Skip to main content
NCBI home page
British Journal of Cancer logoLink to British Journal of Cancer
. 1996 Jun;73(11):1409–1416. doi: 10.1038/bjc.1996.267

Mathematical modelling of tumour response in primary breast cancer.

D A Cameron 1, W M Gregory 1, A Bowman 1, R C Leonard 1
PMCID: PMC2074487  PMID: 8645588

Abstract

Although breast cancer is perceived to be relatively chemosensitive, cytotoxic drug therapy only leads to cure in the adjuvant setting. In advanced disease, primary resistance and inadequate cell kill may be important in determining the lack of a durable response to cytotoxics, but for an individual patient's tumour there is no consistent way of determining the importance of these two factors. An adaptation of Skipper's log cell kill model of tumour response to chemotherapy was applied to serial tumour measurements of 46 locally advanced primary breast carcinomas undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Assuming a log-normal distribution of errors in the clinically measured volumes, the model produced, for each tumour separately, in vivo estimates of proportional cell kill, initial resistance and tumour doubling times during therapy. After 4 weeks' treatment, these data could then be used to predict subsequent tumour volumes with good accuracy. In addition, for the 13 tumours that became operable after the neoadjuvant chemotherapy, there was a significant association between the final volume as predicted by the model and the final pathological volume (P < 0.05). This approach could be usefully employed to determine those tumours that are primarily resistant to the treatment regimen, permitting changes of therapy to more effective drugs at a time when the tumour is clinically responding but destined to progress.

Full text

PDF
1409

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Brown B. W., Atkinson E. N., Bartoszynski R., Thompson J. R., Montague E. D. Estimation of human tumor growth rate from distribution of tumor size at detection. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1984 Jan;72(1):31–38. doi: 10.1093/jnci/72.1.31. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Elledge R. M., Clark G. M., Hon J., Thant M., Belt R., Maguire Y. P., Brown J., Bartels P., Von Hoff D. D. Rapid in vitro assay for predicting response to fluorouracil in patients with metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 1995 Feb;13(2):419–423. doi: 10.1200/JCO.1995.13.2.419. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Gardin G., Alama A., Rosso R., Campora E., Repetto L., Pronzato P., Merlini L., Naso C., Camoriano A., Meazza R. Relationship of variations in tumor cell kinetics induced by primary chemotherapy to tumor regression and prognosis in locally advanced breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 1994;32(3):311–318. doi: 10.1007/BF00666008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Goldie J. H., Coldman A. J., Gudauskas G. A. Rationale for the use of alternating non-cross-resistant chemotherapy. Cancer Treat Rep. 1982 Mar;66(3):439–449. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Gregory W. M., Reznek R. H., Hallett M., Slevin M. L. Using mathematical models to estimate drug resistance and treatment efficacy via CT scan measurements of tumour volume. Br J Cancer. 1990 Oct;62(4):671–675. doi: 10.1038/bjc.1990.354. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Harris A. L. DNA repair and resistance to chemotherapy. Cancer Surv. 1985;4(3):601–624. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Hayward J. L., Carbone P. P., Heuson J. C., Kumaoka S., Segaloff A., Rubens R. D. Assessment of response to therapy in advanced breast cancer: a project of the Programme on Clinical Oncology of the International Union Against Cancer, Geneva, Switzerland. Cancer. 1977 Mar;39(3):1289–1294. doi: 10.1002/1097-0142(197703)39:3<1289::aid-cncr2820390340>3.0.co;2-f. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Heuser L., Spratt J. S., Polk H. C., Jr Growth rates of primary breast cancers. Cancer. 1979 May;43(5):1888–1894. doi: 10.1002/1097-0142(197905)43:5<1888::aid-cncr2820430545>3.0.co;2-m. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Koh E. H., Chung H. C., Lee K. B., Lim H. Y., Kim J. H., Roh J. K., Min J. S., Lee K. S., Kim B. S. The value of immunohistochemical detection of P-glycoprotein in breast cancer before and after induction chemotherapy. Yonsei Med J. 1992 Jun;33(2):137–142. doi: 10.3349/ymj.1992.33.2.137. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. LAIRD A. K. DYNAMICS OF TUMOR GROWTH. Br J Cancer. 1964 Sep;13:490–502. doi: 10.1038/bjc.1964.55. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Lokich J., Bothe A., Fine N., Perri J. Phase I study of protracted venous infusion of 5-fluorouracil. Cancer. 1981 Dec 15;48(12):2565–2568. doi: 10.1002/1097-0142(19811215)48:12<2565::aid-cncr2820481204>3.0.co;2-e. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. McCready D. R., Hortobagyi G. N., Kau S. W., Smith T. L., Buzdar A. U., Balch C. M. The prognostic significance of lymph node metastases after preoperative chemotherapy for locally advanced breast cancer. Arch Surg. 1989 Jan;124(1):21–25. doi: 10.1001/archsurg.1989.01410010027005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. O'Shaughnessy J. A., Cowan K. H. Current status of paclitaxel in the treatment of breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 1995;33(1):27–37. doi: 10.1007/BF00666068. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Pain J. A., Ebbs S. R., Hern R. P., Lowe S., Bradbeer J. W. Assessment of breast cancer size: a comparison of methods. Eur J Surg Oncol. 1992 Feb;18(1):44–48. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Priore R. L. Using a mathematical model in the evaluation of human tumor response to chemotherapy. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1966 Nov;37(5):635–647. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. SKIPPER H. E., SCHABEL F. M., Jr, WILCOX W. S. EXPERIMENTAL EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL ANTICANCER AGENTS. XIII. ON THE CRITERIA AND KINETICS ASSOCIATED WITH "CURABILITY" OF EXPERIMENTAL LEUKEMIA. Cancer Chemother Rep. 1964 Feb;35:1–111. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Von Hoff D. D. He's not going to talk about in vitro predictive assays again, is he? J Natl Cancer Inst. 1990 Jan 17;82(2):96–101. doi: 10.1093/jnci/82.2.96. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Warr D., McKinney S., Tannock I. Influence of measurement error on assessment of response to anticancer chemotherapy: proposal for new criteria of tumor response. J Clin Oncol. 1984 Sep;2(9):1040–1046. doi: 10.1200/JCO.1984.2.9.1040. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from British Journal of Cancer are provided here courtesy of Cancer Research UK

RESOURCES