A theoretical quantitative model for evolution of cancer chemotherapy resistance.
BACKGROUND
Disseminated cancer remains a nearly uniformly fatal disease. While a number of effective chemotherapies are available, tumors inevitably evolve resistance to these drugs ultimately resulting in treatment failure and cancer progression. Causes for chemotherapy failure in cancer treatment reside in multiple levels: poor vascularization, hypoxia, intratumoral high interstitial fluid pressure, and phenotypic resistance to drug-induced toxicity through upregulated xenobiotic metabolism or DNA repair mechanisms and silencing of apoptotic pathways. We propose that in order to understand the evolutionary dynamics that allow tumors to develop chemoresistance, a comprehensive quantitative model must be used to describe the interactions of cell resistance mechanisms and tumor microenvironment during chemotherapy.Ultimately, the purpose of this model is to identify the best strategies to treat different types of tumor (tumor microenvironment, genetic/phenotypic tumor heterogeneity, tumor growth rate, etc.). We predict that the most promising strategies are those that are both cytotoxic and apply a selective pressure for a phenotype that is less fit than that of the original cancer population. This strategy, known as double bind, is different from the selection process imposed by standard chemotherapy, which tends to produce a resistant population that simply upregulates xenobiotic metabolism. In order to achieve this goal we propose to simulate different tumor progression and therapy strategies (chemotherapy and glucose restriction) targeting stabilization of tumor size and minimization of chemoresistance.


RESULTS
This work confirms the prediction of previous mathematical models and simulations that suggested that administration of chemotherapy with the goal of tumor stabilization instead of eradication would yield better results (longer subject survival) than the use of maximum tolerated doses. Our simulations also indicate that the simultaneous administration of chemotherapy and 2-deoxy-glucose does not optimize treatment outcome because when simultaneously administered these drugs are antagonists. The best results were obtained when 2-deoxy-glucose was followed by chemotherapy in two separate doses.


CONCLUSIONS
These results suggest that the maximum potential of a combined therapy may depend on how each of the drugs modifies the evolutionary landscape and that a rational use of these properties may prevent or at least delay relapse.


METHODS
This article was reviewed by Dr Marek Kimmel and Dr Mark Little.
Silva
Ariosto S
AS
Department of Radiology and Integrative Mathematical Oncology, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL, USA.
Gatenby
Robert A
RA
D000818:Animals; D000971:Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols / Q000627:therapeutic use; D003847:Deoxyglucose / Q000627:therapeutic use; D019008:Drug Resistance, Neoplasm; D006801:Humans; D020714:Maximum Tolerated Dose; D008962:Models, Theoretical; D009369:Neoplasms / Q000188:drug therapy*
D003847:Deoxyglucose
Cancer Res. 1991 Feb 15;51(4):1210-6
1997163
Cancer Res. 2004 Jun 1;64(11):3761-6
15172981
J Theor Biol. 2001 Dec 7;213(3):315-31
11735284
Cell Oncol. 2005;27(1):43-9
15750206
Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2001 Apr;928:305-15
11795522
Adv Exp Med Biol. 1994;361:619-25
7597991
Anticancer Drug Des. 1999 Apr;14(2):169-77
10405643
Phys Med Biol. 1994 Dec;39(12):2161-81
15551546
Clin Cancer Res. 2005 Oct 1;11(19 Pt 1):6944-9
16203786
Curr Opin Investig Drugs. 2003 Dec;4(12):1416-21
14763126
J Theor Biol. 2007 Feb 21;244(4):703-13
17055536
Blood. 1993 Jan 15;81(2):490-5
8093668
Cancer Res. 2009 Jun 1;69(11):4894-903
19487300
Oncogene. 1999 May 27;18(21):3199-204
10359525
Cancer Res. 2009 Mar 15;69(6):2677-84
19276380
Phys Rev E Stat Nonlin Soft Matter Phys. 2003 May;67(5 Pt 1):051914
12786185
Cancer Res. 2006 Jul 1;66(13):6497-502
16818620
Cancer Res. 1999 Mar 1;59(5):1021-8
10070958
Cancer Res. 1984 Sep;44(9):3643-53
6744284
Breast Cancer Res. 2001;3(5):323-7
11597322
Clin Cancer Res. 1999 Jul;5(7):1703-7
10430072
In Vitro. 1979 Sep;15(9):685-90
535913
Cancer Res. 1991 Feb 1;51(3):995-1002
1988143
Cancer Metastasis Rev. 2001;20(1-2):63-8
11831649
Cancer Res. 1986 Oct;46(10):5125-30
2875788
Math Med Biol. 2005 Jun;22(2):163-86
15781426
Br J Cancer. 2008 Dec 2;99(11):1842-8
18985042
Blood. 2009 Dec 24;114(27):5436-43
19861683
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1971 Jan;68(1):229-33
4322262
Biochemistry. 2001 May 8;40(18):5542-7
11331019
Clin Cancer Res. 2008 May 1;14(9):2519-26
18451212
J Nucl Med. 2008 Jun;49 Suppl 2:24S-42S
18523064
Nature. 2003 Nov 13;426(6963):125
14614483
Br J Cancer. 1999 Aug;80(12):1892-7
10471036
Cancer Res. 2009 May 15;69(10):4484-92
19366802
Microvasc Res. 2000 Jan;59(1):149-61
10625582
J Cell Physiol. 1992 May;151(2):386-94
1572910
Nature. 2009 May 28;459(7246):508-9
19478766