation and tissue regeneration. J Theor Biol (1999) 199(4):449-71. doi:10.1006/jtbi.1999.0971. Epub 1999/08/12
58. Rejniak KA, Estrella V, Chen T, Cohen AS, Lloyd MC, Morse DL. The role of tumor tissue architecture in treatment penetration and efficacy: an integrative study. Front Oncol (2013) 3:111. doi:10.3389/fonc.2013.00111. Epub 2013/05/30
59. Arifin DY, Lee KY, Wang CH. Chemotherapeutic drug transport to brain tumor. J Control Release (2009) 137(3):203-10. doi:10.1016/j.jconrel.2009.04.013. Epub 2009/04/21
60. Arifin DY, Lee KY, Wang CH, Smith KA. Role of convective flow in carmustine delivery to a brain tumor. Pharm Res (2009) 26(10):2289-302. doi:10.1007/s11095-009-9945-8. Epub 2009/07/30
61. Ramanujan S, Pluen A, McKee TD, Brown EB, Boucher Y, Jain RK. Diffusion and convection in collagen gels: implications for transport in the tumor interstitium. Biophys J (2002) 83(3):1650-60. doi:10.1016/S0006-3495(02)73933-7
62. Schmidt MM, Wittrup KD. A modeling analysis of the effects of molecular size and binding affinity on tumor targeting. Mol Cancer Ther (2009) 8(10):2861-71. doi:10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-09-0195. Epub 2009/10/15
63. Thurber GM, Wittrup DK. A mechanistic compartmental model for total antibody uptake in tumors. J Theor Biol (2012) 314:57-68. doi:10.1016/j.jtbi.2012.08.034. Epub 2012/09/15
64. El-Kareh AW, Secomb TW. Two-mechanism peak concentration model for cellular pharmacodynamics of Doxorubicin. Neoplasia (2005) 7(7):705-13. doi:10.1593/neo.05118
65. El-Kareh AW, Secomb TW. A mathematical model for cisplatin cellular pharmacodynamics. Neoplasia (2003) 5(2):161-9.
66. El-Kareh AW, Labes RE, Secomb TW. Cell cycle checkpoint models for cellular pharmacology of paclitaxel and platinum drugs. AAPS J (2008) 10(1):15-34. doi:10.1208/s12248-007-9003-6. Epub 2008/05/01
67. El-Kareh AW, Secomb TW. A mathematical model for comparison of bolus injection, continuous infusion, and liposomal delivery of doxorubicin to tumor cells. Neoplasia (2000) 2(4):325-38. doi:10.1038/sj.neo.7900096
68. Eikenberry S. A tumor cord model for doxorubicin delivery and dose optimization in solid tumors. Theor Biol Med Model (2009) 6:16. doi:10.1186/1742-4682-6-16. Epub 2009/08/12
69. Traina TA, Theodoulou M, Feigin K, Patil S, Tan KL, Edwards C, et al. Phase I study of a novel capecitabine schedule based on the Norton-Simon mathematical model in patients with metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol (2008) 26(11):1797-802. doi:10.1200/JCO.2007.13.8388. Epub 2008/04/10
70. Norton L, Simon R. Growth curve of an experimental solid tumor following radiotherapy. J Natl Cancer Inst (1977) 58(6):1735-41. Epub 1977/06/01
71. Traina TA, Dugan U, Higgins B, Kolinsky K, Theodoulou M, Hudis CA, et al. Optimizing chemotherapy dose and schedule by Norton-Simon mathematical modeling. Breast Dis (2010) 31(1):7-18. doi:10.3233/BD-2009-0290. Epub 2010/06/04
72. Morris PG, McArthur HL, Hudis C, Norton L. Dose-dense chemotherapy for breast cancer: what does the future hold? Future Oncol (2010) 6(6):951-65. doi:10.2217/fon.10.59. Epub 2010/06/10
73. Comen E, Morris PG, Norton L. Translating mathematical modeling of tumor growth patterns into novel therapeutic approaches for breast cancer. J Mammary Gland Biol (2012) 17(3-4):241-9. doi:10.1007/s10911-012-9267-z
74. Gatenby RA, Silva AS, Gillies RJ, Frieden BR. Adaptive therapy. Cancer Res (2009) 69(11):4894-903. doi:10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-08-3658. Epub 2009/06/03
75. Frieboes HB, Edgerton ME, Fruehauf JP, Rose FR, Worrall LK, Gatenby RA, et al. Prediction of drug response in breast cancer using integrative experimental/computational modeling. Cancer Res (2009) 69(10):4484-92. doi:10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-08-3740. Epub 2009/04/16
76. Kim E, Stamatelos S, Cebulla J, Bhujwalla ZM, Popel AS, Pathak AP. Multiscale imaging and computational modeling of blood flow in the tumor vasculature. Ann Biomed Eng (2012) 40(11):2425-41. doi:10.1007/s10439-012-0585-5. Epub 2012/05/09
77. Venkatasubramanian R, Arenas RB, Henson MA, Forbes NS. Mechanistic modelling of dynamic MRI data predicts that tumour heterogeneity decreases therapeutic response. Brit J Cancer (2010) 103(4):486-97. doi:10.1038/sj.bjc.6605773
78. Jackson A. Analysis of dynamic contrast enhanced MRI. Br J Radiol (2004) 77(Suppl 2):S154-66. doi:10.1259/bjr/16652509
79. Li X, Huang W, Morris EA, Tudorica LA, Seshan VE, Rooney WD, et al. Dynamic NMR effects in breast cancer dynamic-contrast-enhanced MRI. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA (2008) 105(46):17937-42. doi:10.1073/pnas.0804224105. Epub 2008/11/15
80. Ingrisch M, Sourbron S. Tracer-kinetic modeling of dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI and CT: a primer. J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn (2013) 40(3):281-300. doi:10.1007/s10928-013-9315-3. Epub 2013/04/09
81. Weis JA, Miga MI, Arlinghaus LR, Li X, Chakravarthy AB, Abramson V, et al. A mechanically coupled reaction-diffusion model for predicting the response of breast tumors to neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Phys Med Biol (2013) 58(17):5851-66. doi:10.1088/0031-9155/58/17/5851. Epub 2013/08/08
82. Buonaccorsi GA, Rose CJ, O'Connor JP, Roberts C, Watson Y, Jackson A, et al. Cross-visit tumor sub-segmentation and registration with outlier rejection for dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI time series data. Med Image Comput Comput Assist Interv (2010) 13(Pt 3):121-8. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-15711-0_16
83. Canuto HC, McLachlan C, Kettunen MI, Velic M, Krishnan AS, Neves AA, et al. Characterization of image heterogeneity using 2D Minkowski functionals increases the sensitivity of detection of a targeted MRI contrast agent. Magn Reson Med (2009) 61(5):1218-24. doi:10.1002/mrm.21946
84. Karahaliou A, Vassiou K, Arikidis NS, Skiadopoulos S, Kanavou T, Costaridou L. Assessing heterogeneity of lesion enhancement kinetics in dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI for breast cancer diagnosis. Brit J Radiol (2010) 83(988):296-306. doi:10.1259/bjr/50743919
85. Lee SH, Kim JH, Kim KG, Park JS, Park SJ, Moon WK. Optimal clustering of kinetic patterns on malignant breast lesions: comparison between K-means clustering and three-time-points method in dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI. Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc (2007) 2007:2089-93. doi:10.1109/IEMBS.2007.4352733
86. Turnbull LW. Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI in the diagnosis and management of breast cancer. NMR Biomed (2009) 22(1):28-39. doi:10.1002/nbm.1273. Epub 2008/07/26
87. Gatenby RA, Grove O, Gillies RJ. Quantiative imaging in cancer evolution and ecology. Radiology (2013) 269(1):8-14. doi:10.1148/radiol.13122697