| Literature DB >> 36077727 |
Fazal Subhan1, Muhammad Adnan Aziz1, Inam Ullah Khan1,2, Muhammad Fayaz3, Marcin Wozniak4, Jana Shafi5, Muhammad Fazal Ijaz6.
Abstract
Cancerous tumor cells divide uncontrollably, which results in either tumor or harm to the immune system of the body. Due to the destructive effects of chemotherapy, optimal medications are needed. Therefore, possible treatment methods should be controlled to maintain the constant/continuous dose for affecting the spreading of cancerous tumor cells. Rapid growth of cells is classified into primary and secondary types. In giving a proper response, the immune system plays an important role. This is considered a natural process while fighting against tumors. In recent days, achieving a better method to treat tumors is the prime focus of researchers. Mathematical modeling of tumors uses combined immune, vaccine, and chemotherapies to check performance stability. In this research paper, mathematical modeling is utilized with reference to cancerous tumor growth, the immune system, and normal cells, which are directly affected by the process of chemotherapy. This paper presents novel techniques, which include Bernstein polynomial (BSP) with genetic algorithm (GA), sliding mode controller (SMC), and synergetic control (SC), for giving a possible solution to the cancerous tumor cells (CCs) model. Through GA, random population is generated to evaluate fitness. SMC is used for the continuous exponential dose of chemotherapy to reduce CCs in about forty-five days. In addition, error function consists of five cases that include normal cells (NCs), immune cells (ICs), CCs, and chemotherapy. Furthermore, the drug control process is explained in all the cases. In simulation results, utilizing SC has completely eliminated CCs in nearly five days. The proposed approach reduces CCs as early as possible.Entities:
Keywords: Bernstein polynomial (bsp); chemotherapy; genetic algorithm (ga); immunotherapy and optimization; nonlinear ordinary coupled differential equation (ncode); sliding mode controller (smc); synergetic controller (sc)
Year: 2022 PMID: 36077727 PMCID: PMC9454425 DOI: 10.3390/cancers14174191
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cancers (Basel) ISSN: 2072-6694 Impact factor: 6.575
Figure 1Three different modes for cancer-related problems.
Different treatment methods with limitations.
| Treatment and Controller | Behavior | Limitations |
|---|---|---|
| Pulsed chemotherapy protocol [ | Oscillatory behavior of CCs and ICs | CCs not removed completely |
| Direct collocation as an optimal control with continuous chemotherapy [ | Oscillation in ICs, slow reduction of CCs | CCs eliminated within 70 days, NCs reduced to dangerous level |
| Traditional pulse chemotherapy [ | Reduction of CCs and NCs | CCs still remaining, NCs die down to minimum threshold |
| Optimal control with chemotherapy [ | CCs slowly removed | Elimination of CCs within 70 days |
| Chemo-immunotherapy with optimal control [ | Oscillatory behavior of NCs and ICs | Treatment destroys the CCs, NCs, and ICs |
| Multi-objective swarm as an optimal control with chemotherapy [ | Nonlinear behavior of treatment, NCs and CCs. | NCs reduced to minimum edge, so for the time being, treatment is stopped to recover NCs to a safe level. |
| Chemo-immunotherapy of triple-negative breast cancer [ | ICs remain at very low level | CCs eliminated after 60 days |
| Optimal administration protocols for immunotherapies [ | Nonlinear behavior of CCs elimination | CCs eliminated after 40 days |
| Chemo-immunotherapy with SMC [ | CCs eliminated from the patient’s body within 45 days. | The CCs elimination is good but can be enhanced. |
Different controllers using parameters with values.
| Parameters | Values | Estimated | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| 1 | 0 to 1 | Reduction coefficient of growth rate of CCs |
|
| 0 | 0 to 0.8 | Positive constant |
|
| 0 | 0 to 1 | Coefficient of controller nonlinear term |
|
| 0.01 | 0.01 to 0.2 | Convergence time of SC |
|
| 1 | 1 | Coefficient of SMC |
|
| 1 | 0 to 1 | Coefficient of SMC |
Figure 2Behavior of constant and continuous chemotherapy.
Figure 3Without ICs, chemotherapy, and controller.
Figure 4Without chemotherapy and controllers.
Figure 5With chemotherapy at a constant dose and without controller.
Figure 6With chemotherapy at a continuous dose and without controller.
Figure 7With chemotherapy constant dose and SMC for CCs Killer.
Figure 8With chemotherapy at a continuous dose and SMC to kill CCs.
Figure 9With chemotherapy at a constant dose and SC to kill CCs.
Figure 10With chemotherapy at a continuous dose and SC to kill CCs.
Figure 11With chemotherapy at a constant dose, SMC on CCs (‘+’ line) with effect on all equations, and SC on CCs (‘−’ line).
Figure 12With chemotherapy at a continuous dose and SMC on CCs (‘+’ line) with effect on all equations and SC on CCs (‘−’ line).
Figure 13With chemotherapy at a constant dose, SMC on CCs (‘+’ line), and SC on CCs (‘−’ line) with effect on all equations.
Figure 14With chemotherapy at a continuous dose, SMC on CCs (‘+’ line), and SC to kill CCs (‘−’ line) with effect on all equations.
Figure 15Convergence time of SC.
Comparative study.
| Treatment and Controller | Cells | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Traditional pulsed chemotherapy without controller [ | NCs | NCs reduced to minimum level. |
| CCs | CCs held at maximum level. | |
| ICs | Little increase in ICs was observed. | |
| Chemotherapy with optimal control [ | NCs | NCs hit minimum level and when treatment halted rose to maximum level. |
| CCs | Approximately, in 70 days, CCs fell to zero. | |
| ICs | ICs also increased to a good level. | |
| Chemotherapy and angiotherapy along with adaptive controller [ | NCs | NCs very slowly increased to a healthy state. |
| CCs | More than 80 days needed to decrease to minimum level. | |
| ECs | During treatment, ECs increased and after that decreased | |
| .Multi immunotherapy [ | CCs | CCs reduced to minimum level within 100 days but were not completely removed. |
| ICs | Also decreased. | |
| Multi objective swarm with optimal control [ | NCs | When NCs reached minimum threshold, treatment was stopped for a short time for the recovery of NCs. |
| CCs | Approximately, in 50 days, CCs fell to zero. | |
| ICs | ICs increased to a good level. | |
| Chemo-immunotherapy along with SMC controller [ | NCs | NCs held at maximum level. |
| CCs | CCs eliminated within 45 days. | |
| ICs | ICs achieved a good level. | |
| Multi Chemo-immunotherapy along with Quadratic control [ | NCs | NCs increased after CCs elimination. |
| CCs | CCs eliminated approximately in 40 days. | |
| ICs | ICs also increased slightly after CCs elimination. | |
| Chemo-immunotherapy along with Quadratic control [ | CCs | CCs exterminated approximately in 20 days. |
| ICs | ICs rose to maximum level after 100 days. | |
| Optimal administration protocols for cancer immunotherapies [ | CCs | CCs eliminated approximately at 35 to 40 days. |
| ICs | ICs also rose after CCs elimination. | |
| Mathematical modelling of CAR-T immunotherapy [ | CCs | CCs eliminated approximately within 50 days. |
| ICs | ICs increased after CCs elimination. | |
| Mathematical modelling of Chemo-immunotherapy in Triple-Negative Breast cancer [ | CCs | CCs completely removed within 60 days. |
| ICs | ICs achieved maximum level after CCs elimination. | |
| Chemo-immunotherapy along with conjoined SMC and SC controller (proposed) | NCs | NCs held to maximum level. |
| CCs | CCs eliminated within 5 days. | |
| ICs | ICs also held to maximum level |