ArticlePLoS computational biology2026
Single-threshold-guided adaptive cancer therapy with partial-cycle treatment: A mechanistic and reinforcement learning analysis.
Article in PLoS computational biology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Adaptive cancer therapy seeks to modulate aggressive treatment to preserve drug-sensitive tumor cells that suppress resistant populations, but existing strategies often rely on frequent treatment decisions enabled by intensive surveillance, limiting clinical feasibility. Here, we propose a clinically motivated alternative that shortens the treatment window within a fixed and relatively long surveillance cycle, thereby avoiding the need for frequent monitoring. Based on this idea, we develop a mechanistic modeling framework for single-threshold-guided adaptive therapy with partial surveillance-cycle treatment (AT-PSC) and benchmark its performance using reinforcement learning. Using clinically calibrated parameters from an individual patient, simulations show that AT-PSC prolongs the time to progression (TTP) by 402 days compared with adaptive therapy using full surveillance-cycle treatment, while substantially reducing treatment exposure (dose reduced by 10.1%). Consequently, AT-PSC achieves significantly larger TTP gains than continuous therapy (1891 days) and two-threshold-guided adaptive therapy AT50 (1123 days). Simulations using data from six additional patients and sensitivity analyses further demonstrate that these benefits are robust across heterogeneous tumor growth profiles, while individual-based treatment should be considered to maximize TTP. Reinforcement learning yields comparable outcomes under the same fixed treatment window and can further extend TTP when the treatment window is adaptively adjusted. Together, these results support AT-PSC as a clinically feasible strategy to improve disease control while reducing treatment burden, and suggest that a practical regimen, such as a 14-day treatment window within a 30-day surveillance cycle, can provide sustained benefits for a broad patient population.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.