pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.30041 · v1 · pith:EXAEZ2PNnew · submitted 2026-06-29 · ❄️ cond-mat.soft · physics.bio-ph

A phase-field model for viscoelastic compressible tumor growth

Luise Zieger , Min Wu , Chaozhen Wei , John Lowengrub , Sebastian Aland This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-30 04:09 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ❄️ cond-mat.soft physics.bio-ph
keywords phase-field modeltumor growthviscoelasticitycompressibilitysymmetry-breaking instabilitynutrient gradientapoptosistissue mechanics
0
0 comments X

The pith

A phase-field model shows stationary symmetric tumors break symmetry through elastic buckling from nutrient gradients and apoptosis-driven volume loss.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper introduces a phase-field model that simulates tumor growth while incorporating viscoelastic mechanics, compressibility, and coupling to a diffusible nutrient in a mass-conserving way. It first verifies that the model converges to a sharp-interface description for radially symmetric cases and can produce stationary tumors. The central finding is that these symmetric stationary states are unstable in both two and three dimensions. Instabilities are driven by two mechanisms: elastic buckling from spatially varying growth rates set by the nutrient field, and additional shape changes triggered by apoptosis-induced volume loss. Tissue fluidity and compressibility further allow the tumor to alter its topology during growth.

Core claim

We develop a phase-field model to simulate tumors growing into a surrounding medium taking into account their elastic and viscous properties as well as their compressibilities. We couple continuum modeling of the viscoelastic mechanics to the concentration of a diffusible growth-promoting nutrient in a mass conservative way. The phase-field method is a stable and flexible way to describe the dynamics of arbitrarily shaped tumors. We demonstrate convergence of the phase-field model to a sharp interface model in radially symmetric geometries and can observe progression to stationary tumors. However, our results show that these stationary symmetric tumors are subject to symmetry-breaking instab

What carries the argument

The phase-field variable that evolves the tumor-medium interface while enforcing viscoelastic stress relaxation, compressibility, and mass-conservative nutrient-driven proliferation.

If this is right

  • Symmetric tumors become unstable to shape perturbations in both 2D and 3D.
  • Nutrient gradients create differential growth that triggers elastic buckling.
  • Apoptosis-induced volume loss supplies a separate route to instability.
  • Increased tissue fluidity or compressibility produces changes in tumor topology.
  • The model reaches stationary states only for radially symmetric initial conditions before instabilities develop.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Mechanical instabilities alone may generate invasive morphologies even without extra biochemical signals.
  • The same framework could be used to explore how external mechanical constraints alter the onset of these instabilities.
  • Quantitative comparison of simulated buckling wavelengths with measured tumor surface undulations would test the elastic mechanism.
  • Extensions that allow variable compressibility with cell density might reveal additional routes to fragmentation or cavitation.

Load-bearing premise

The phase-field equations and their coupling between stress relaxation, compressibility, and nutrient-controlled growth capture the dominant mechanical and transport physics without missing biological feedbacks.

What would settle it

Experimental observation that real tumor spheroids remain perfectly symmetric and stationary under nutrient and apoptosis conditions where the simulations predict buckling or topology change.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.30041 by Chaozhen Wei, John Lowengrub, Luise Zieger, Min Wu, Sebastian Aland.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. The whole domain is divided into two subdomains Ω [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. The phase field representation of a circular tumor in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Comparison of the model results with a sharp interface solution without outer medium [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Comparison of the model results with a sharp interface solution including an outer medium [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Simulation of the evolution of an initially circular 2D tumor. Snapshots of the tumor shape at the time points [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Evolution of 2D spherical tumors initialized with sinusoidal perturbations. First four rows: Single mode with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Tumor growth patterns at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Tumor growth patterns at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Influence of fluidity on unconfined tumor evolution ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. (a) Protrusion formation for four cases of outer medium elastic parameters. In all cases, we assume compressible [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. Simulation of a 3D tumor exhibiting buckling behavior. Top row: Tumor contour in 3D, initially perturbed with a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_11.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

It is well known that growing tumors generate and respond to stress in their local microenvironment. Tissue re-arrangements can relax these mechanical stresses and make the tissue more fluid-like. Further, intricate coupling between mechanotransduction and biochemical signaling leads to complex patterns of growth. To predict the outcomes of these nonlinear interactions, we develop a phase-field model to simulate tumors growing into a surrounding medium taking into account their elastic and viscous properties as well as their compressibilities. We couple continuum modeling of the viscoelastic mechanics to the concentration of a diffusible growth-promoting nutrient in a mass conservative way. The phase-field method is a stable and flexible way to describe the dynamics of arbitrarily shaped tumors. We demonstrate convergence of the phase-field model to a sharp interface model in radially symmetric geometries and can observe progression to stationary tumors. However, our results show that these stationary symmetric tumors are subject to symmetry-breaking instabilities in 2D and 3D driven by two primary mechanisms: (i) elastic buckling instabiliies due to differential growth induced by the nutrient gradient and (ii) instabilities generated by apoptosis-related volumetric loss. Further, tissue fluidity and compressibility can lead to changes in tumor topologies. Our modeling framework provides a robust methodology for investigating how tissue mechanics and growth factor signaling influence the progression and invasive potential of solid tumors.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript develops a phase-field model for viscoelastic compressible tumor growth coupled to a diffusible nutrient in a mass-conservative manner. It demonstrates convergence of the phase-field formulation to a sharp-interface model in radially symmetric geometries, identifies stationary symmetric tumor states, and reports symmetry-breaking instabilities in 2D and 3D driven by elastic buckling from nutrient-induced differential growth and by apoptosis-related volumetric loss; tissue fluidity and compressibility are shown to alter tumor topologies.

Significance. If the instabilities survive the sharp-interface limit, the framework supplies a useful computational approach for exploring how viscoelastic relaxation, compressibility, and nutrient signaling jointly control tumor morphology and invasive potential. The mass-conservative nutrient coupling and the phase-field treatment of arbitrary shapes are constructive features.

major comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: convergence to the sharp-interface limit is stated to have been demonstrated only in radially symmetric geometries. The central claim concerns symmetry-breaking instabilities observed once stationary symmetric states are reached; without an analogous limit study (or at minimum an interface-width convergence test) for the perturbed 2D/3D cases, it is impossible to rule out that the reported elastic-buckling and apoptosis-driven modes are artifacts of the diffuse-interface regularization or of the particular discretization of the viscoelastic stress and mass-conservative coupling.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: 'elastic buckling instabiliies' appears to be a typographical error.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading and constructive critique. The point about the scope of the sharp-interface convergence analysis is well taken and we address it directly below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: convergence to the sharp-interface limit is stated to have been demonstrated only in radially symmetric geometries. The central claim concerns symmetry-breaking instabilities observed once stationary symmetric states are reached; without an analogous limit study (or at minimum an interface-width convergence test) for the perturbed 2D/3D cases, it is impossible to rule out that the reported elastic-buckling and apoptosis-driven modes are artifacts of the diffuse-interface regularization or of the particular discretization of the viscoelastic stress and mass-conservative coupling.

    Authors: We agree that the convergence demonstration is currently limited to radially symmetric geometries and that an explicit check for the symmetry-breaking cases would strengthen the central claim. The phase-field formulation is constructed to recover the sharp-interface model in the limit of vanishing interface width, and the radial tests confirm consistency of the viscoelastic stress and mass-conservative nutrient coupling. Nevertheless, to rule out regularization artifacts in the 2D/3D instabilities we will add interface-width convergence tests (quantifying growth rates and saturated morphologies) for representative perturbed cases. These results, together with a revised abstract statement, will be included in the next version. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: instabilities emerge from coupled equations without reduction to inputs

full rationale

The paper constructs a phase-field model from viscoelastic continuum mechanics coupled to nutrient transport via mass conservation, demonstrates radial convergence to a sharp-interface limit, and reports symmetry-breaking instabilities as simulation outcomes. No parameters are fitted to the instability thresholds or morphologies, no self-citations bear the central claims, and no ansatz or uniqueness theorem is smuggled in to force the reported buckling or apoptosis-driven modes. The derivation chain remains independent of the target results.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only review yields limited visibility into parameters and assumptions; the model necessarily rests on standard continuum-mechanics constitutive relations for viscoelasticity and compressibility plus the phase-field approximation itself.

free parameters (2)
  • viscoelastic relaxation time and moduli
    Constitutive parameters for elastic and viscous response must be chosen or fitted; abstract does not specify values or fitting procedure.
  • compressibility coefficient
    Compressibility parameter introduced to allow volumetric changes; its value affects topology changes but is not quantified.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Phase-field method provides a stable and flexible description of arbitrarily shaped tumors that converges to a sharp-interface limit in radial geometries.
    Invoked in abstract as justification for the modeling choice.
  • domain assumption Mass-conservative coupling between viscoelastic mechanics and diffusible nutrient concentration is sufficient to capture mechanotransduction-biochemical interactions.
    Central modeling premise stated in abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5769 in / 1487 out tokens · 32958 ms · 2026-06-30T04:09:05.327101+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 48 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Coupled mixed-dimensional multiphase porous media approach for modeling airflow, blood flow, and gas exchange in the human lungs

    D. Ambrosi and L. Preziosi. Cell adhesion mecha- nisms and stress relaxation in the mechanics of tumours. Biomechanics and Modeling in Mechanobiology, 8:397– 413, 10 2009. ISSN 1617-7959. doi:10.1007/s10237- 008-0145-y. URLhttp://link.springer.com/10.1007/ s10237-008-0145-y

    work page doi:10.1007/s10237- 2009

  2. [2]

    Ambrosi, L

    D. Ambrosi, L. Preziosi, and G. Vitale. The interplay between stress and growth in solid tumors.Mechanics Research Communications, 42:87–91, 6 2012. ISSN 00936413. doi:10.1016/j.mechrescom.2012.01.002. URL https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/ S0093641312000043

    work page doi:10.1016/j.mechrescom.2012.01.002 2012

  3. [3]

    Angeli, C

    S. Angeli, C. Neophytou, M. Kalli, T. Stylianopoulos, and F. Mpekris. The mechanopathology of the tumor microenvironment: detection techniques, molecular mechanisms and therapeutic opportunities.Frontiers in Cell and Developmental Biology, 13, 3 2025. ISSN 2296-634X. doi:10.3389/fcell.2025.1564626. URL https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/ fcell.2...

    work page doi:10.3389/fcell.2025.1564626 2025

  4. [4]

    Armingol, A

    E. Armingol, A. Officer, O. Harismendy, and N. E. Lewis. Deciphering cell–cell interactions and communi- cation from gene expression.Nature Reviews Genetics, 22:71–88, 2 2021. ISSN 1471-0056. doi:10.1038/s41576- 020-00292-x. URLhttps://www.nature.com/articles/ s41576-020-00292-x

    work page doi:10.1038/s41576- 2021

  5. [5]

    M. H. Armstrong, A. B. Tepole, E. Kuhl, B. R. Simon, and J. P. V. Geest. A finite element model for mixed porohyperelasticity with transport, swelling, and growth. PLOS ONE, 11:e0152806, 4 2016. ISSN 1932-6203. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0152806. URLhttps://dx.plos. org/10.1371/journal.pone.0152806

    work page doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0152806 2016

  6. [6]

    Balajewicz and C

    M. Balajewicz and C. Farhat. Reduction of non- linear embedded boundary models for problems with evolving interfaces.Journal of Computational Physics, 274:489–504, 10 2014. ISSN 00219991. doi: 10.1016/j.jcp.2014.06.038. URLhttps://linkinghub. elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0021999114004458

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2014.06.038 2014

  7. [7]

    Bresch, T

    D. Bresch, T. Colin, E. Grenier, B. Ribba, and O. Saut.A viscoelastic model for avascular tu- mor growth, volume 2009, pages 101–108. AIMS Press, 9 2009. doi:10.3934/proc.2009.2009.101. URL http://aimsciences.org/article/doi/10.3934/proc. 2009.2009.101

    work page doi:10.3934/proc.2009.2009.101 2009

  8. [8]

    H. M. Byrne. The importance of intercellular adhe- sion in the development of carcinomas.Mathematical Medicine and Biology, 14:305–323, 12 1997. ISSN 1477-8599. doi:10.1093/imammb/14.4.305. URL https://academic.oup.com/imammb/article-lookup/ doi/10.1093/imammb/14.4.305

    work page doi:10.1093/imammb/14.4.305 1997

  9. [9]

    H. M. Byrne and M. A. J. Chaplain. Modelling the role of cell-cell adhesion in the growth and development of carcinomas.Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 24:1–17, 12 1996. ISSN 08957177. doi:10.1016/S0895- 7177(96)00174-4. URLhttps://linkinghub.elsevier. com/retrieve/pii/S0895717796001744

    work page doi:10.1016/s0895- 1996

  10. [10]

    A. R. Carotenuto, S. Palumbo, A. Cutolo, and M. Fraldi. On growth and morphogenesis in mechanobiology.ArXiv, 7 2025. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2507.20345. URLhttp:// arxiv.org/abs/2507.20345

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2507.20345 2025

  11. [11]

    M. B. Chen, Y. Javanmardi, S. Shahreza, B. Ser- winski, A. Aref, B. Djordjevic, and E. Moeendar- bary. Mechanobiology in oncology: basic concepts and clinical prospects.Frontiers in Cell and De- velopmental Biology, 11:1239749, 10 2023. ISSN 2296-634X. doi:10.3389/fcell.2023.1239749. URL https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/ fcell.2023.1239749/full

    work page doi:10.3389/fcell.2023.1239749 2023

  12. [12]

    Cheng, J

    G. Cheng, J. Tse, R. K. Jain, and L. L. Munn. Micro-environmental mechanical stress controls tumor spheroid size and morphology by suppressing prolifer- ation and inducing apoptosis in cancer cells.PLoS ONE, 4:e4632, 2 2009. ISSN 1932-6203. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0004632. URLhttps://dx.plos. org/10.1371/journal.pone.0004632

    work page doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0004632 2009

  13. [13]

    Chockalingam and T

    S. Chockalingam and T. Cohen. A large de- formation theory for coupled swelling and growth with application to growing tumors and bacterial biofilms.Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids, 187:105627, 6 2024. ISSN 00225096. doi: 10.1016/j.jmps.2024.105627. URLhttps://linkinghub. elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0022509624000930

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jmps.2024.105627 2024

  14. [14]

    K. C. Clause, L. J. Liu, and K. Tobita. Directed stem cell differentiation: The role of physical forces.Cell Communication & Adhesion, 17:48–54, 4 2010. ISSN 1541-9061. doi:10.3109/15419061.2010.492535. URL http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.3109/ 15419061.2010.492535

    work page doi:10.3109/15419061.2010.492535 2010

  15. [15]

    T. R. Cox and J. T. Erler. Remodeling and home- ostasis of the extracellular matrix: implications for fibrotic diseases and cancer.Disease Models & Mechanisms, 4:165–178, 3 2011. ISSN 1754-8411. doi:10.1242/dmm.004077. URLhttps://journals. biologists.com/dmm/article/4/2/165/53523/ Remodeling-and-homeostasis-of-the-extracellular

    work page doi:10.1242/dmm.004077 2011

  16. [17]

    David, O

    R. David, O. Luu, E. W. Damm, J. W. H. Wen, M. Nagel, and R. Winklbauer. Tissue cohesion and the mechanics of cell rearrangement.Devel- opment, 141:3672–3682, 10 2014. ISSN 1477-9129. doi:10.1242/dev.104315. URLhttps://journals. biologists.com/dev/article/141/19/3672/46429/ Tissue-cohesion-and-the-mechanics-of-cell

    work page doi:10.1242/dev.104315 2014

  17. [18]

    Doubrovinski, M

    K. Doubrovinski, M. Swan, O. Polyakov, and E. F. Wieschaus. Measurement of cortical elasticity in drosophila melanogaster embryos using ferrofluids. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114:1051–1056, 1 2017. ISSN 0027-8424. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1616659114. URLhttps://pnas.org/ doi/full/10.1073/pnas.1616659114

    work page doi:10.1073/pnas.1616659114 2017

  18. [19]

    Firouzi, K

    N. Firouzi, K. K. ˙Zur, T. Rabczuk, and X. Zhuang. Generalized reconfigurations and growth mechan- ics of biological structures considering regular and irregular features: A computational study.Com- puters & Structures, 315:107781, 8 2025. ISSN 00457949. doi:10.1016/j.compstruc.2025.107781. URL https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/ S0045794925001397

    work page doi:10.1016/j.compstruc.2025.107781 2025

  19. [20]

    Garcke and D

    H. Garcke and D. Trautwein. Approximation and existence of a viscoelastic phase-field model for tumour growth in two and three dimensions.Discrete and Continuous Dynamical Systems - S, 17:221–284, 2024. ISSN 1937-1632. doi:10.3934/dcdss.2023181. URL https://www.aimsciences.org//article/doi/10. 3934/dcdss.2023181

    work page doi:10.3934/dcdss.2023181 2024

  20. [21]

    Garcke, B

    H. Garcke, B. Kov´ acs, and D. Trautwein. Viscoelastic cahn–hilliard models for tumour growth.Mathemat- ical Models and Methods in Applied Sciences, 32: 2673–2758, 4 2022. doi:10.1142/S0218202522500634. URLhttp://arxiv.org/abs/2204.04147http: //dx.doi.org/10.1142/S0218202522500634

    work page doi:10.1142/s0218202522500634 2022

  21. [22]

    Goriely.The Mathematics and Mechanics of Bi- ological Growth, volume 45

    A. Goriely.The Mathematics and Mechanics of Bi- ological Growth, volume 45. Springer New York,

  22. [23]

    doi:10.1007/978-0-387- 87710-5

    ISBN 978-0-387-87709-9. doi:10.1007/978-0-387- 87710-5. URLhttp://link.springer.com/10.1007/ 978-0-387-87710-5

    work page doi:10.1007/978-0-387-

  23. [24]

    Helmlinger, P

    G. Helmlinger, P. A. Netti, H. C. Lichtenbeld, R. J. Melder, and R. K. Jain. Solid stress inhibits the growth of multicellular tumor spheroids.Nature Biotech- nology, 15:778–783, 8 1997. ISSN 1087-0156. doi: 10.1038/nbt0897-778. URLhttps://www.nature.com/ articles/nbt0897-778

    work page doi:10.1038/nbt0897-778 1997

  24. [25]

    G. A. Holzapfel, J. D. Humphrey, and R. W. Og- den. Biomechanics of soft biological tissues and or- gans, mechanobiology, homeostasis and modelling.Jour- nal of The Royal Society Interface, 22:20240361, 1

  25. [26]

    doi:10.1098/rsif.2024.0361

    ISSN 1742-5662. doi:10.1098/rsif.2024.0361. URLhttps://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10. 1098/rsif.2024.0361

    work page doi:10.1098/rsif.2024.0361 2024

  26. [27]

    M. H. Hsieh and H. T. Nguyen.Molecular Mechanism of Apoptosis Induced by Mechanical Forces, volume 245, pages 45–90. Academic Press, 2005. doi:10.1016/S0074- 7696(05)45003-2. URLhttps://linkinghub.elsevier. com/retrieve/pii/S0074769605450032

    work page doi:10.1016/s0074- 2005

  27. [28]

    R. K. Jain, J. D. Martin, and T. Stylianopoulos. The role of mechanical forces in tumor growth and therapy. Annual Review of Biomedical Engineering, 16:321–346, 7 2014. ISSN 1523-9829. doi:10.1146/annurev-bioeng- 071813-105259. URLhttps://www.annualreviews.org/ doi/10.1146/annurev-bioeng-071813-105259

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-bioeng- 2014

  28. [29]

    Johansen and P

    H. Johansen and P. Colella. A cartesian grid embedded boundary method for poisson’s equation on irregular domains.Journal of Computational Physics, 147:60–85, 11 1998. ISSN 00219991. doi: 10.1006/jcph.1998.5965. URLhttps://linkinghub. elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0021999198959654

    work page doi:10.1006/jcph.1998.5965 1998

  29. [30]

    LeGoff and T

    L. LeGoff and T. Lecuit. Mechanical forces and growth in animal tissues.Cold Spring Harbor Perspectives in Biology, 8:a019232, 3 2016. ISSN 1943-0264. doi:10.1101/cshperspect.a019232. URL http://cshperspectives.cshlp.org/lookup/doi/10. 1101/cshperspect.a019232

    work page doi:10.1101/cshperspect.a019232 2016

  30. [31]

    X. Li, J. S. Lowengrub, A. R¨ atz, and A. Voigt. Solving pdes in complex geometries: a diffuse domain approach. Communications in mathematical sciences, 7:81–107, 3 2009

    2009

  31. [32]

    J. A. Linke, L. L. Munn, and R. K. Jain. Com- pressive stresses in cancer: characterization and im- plications for tumour progression and treatment.Na- ture Reviews Cancer, 24:768–791, 11 2024. ISSN 1474- 175X. doi:10.1038/s41568-024-00745-z. URLhttps: //www.nature.com/articles/s41568-024-00745-z

    work page doi:10.1038/s41568-024-00745-z 2024

  32. [33]

    Mahajan, T

    V. Mahajan, T. Beck, P. Gregorczyk, A. Ruland, S. Al- berti, J. Guck, C. Werner, R. Schl¨ ußler, and A. V. Taubenberger. Mapping tumor spheroid mechanics in dependence of 3d microenvironment stiffness and degrad- ability by brillouin microscopy.Cancers, 13:5549, 11

  33. [34]

    doi:10.3390/cancers13215549

    ISSN 2072-6694. doi:10.3390/cancers13215549. URLhttps://www.mdpi.com/2072-6694/13/21/5549

    work page doi:10.3390/cancers13215549 2072

  34. [35]

    H. T. Nia, L. L. Munn, and R. K. Jain. Physical traits of cancer.Science, 370:eaaz0868, 10 2020. ISSN 0036-

    2020

  35. [36]

    URLhttps://www

    doi:10.1126/science.aaz0868. URLhttps://www. science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aaz0868

    work page doi:10.1126/science.aaz0868

  36. [37]

    Olaranont, C

    N. Olaranont, C. Wei, J. Lowengrub, and M. Wu. Chemomechanical regulation of growing tissues from a thermodynamically-consistent framework and its appli- cation to tumor spheroid growth.Journal of Math- ematical Biology, 91:31, 9 2025. ISSN 0303-6812. doi:10.1007/s00285-025-02257-2. URLhttps://link. springer.com/10.1007/s00285-025-02257-2

    work page doi:10.1007/s00285-025-02257-2 2025

  37. [38]

    K. Pham, E. Turian, K. Liu, S. Li, and J. Lowengrub. Nonlinear studies of tumor morphological stability using a two-fluid flow model.Journal of Mathematical Biology, 77:671–709, 2018. ISSN 14321416. doi:10.1007/s00285- 018-1212-3

    work page doi:10.1007/s00285- 2018

  38. [39]

    Praetorius

    S. Praetorius. The adaptive multi-dimensional simula- tion toolbox (amdis), a discretization module on top of the dune framework. URLhttps://gitlab.com/amdis/ amdis. Accessed: 2026-03-16

    2026

  39. [40]

    Preziosi, D

    L. Preziosi, D. Ambrosi, and C. Verdier. An elasto-visco- plastic model of cell aggregates.Journal of Theoreti- cal Biology, 262:35–47, 1 2010. ISSN 00225193. doi: 10.1016/j.jtbi.2009.08.023. URLhttps://linkinghub. elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0022519309003841

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jtbi.2009.08.023 2010

  40. [41]

    Provatas and K

    N. Provatas and K. Elder.Phase-Field Methods in Materials Science and Engineering. Wiley, 10 2010. ISBN 9783527407477. doi:10.1002/9783527631520. URLhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/book/ 10.1002/9783527631520

    work page doi:10.1002/9783527631520 2010

  41. [42]

    I. F. Rizzuti, P. Mascheroni, S. Arcucci, Z. Ben-M´ eriem, A. Prunet, C. Barentin, C. Rivi` ere, H. Delano¨ e-Ayari, H. Hatzikirou, J. Guillermet-Guibert, and M. Delarue. Mechanical control of cell proliferation increases resis- tance to chemotherapeutic agents.Physical Review 17 Letters, 125:128103, 9 2020. ISSN 0031-9007. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.125.12...

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.125.128103 2020

  42. [43]

    E. K. Rodriguez, A. Hoger, and A. D. McCul- loch. Stress-dependent finite growth in soft elas- tic tissues.Journal of Biomechanics, 27:455–467, 4

  43. [44]

    doi:10.1016/0021-9290(94)90021-

    ISSN 00219290. doi:10.1016/0021-9290(94)90021-

    work page doi:10.1016/0021-9290(94)90021-

  44. [45]

    URLhttps://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/ pii/0021929094900213

    work page arXiv

  45. [46]

    Sander.DUNE — The Distributed and Unified Numerics Environment, volume 140

    O. Sander.DUNE — The Distributed and Unified Numerics Environment, volume 140. Springer In- ternational Publishing, 2020. ISBN 978-3-030-59701-

    2020

  46. [47]

    URLhttp://link

    doi:10.1007/978-3-030-59702-3. URLhttp://link. springer.com/10.1007/978-3-030-59702-3

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-030-59702-3

  47. [48]

    Schwartz, J

    L. Schwartz, J. da Veiga Moreira, and M. Jolicoeur. Physical forces modulate cell differentiation and prolif- eration processes.Journal of Cellular and Molecular Medicine, 22:738–745, 2 2018. ISSN 1582-1838. doi: 10.1111/jcmm.13417. URLhttps://onlinelibrary. wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jcmm.13417

    work page doi:10.1111/jcmm.13417 2018

  48. [49]

    A. V. Taubenberger, S. Girardo, N. Tr¨ aber, E. Fischer- Friedrich, M. Kr¨ ater, K. Wagner, T. Kurth, I. Richter, B. Haller, M. Binner, D. Hahn, U. Freuden- berg, C. Werner, and J. Guck. 3d microenviron- ment stiffness regulates tumor spheroid growth and mechanics via p21 and rock.Advanced Biosys- tems, 3:1900128, 9 2019. ISSN 2366-7478. doi: 10.1002/adbi...

    work page doi:10.1002/adbi.201900128 2019

  49. [50]

    J. M. Tse, G. Cheng, J. A. Tyrrell, S. A. Wilcox- Adelman, Y. Boucher, R. K. Jain, and L. L. Munn. Mechanical compression drives cancer cells toward inva- sive phenotype.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109:911–916, 1 2012. ISSN 0027-8424. doi:10.1073/pnas.1118910109. URLhttps://pnas.org/ doi/full/10.1073/pnas.1118910109

    work page doi:10.1073/pnas.1118910109 2012

  50. [51]

    Vasudevan, K

    J. Vasudevan, K. Jiang, J. Fernandez, and C. T. Lim. Extracellular matrix mechanobiology in cancer cell migration.Acta Biomaterialia, 163:351–364, 6 2023. ISSN 17427061. doi:10.1016/j.actbio.2022.10.016. URL https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/ S1742706122006729

    work page doi:10.1016/j.actbio.2022.10.016 2023

  51. [52]

    B. J. Walker, G. L. Celora, A. Goriely, D. E. Moul- ton, and H. M. Byrne. Minimal morphoelastic mod- els of solid tumour spheroids: A tutorial.Bulletin of Mathematical Biology, 85:38, 5 2023. ISSN 0092-8240. doi:10.1007/s11538-023-01141-8. URLhttps://link. springer.com/10.1007/s11538-023-01141-8

    work page doi:10.1007/s11538-023-01141-8 2023

  52. [53]

    Weady, B

    S. Weady, B. Palmer, A. Lamson, T. Kim, R. Farhadifar, and M. J. Shelley. Mechanics and morphology of prolifer- ating cell collectives with self-inhibiting growth.Physical Review Letters, 133:158402, 10 2024. ISSN 0031-9007. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.133.158402. URLhttps:// link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.133.158402

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.133.158402 2024

  53. [54]

    Wei and M

    C. Wei and M. Wu. An eulerian nonlinear elastic model for compressible and fluidic tissue with radially symmetric growth.SIAM Journal on Applied Math- ematics, 83:254–275, 2 2023. ISSN 0036-1399. doi: 10.1137/21M1463653. URLhttps://epubs.siam.org/ doi/10.1137/21M1463653

    work page doi:10.1137/21m1463653 2023

  54. [55]

    J. Xu, Y. Wang, H. Gomez, and X. Feng. Biome- chanical modelling of tumor growth with chemother- apeutic treatment: a review.Smart Materials and Structures, 32:103002, 10 2023. ISSN 0964-1726. doi: 10.1088/1361-665X/acf79a. URLhttps://iopscience. iop.org/article/10.1088/1361-665X/acf79a

    work page doi:10.1088/1361-665x/acf79a 2023

  55. [56]

    Y. Xu, C. P. Miller, S. S. Tykodi, S. Akilesh, and E. H. Warren. Signaling crosstalk between tumor endothelial cells and immune cells in the microen- vironment of solid tumors.Frontiers in Cell and Developmental Biology, 12:1387198, 4 2024. ISSN 2296-634X. doi:10.3389/fcell.2024.1387198. URL https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/ fcell.2024.1387198/full

    work page doi:10.3389/fcell.2024.1387198 2024

  56. [57]

    H. Yan, D. Ramirez-Guerrero, J. Lowengrub, and M. Wu. Stress generation, relaxation and size con- trol in confined tumor growth.PLOS Computational Biology, 17:e1009701, 12 2021. ISSN 1553-7358. doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1009701. URLhttps://dx.plos. org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1009701. 18 Supplementary Information NUMERICAL METHOD (2D, 3D) In this section, we...

    work page doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1009701 2021