Toward a science of tumor forecasting for clinical oncology

Cancer Research

Volumn 75, Issue 6, 2015, Pages 918-923

  Yankeelov, Thomas E ^a,b,c,d   Quaranta, Vito ^c,d   Evans, Katherine J ^e   Rericha, Erin C ^a  

^a VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^d VANDERBILT INGRAM CANCER CENTER   (United States)

^e OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; EVOLUTION; FORECASTING; GENETIC ANALYSIS; HUMAN; MATHEMATICAL MODEL; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PHYSICAL EXAMINATION; POST HOC ANALYSIS; PREDICTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROTEOMICS; REVIEW; TREATMENT RESPONSE; TUMOR GROWTH; METEOROLOGY; ONCOLOGY; THEORETICAL MODEL; TRENDS;

FORECASTING; HUMANS; MEDICAL ONCOLOGY; METEOROLOGY; MODELS, THEORETICAL;

EID: 84941623816     PISSN: 00085472     EISSN: 15387445     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-14-2233     Document Type: Review

References (36)

1. Marshall E. Cancer and the $90 billion metaphor. Science 2011;331:1540-1.
2. Riveros C, Dechartres A, Perrodeau E, Haneef R, Boutron I, Ravaud P. Timing and completeness of trial results posted at ClinicalTrials.gov and published in journals. PLoS Med 2013;10:e1001566.
3. Lauritzen PH, Jablonowski C, Taylor MA, Nair RD (Eds.) Numerical techniques for global atmospheric models. Lecture Notes in Computational Science and Engineering. New York: Springer; 2011, p. 564
4. Chauviere AH, Hatzikirou H, Lowengrub JS, Frieboes HB, Thompson AM, Cristini V. Mathematical oncology: how are the mathematical and physical sciences contributing to the war on breast cancer? Curr Breast Cancer Rep 2010;2:121-9.
5. Nazaryan A. Getting Cancer Wrong. [Cited March 20, 2014 Newsweek]. Available from: http://www.newsweek.com/2014/03/28/getting-cancer-wrong-248029.html.
6. Räisänen J, Ylhäisi JS. Can model weighting improve probabilistic projections of climate change? Climate Dynamics 2012;39:1981-98.
7. Kalnay E. Atmospheric Modeling, Data Assimilation, and Predictability. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2002.
8. Lorenc AC. Analysis methods for numerical weather prediction. Quart J Roy Meteor Soc 1986;112:1177-94.
9. Kostelich EJ, Kuang Y, McDaniel JM, Moore NZ, Martirosyan NL, Preul MC. Accurate state estimation from uncertain data and models: an application of data assimilation to mathematical models of human brain tumors. Biol Direct 2011;6:64.
10. Screen JA, Simmons I. Erroneous arctic temperature trends in the ERA-40 reanalysis: a closer look. J. Climate 2011;24:2620-7.
11. Kaiser J. The Downside of Diversity. Science 2013;339:1543-5.
12. Gerlinger M, Rowan AJ, Horswell S, Larkin J, Endesfelder D, Gronroos E, et al. Intratumor heterogeneity and branched evolution revealed by multiregion sequencing. N Engl J Med 2012;366:883-92.
13. Hannahan D, Weinberg RA. Hallmarks of cancer: the next generation. Cell 2011;144:646-74.
14. Wang Z, Deisboeck TS. Mathematical modeling in cancer drug discovery. Drug Discov Today 2014;19:145-50.
15. Kim M, Gillies RJ, Rejniak KA. Current advances in mathematical modeling of anti-cancer drug penetration into tumor tissues. Front Oncol 2013;3:278.
16. Baldock AL, Rockne RC, Boone AD, Neal ML, Hawkins-Daarud A, Corwin DM, et al. From patient-specific mathematical neuro-oncology to precision medicine. Front Oncol 2013;3:62.
17. Li F, Tan H, Singh J, Yang J, Xia X, Bao J, et al. A 3D multiscale model of cancer stem cell in tumor development. BMC Syst Biol 2013;7:S12.
18. Bjerknes V. Das Problem der Wettervorhersage, betrachtet vom Standpunkte der Mechanik und der Physik. Metero Zeit 1904;21:1-7.
19. Brandes AA, Mason W, Pichler J, Nowak AK, Gil M, Saran F, et al. Can bevacizumab prolong survival for glioblastoma patients through multiple lines of therapy? Future Oncol 2014;10:1137-45.
20. Kerbel RS. Reappraising antiangiogenic therapy for breast cancer. Breast 2011;20:S56-60.
21. Aghajanian C, Goff B, Nycum LR, Wang Y, Husain A, Blank S. Independent radiologic review: bevacizumab in combination with gemcitabine and carboplatin in recurrent ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol 2014;133:105-10.
22. Mayer IA, Abramson VG, Lehmann BD, Pietenpol JA. New strategies for triple-negative breast cancer-deciphering the heterogeneity. Clin Cancer Res 2014;20:782-90.
23. Chmielecki J, Foo J, Oxnard GR, Hutchinson K, Ohashi K, Somwar R, et al. Optimization of dosing for EGFR-mutant non-small cell lung cancer with evolutionary cancer modeling. Sci Transl Med 2011;3:90ra59.
24. Liedtke C, Mazouni C, Hess KR, Andre F, Tordai A, Mejia JA, et al. Response to neoadjuvant therapy and long-term survival in patients with triple-negative breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2008;12:1275-81.
25. Hou JY, Kelly MG, Yu H, McAlpine JN, Azodi M, Rutherford TJ, et al. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy lessens surgical morbidity in advanced ovarian cancer and leads to improved survival in stage IV disease. Gynecol Oncol 2007;105:211-7.
26. Mahmoud O, Dosch A, Kwon D, Pitcher JD, Conway S, Benedetto P, et al. The impact of perioperative chemotherapy timing in conjunction with postoperative external-beam radiation therapy on extremity soft-tissue sarcomas outcome. Am J Clin Oncol 2014 May 29. [Epub ahead of print].
27. Porten S, Siefker-Radtke AO, Xiao L, Margulis V, Kamat AM, Wood CG, et al. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy improves survival of patients with upper tract urothelial carcinoma. Cancer 2014;120:1794-9.
28. Norton L. Cancer log-kill revisited. Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book 2014:3-7.
29. Skipper HE, Schabel FR Jr, Wilcox WS. Experimental evaluation of potential anticancer agents. XII. On the criteria and kinetics associated with "curability" of experimental leukemia. Cancer Chemother Rep 1964;35:1-111.
30. Norton L, Simon R, Brereton HD, Bogden AE. Predicting the course of Gompertzian growth. Nature 1976;264:542-5.
31. Dolgin E. The mathematician versus the malignancy. Nature Medicine 2014;20:460-3.
32. Bozic I, Reiter JG, Allen B, Antal T, Chatterjee K, Shah P, et al. Evolutionary dynamics of cancer in response to targeted combination therapy. eLife 2013;2:e00747.
33. Neal ML, Trister AD, Cloke T, Sodt R, Ahn S, Baldock AL, et al. Discriminating survival outcomes in patients with glioblastoma using a simulation-based, patient-specific response metric. PLoS ONE 2013;8:e51951.
34. 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;58:5851-66.
35. Weis JA, Miga MI, Arlinghaus LR, Li X, Chakravarthy AB, Abramson V, et al. Prediction of response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy using a mechanical coupled reaction-diffusion model. AAPM 2014 Annual Meeting. Med Phys 2014;41:509.
36. Yankeelov TE, Atuegwu N, Hormuth D, Weis JA, Barnes SL, Miga MI, et al. Clinically relevant modeling of tumor growth and treatment response. Sci Transl Med 2013;5:187ps9.