Mathematical Models of Breast and Ovarian Cancers

Overview

Journal Wiley Interdiscip Rev Syst Biol Med

Specialties Biology
General Medicine
Medical Informatics

Date 2016 Jun 4

PMID 27259061

Citations 5

Authors

Dana-Adriana Botesteanu

Stanley Lipkowitz

Jung-Min Lee

Doron Levy

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Women constitute the majority of the aging United States (US) population, and this has substantial implications on cancer population patterns and management practices. Breast cancer is the most common women's malignancy, while ovarian cancer is the most fatal gynecological malignancy in the US. In this review, we focus on these subsets of women's cancers, seen more commonly in postmenopausal and elderly women. In order to systematically investigate the complexity of cancer progression and response to treatment in breast and ovarian malignancies, we assert that integrated mathematical modeling frameworks viewed from a systems biology perspective are needed. Such integrated frameworks could offer innovative contributions to the clinical women's cancers community, as answers to clinical questions cannot always be reached with contemporary clinical and experimental tools. Here, we recapitulate clinically known data regarding the progression and treatment of the breast and ovarian cancers. We compare and contrast the two malignancies whenever possible in order to emphasize areas where substantial contributions could be made by clinically inspired and validated mathematical modeling. We show how current paradigms in the mathematical oncology community focusing on the two malignancies do not make comprehensive use of, nor substantially reflect existing clinical data, and we highlight the modeling areas in most critical need of clinical data integration. We emphasize that the primary goal of any mathematical study of women's cancers should be to address clinically relevant questions. WIREs Syst Biol Med 2016, 8:337-362. doi: 10.1002/wsbm.1343 For further resources related to this article, please visit the WIREs website.

Citing Articles

To modulate or to skip: De-escalating PARP inhibitor maintenance therapy in ovarian cancer using adaptive therapy.

Strobl M, Martin A, West J, Gallaher J, Robertson-Tessi M, Gatenby R Cell Syst. 2024; 15(6):510-525.e6.

PMID: 38772367 PMC: 11190943. DOI: 10.1016/j.cels.2024.04.003.

A coupled mathematical model between bone remodeling and tumors: a study of different scenarios using Komarova's model.

Ramtani S, Sanchez J, Boucetta A, Kraft R, Vaca-Gonzalez J, Garzon-Alvarado D Biomech Model Mechanobiol. 2023; 22(3):925-945.

PMID: 36922421 PMC: 10167202. DOI: 10.1007/s10237-023-01689-3.

Prodigiosin/PU-H71 as a novel potential combined therapy for triple negative breast cancer (TNBC): preclinical insights.

Anwar M, Shalaby M, Embaby A, Saeed H, Agwa M, Hussein A Sci Rep. 2020; 10(1):14706.

PMID: 32895397 PMC: 7477571. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-020-71157-w.

Crosstalk between HER2 and PD-1/PD-L1 in Breast Cancer: From Clinical Applications to Mathematical Models.

Padmanabhan R, Kheraldine H, Meskin N, Vranic S, Moustafa A Cancers (Basel). 2020; 12(3).

PMID: 32164163 PMC: 7139939. DOI: 10.3390/cancers12030636.

Experimentally-driven mathematical modeling to improve combination targeted and cytotoxic therapy for HER2+ breast cancer.

Jarrett A, Shah A, Bloom M, McKenna M, Hormuth 2nd D, Yankeelov T Sci Rep. 2019; 9(1):12830.

PMID: 31492947 PMC: 6731321. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-019-49073-5.

References

Barber L, Sandhu S, Chen L, Campbell J, Kozarewa I, Fenwick K . Secondary mutations in BRCA2 associated with clinical resistance to a PARP inhibitor. J Pathol. 2012; 229(3):422-9. DOI: 10.1002/path.4140. View

Menon U, Gentry-Maharaj A, Hallett R, Ryan A, Burnell M, Sharma A . Sensitivity and specificity of multimodal and ultrasound screening for ovarian cancer, and stage distribution of detected cancers: results of the prevalence screen of the UK Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening (UKCTOCS). Lancet Oncol. 2009; 10(4):327-40. DOI: 10.1016/S1470-2045(09)70026-9. View

Kelland L . The resurgence of platinum-based cancer chemotherapy. Nat Rev Cancer. 2007; 7(8):573-84. DOI: 10.1038/nrc2167. View

Mauri D, Pavlidis N, Ioannidis J . Neoadjuvant versus adjuvant systemic treatment in breast cancer: a meta-analysis. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2005; 97(3):188-94. DOI: 10.1093/jnci/dji021. View

Spratt J, von Fournier D, Spratt J, Weber E . Mammographic assessment of human breast cancer growth and duration. Cancer. 1993; 71(6):2020-6. DOI: 10.1002/1097-0142(19930315)71:6<2020::aid-cncr2820710616>3.0.co;2-#. View

Eisen A, Lubinski J, Klijn J, Moller P, Lynch H, Offit K . Breast cancer risk following bilateral oophorectomy in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers: an international case-control study. J Clin Oncol. 2005; 23(30):7491-6. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2004.00.7138. View

Kauff N, Satagopan J, Robson M, Scheuer L, Hensley M, Hudis C . Risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy in women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation. N Engl J Med. 2002; 346(21):1609-15. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa020119. View

Esserman L, Moore D, Tsing P, Chu P, Yau C, Ozanne E . Biologic markers determine both the risk and the timing of recurrence in breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2011; 129(2):607-16. PMC: 4324750. DOI: 10.1007/s10549-011-1564-5. View

Byrne H . Dissecting cancer through mathematics: from the cell to the animal model. Nat Rev Cancer. 2010; 10(3):221-30. DOI: 10.1038/nrc2808. View

10.

Domchek S, Friebel T, Neuhausen S, Wagner T, Evans G, Isaacs C . Mortality after bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers: a prospective cohort study. Lancet Oncol. 2006; 7(3):223-9. DOI: 10.1016/S1470-2045(06)70585-X. View

11.

Morrell S, Barratt A, Irwig L, Howard K, Biesheuvel C, Armstrong B . Estimates of overdiagnosis of invasive breast cancer associated with screening mammography. Cancer Causes Control. 2009; 21(2):275-82. DOI: 10.1007/s10552-009-9459-z. View

12.

Crum C, McKeon F, Xian W . The oviduct and ovarian cancer: causality, clinical implications, and "targeted prevention". Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2012; 55(1):24-35. PMC: 3319355. DOI: 10.1097/GRF.0b013e31824b1725. View

13.

Lehmann B, Bauer J, Chen X, Sanders M, Chakravarthy A, Shyr Y . Identification of human triple-negative breast cancer subtypes and preclinical models for selection of targeted therapies. J Clin Invest. 2011; 121(7):2750-67. PMC: 3127435. DOI: 10.1172/JCI45014. View

14.

Komarova N, Burger J, Wodarz D . Evolution of ibrutinib resistance in chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2014; 111(38):13906-11. PMC: 4183279. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1409362111. View

15.

Jacobs I, Menon U, Ryan A, Gentry-Maharaj A, Burnell M, Kalsi J . Ovarian cancer screening and mortality in the UK Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening (UKCTOCS): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2015; 387(10022):945-956. PMC: 4779792. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)01224-6. View

16.

Enderling H, Anderson A, Chaplain M, Munro A, Vaidya J . Mathematical modelling of radiotherapy strategies for early breast cancer. J Theor Biol. 2006; 241(1):158-71. DOI: 10.1016/j.jtbi.2005.11.015. View

17.

Gatenby R, Gillies R . Why do cancers have high aerobic glycolysis?. Nat Rev Cancer. 2004; 4(11):891-9. DOI: 10.1038/nrc1478. View

18.

Norquist B, Wurz K, Pennil C, Garcia R, Gross J, Sakai W . Secondary somatic mutations restoring BRCA1/2 predict chemotherapy resistance in hereditary ovarian carcinomas. J Clin Oncol. 2011; 29(22):3008-15. PMC: 3157963. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2010.34.2980. View

19.

Rampurwala M, Rocque G, Burkard M . Update on adjuvant chemotherapy for early breast cancer. Breast Cancer (Auckl). 2014; 8:125-33. PMC: 4197909. DOI: 10.4137/BCBCR.S9454. View

20.

Ciampi A, Kates L, Buick R, Kriukov Y, Till J . Multi-type Galton-Watson process as a model for proliferating human tumour cell populations derived from stem cells: estimation of stem cell self-renewal probabilities in human ovarian carcinomas. Cell Tissue Kinet. 1986; 19(2):129-40. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2184.1986.tb00723.x. View