The Importance of Spatial Distribution of Stemness and Proliferation State in Determining Tumor Radioresponse

H. Enderling; D. Park; L. Hlatky; P. Hahnfeldt

Mathematical Modelling of Natural Phenomena (2009)

  • Volume: 4, Issue: 3, page 117-133
  • ISSN: 0973-5348

Abstract

top
Tumor growth and progression is a complex phenomenon dependent on the interaction of multiple intrinsic and extrinsic factors. Necessary for tumor development is a small subpopulation of potent cells, so-called cancer stem cells, that can undergo an unlimited number of cell divisions and which are proposed to divide symmetrically with a small probability to produce more cancer stem cells. We show that the majority of cells in a tumor must indeed be non-stem cancer cells with limited life span and limited replicative potential. Tumor development is dependent as well on the proliferative potential and death of these cells, and on the migratory ability of all cancer cells. With increasing number of cells in the tumor, competition for space limits tumor progression, and in agreement with in vitro observation, the majority of cancer cells become quiescent, with proliferation primarily occurring on the outer rim where space is available. We present an agent-based model of early tumor development that captures the spatial heterogeneity of stemness and proliferation status. We apply the model to simulations of radiotherapy to predict treatment outcomes for tumors with different stem cell pool sizes and different quiescence radiosensitivities. We show by first presuming homogeneous radiosensitivity throughout the tumor, and then considering the greater resistance of quiescent cells, that stem cell pool size and stem cell repopulation during treatment determine treatment success. The results for tumor cure probabilities comprise upper bounds, as there is evidence that cancer stem cells are also more radioresistant than other tumor cells. Beyond just demonstrating the influence of mass effects of stem to non-stem cell ratios and proliferating to quiescent cell ratios, we show that the spatiotemporal evolution of the developing heterogeneous population plays a pivotal role in determining radioresponse and treatment optimization.

How to cite

top

Enderling, H., et al. "The Importance of Spatial Distribution of Stemness and Proliferation State in Determining Tumor Radioresponse." Mathematical Modelling of Natural Phenomena 4.3 (2009): 117-133. <http://eudml.org/doc/222431>.

@article{Enderling2009,
abstract = { Tumor growth and progression is a complex phenomenon dependent on the interaction of multiple intrinsic and extrinsic factors. Necessary for tumor development is a small subpopulation of potent cells, so-called cancer stem cells, that can undergo an unlimited number of cell divisions and which are proposed to divide symmetrically with a small probability to produce more cancer stem cells. We show that the majority of cells in a tumor must indeed be non-stem cancer cells with limited life span and limited replicative potential. Tumor development is dependent as well on the proliferative potential and death of these cells, and on the migratory ability of all cancer cells. With increasing number of cells in the tumor, competition for space limits tumor progression, and in agreement with in vitro observation, the majority of cancer cells become quiescent, with proliferation primarily occurring on the outer rim where space is available. We present an agent-based model of early tumor development that captures the spatial heterogeneity of stemness and proliferation status. We apply the model to simulations of radiotherapy to predict treatment outcomes for tumors with different stem cell pool sizes and different quiescence radiosensitivities. We show by first presuming homogeneous radiosensitivity throughout the tumor, and then considering the greater resistance of quiescent cells, that stem cell pool size and stem cell repopulation during treatment determine treatment success. The results for tumor cure probabilities comprise upper bounds, as there is evidence that cancer stem cells are also more radioresistant than other tumor cells. Beyond just demonstrating the influence of mass effects of stem to non-stem cell ratios and proliferating to quiescent cell ratios, we show that the spatiotemporal evolution of the developing heterogeneous population plays a pivotal role in determining radioresponse and treatment optimization. },
author = {Enderling, H., Park, D., Hlatky, L., Hahnfeldt, P.},
journal = {Mathematical Modelling of Natural Phenomena},
keywords = {cancer; stem cell; radiotherapy; quiescence; proliferation; repopulation; repopulation},
language = {eng},
month = {6},
number = {3},
pages = {117-133},
publisher = {EDP Sciences},
title = {The Importance of Spatial Distribution of Stemness and Proliferation State in Determining Tumor Radioresponse},
url = {http://eudml.org/doc/222431},
volume = {4},
year = {2009},
}

TY - JOUR
AU - Enderling, H.
AU - Park, D.
AU - Hlatky, L.
AU - Hahnfeldt, P.
TI - The Importance of Spatial Distribution of Stemness and Proliferation State in Determining Tumor Radioresponse
JO - Mathematical Modelling of Natural Phenomena
DA - 2009/6//
PB - EDP Sciences
VL - 4
IS - 3
SP - 117
EP - 133
AB - Tumor growth and progression is a complex phenomenon dependent on the interaction of multiple intrinsic and extrinsic factors. Necessary for tumor development is a small subpopulation of potent cells, so-called cancer stem cells, that can undergo an unlimited number of cell divisions and which are proposed to divide symmetrically with a small probability to produce more cancer stem cells. We show that the majority of cells in a tumor must indeed be non-stem cancer cells with limited life span and limited replicative potential. Tumor development is dependent as well on the proliferative potential and death of these cells, and on the migratory ability of all cancer cells. With increasing number of cells in the tumor, competition for space limits tumor progression, and in agreement with in vitro observation, the majority of cancer cells become quiescent, with proliferation primarily occurring on the outer rim where space is available. We present an agent-based model of early tumor development that captures the spatial heterogeneity of stemness and proliferation status. We apply the model to simulations of radiotherapy to predict treatment outcomes for tumors with different stem cell pool sizes and different quiescence radiosensitivities. We show by first presuming homogeneous radiosensitivity throughout the tumor, and then considering the greater resistance of quiescent cells, that stem cell pool size and stem cell repopulation during treatment determine treatment success. The results for tumor cure probabilities comprise upper bounds, as there is evidence that cancer stem cells are also more radioresistant than other tumor cells. Beyond just demonstrating the influence of mass effects of stem to non-stem cell ratios and proliferating to quiescent cell ratios, we show that the spatiotemporal evolution of the developing heterogeneous population plays a pivotal role in determining radioresponse and treatment optimization.
LA - eng
KW - cancer; stem cell; radiotherapy; quiescence; proliferation; repopulation; repopulation
UR - http://eudml.org/doc/222431
ER -

References

top
  1. D. Hanahan, R. Weinberg. The hallmarks of cancer. Cell, 100 (2000), No.1, 57–70.  
  2. P. Armitage, R. Doll. The age distribution of cancer and a multi-stage theory of carcinogenesis. Br J Cancer, 8 (1954), No.1, 1–12.  
  3. W.C. Black, H.G. Welch. Advances in diagnostic imaging and overestimations of disease prevalence and the benefits of therapy. N Engl J Med, 328 (1993), No.17, 1237–1243.  
  4. T. Lapidot, C. Sirard, B. Murdoch, et al. A cell initiating human acute myeloid leukaemia after transplantation into SCID mice. Nature, 367 (1994), No. 6464, 645–648.  
  5. D. Bonnet, J.E. Dick. Human acute myeloid leukemia is organized as a hierarchy that originates from a primitive hematopoietic cell. Nat Med, 3 (1997), No. 7, 730–737.  
  6. M. Al-Hajj, M.S. Wicha, A. Benito-Hernandez, S.J. Morrison, M.F. Clarke. Prospective identification of tumorigenic breast cancer cells. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA, 100 (2003), No.7, 3983–3988.  
  7. J.E. Dick. Breast cancer stem cells revealed. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA, 100 (2003), No.7, 3547–3549.  
  8. S.K. Singh, C. Hawkins, I.D. Clarke. Identification of a cancer stem cell in human brain tumors. Cancer Res, 63 (2003), No.18, 5821–5828.  
  9. S.K. Singh, I.D. Clarke, M. Terasaki, et al. Identification of human brain tumour initiating cells. Nature, 432 (2004), No.7015, 396–401.  
  10. D. Fioriti, M. Mischitelli, F. Di Monaco, et al. Cancer stem cells in prostate adenocarcinoma: a target for new anticancer strategies. J. Cell Physiol., 216 (2008), No.3, 571–575.  
  11. N.J. Maitland, T. Colling. Prostate cancer stem cells: a new target for therapy. J. Clin. Oncol., 26 (2008), No.17, 2862–2870.  
  12. M. Todaro, M. Perez Alea, A.B. Di Stefano, et al. Colon cancer stem cells dictate tumor growth and resist cell death by production of interleukin-4. Cell stem cell, 1 (2007), No.4, 389–402.  
  13. P. Cammareri, Y. Lombardo, M.G. Francipane, et al. Isolation and culture of colon cancer stem cells.Methods Cell Biol., 86 (2008), 311–324.  
  14. S.J. Morrison, J. Kimble. Asymmetric and symmetric stem-cell divisions in development and cancer. Nature, 41 (2006), No. 7097, 1068–1074.  
  15. R. Reya, R., S.J. Morrison, M.F. Clarke, I.L. Weissman. Stem cells, cancer, and cancer stem cells. Nature, 414 (2001), No.6859, 105–111.  
  16. D. Dingli, F. Michor. Successful therapy must eradicate cancer stem cells. Stem Cells, 24 (2006), No.12, 2603–2610.  
  17. R.T. Prehn. The inhibition of tumor growth by tumor mass. Cancer Res, 51 (1991), No.1, 2–4.  
  18. J. Folkman. Tumor angiogenesis: therapeutic implications. N Engl J Med, 285 (1971), No.21, 1182–1186.  
  19. G.N. Naumov, E. Bender, D. Zurakowski, et al. A model of human tumor dormancy: an angiogenic switch from the nonangiogenic phenotype. J Natl Cancer Inst, 98 (2006), No.5, 316–325.  
  20. M.H. Barcellos-Hoff. It takes a tissue to make a tumor: epigenetics, cancer and the microenvironment. Journal of mammary gland biology and neoplasia, 6 (2001), No.2, 213–221.  
  21. R. Gatenby, R.J. Gillies. A microenvironmental model of carcinogenesis. Nat Rev Cancer, 8 (2008), No.1, 56–61.  
  22. A. Brú, S. Albertos, J.L. Subiza et al. The universal dynamics of tumor growth. Biophys J 85 (2003), No.5, 2948–2961.  
  23. J. Galle, M. Hoffmann, G. Aust. From single cells to tissue architecture – a bottom-up approach to modelling the spatio-temporal organization of complex multi-cellular systems. J Math Biol 58 (2009), 261–283.  
  24. L. Norton. Conceptual and practical implications of breast tissue geometry: toward a more effective, less toxic therapy. Oncologist, 10 (2005), No. 6, 370–381.  
  25. L. Norton, J. Massague. Is cancer a disease of self-seeding? Nat Med, 12 (2006), No.8, 875–878  
  26. S. Masunaga, K. Ono, M. Abe. A method for the selective measurement of the radiosensitivity of quiescent cells in solid tumors – combination of immunofluorescence staining to BrdU and micronucleus assay. Radiat Res, 125 (1991), No. 3, 243–247.  
  27. G.W. Barendsen, C. Van Bree, N.A.P. Franken. Importance of cell proliferative state and potentially lethal damage repair on radiation effectiveness: implications for combined tumor treatments. Int. J. Oncol., 19 (2001), No. 2, 247–256.  
  28. J.J. Kim, I.F. Tannock. Repopulation of cancer cells during therapy: an important cause of treatment failure. Nat Rev Cancer, 5 (2005), No. 7, 516–25.  
  29. H. Enderling, A.R.A. Anderson, M.A.J. Chaplain, A.J. Munro, J.S. Vaidya. Mathematical modelling of radiotherapy strategies for early breast cancer. J. Theor. Biol., 241 (2006), No. 1, 158–171.  
  30. H. Enderling, M.A.J. Chaplain, A.R.A. Anderson, J.S. Vaidya. A mathematical model of breast cancer development, local treatment and recurrence. J. Theor. Biol., 246 (2007), No. 2, 245–259.  
  31. B. Ribba, T. Colin, S. Schnell. A multiscale mathematical model of cancer, and its use in analyzing irradiation therapies. Theor. Biol. Med. Model. 3 (2006), No.7.  
  32. A. Dawson, T. Hillen. Derivation of the Tumour Control Probability (TCP) from a Cell Cycle Model.Comp. Math. Meth. Med, 7 (2006), 121–142.  
  33. T.L. Jackson, H.M. Byrne. A mathematical model to study the effects of drug resistance and vasculature on the response of solid tumors to chemotherapy. Math Biosci,164 (2000), No. 1, 17–38.  
  34. T. Alarcon, M.R. Owen, H.M. Byrne et al. Multiscale modelling of tumour growth and therapy: the influence of vessel normalisation on chemotherapy. Comp Math Methods Med, 7(2006), 85–119.  
  35. H.M. Byrne, T. Alarcon, M.R. Owen et al. Modelling the response of vascular tumours to chemotherapy: a multiscale approach. Math Mod Meth Appl Sci, 16 (2006), No. 1, 1219–1241.  
  36. E.S. Norris, J.R. King, H.M. Byrne. Modelling the response of spatially structured tumours to chemotherapy: drug kinetics. Math Comp Mod, 43 (2006), No. 7-8, 820–837.  
  37. A.R.A. Anderson, M.A.J. Chaplain, K.A. Rejniak. Single-Cell-Based Models in Biology and Medicine. Birkhauser, Basel, 2007.  
  38. P.K. Maini, D.L.S. McElwain, D.I. Leavesley. Traveling wave model to interpret a wound-healing cell migration assay for human peritoneal mesothelial cells. Tissue Eng., 10 (2004), No.(3-4), 475–482.  
  39. B. Ribba, K. Marron, Z. Agur, T. Alarcon, P.K. Maini. A mathematical model of Doxorubicin treatment efficacy for non-Hodgkin's lymphoma: investigation of the current protocol through theoretical modelling results. Bull Math Biol, 67 (2005), No.1, 79–99.  
  40. M. Guerrero, X. Allen Li. Analysis of a large number of clinical studies for breast cancer radiotherapy: estimation of radiobiological parameters for treatment planning. Phys Med Biol, 48 (2003), No.20, 3307–3326.  
  41. D.J. Brenner, L.R. Hlatky, P.J. Hahnfeldt, E.J. Hall, R.K. Sachs. A convenient extension of the linear-quadratic model to include redistribution and reoxygenation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys, 32 (1995), No. 2, 379–390.  
  42. J.A. Stanley, W.U. Shipley, G.G. Steele. Influence of tumour size on hypoxic fraction and therapeutic sensitivity of Lewis lung tumour. Br J Cancer, 26 (1977), No.1, 105–113.  
  43. J. Folkman, M. Hochberg. Self-regulation of growth in three dimensions. J Exp Med 138 (1973) No. 4, 745–753.  
  44. J.M. Brown, A.J. Giaccia. The unique physiology of solid tumors: Opportunities (and problems) for cancer therapy. Cancer Res, 58 (1998), 1408 –1416.  
  45. S. Masunaga, K. Ono, A. Takahashi, T. Ohnishi, Y. Kinashi, M. Takagaki. Radiobiological characteristics of solid tumours depending on the p53 status of the tumour cells, with emphasis on the response of intratumour quiescent cells. Eur J Cancer, 38 (2002), No. 5, 718–727.  
  46. P. Ubezio, D. Cameron. Cell killing and resistance in pre-operative breast cancer chemotherapy. BMC Cancer, 8 (2008).  
  47. M. Baumann, M. Krause, R. Hill. Exploring the role of cancer stem cells in radioresistance. Nat Rev Cancer, 8 (2008), No. 7, 545–554.  
  48. M. Baum, J.S. Vaidya. Targeted intra-operative radiotherapy–TARGIT for early breast cancer.Ann N Y Acad Sci, 1138 (2008), 132–135.  
  49. START Trialists' Group. The UK Standardisation of Breast Radiotherapy (START) Trial A of radiotherapy hypofractionation for treatment of early breast cancer: a randomised trial. Lancet Oncol, 9 (2008), No. 4, 331–341.  
  50. J. Yarnold, D. Bloomeld, J. LeVay. Prospective randomized trial testing 5.7 Gy and 6.0 Gy fractions of whole breast radiotherapy in women with early breast cancer (FAST) trial.Clin Oncol, 16 (2004), S30.  
  51. E.J. Hall. Radiobiology for the Radiologist 5th edn. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia, 2000.  
  52. S.K. Kang, J.B. Park, S.H. Cha. Multipotent, dedifferentiated cancer stem-like cells from brain gliomas. Stem Cells Dev, 15 (2006), No. 3, 423–435.  
  53. S.A. Mani, W. Guo, M.J. Liao et al. The epithelial-mesenchymal transition generates cells with properties of stem cells. Cell, 133 (2008), No. 4, 704–715.  
  54. C. Guiot, P.G. Degiorgis, P.P. Delsanto et al. Does tumor growth follow a “universal law”? J Theor Biol, 225 (2003), No. 2, 147–151.  
  55. A. Wichmann, B. Jaklevic, T.T. Su. Ionizing radiation induces caspase-dependent but Chk2- and p53-independent cell death in Drosophila melanogaster. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA, 103 (2006), No. 26, 9952–9957.  

NotesEmbed ?

top

You must be logged in to post comments.

To embed these notes on your page include the following JavaScript code on your page where you want the notes to appear.

Only the controls for the widget will be shown in your chosen language. Notes will be shown in their authored language.

Tells the widget how many notes to show per page. You can cycle through additional notes using the next and previous controls.

    
                

                
Note: Best practice suggests putting the JavaScript code just before the closing </body> tag.