A mesoscopic simulator to uncover heterogeneity and evolutionary dynamics in tumors

Increasingly complex in-silico modeling approaches offer a way to simultaneously access cancerous processes at different spatio-temporal scales. High-level models, such as those based on partial differential equations, are computationally affordable and allow large tumor sizes and long temporal windows to be studied, but miss the discrete nature of many key underlying cellular processes. Individual-based approaches provide a much more detailed description of tumors, but have difficulties when trying to handle full-sized real cancers. Thus, there exists a trade-off between the integration of macroscopic and microscopic information, now widely available, and the ability to attain clinical tumor sizes. In this paper we put forward a stochastic mesoscopic simulation framework that incorporates key cellular processes during tumor progression while keeping computational costs to a minimum. Our framework captures a physical scale that allows both the incorporation of microscopic information, tracking the spatio-temporal emergence of tumor heterogeneity and the underlying evolutionary dynamics, and the reconstruction of clinically sized tumors from high-resolution medical imaging data, with the additional benefit of low computational cost. We illustrate the functionality of our modeling approach for the case of glioblastoma, a paradigm of tumor heterogeneity that remains extremely challenging in the clinical setting. Author summaryComputer simulation based on mathematical models provides a way to improve the understanding of complex processes in oncology. In this paper we develop a stochastic mesoscopic simulation approach that incorporates key cellular processes while keeping computational costs to a minimum. Our methodology captures the development of tumor heterogeneity and the underlying evolutionary dynamics. The physical scale considered allows microscopic information to be included, tracking the spatio-temporal evolution of tumor heterogeneity and reconstructing clinically sized tumors from high-resolution medical imaging data, with a low computational cost. We illustrate the functionality of the modeling approach for the case of glioblastoma, an epitome of heterogeneity in tumors.

[1]  J. V. Moran,et al.  Initial sequencing and analysis of the human genome. , 2001, Nature.

[2]  Guangtao Zhai,et al.  A Deep Learning-Based Radiomics Model for Prediction of Survival in Glioblastoma Multiforme , 2017, Scientific Reports.

[3]  Alex A. Pollen,et al.  Single‐cell sequencing maps gene expression to mutational phylogenies in PDGF‐ and EGF‐driven gliomas , 2016, Molecular Systems Biology.

[4]  Víctor M. Pérez-García,et al.  Hypoxic Cell Waves Around Necrotic Cores in Glioblastoma: A Biomathematical Model and Its Therapeutic Implications , 2012, Bulletin of Mathematical Biology.

[5]  Vittorio Cristini,et al.  Multiscale cancer modeling. , 2010, Annual review of biomedical engineering.

[6]  Timothy B. Stockwell,et al.  The Sequence of the Human Genome , 2001, Science.

[7]  In-Hee Lee,et al.  Spatiotemporal Evolution of the Primary Glioblastoma Genome. , 2015, Cancer cell.

[8]  Estanislao Arana,et al.  Prognostic models based on imaging findings in glioblastoma: Human versus Machine , 2019, Scientific Reports.

[9]  Philip Gerlee,et al.  The model muddle: in search of tumor growth laws. , 2012, Cancer research.

[10]  Albert Lai,et al.  Prognostic significance of growth kinetics in newly diagnosed glioblastomas revealed by combining serial imaging with a novel biomathematical model. , 2009, Cancer research.

[11]  A. Anderson,et al.  Hybrid models of tumor growth , 2011, Wiley interdisciplinary reviews. Systems biology and medicine.

[12]  Ole Solheim,et al.  Growth dynamics of untreated glioblastomas in vivo. , 2015, Neuro-oncology.

[13]  Edward F. Chang,et al.  Tumor Evolution of Glioma-Intrinsic Gene Expression Subtypes Associates with Immunological Changes in the Microenvironment. , 2017, Cancer cell.

[14]  Griffin M. Weber,et al.  BioNumbers—the database of key numbers in molecular and cell biology , 2009, Nucleic Acids Res..

[15]  M. Eremets,et al.  Ammonia as a case study for the spontaneous ionization of a simple hydrogen-bonded compound , 2014, Nature Communications.

[16]  Ruijiang Li,et al.  Volume of high-risk intratumoral subregions at multi-parametric MR imaging predicts overall survival and complements molecular analysis of glioblastoma , 2017, European Radiology.

[17]  M. Nachman,et al.  Estimate of the mutation rate per nucleotide in humans. , 2000, Genetics.

[18]  D. Gillespie Exact Stochastic Simulation of Coupled Chemical Reactions , 1977 .

[19]  Juan Belmonte-Beitia,et al.  Bright solitary waves in malignant gliomas. , 2011, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[20]  V. Pérez-García,et al.  18F-Fluorocholine PET/CT in the Prediction of Molecular Subtypes and Prognosis for Gliomas. , 2019, Clinical nuclear medicine.

[21]  David Basanta,et al.  Hybrid Automata Library: A flexible platform for hybrid modeling with real-time visualization , 2020, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[22]  Dimitris Visvikis,et al.  Tumour functional sphericity from PET images: prognostic value in NSCLC and impact of delineation method , 2018, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

[23]  Pier Paolo Delsanto,et al.  Does tumor growth follow a "universal law"? , 2003, Journal of theoretical biology.

[24]  Carissa A. Sanchez,et al.  Genetic clonal diversity predicts progression to esophageal adenocarcinoma , 2006, Nature Genetics.

[25]  Joshua M. Korn,et al.  Comprehensive genomic characterization defines human glioblastoma genes and core pathways , 2008, Nature.

[26]  D. Haussler,et al.  The Somatic Genomic Landscape of Glioblastoma , 2013, Cell.

[27]  P. Lambin,et al.  Decoding tumour phenotype by noninvasive imaging using a quantitative radiomics approach , 2014, Nature Communications.

[28]  R. Mirimanoff,et al.  Radiotherapy plus concomitant and adjuvant temozolomide for glioblastoma. , 2005, The New England journal of medicine.

[29]  V. Pérez-García,et al.  A three-dimensional computational analysis of magnetic resonance images characterizes the biological aggressiveness in malignant brain tumours , 2018, Journal of the Royal Society Interface.

[30]  Steven J. M. Jones,et al.  Mutational Analysis Reveals the Origin and Therapy-Driven Evolution of Recurrent Glioma , 2014, Science.

[31]  Xuelei Ma,et al.  Prediction of Overall Survival and Progression-Free Survival by the 18F-FDG PET/CT Radiomic Features in Patients with Primary Gastric Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma , 2019, Contrast media & molecular imaging.

[32]  C. Sander,et al.  Mutual exclusivity analysis identifies oncogenic network modules. , 2012, Genome research.

[33]  Jill S Barnholtz-Sloan,et al.  Whole-genome and multisector exome sequencing of primary and post-treatment glioblastoma reveals patterns of tumor evolution , 2015, Genome research.

[34]  A. Magurran,et al.  Measuring Biological Diversity , 2004 .

[35]  B. Schönfisch,et al.  Synchronous and asynchronous updating in cellular automata. , 1999, Bio Systems.

[36]  Ruth E. Baker,et al.  Accurate and efficient discretizations for stochastic models providing near agent-based spatial resolution at low computational cost , 2019, Journal of the Royal Society Interface.

[37]  James H. Brown,et al.  A general model for ontogenetic growth , 2001, Nature.

[38]  M. Nowak,et al.  Dynamics of cancer progression , 2004, Nature Reviews Cancer.

[39]  John M. L. Ebos,et al.  Classical Mathematical Models for Description and Prediction of Experimental Tumor Growth , 2014, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[40]  Su Ruan,et al.  Predictive value of initial FDG-PET features for treatment response and survival in esophageal cancer patients treated with chemo-radiation therapy using a random forest classifier , 2017, PloS one.

[41]  V. P. Collins,et al.  Intratumor heterogeneity in human glioblastoma reflects cancer evolutionary dynamics , 2013, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[42]  N. Houssami,et al.  Breast cancer Ki-67 expression prediction by digital breast tomosynthesis radiomics features , 2019, European Radiology Experimental.

[43]  Joseph D Butner,et al.  Simulating cancer growth with multiscale agent-based modeling. , 2015, Seminars in cancer biology.

[44]  Randy Heiland,et al.  A Review of Cell-Based Computational Modeling in Cancer Biology , 2019, JCO clinical cancer informatics.

[45]  M. Gönen,et al.  Cellular and genetic diversity in the progression of in situ human breast carcinomas to an invasive phenotype. , 2010, The Journal of clinical investigation.

[46]  Andrea Sottoriva,et al.  Single-molecule genomic data delineate patient-specific tumor profiles and cancer stem cell organization. , 2013, Cancer research.

[47]  Hugo J. W. L. Aerts,et al.  Radiomic‐Based Pathological Response Prediction from Primary Tumors and Lymph Nodes in NSCLC , 2017, Journal of thoracic oncology : official publication of the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer.

[48]  Antonio Vaamonde Liste,et al.  Evaluation of response to conventional chemotherapy and radiotherapy by perfusion computed tomography in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) , 2019 .

[49]  C. Brennan,et al.  Tracking Tumor Evolution in Glioma through Liquid Biopsies of Cerebrospinal Fluid , 2018, Nature.

[50]  Estanislao Arana,et al.  Glioblastoma: does the pre-treatment geometry matter? A postcontrast T1 MRI-based study , 2017, European Radiology.

[51]  D. Stauffer,et al.  Evolutionary ecologyin silico: Does mathematical modelling help in understanding ‘generic’ trends? , 2005, Journal of Biosciences.

[52]  R. Durrett,et al.  The Importance of Being Discrete (and Spatial) , 1994 .

[53]  Estanislao Arana,et al.  Tumor Surface Regularity at MR Imaging Predicts Survival and Response to Surgery in Patients with Glioblastoma. , 2018, Radiology.

[54]  V. Pérez-García,et al.  Tumor width on T1-weighted MRI images of glioblastoma as a prognostic biomarker: a mathematical model , 2020, Mathematical Modelling of Natural Phenomena.

[55]  D. Hanahan,et al.  The Hallmarks of Cancer , 2000, Cell.

[56]  Estanislao Arana,et al.  Universal scaling laws rule explosive growth in human cancers , 2020, Nature Physics.

[57]  Orieta Celiku,et al.  Computational modeling demonstrates that glioblastoma cells can survive spatial environmental challenges through exploratory adaptation , 2019, Nature Communications.

[58]  M. Nowak,et al.  Evolutionary Dynamics of Biological Games , 2004, Science.

[59]  Maximilian Reiser,et al.  Radiomic Analysis Reveals Prognostic Information in T1-Weighted Baseline Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Patients With Glioblastoma , 2017, Investigative radiology.

[60]  Martin A. Nowak,et al.  A spatial model predicts that dispersal and cell turnover limit intratumour heterogeneity , 2015, Nature.

[61]  J. Borrás,et al.  Tumour heterogeneity in glioblastoma assessed by MRI texture analysis: a potential marker of survival. , 2016, The British journal of radiology.

[62]  Emmanuel Barillot,et al.  PhysiBoSS: a multi-scale agent-based modelling framework integrating physical dimension and cell signalling , 2018, bioRxiv.

[63]  G. F. Calvo,et al.  Interplay of Darwinian Selection, Lamarckian Induction and Microvesicle Transfer on Drug Resistance in Cancer , 2019, Scientific Reports.

[64]  D. Busam,et al.  An Integrated Genomic Analysis of Human Glioblastoma Multiforme , 2008, Science.

[65]  Max Wintermark,et al.  Multicenter imaging outcomes study of The Cancer Genome Atlas glioblastoma patient cohort: imaging predictors of overall and progression-free survival. , 2015, Neuro-oncology.

[66]  I. Apostolova,et al.  Increased evidence for the prognostic value of primary tumor asphericity in pretherapeutic FDG PET for risk stratification in patients with head and neck cancer , 2015, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

[67]  K. Swanson,et al.  The biology and mathematical modelling of glioma invasion: a review , 2017, Journal of The Royal Society Interface.