Fig. 2 ∣. Comparison of clinical benefits of containment and MTD treatments in Model 3.

a, Relative benefit, in terms of time to progression, for ideal containment at size N₀ versus ideal MTD (that is, ratio t_prog(idContN₀)/t_prog(idMTD)), as a function of initial tumour size and frequency of resistant cells. b, Relative benefit, in terms of time to treatment failure, for ideal containment at size N_tol versus ideal MTD (that is, ratio t_fail(idContN_tol)/t_fail(idMTD)), as a function of initial tumour size and frequency of resistant cells. c, Relative benefit, in terms of time to treatment failure, for ideal containment at size N_tol versus ideal MTD for a Gompertzian growth model (black curve; Model 3), a logistic growth model (red) and a von Bertalanffy growth model (blue). Parameter values for the Gompertzian growth model are as in Table 2. Parameter values of the other models are chosen so that untreated tumour growth curves are similar for tumour sizes between N₀ and N_crit (the lethal size). See Extended Data Fig. 2 for details. d–f, Time to progression (d), treatment failure (e) and survival time (f) versus initial frequency of resistance. Outcomes are shown for MTD treatment and containment at N₀, both in the ideal case (C_max = ∞) and subject to C_max = 2. g, Relative benefit, in terms of time to treatment failure for containment versus ideal containment (at size N_tol), as a function of maximum dose threshold (C_max) and initial frequency of resistant cells (the formulas are shown in Supplementary Information, section 3.3). The contour lines are at intervals of 0.05. h,i, Time to treatment failure (h) and survival time (i) versus initial frequency of resistance. Outcomes are shown for MTD treatment and containment at N_tol, both in the ideal case (C_max = ∞) and subject to C_max = 2.