ArticleJournal of mathematical biology2016
A "universal" model of metastatic cancer, its parametric forms and their identification: what can be learned from site-specific volumes of metastases.
Article in Journal of mathematical biology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Practical identifiability analysis of a mechanistic model for the time to distant metastatic relapse and its application to renal cell carcinoma.PLoS computational biology · 2022Article
- Implications of immune-mediated metastatic growth on metastatic dormancy, blow-up, early detection, and treatment.Journal of mathematical biology · 2020Article
- Metastasis Initiation Precedes Detection of Primary Cancer-Analysis of Metastasis GrowthFrontiers in physiology · 2020Article
- Inferring rates of metastatic dissemination using stochastic network models.PLoS computational biology · 2019Article
- In silico modeling for tumor growth visualization.BMC systems biology · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We develop a methodology for estimating unobservable characteristics of the individual natural history of metastatic cancer from the volume of the primary tumor and site-specific volumes of metastases measured before, or shortly after, the start of treatment. In particular, we address the question as to what information about natural history of cancer can and cannot be gained from this type of data. Estimation of the natural history of cancer is based on parameterization of a very general mathematical model of cancer progression accounting for primary tumor growth, shedding of metastases, their selection, latency and growth in a given secondary site. This parameterization assumes Gompertz (and, as a limiting case, exponential) growth of the primary tumor, exponential growth of metastases, and exponential distribution of metastasis latency times. We find identifiable parameters of this model and give a rigorous proof of their identifiability. As an illustration, we analyze a clinical case of renal cancer patient who developed 55 lung metastases whose volumes were measured through laborious reading of CT images. The model with maximum likelihood parameters provided an excellent fit to this data. We uncovered many aspects of this patient's cancer natural history and showed that, according to the model, onset of metastasis occurred long before primary tumor became clinically detectable.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26307099What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.