Eunjung Kim1, Vito W Rebecca2, Keiran S M Smalley2, Alexander R A Anderson3. 1. Integrated Mathematical Oncology Department, Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, FL, USA. Electronic address: Eunjung.Kim@moffitt.org. 2. The Department of Tumor Biology, Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, FL, USA. 3. Integrated Mathematical Oncology Department, Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, FL, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: One of major issues in clinical trials in oncology is their high failure rate, despite the fact that the trials were designed based on the data from successful equivalent preclinical studies. This is in part due to the intrinsic homogeneity of preclinical model systems and the contrasting heterogeneity of actual patient responses. METHODS: We present a mathematical model-driven framework, phase i (virtual/imaginary) trials, that integrates the heterogeneity of actual patient responses and preclinical studies through a cohort of virtual patients. The framework includes an experimentally calibrated mathematical model, a cohort of heterogeneous virtual patients, an assessment of stratification factors, and treatment optimisation. We show the detailed process through the lens of melanoma combination therapy (chemotherapy and an AKT inhibitor), using both preclinical and clinical data. RESULTS: The mathematical model predicts melanoma treatment response and resistance to mono and combination therapies and was calibrated and then validated with in vitro experimental data. The validated model and a genetic algorithm were used to generate virtual patients whose tumour volume responses to the combination therapy matched statistically the actual heterogeneous patient responses in the clinical trial. Analyses on simulated cohorts revealed key model parameters such as a tumour volume doubling rate and a therapy-induced phenotypic switch rate that may have clinical correlates. Finally, our approach predicts optimal AKT inhibitor scheduling suggesting more effective but less toxic treatment strategies. CONCLUSION: Our proposed computational framework to implement phase i trials in cancer can readily capture observed heterogeneous clinical outcomes and predict patient survival. Importantly, phase i trials can be used to optimise future clinical trial design.
BACKGROUND: One of major issues in clinical trials in oncology is their high failure rate, despite the fact that the trials were designed based on the data from successful equivalent preclinical studies. This is in part due to the intrinsic homogeneity of preclinical model systems and the contrasting heterogeneity of actual patient responses. METHODS: We present a mathematical model-driven framework, phase i (virtual/imaginary) trials, that integrates the heterogeneity of actual patient responses and preclinical studies through a cohort of virtual patients. The framework includes an experimentally calibrated mathematical model, a cohort of heterogeneous virtual patients, an assessment of stratification factors, and treatment optimisation. We show the detailed process through the lens of melanoma combination therapy (chemotherapy and an AKT inhibitor), using both preclinical and clinical data. RESULTS: The mathematical model predicts melanoma treatment response and resistance to mono and combination therapies and was calibrated and then validated with in vitro experimental data. The validated model and a genetic algorithm were used to generate virtual patients whose tumour volume responses to the combination therapy matched statistically the actual heterogeneous patient responses in the clinical trial. Analyses on simulated cohorts revealed key model parameters such as a tumour volume doubling rate and a therapy-induced phenotypic switch rate that may have clinical correlates. Finally, our approach predicts optimal AKT inhibitor scheduling suggesting more effective but less toxic treatment strategies. CONCLUSION: Our proposed computational framework to implement phase i trials in cancer can readily capture observed heterogeneous clinical outcomes and predict patient survival. Importantly, phase i trials can be used to optimise future clinical trial design.
Authors: Laurent Claret; Pascal Girard; Paulo M Hoff; Eric Van Cutsem; Klaas P Zuideveld; Karin Jorga; Jan Fagerberg; René Bruno Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-07-27 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Yan Cheng; Yi Zhang; Li Zhang; Xingcong Ren; Kathryn J Huber-Keener; Xiaoyuan Liu; Lei Zhou; Jason Liao; Heike Keihack; Li Yan; Eric Rubin; Jin-Ming Yang Journal: Mol Cancer Ther Date: 2011-11-04 Impact factor: 6.261
Authors: Vito W Rebecca; Renato R Massaro; Inna V Fedorenko; Vernon K Sondak; Alexander R A Anderson; Eunjung Kim; Ravi K Amaravadi; Silvya S Maria-Engler; Jane L Messina; Geoffrey T Gibney; Ragini R Kudchadkar; Keiran S M Smalley Journal: Pigment Cell Melanoma Res Date: 2014-02-21 Impact factor: 4.693
Authors: L Rhoda Molife; Li Yan; Joanna Vitfell-Rasmussen; Adriane M Zernhelt; Daniel M Sullivan; Philippe A Cassier; Eric Chen; Andrea Biondo; Ernestina Tetteh; Lillian L Siu; Amita Patnaik; Kyriakos P Papadopoulos; Johann S de Bono; Anthony W Tolcher; Susan Minton Journal: J Hematol Oncol Date: 2014-01-03 Impact factor: 17.388
Authors: A Ploquin; D Olmos; D Lacombe; R A'Hern; A Duhamel; C Twelves; S Marsoni; R Morales-Barrera; J-C Soria; J Verweij; E E Voest; P Schöffski; J H Schellens; A Kramar; R S Kristeleit; H-T Arkenau; S B Kaye; N Penel Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2012-08-21 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Victor A Levin; Lauren E Abrey; Timothy P Heffron; Peter J Tonge; Arvin C Dar; William A Weiss; James M Gallo Journal: CNS Oncol Date: 2017-07-18
Authors: Keesha E Erickson; Oleksii S Rukhlenko; Richard G Posner; William S Hlavacek; Boris N Kholodenko Journal: Semin Cancer Biol Date: 2018-03-05 Impact factor: 15.707
Authors: Russell C Rockne; Andrea Hawkins-Daarud; Kristin R Swanson; James P Sluka; James A Glazier; Paul Macklin; David A Hormuth; Angela M Jarrett; Ernesto A B F Lima; J Tinsley Oden; George Biros; Thomas E Yankeelov; Kit Curtius; Ibrahim Al Bakir; Dominik Wodarz; Natalia Komarova; Luis Aparicio; Mykola Bordyuh; Raul Rabadan; Stacey D Finley; Heiko Enderling; Jimmy Caudell; Eduardo G Moros; Alexander R A Anderson; Robert A Gatenby; Artem Kaznatcheev; Peter Jeavons; Nikhil Krishnan; Julia Pelesko; Raoul R Wadhwa; Nara Yoon; Daniel Nichol; Andriy Marusyk; Michael Hinczewski; Jacob G Scott Journal: Phys Biol Date: 2019-06-19 Impact factor: 2.959