Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25167199›Full record

ArticlePLoS computational biology2014

Classical mathematical models for description and prediction of experimental tumor growth.

Sébastien Benzekry, Clare Lamont, Afshin Beheshti, Amanda Tracz, John M L Ebos, Lynn Hlatky, Philip Hahnfeldt

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS computational biology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 199 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
199citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

199 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. The logarithmic phase as a therapeutic direction: evaluating pharmacological strategies against cancer progression.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2026
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

139 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Sébastien BenzekryInria Bordeaux Sud-Ouest, Institut de Mathématiques de Bordeaux, Bordeaux, France; Center of Cancer Systems Biology, GRI, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.
Clare LamontCenter of Cancer Systems Biology, GRI, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.
Afshin BeheshtiCenter of Cancer Systems Biology, GRI, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.
Amanda TraczDepartment of Medicine, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, New York, United States of America.
John M L EbosDepartment of Medicine, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, New York, United States of America.
Lynn HlatkyCenter of Cancer Systems Biology, GRI, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.
Philip HahnfeldtCenter of Cancer Systems Biology, GRI, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.

Funding

Two-Spirit Films in Indigenous Cancer HealthP30CA016056 · NCI · ROSWELL PARK CANCER INSTITUTE CORP · PI MARK G FRATTINI · 1985 to 2026
$116.6M
Project 5 UC BerkleyU54CA149233 · NCI · STEWARD ST. ELIZABETH'S MEDICAL CENTER · PI HLATKY, LYNN · 2010 to 2014
$7.3M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA016056NCI NIH HHS U54 CA149233NCI NIH HHS U54CA149233
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Despite internal complexity, tumor growth kinetics follow relatively simple laws that can be expressed as mathematical models. To explore this further, quantitative analysis of the most classical of these were performed. The models were assessed against data from two in vivo experimental systems: an ectopic syngeneic tumor (Lewis lung carcinoma) and an orthotopically xenografted human breast carcinoma. The goals were threefold: 1) to determine a statistical model for description of the measurement error, 2) to establish the descriptive power of each model, using several goodness-of-fit metrics and a study of parametric identifiability, and 3) to assess the models' ability to forecast future tumor growth. The models included in the study comprised the exponential, exponential-linear, power law, Gompertz, logistic, generalized logistic, von Bertalanffy and a model with dynamic carrying capacity. For the breast data, the dynamics were best captured by the Gompertz and exponential-linear models. The latter also exhibited the highest predictive power, with excellent prediction scores (≥80%) extending out as far as 12 days in the future. For the lung data, the Gompertz and power law models provided the most parsimonious and parametrically identifiable description. However, not one of the models was able to achieve a substantial prediction rate (≥70%) beyond the next day data point. In this context, adjunction of a priori information on the parameter distribution led to considerable improvement. For instance, forecast success rates went from 14.9% to 62.7% when using the power law model to predict the full future tumor growth curves, using just three data points. These results not only have important implications for biological theories of tumor growth and the use of mathematical modeling in preclinical anti-cancer drug investigations, but also may assist in defining how mathematical models could serve as potential prognostic tools in the clinic.

Indexed as

Models, BiologicalModels, StatisticalAnimalsBreast NeoplasmsCell Line, TumorComputational BiologyFemaleHumansLung NeoplasmsMaleMiceMice, Inbred C57BLNeoplasmsNeoplasms, Experimental

Identifiers

PMID25167199
PMCPMC4148196

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC0
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.