Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40921859›Full record

ArticleBulletin of mathematical biology2025

Deriving Optimal Treatment Timing for Adaptive Therapy: Matching the Model to the Tumor Dynamics.

Kit Gallagher, Maximilian A R Strobl, Alexander R A Anderson, Philip K Maini

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Bulletin of mathematical biology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Hazard curvature makes within-host variability costly for survival.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Kit GallagherWolfson Centre for Mathematical Biology, Mathematical Institute, Oxford, UK. gallagher@maths.ox.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0003-1401-115X
Maximilian A R StroblTheory Division, Cleveland Clinic, Ohio, USA.
Alexander R A AndersonIntegrated Mathematical Oncology, Moffitt Cancer Center, Florida, USA.
Philip K MainiWolfson Centre for Mathematical Biology, Mathematical Institute, Oxford, UK. maini@maths.ox.ac.uk.

Funding

The Delta Ecology of NSCLC TreatmentU54CA274507 · NCI · H. LEE MOFFITT CANCER CTR & RES INST · PI Alexander Robertson Allan Anderson, ROBERT A GATENBY · 2023 to 2026
$9.4M
Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council EP/S024093/1NCI NIH HHS U54 CA274507NCI NIH HHS U54CA274507
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Adaptive therapy (AT) protocols have been introduced to combat drug resistance in cancer, and are characterized by breaks from maximum tolerated dose treatment (the current standard of care in most clinical settings). These breaks are scheduled to maintain tolerably high levels of tumor burden, employing competitive suppression of treatment-resistant sub-populations by treatment-sensitive sub-populations. AT has been integrated into several ongoing or planned clinical trials, including treatment of metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer, ovarian cancer, and BRAF-mutant melanoma, with initial clinical results suggesting that it can offer significant extensions in the time to progression over the standard of care. Prior AT protocols apply drug treatment when the tumor is within a specific size window, typically determined by the initial tumor size. However, this approach may be sub-optimal as it does not account for variation in tumor dynamics between patients, resulting in significant heterogeneity in patient outcomes. Mathematical modeling and analysis have been proposed to optimize adaptive protocols, but they do not account for clinical restrictions, most notably the discrete time intervals between the clinical appointments where a patient's tumor burden is measured and their treatment schedule is re-evaluated. We present a general framework for deriving optimal treatment protocols that account for these discrete time intervals, and derive optimal schedules for several models to avoid model-specific personalization. We identify a trade-off between the frequency of patient monitoring and the time to progression attainable, and propose an AT protocol that determines drug dosing based on a patient-specific threshold for tumor size. Finally, we identify a subset of patients with qualitatively different dynamics that instead require a novel AT protocol based on a threshold that changes over the course of treatment.

Indexed as

Antineoplastic AgentsModels, BiologicalNeoplasmsComputer SimulationDisease ProgressionDrug Administration ScheduleDrug Resistance, NeoplasmFemaleHumansMaleMathematical ConceptsMaximum Tolerated DoseMelanomaOvarian NeoplasmsProstatic Neoplasms, Castration-ResistantTime FactorsAntineoplastic AgentsAdaptive TherapyCompetition ModelsLotka–VolterraMathematical OncologyOptimal Treatment SchedulesTime-Varying Threshold

Identifiers

PMID40921859
PMCPMC12417256

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.