Current mathematical models for cancer drug discovery

References

• Kola I, Landis J. Opinion: can the pharmaceutical industry reduce attrition rates? Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2004;3:711–715.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Workman P. Auditing the pharmacological accounts for Hsp90 molecular chaperone inhibitors: unfolding the relationship between pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics. Mol Cancer Ther. 2003;2:131–138.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yap TA, Sandhu SK, Workman P, et al. Envisioning the future of early anticancer drug development. Nat Rev Cancer. 2010;10:514–523.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kelland LR. “Of mice and men”: values and liabilities of the athymic nude mouse model in anticancer drug development. Eur J Cancer. 2004;40:827–836.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hollingshead MG. Antitumor efficacy testing in rodents. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2008;100:1500–1510.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Jung J. Human tumor xenograft models for preclinical assessment of anticancer drug development. Toxicol Res. 2014;30:1–5.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Liu M, Hicklin D Human tumor xenograft efficacy models. In: Teicher B, editor. Tumor models in cancer research. New York: Humana Press; 2011. p. 99–124.
   Google Scholar
• Gorelik B, Ziv I, Shohat R, et al. Efficacy of weekly docetaxel and bevacizumab in mesenchymal chondrosarcoma: a new theranostic method combining xenografted biopsies with a mathematical model. Cancer Res. 2008;68:9033–9040.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bernard A, Kimko H, Mital D, et al. Mathematical modeling of tumor growth and tumor growth inhibition in oncology drug development. Exp Op Drug Metab Toxicol. 2012;8:1057–1069.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simeoni M, De Nicolao G, Magni P, et al. Modeling of human tumor xenografts and dose rationale in oncology. Drug Disc Today: Technologies. 2013;10:e365–e372.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ribba B, Holford NH, Magni P, et al. A review of mixed‐effects models of tumor growth and effects of anticancer drug treatment used in population analysis. CPT: Pharmacometrics Syst Pharmacol. 2014;3:1–10.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Benzekry S, Lamont C, Beheshti A, et al. Classical mathematical models for description and prediction of experimental tumor growth. Plos Comput Biol. 2014;10:e1003800.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moreno D, Trocóniz IF, Enguita M, et al. Semi‐mechanistic description of the in‐vitro antiproliferative effect of different antitumour agents. J Pharm Pharmacol. 2008;60:77–82.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Del Bene F, Germani M, De Nicolao G, et al. A model-based approach to the in vitro evaluation of anticancer activity. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 2009;63:827–836.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lin HY, Landersdorfer CB, London D, et al. Pharmacodynamic modeling of anti-cancer activity of tetraiodothyroacetic acid in a perfused cell culture system. Plos Comput Biol. 2011;7:e1001073.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li M, Li H, Cheng X, et al. Preclinical pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic models to predict schedule-dependent interaction between erlotinib and gemcitabine. Pharm Res. 2013;30:1400–1408.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koch G, Walz A, Lahu G, et al. Modeling of tumor growth and anticancer effects of combination therapy. J Pharmacokin Pharmacodyn. 2009;36:179–197.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miao X, Koch G, Straubinger RM, et al. Pharmacodynamic modeling of combined chemotherapeutic effects predicts synergistic activity of gemcitabine and trabectedin in pancreatic cancer cells. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 2016;77:181–193.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simeoni M, Magni P, Cammia C, et al. Predictive pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic modeling of tumor growth kinetics in xenograft models after administration of anticancer agents. Cancer Res. 2004;64:1094–1101.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Choo EF, Belvin M, Boggs J, et al. Preclinical disposition of GDC-0973 and prospective and retrospective analysis of human dose and efficacy predictions. Drug Metab Dispos. 2012;40:919–927.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shah DK, Haddish-Berhane N, Betts A. Bench to bedside translation of antibody drug conjugates using a multiscale mechanistic PK/PD model: a case study with brentuximab-vedotin. J Pharmacokin Pharmacodyn. 2012;39:643–659.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wong H, Choo EF, Alicke B, et al. Antitumor activity of targeted and cytotoxic agents in murine subcutaneous tumor models correlates with clinical response. Clin Cancer Res. 2012;18:3846–3855.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haddish-Berhane N, Shah DK, Ma D, et al. On translation of antibody drug conjugates efficacy from mouse experimental tumors to the clinic: a PK/PD approach. J Pharmacokin Pharmacodyn. 2013;40:557–571.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Germani M, Magni P, De Nicolao G, et al. In vitro cell growth pharmacodynamic studies: a new nonparametric approach to determining the relative importance of drug concentration and treatment time. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 2003;52:507–513.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rocchetti M, Germani M, Del Bene F, et al. Predictive pharmacokinetic–pharmacodynamic modeling of tumor growth after administration of an anti-angiogenic agent, bevacizumab, as single-agent and combination therapy in tumor xenografts. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 2013;71:1147–1157.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Terranova N, Germani M, Del Bene F, et al. A predictive pharmacokinetic–pharmacodynamic model of tumor growth kinetics in xenograft mice after administration of anticancer agents given in combination. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 2013;72:471–482.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Parra-Guillen ZP, Berraondo P, Grenier E, et al. Mathematical model approach to describe tumour response in mice after vaccine administration and its applicability to immune-stimulatory cytokine-based strategies. Aaps J. 2013;15:797–807.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Parra-Guillen ZP, Berraondo P, Ribba B, et al. Modeling tumor response after combined administration of different immune-stimulatory agents. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 2013;346:432–442.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jumbe NL, Xin Y, Leipold DD, et al. Modeling the efficacy of trastuzumab-DM1, an antibody drug conjugate, in mice. J Pharmacokin Pharmacodyn. 2010 Jun 1;37(3):221–242.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hahnfeldt P, Panigrahy D, Folkman J, et al. Tumor development under angiogenic signaling. Cancer Res. 1999;59:4770–4775.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ouerdani A, Struemper H, Suttle AB, et al. Preclinical modeling of tumor growth and angiogenesis inhibition to describe pazopanib clinical effects in renal cell carcinoma. CPT: Pharmacometrics Syst Pharmacol. 2015;4:660–668.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wilson S, Tod M, Ouerdani A, et al. Modeling and predicting optimal treatment scheduling between the antiangiogenic drug sunitinib and irinotecan in preclinical settings. CPT: Pharmacometrics Syst Pharmacol. 2015;4:720–727.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Betts AM, Haddish-Berhane N, Tolsma J, et al. Preclinical to clinical translation of antibody-drug conjugates using PK/PD modeling: a retrospective analysis of inotuzumab ozogamicin. Aaps J. 2016;18:1101–1116.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pigatto MC, Roman RM, Carrara L, et al. Pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic modeling of etoposide tumor growth inhibitory effect in Walker-256 tumor-bearing rat model using free intratumoral drug concentrations. Eur J Pharm Sci. 2017;97:70–78.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tanaka C, O’Reilly T, Kovarik JM, et al. Identifying optimal biologic doses of everolimus (RAD001) in patients with cancer based on the modeling of preclinical and clinical pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic data. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:1596–1602.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Yamazaki S, Skaptason J, Romero D,L, et al. Pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic modeling of biomarker response and tumor growth inhibition to an orally available cMet kinase inhibitor in human tumor xenograft mouse models. Drug Metab Dispos. 2008;36:1267–1274.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bueno L, De Alwis DP, Pitou C, et al. Semi-mechanistic modeling of the tumour growth inhibitory effects of LY2157299, a new type I receptor TGF-β kinase antagonist, in mice. Eur J Cancer. 2008;44:142–150.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang S, Zhou Q, Gallo JM. Demonstration of the equivalent pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic dosing strategy in a multiple-dose study of gefitinib. Mol Cancer Ther. 2009;8:1438–1447.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wong H, Belvin M, Herter S, et al. Pharmacodynamics of 2-{4-[(1E)-1-(hydroxyimino)-2, 3-dihydro-1H-inden-5-yl]-3-(pyridine-4-yl)-1H-pyrazol-1-yl} ethan-1-ol (GDC-0879), a potent and selective B-Raf kinase inhibitor: understanding Relationships between systemic concentrations, phosphorylated mitogen-activated protein kinase kinase 1 inhibition, and efficacy. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 2009;329:360–367.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Salphati L, Wong H, Belvin M, et al. Pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic modeling of tumor growth inhibition and biomarker modulation by the novel phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase inhibitor GDC-0941. Drug Metab Dispos. 2010;38:1436–1442.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ribba B, Watkin E, Tod M, et al. A model of vascular tumour growth in mice combining longitudinal tumour size data with histological biomarkers. Eur J Cancer. 2011;47:479–490.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harrold JM, Straubinger RM, Mager DE. Combinatorial chemotherapeutic efficacy in non-Hodgkin lymphoma can be predicted by a signaling model of CD20 pharmacodynamics. Cancer Res. 2012;72:1632–1641.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yamazaki S, Vicini P, Shen Z, et al. Pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic modeling of crizotinib for anaplastic lymphoma kinase inhibition and antitumor efficacy in human tumor xenograft mouse models. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 2012;340:549–557.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wong H, Gould SE, Budha N, et al. Learning and confirming with preclinical studies: modeling and simulation in the discovery of GDC-0917, an IAP antagonist. Drug Metab Dispos. 2013;41:2104–2113.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yamazaki S, Lam JL, Zou HY, et al. Translational pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic modeling for an orally available novel inhibitor of anaplastic lymphoma kinase and c-Ros oncogene 1. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 2014;351:67–76.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yamazaki S, Lam JL, Zou HY, et al. Mechanistic understanding of translational pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic relationships in nonclinical tumor models: a case study of orally available novel inhibitors of anaplastic lymphoma kinase. Drug Metab Dispos. 2015;43:54–62.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Titze MI, Schaaf O, Hofmann MH, et al. A comprehensive pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamics analysis of the novel IGF1R/INSR inhibitor BI 893923 applying in vitro, in vivo and in silico modeling techniques. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 2016;77:1303–1314.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ji XW, Ji SM, Li RT, et al. Pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic modeling of the antitumor effect of TM208 and EGFR-TKI resistance in human breast cancer xenograft mice. Acta Pharmacol Sinica. 2016;37:825–833.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carrol SC, Inglese J, Mao -S-S, et al. Drug screening: assay development issues. In: Prendergast GC, editor. Molecular cancer therapeutics: strategies for drug discovery and development. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, Inc; 2004.
   Google Scholar
• Kalns JE, Millenbaugh NJ, Wientjes MG, et al. Design and analysis of in vitro antitumor pharmacodynamic studies. Cancer Res. 1995;55:5315–5322.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levasseur LM, Slocum HK, Rustum YM, et al. Modeling of the time-dependency of in vitro drug cytotoxicity and resistance. Cancer Res. 1998;58:5749–5761.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gardner SN. A mechanistic, predictive model of dose-response curves for cell cycle phase-specific and-nonspecific drugs. Cancer Res. 2000;60:1417–1425.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cummings BS, Schnellmann RG. Cisplatin-induced renal cell apoptosis: caspase 3-dependent and -independent pathways. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 2002;302:8–17.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bulitta JB, Ly NS, Yang JC, et al. Development and qualification of a pharmacodynamic model for the pronounced inoculum effect of ceftazidime against Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2009;53:46–56.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lobo ED, Balthasar JP. Pharmacodynamic modeling of chemotherapeutic effects: application of a transit compartment model to characterize methotrexate effects in vitro. Aaps J. 2002;4:212–222.
   Google Scholar
• Laird AK. Dynamics of tumour growth. Br J Cancer. 1964;18:490.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Laird AK. Dynamics of tumour growth: comparison of growth rates and extrapolation of growth curve to one cell. Br J Cancer. 1965;19:278.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jusko WJ. Pharmacodynamics of chemotherapeutic effects: dose‐time‐response relationships for phase‐nonspecific agents. J Pharm Sci. 1971;60:892–895.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jusko WJ. A pharmacodynamic model for cell-cycle-specific chemotherapeutic agents. J Pharmacokin Biopharm. 1973;1:175–200.
   Google Scholar
• Yang J, Mager DE, Straubinger RM. Comparison of two pharmacodynamic transduction models for the analysis of tumor therapeutic responses in model systems. Aaps J. 2010;12:1–10.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rocchetti M, Simeoni M, Pesenti E, et al. Predicting the active doses in humans from animal studies: a novel approach in oncology. Eur J Cancer. 2007;43:1862–1868.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bonate PL. Modeling tumor growth in oncology. In:  Bonate PL, Howard DR, editors. Pharmacokinetics in drug development. New York: Springer US; 2011. p. 1–19.
   Google Scholar
• Stuyckens K, Perez Ruixo JJ, Vermeulen A, et al. Modeling drug effects and resistance development on tumor growth dynamics. Kobenhavn: Population Approach Group in Europe (PAGE); 2007.
   Google Scholar
• Rocchetti M, Del Bene F, Germani M, et al. Testing additivity of anticancer agents in pre-clinical studies: a PK/PD modeling approach. Eur J Cancer. 2009;45:3336–3346.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Danhof M, Alvan G, Dahl SG, et al. Mechanism-based pharmacokinetic–pharmacodynamic modeling—a new classification of biomarkers. Pharm Res. 2005;22:1432–1437.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Visser SA, Aurell M, Jones RD, et al. Model-based drug discovery: implementation and impact. Drug Disc Today. 2013;18:764–775.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dayneka NL, Garg V, Jusko WJ. Comparison of four basic models of indirect pharmacodynamic responses. J Pharmacokin Biopharm. 1993;21:457–478.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ten Dijke P, Goumans MJ, Itoh F, et al. Regulation of cell proliferation by Smad proteins. J Cell Physiol. 2002;191:1–6.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sharma A, Jusko WJ. Characteristics of indirect pharmacodynamic models and applications to clinical drug responses. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 1998;45:229–239.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sharma A, Ebling WF, Jusko WJ. Precursor‐dependent indirect pharmacodynamic response model for tolerance and rebound phenomena. J Pharm Sci. 1998;87:1577–1584.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Engelman JA. Targeting PI3K signalling in cancer: opportunities, challenges and limitations. Natl Rev Cancer. 2009;9:550–562.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sardu ML, Poggesi I, De Nicolao G Biomarker-versus drug-driven tumor growth inhibition models: an equivalence analysis. J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn. 2015 Dec 1;42(6):611–626.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levy G. Pharmacologic target‐mediated drug disposition. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1994;56:248–252.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Poggesi I, De Nicolao G, Germani M, et al. Re: antitumor efficacy testing in rodents. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2009;101:1592–1593.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yamazaki S, Nguyen L, Vekich S, et al. Pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic modeling of biomarker response and tumor growth inhibition to an orally available heat shock protein 90 inhibitor in a human tumor xenograft mouse model. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 2011;338:964–973.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yamazaki S. Translational pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic modeling from nonclinical to clinical development: a case study of anticancer drug, crizotinib. Aaps J. 2013;15:354–366.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stroh M, Duda DG, Takimoto CH, et al. Translation of anticancer efficacy from nonclinical models to the clinic. CPT: Pharmacometrics Syst Pharmacol. 2014;3:e128.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Segre G. Kinetics of interaction between drugs and biological system. Il Farmaco Ed Sci. 1968;23:907–918.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Sheiner LB, Stanski DR, Vozeh S, et al. Simultaneous modeling of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics: application to d‐tubocurarine. Clinical Pharmacol Ther. 1979;25:358–371.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lestini G, Mentré F, Magni P. Optimal design for informative protocols in xenograft tumor growth inhibition experiments in mice. AAPS J. 2016;18:1233–1243.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pierrillas PB, Tod M, Amiel M, et al. Improvement of parameter estimations in tumor growth inhibition models on xenografted animals: a novel method to handle the interval censoring caused by measurement of smaller tumors. AAPS J. 2016;18:404–415.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pierrillas PB, Tod M, Amiel M, et al. Improvement of parameter estimations in tumor growth inhibition models on xenografted animals: handling sacrifice censoring and error caused by experimental measurement on larger tumor sizes. AAPS J. 2016;18:1262–1272.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Block M. Physiologically based pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic modeling in cancer drug development: status, potential and gaps. Exp Op Drug Metab Toxicol. 2015;11:743–756.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cheeti S, Budha NR, Rajan S, et al. A physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) approach to evaluate pharmacokinetics in patients with cancer. Biopharm Drug Dispos. 2013;34:141–154.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar