R Ganguly1, I K Puri. 1. Department of Engineering Science and Mechanics, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA 24061, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Cancer stem cells have been identified as the growth root for various malignant tumours and are thought to be responsible for cancer recurrence following treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Here, a predictive mathematical model for the cancer stem cell hypothesis is used to understand tumour responses to chemotherapeutic drugs and judge the efficacy of treatments in arresting tumour growth. The impact of varying drug efficacies on different abnormal cell populations is investigated through the kinetics associated with their decline in response to therapy. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: The model predicts the clinically established 'dandelion phenomenon' and suggests that the best response to chemotherapy occurs when a drug targets abnormal stem cells. We compare continuous and periodic drug infusion. For the latter, we examine the relative importance of the drug cell-kill rate and the mean time between successive therapies, to identify the key attributes for successful treatment.
OBJECTIVE:Cancer stem cells have been identified as the growth root for various malignant tumours and are thought to be responsible for cancer recurrence following treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Here, a predictive mathematical model for the cancer stem cell hypothesis is used to understand tumour responses to chemotherapeutic drugs and judge the efficacy of treatments in arresting tumour growth. The impact of varying drug efficacies on different abnormal cell populations is investigated through the kinetics associated with their decline in response to therapy. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: The model predicts the clinically established 'dandelion phenomenon' and suggests that the best response to chemotherapy occurs when a drug targets abnormal stem cells. We compare continuous and periodic drug infusion. For the latter, we examine the relative importance of the drug cell-kill rate and the mean time between successive therapies, to identify the key attributes for successful treatment.
Authors: Lawrence D Mayer; Troy O Harasym; Paul G Tardi; Natashia L Harasym; Clifford R Shew; Sharon A Johnstone; Euan C Ramsay; Marcel B Bally; Andrew S Janoff Journal: Mol Cancer Ther Date: 2006-07 Impact factor: 6.261
Authors: F Bonifazi; A de Vivo; G Rosti; F Guilhot; J Guilhot; E Trabacchi; R Hehlmann; A Hochhaus; P C Shepherd; J L Steegmann; H C Kluin-Nelemans; J Thaler; B Simonsson; A Louwagie; J Reiffers; F X Mahon; E Montefusco; G Alimena; J Hasford; S Richards; G Saglio; N Testoni; G Martinelli; S Tura; M Baccarani Journal: Blood Date: 2001-11-15 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: Ann M Maddrey; Jon A Bergeron; Elizabeth R Lombardo; Noelle K McDonald; Arlynn F Mulne; Paul D Barenberg; Daniel C Bowers Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2005-05 Impact factor: 4.130
Authors: Franziska Michor; Timothy P Hughes; Yoh Iwasa; Susan Branford; Neil P Shah; Charles L Sawyers; Martin A Nowak Journal: Nature Date: 2005-06-30 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Stephen G O'Brien; François Guilhot; Richard A Larson; Insa Gathmann; Michele Baccarani; Francisco Cervantes; Jan J Cornelissen; Thomas Fischer; Andreas Hochhaus; Timothy Hughes; Klaus Lechner; Johan L Nielsen; Philippe Rousselot; Josy Reiffers; Giuseppe Saglio; John Shepherd; Bengt Simonsson; Alois Gratwohl; John M Goldman; Hagop Kantarjian; Kerry Taylor; Gregor Verhoef; Ann E Bolton; Renaud Capdeville; Brian J Druker Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2003-03-13 Impact factor: 91.245