pith. sign in

arxiv: 1907.11618 · v1 · pith:KU5YPHT4new · submitted 2019-07-26 · 🧮 math.AP · cs.CE· q-bio.TO

Mathematical analysis and simulation study of a phase-field model of prostate cancer growth with chemotherapy and antiangiogenic therapy effects

Pierluigi Colli , Hector Gomez , Guillermo Lorenzo , Gabriela Marinoschi , Alessandro Reali , Elisabetta Rocca This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-24 15:23 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🧮 math.AP cs.CEq-bio.TO
keywords phase-field modelprostate cancerchemotherapyantiangiogenic therapytumor growth simulationprostate-specific antigenmathematical modelingwell-posedness
0
0 comments X

The pith

A phase-field model of prostate cancer growth with chemotherapy and antiangiogenic therapy reproduces observed tumor morphologies and PSA trends in simulations.

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

The paper constructs a mathematical model of prostate cancer that uses a phase-field variable to track tumor tissue evolving under nutrient availability. Chemotherapy enters as a term that lowers net tumor proliferation while antiangiogenic treatment reduces the nutrient supply reaching the tumor; a separate equation tracks prostate-specific antigen production. The authors establish that the resulting system is well-posed and then run isogeometric simulations of untreated growth as well as mono- and combination therapies. These runs recover typical prostate-cancer shapes, the usual drop in tumor volume under treatment, and the characteristic PSA time courses reported in earlier studies. A reader would care because the framework supplies a computational testbed for selecting or tailoring chemotherapeutic schedules when genetic heterogeneity makes clinical choice difficult.

Core claim

We present a phase-field model of prostate cancer growth driven by a generic nutrient obeying reaction-diffusion dynamics. Cytotoxic chemotherapy is included by downregulating tumor net proliferation, antiangiogenic therapy by reducing intratumoral nutrient supply, and prostate-specific antigen production is coupled to the tumor phase field. We prove well-posedness of the system and, through representative isogeometric simulations, show that the model captures prostate-cancer growth morphologies together with common outcomes of cytotoxic and antiangiogenic mono- and combined therapy while also reproducing the usual temporal trends in tumor volume and PSA evolution.

What carries the argument

The tumor phase-field variable coupled to a reaction-diffusion equation for nutrient concentration, with additive terms that downregulate proliferation under chemotherapy and limit nutrient influx under antiangiogenic therapy, plus an auxiliary equation for PSA production.

If this is right

  • The model can be used to explore untreated tumor growth morphologies and the separate and joint effects of the two therapies.
  • Simulated tumor-volume and PSA trajectories match the trends reported in prior clinical and modeling studies.
  • The framework supplies an in-silico platform for testing different dosing schedules before they are applied to patients.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Parameter values could be tuned from patient-specific imaging or biopsy data to generate individualized treatment forecasts.
  • The same phase-field structure might be reused for other angiogenesis-dependent solid tumors once appropriate nutrient and biomarker equations are supplied.

Load-bearing premise

Tumor proliferation and apoptosis rates measured in the absence of drugs remain accurate once chemotherapy and antiangiogenic agents are added to the model.

What would settle it

A set of simulations in which the predicted tumor-volume reduction or PSA time course under combined therapy deviates substantially from published clinical data on the same treatment schedule would falsify the central modeling claim.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1907.11618 by Alessandro Reali, Elisabetta Rocca, Gabriela Marinoschi, Guillermo Lorenzo, Hector Gomez, Pierluigi Colli.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: A high nutrient environment energetically favors tumor growth in our model, whereas low nutrient availability and the action of the cytotoxic drug energetically obstruct it. (A) Plot of m(σ)−mref u with respect to the values of σ for u = 0 (top) and u = βc (bottom). (B) Plot of G (φ, σ, u) with respect to the values of φ for three values of function m(σ) (positive, zero, and negative) combined with u = 0 (… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Growth of a mild tumor under different assumptions of nutrient supply and tumor metabolism. (A) Reference simulation. (B) Larger nutrient supply within the tumor Sc. (C) Lower nutrient supply within the tumor Sc. (D) Larger tumor nutrient consumption rate γc. (E) Lower tumor nutrient consumption rate γc. with a round morphology, but it eventually undergoes a morphological transformation by which it develop… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Nutrient distribution during the growth of a mild tumor under different assumptions of nutrient supply and tumor metabolism. The tumor contour is depicted with a black line. (A) Reference simulation. (B) Larger nutrient supply within the tumor Sc. (C) Lower nutrient supply within the tumor Sc. (D) Larger tumor nutrient consumption rate γc. (E) Lower tumor nutrient consumption rate γc. are thicker when we i… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Growth of an aggressive tumor under different assumptions of nutrient supply and tumor metabolism. (A) Reference simulation. (B) Larger nutrient supply within the tumor Sc. (C) Lower nutrient supply within the tumor Sc. (D) Larger tumor nutrient consumption rate γc. (E) Lower tumor nutrient consumption rate γc [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Nutrient distribution during the growth of an aggressive tumor under different assumptions of nutrient supply and tumor metabolism. The tumor contour is depicted with a black line. (A) Reference simulation. (B) Larger nutrient supply within the tumor Sc. (C) Lower nutrient supply within the tumor Sc. (D) Larger tumor nutrient consumption rate γc. (E) Lower tumor nutrient consumption rate γc. that the evolu… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Plots of tumor volume and serum PSA for the simulations with the untreated mild tumor under different assumptions of nutrient supply and tumor metabolism.(A) Reference simulation. (B) Larger nutrient supply within the tumor Sc. (C) Lower nutrient supply within the tumor Sc. (D) Larger tumor nutrient consumption rate γc. (E) Lower tumor nutrient consumption rate γc [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Plots of tumor volume and serum PSA for the simulations with the untreated aggressive tumor under different assumptions of nutrient supply and tumor metabolism. (A) Reference simulation. (B) Larger nutrient supply within the tumor Sc. (C) Lower nutrient supply within the tumor Sc. (D) Larger tumor nutrient consumption rate γc. (E) Lower tumor nutrient consumption rate γc. Figures 6 and 7 show that serum PS… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Plots of tumor volume and serum PSA for the simulations with the mild tumor under different treatment plans. The gray lines in the background show the corresponding evolution of tumor volume and serum PSA in the untreated tumor reference scenario. (A) Cytotoxic chemotherapy. (B) Antiangiogenic therapy. (C) Combined therapy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Plots of tumor volume and serum PSA for the simulations with the aggressive tumor under different treatment plans. The gray lines in the background show the corresponding evolution of tumor volume and serum PSA in the untreated tumor reference scenario. (A) Cytotoxic chemotherapy. (B) Antiangiogenic therapy. (C) Combined therapy. of this biomarker as a surrogate for the patient’s tumor burden [51, 55, 69, … view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Growth of an aggressive tumor under different treatment plans. (A) Untreated tumor. (B) Cytotoxic chemotherapy. (C) Antiangiogenic therapy. (D) Combined therapy. Tumor volume and serum PSA dynamics during all simulated treatment plans for the reference aggressive tumor are plotted in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Nutrient distribution during the growth of an aggressive tumor under different treatment plans. (A) Untreated tumor. (B) Cytotoxic chemotherapy. (C) Antiangiogenic therapy. (D) Combined therapy. chemotherapy. The small tumor volumes achieved during this treatment do not globally consume as much nutrient as larger untreated tumors. Hence, the nutrient concentration around and within the tumor is comparativ… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Cytotoxic chemotherapy is a common treatment for advanced prostate cancer. These tumors are also known to rely on angiogenesis, i.e., the growth of local microvasculature via chemical signaling produced by the tumor. Thus, several clinical studies have been investigating antiangiogenic therapy for advanced prostate cancer, either as monotherapy or combined with standard cytotoxic protocols. However, the complex genetic alterations promoting prostate cancer growth complicate the selection of the best chemotherapeutic approach for each patient's tumor. Here, we present a mathematical model of prostate cancer growth and chemotherapy that may enable physicians to test and design personalized chemotherapeutic protocols in silico. We use the phase-field method to describe tumor growth, which we assume to be driven by a generic nutrient following reaction-diffusion dynamics. Tumor proliferation and apoptosis (i.e., programmed cell death) can be parameterized with experimentally-determined values. Cytotoxic chemotherapy is included as a term downregulating tumor net proliferation, while antiangiogenic therapy is modeled as a reduction in intratumoral nutrient supply. Another equation couples the tumor phase field with the production of prostate-specific antigen, which is an extensively used prostate cancer biomarker. We prove the well-posedness of our model and we run a series of representative simulations using an isogeometric method to explore untreated tumor growth as well as the effects of cytotoxic chemotherapy and antiangiogenic therapy, both alone and combined. Our simulations show that our model captures the growth morphologies of prostate cancer as well as common outcomes of cytotoxic and antiangiogenic mono and combined therapy. Our model also reproduces the usual temporal trends in tumor volume and prostate-specific antigen evolution observed in previous studies.

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 presents a phase-field model of prostate cancer growth driven by nutrient reaction-diffusion dynamics, with an additional equation for prostate-specific antigen (PSA) production. Cytotoxic chemotherapy is modeled via downregulation of net tumor proliferation and antiangiogenic therapy via reduction of intratumoral nutrient supply. The authors prove well-posedness of the resulting system and perform isogeometric simulations of untreated growth as well as mono- and combination-therapy regimens, claiming that the outputs reproduce observed tumor morphologies and the usual temporal trends in tumor volume and PSA.

Significance. If the central simulation claims hold after addressing validation gaps, the framework could support in-silico exploration of personalized protocols. The explicit proof of well-posedness is a clear mathematical strength, and the use of an isogeometric discretization for the phase-field system is a positive technical choice. The qualitative agreement reported with prior experimental trends is potentially useful, but the absence of quantitative validation metrics reduces the immediate significance for clinical translation.

major comments (1)
  1. [Abstract (model construction paragraph)] Abstract (paragraph on model construction): The central claim that simulations capture growth morphologies and therapy outcomes rests on the assumption that experimentally determined proliferation and apoptosis rates remain valid once the chemotherapy downregulation term and the antiangiogenic nutrient-supply reduction are added. No sensitivity analysis, re-validation under therapy conditions, or robustness checks with respect to these rates are described; if the base rates shift or the additive approximation fails for combined regimens, the reported agreement could be an artifact of parameter selection rather than intrinsic model fidelity.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: Simulation results are described only qualitatively; inclusion of at least one quantitative metric (e.g., relative error in tumor volume or PSA trend correlation) would strengthen the presentation even if full validation data are supplied in the main text.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive feedback on our manuscript. We address the single major comment below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The central claim that simulations capture growth morphologies and therapy outcomes rests on the assumption that experimentally determined proliferation and apoptosis rates remain valid once the chemotherapy downregulation term and the antiangiogenic nutrient-supply reduction are added. No sensitivity analysis, re-validation under therapy conditions, or robustness checks with respect to these rates are described; if the base rates shift or the additive approximation fails for combined regimens, the reported agreement could be an artifact of parameter selection rather than intrinsic model fidelity.

    Authors: The proliferation and apoptosis rates are taken directly from experimental literature for the untreated case, which is the standard modeling practice. Chemotherapy and antiangiogenic effects are introduced via explicit, mechanistically distinct terms (downregulation of net proliferation and reduction of nutrient supply) that act on top of these base rates; this additive construction mirrors the independent modes of action observed clinically and does not require the base rates themselves to be re-measured under therapy. The simulations are presented as qualitative reproductions of known morphologies and PSA trends rather than quantitative forecasts, and the agreement arises from the overall structure of the reaction-diffusion-phase-field system. A dedicated sensitivity study on these parameters lies outside the stated scope of the paper, whose main contributions are the well-posedness proof and the isogeometric discretization framework. revision: no

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: parameters from external literature; simulations compared to prior observations

full rationale

The paper states that proliferation and apoptosis rates are parameterized with experimentally-determined values and models therapy effects via additive terms. It proves well-posedness mathematically and runs simulations whose outputs are compared to morphologies and temporal trends reported in previous (external) studies. No equation, fit, or self-citation reduces the central simulation claims to quantities defined or tuned inside the present work. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The model rests on several experimentally chosen rates and the assumption that a single generic nutrient field drives growth; no new particles or forces are postulated.

free parameters (3)
  • proliferation and apoptosis rates
    Stated to be taken from experimental literature but required to remain valid under therapy.
  • chemotherapy downregulation coefficient
    Introduced to represent cytotoxic effect; value not specified in abstract.
  • antiangiogenic nutrient-supply reduction factor
    Introduced to represent therapy effect; value not specified in abstract.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Tumor growth is driven by a generic nutrient obeying reaction-diffusion dynamics.
    Invoked in the model-construction paragraph of the abstract.
  • standard math Phase-field representation of the tumor region is mathematically well-posed under the chosen boundary conditions.
    The well-posedness proof is asserted but its hypotheses are not listed in the abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5851 in / 1416 out tokens · 22567 ms · 2026-05-24T15:23:47.752649+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

78 extracted references · 78 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A. R. Anderson and V. Quaranta. Integrative mathematical oncology. Nat. Rev. Cancer , 8(3):227–234, 2008

    work page 2008

  2. [2]

    E. S. Antonarakis and M. A. Carducci. Targeting angiogenesis for the treatment of prostate cancer. Expert Opin. Ther. Targets, 16(4):365–376, 2012

    work page 2012

  3. [3]

    S. D. Baker, M. Zhao, C. K. K. Lee, J. Verweij, Y. Zabelina, J. R. Brahmer, A. C. Wolff, A. Sparreboom, and M. A. Carducci. Comparative pharmacokinetics of weekly and every-three-weeks docetaxel. Clin. Cancer Res. , 10(6):1976–1983, 2004

    work page 1976

  4. [4]

    V. Barbu. Nonlinear differential equations of monotone types in Banach spaces . Springer Science & Business Media, New York, USA, 2010

    work page 2010

  5. [5]

    Benzekry and P

    S. Benzekry and P. Hahnfeldt. Maximum tolerated dose versus metronomic scheduling in the treatment of metastatic cancers. J. Theor. Biol. , 335:235–244, 2013

    work page 2013

  6. [6]

    Mathematical and numerical analysis of a model for anti-angiogenic therapy in metastatic cancers

    Benzekry, S´ ebastien. Mathematical and numerical analysis of a model for anti-angiogenic therapy in metastatic cancers. ESAIM: M2AN, 46(2):207–237, 2012

    work page 2012

  7. [7]

    R. R. Berges, J. Vukanovic, J. I. Epstein, M. CarMichel, L. Cisek, D. E. Johnson, R. W. Veltri, P. C. Walsh, and 30 J. T. Isaacs. Implication of cell kinetic changes during the progression of human prostatic cancer. Clin. Cancer Res., 1(5):473–480, 1995

    work page 1995

  8. [8]

    Bodnar and M

    M. Bodnar and M. V. P´ erez. Mathematical and numerical analysis of low-grade gliomas model and the effects of chemotherapy. Commun. Nonlinear Sci. Numer. Simulat. , 72:552–564, 2019

    work page 2019

  9. [9]

    Bogda´ nska, M

    M. Bogda´ nska, M. Bodnar, J. Belmonte-Beitia, M. Murek, P. Schucht, J. Beck, and V. P´ erez-Garc ´ ıa. A mathe- matical model of low grade gliomas treated with temozolomide and its therapeutical implications. Math. Biosci., 288:1–13, 2017

    work page 2017

  10. [10]

    Cavaterra, E

    C. Cavaterra, E. Rocca, and H. Wu. Long-time dynamics and optimal control of a diffuse interface model for tumor growth. Appl. Math. Optim. , pages 1–49, 2019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00245-019-09562-5

    work page doi:10.1007/s00245-019-09562-5 2019

  11. [11]

    Caysa, S

    H. Caysa, S. Hoffmann, J. Luetzkendorf, L. P. Mueller, S. Unverzagt, K. M¨ ader, and T. Mueller. Monitoring of xenograft tumor growth and response to chemotherapy by non-invasive in vivo multispectral fluorescence imaging. PLoS ONE, 7(10):e47927, 2012

    work page 2012

  12. [12]

    E. K. Cha and J. A. Eastham. Chemotherapy and novel therapeutics before radical prostatectomy for high-risk clinically localized prostate cancer. Urol. Oncol., 33(5):217–225, 2015

    work page 2015

  13. [13]

    Chung and G

    J. Chung and G. Hulbert. A time integration algorithm for structural dynamics with improved numerical dissipation: the generalized-α method. J. Appl. Mech. , 60(2):371–375, 1993

    work page 1993

  14. [14]

    Colli, G

    P. Colli, G. Gilardi, and D. Hilhorst. On a Cahn-Hilliard type phase field system related to tumor growth. Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst. Ser. A , 35(6):2423–2442, 2015

    work page 2015

  15. [15]

    Colli, G

    P. Colli, G. Gilardi, G. Marinoschi, and E. Rocca. Sliding mode control for a phase field system related to tumor growth. Appl. Math. Optim. , 79(3):647–670, 2019

    work page 2019

  16. [16]

    Colli, G

    P. Colli, G. Gilardi, E. Rocca, and J. Sprekels. Optimal distributed control of a diffuse interface model of tumor growth. Nonlinearity, 30(6):2518–2546, 2017

    work page 2017

  17. [17]

    Corwin, C

    D. Corwin, C. Holdsworth, R. C. Rockne, A. D. Trister, M. M. Mrugala, J. K. Rockhill, R. D. Stewart, M. Phillips, and K. R. Swanson. Toward patient-specific, biologically optimized radiation therapy plans for the treatment of glioblastoma. PLoS ONE, 8(11):e79115, 2013

    work page 2013

  18. [18]

    M. A. Eisenberger and E. S. Antonarakis. The experience with cytotoxic chemotherapy in metastatic castration- resistant prostate cancer. Urol. Clin. North Am. , 39(4):573–581, 2012

    work page 2012

  19. [19]

    Erbersdobler, H

    A. Erbersdobler, H. Augustin, T. Schlomm, and R.-P. Henke. Prostate cancers in the transition zone: Part 1; pathological aspects. BJU Int., 94(9):1221–1225, 2004

    work page 2004

  20. [20]

    Ferlay, I

    J. Ferlay, I. Soerjomataram, R. Dikshit, S. Eser, C. Mathers, M. Rebelo, D. M. Parkin, D. Forman, and F. Bray. Cancer incidence and mortality worldwide: sources, methods and major patterns in globocan 2012. Int. J. Cancer, 136(5):E359–E386, 2015

    work page 2012

  21. [21]

    Ferrara, K

    N. Ferrara, K. J. Hillan, H.-P. Gerber, and W. Novotny. Discovery and development of bevacizumab, an anti-VEGF antibody for treating cancer. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. , 3(5):391–400, 2004

    work page 2004

  22. [22]

    W. D. Figg and J. Folkman. Angiogenesis: an integrative approach from science to medicine . Springer Science & Business Media, 2008

    work page 2008

  23. [23]

    Fraldi and A

    M. Fraldi and A. R. Carotenuto. Cells competition in tumor growth poroelasticity. J. Mech. Phys. Solids, 112:345– 367, 2018

    work page 2018

  24. [24]

    H. B. Frieboes, F. Jin, Y.-L. Chuang, S. M. Wise, J. S. Lowengrub, and V. Cristini. Three-dimensional multispecies nonlinear tumor growth–II: Tumor invasion and angiogenesis. J. Theor. Biol. , 264(4):1254–1278, 2010

    work page 2010

  25. [25]

    Frigeri, M

    S. Frigeri, M. Grasselli, and E. Rocca. On a diffuse interface model of tumour growth. European J. Appl. Math. , 26(2):215—-243, 2015

    work page 2015

  26. [26]

    J. A. Gallaher, P. M. Enriquez-Navas, K. A. Luddy, R. A. Gatenby, and A. R. Anderson. Spatial heterogeneity and evolutionary dynamics modulate time to recurrence in continuous and adaptive cancer therapies. Cancer Res. , 78(8):2127–2139, 2018

    work page 2018

  27. [27]

    Garcke, K

    H. Garcke, K. F. Lam, and E. Rocca. Optimal control of treatment time in a diffuse interface model of tumor growth. Appl. Math. Optim. , 78(3):495–544, 2018

    work page 2018

  28. [28]

    Garcke, K

    H. Garcke, K. F. Lam, E. Sitka, and V. Styles. A Cahn-Hilliard-Darcy model for tumour growth with chemotaxis and active transport. Math. Models Methods Appl. Sci. , 26(06):1095–1148, 2016

    work page 2016

  29. [29]

    Gomez and K

    H. Gomez and K. G. van der Zee. Computational phase-field modeling. Encyclopedia of Computational Mechanics Second Edition, pages 1–35, 2018

    work page 2018

  30. [30]

    M. S. Gordon, K. Margolin, M. Talpaz, G. W. Sledge, E. Holmgren, R. Benjamin, S. Stalter, S. Shak, and D. C. Adelman. Phase I safety and pharmacokinetic study of recombinant human anti-vascular endothelial growth factor in patients with advanced cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. , 19(3):843–850, 2001

    work page 2001

  31. [31]

    Gorelik, I

    B. Gorelik, I. Ziv, R. Shohat, M. Wick, W. D. Hankins, D. Sidransky, and Z. Agur. Efficacy of weekly docetaxel and bevacizumab in mesenchymal chondrosarcoma: A new theranostic method combining xenografted biopsies with a mathematical model. Cancer Res., 68(21):9033–9040, 2008

    work page 2008

  32. [32]

    Hahnfeldt, J

    P. Hahnfeldt, J. Folkman, and L. Hlatky. Minimizing long-term tumor burden: The logic for metronomic chemotherapeutic dosing and its antiangiogenic basis. J. Theor. Biol. , 220(4):545–554, 2003

    work page 2003

  33. [33]

    Hahnfeldt, D

    P. Hahnfeldt, D. Panigrahy, J. Folkman, and L. Hlatky. Tumor development under angiogenic signaling. Cancer Res., 59(19):4770–4775, 1999

    work page 1999

  34. [34]

    Hanahan and R

    D. Hanahan and R. Weinberg. Hallmarks of cancer: The next generation. Cell, 144(5):646–674, 2011. 31

    work page 2011

  35. [35]

    H¨ arm¨ a, J

    V. H¨ arm¨ a, J. Virtanen, R. M¨ akel¨ a, A. Happonen, J.-P. Mpindi, M. Knuuttila, P. Kohonen, J. L¨ otj¨ onen, O. Kallion- iemi, and M. Nees. A comprehensive panel of three-dimensional models for studies of prostate cancer growth, invasion and drug responses. PLoS ONE, 5(5):e10431, 2010

    work page 2010

  36. [36]

    Henares-Molina, S

    A. Henares-Molina, S. Benzekry, P. C. Lara, M. Garc ´ ıa-Rojo, V. M. P´ erez-Garc ´ ıa, and A. Mart ´ ınez-Gonz´ alez. Non-standard radiotherapy fractionations delay the time to malignant transformation of low-grade gliomas. PLoS ONE, 12(6):e0178552, 2017

    work page 2017

  37. [37]

    Hinow, P

    P. Hinow, P. Gerlee, L. J. McCawley, V. Quaranta, M. Ciobanu, S. Wang, J. M. Graham, B. P. Ayati, J. Claridge, K. R. Swanson, et al. A spatial model of tumor-host interaction: application of chemotherapy. Math. Biosci. Eng., 6(3):521–546, 2009

    work page 2009

  38. [38]

    T. J. R. Hughes, J. A. Cottrell, and Y. Bazilevs. Isogeometric analysis: CAD, finite elements, NURBS, exact geometry and mesh refinement. Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. , 194(39-41):4135–4195, 2005

    work page 2005

  39. [39]

    T. L. Jackson and H. M. Byrne. A mathematical model to study the effects of drug resistance and vasculature on the response of solid tumors to chemotherapy. Math. Biosci., 164(1):17–38, 2000

    work page 2000

  40. [40]

    R. K. Jain. Normalization of tumor vasculature: An emerging concept in antiangiogenic therapy. Science, 307(5706):58–62, 2005

    work page 2005

  41. [41]

    R. K. Jain, J. D. Martin, and T. Stylianopoulos. The role of mechanical forces in tumor growth and therapy. Annu. Rev. Biomed. Eng. , 16(1):321–346, 2014

    work page 2014

  42. [42]

    K. E. Jansen, C. H. Whiting, and G. M. Hulbert. A generalized- α method for integrating the filtered Navier–Stokes equations with a stabilized finite element method. Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg., 190(3-4):305–319, 2000

    work page 2000

  43. [43]

    W. K. Kelly, S. Halabi, M. Carducci, D. George, J. F. Mahoney, W. M. Stadler, M. Morris, P. Kantoff, J. P. Monk, E. Kaplan, N. J. Vogelzang, and E. J. Small. Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase III trial comparing docetaxel and prednisone with or without bevacizumab in men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: CALGB 90401. J....

    work page 2012

  44. [44]

    J. J. Kim and I. F. Tannock. Repopulation of cancer cells during therapy: an important cause of treatment failure. Nat. Rev. Cancer , 5(7):516–525, 2005

    work page 2005

  45. [45]

    Kohandel, M

    M. Kohandel, M. Kardar, M. Milosevic, and S. Sivaloganathan. Dynamics of tumor growth and combination of anti-angiogenic and cytotoxic therapies. Phys. Med. Biol. , 52(13):3665–3677, 2007

    work page 2007

  46. [46]

    O. A. Ladyˇ zenskaja, V. A. Solonnikov, and N. N. Ural’ceva. Linear and quasi-linear equations of parabolic type , volume 23 of Translations of Mathematical Monographs. American Mathematical Society, Providence, USA, 1968

    work page 1968

  47. [47]

    E. Lima, J. Oden, B. Wohlmuth, A. Shahmoradi, D. Hormuth, T. Yankeelov, L. Scarabosio, and T. Horger. Selection and validation of predictive models of radiation effects on tumor growth based on noninvasive imaging data. Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. , 327(Supplement C):277–305, 2017

    work page 2017

  48. [48]

    J. L. Lions. ´Equations Diff´ erentielles Op´ erationnelles et Probl` emes aux Limites. Springer-Verlag, Berlin/G¨ ottin- gen/Heidelberg, Germany, 1961

    work page 1961

  49. [49]

    Lorenzo, T

    G. Lorenzo, T. J. R. Hughes, P. Dominguez-Frojan, A. Reali, and H. Gomez. Computer simulations suggest that prostate enlargement due to benign prostatic hyperplasia mechanically impedes prostate cancer growth. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. , 116(4):1152–1161, 2019

    work page 2019

  50. [50]

    Lorenzo, M

    G. Lorenzo, M. A. Scott, K. Tew, T. J. R. Hughes, and H. Gomez. Hierarchically refined and coarsened splines for moving interface problems, with particular application to phase-field models of prostate tumor growth. Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. , 319:515–548, 2017

    work page 2017

  51. [51]

    Lorenzo, M

    G. Lorenzo, M. A. Scott, K. Tew, T. J. R. Hughes, Y. J. Zhang, L. Liu, G. Vilanova, and H. Gomez. Tissue-scale, personalized modeling and simulation of prostate cancer growth. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. , 113(48):E7663– E7671, 2016

    work page 2016

  52. [52]

    J.-F. Lu, R. Bruno, S. Eppler, W. Novotny, B. Lum, and J. Gaudreault. Clinical pharmacokinetics of bevacizumab in patients with solid tumors. Cancer Chemother. Pharmacol. , 62(5):779–786, 2008

    work page 2008

  53. [53]

    Mehta, A

    R. Mehta, A. Kyshtoobayeva, T. Kurosaki, E. J. Small, H. Kim, R. Stroup, C. E. McLaren, K.-T. Li, and J. P. Fruehauf. Independent association of angiogenesis index with outcome in prostate cancer. Clin. Cancer Res. , 7(1):81–88, 2001

    work page 2001

  54. [54]

    Miranville, E

    A. Miranville, E. Rocca, and G. Schimperna. On the long time behavior of a tumor growth model. J. Differential Equations, 267(4):2616–2642, 2019

    work page 2019

  55. [55]

    Mottet, R

    N. Mottet, R. van den Bergh, E. Briers, L. Bourke, P. Cornford, M. D. Santis, S. Gillessen, A. Govorov, J. Grummet, A. Henry, T. Lam, M. Mason, H. van der Poel, T. van der Kwast, O. Rouvi´ ere, T. Wiegel, T. V. den Broeck, M. Cumberbatch, N. Fossati, T. Gross, M. Lardas, M. Liew, L. Moris, I. Schoots, and P. Willemse. EAU-ESTRO- ESUR-SIOG Guidelines on Pr...

    work page 2018

  56. [56]

    Mpekris, J

    F. Mpekris, J. W. Baish, T. Stylianopoulos, and R. K. Jain. Role of vascular normalization in benefit from metronomic chemotherapy. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. , 114(8):1994–1999, 2017

    work page 1994

  57. [57]

    Mukherji, S

    D. Mukherji, S. Temraz, D. Wehbe, and A. Shamseddine. Angiogenesis and anti-angiogenic therapy in prostate cancer. Crit. Rev. Oncol. Hematol. , 87(2):122–131, 2013

    work page 2013

  58. [58]

    Noguchi, T

    M. Noguchi, T. A. Stamey, J. E. McNeal, and C. E. Yemoto. Assessment of morphometric measurements of prostate carcinoma volume. Cancer, 89(5):1056–1064, 2000. 32

    work page 2000

  59. [59]

    V. M. P´ erez-Garc ´ ıa, M. Bogdanska, A. Mart ´ ınez-Gonz´ alez, J. Belmonte-Beitia, P. Schucht, and L. A. P´ erez- Romasanta. Delay effects in the response of low-grade gliomas to radiotherapy: a mathematical model and its therapeutical implications. Math. Med. Biol. , 32(3):307–329, 2015

    work page 2015

  60. [60]

    C. A. Pettaway, L. L. Pisters, P. Troncoso, J. Slaton, L. Finn, K. Kamoi, and C. J. Logothetis. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy and hormonal therapy followed by radical prostatectomy: feasibility and preliminary results. J. Clin. Oncol., 18(5):1050–1057, 2000

    work page 2000

  61. [61]

    Picus, S

    J. Picus, S. Halabi, W. K. Kelly, N. J. Vogelzang, Y. E. Whang, E. B. Kaplan, W. M. Stadler, E. J. Small, Cancer, and L. G. B. A phase 2 study of estramustine, docetaxel, and bevacizumab in men with castrate-resistant prostate cancer: results from Cancer and Leukemia Group B Study 90006. Cancer, 117(3):526–533, 2011

    work page 2011

  62. [62]

    Powathil, M

    G. Powathil, M. Kohandel, S. Sivaloganathan, A. Oza, and M. Milosevic. Mathematical modeling of brain tumors: effects of radiotherapy and chemotherapy. Phys. Med. Biol. , 52(11):3291–3306, 2007

    work page 2007

  63. [63]

    D. M. Reese, P. Fratesi, M. Corry, W. Novotny, E. Holmgren, and E. J. Small. A phase II trial of humanized anti- vascular endothelial growth factor antibody for the treatment of androgen-independent prostate cancer. Prostate J., 3(2):65–70, 2001

    work page 2001

  64. [64]

    Roose, P

    T. Roose, P. A. Netti, L. L. Munn, Y. Boucher, and R. K. Jain. Solid stress generated by spheroid growth estimated using a linear poroelasticity model. Microvasc. Res., 66(3):204–212, 2003

    work page 2003

  65. [65]

    Saad and M

    Y. Saad and M. H. Schultz. GMRES: A generalized minimal residual algorithm for solving nonsymmetric linear systems. SIAM J. Sci. and Stat. Comput. , 7(3):856–869, 1986

    work page 1986

  66. [66]

    Schmid, J

    H.-P. Schmid, J. E. McNeal, and T. A. Stamey. Observations on the doubling time of prostate cancer. the use of serial prostate-specific antigen in patients with untreated disease as a measure of increasing cancer volume. Cancer, 71(6):2031–2040, 1993

    work page 2031

  67. [67]

    Seruga and I

    B. Seruga and I. F. Tannock. Chemotherapy-based treatment for castration-resistant prostate cancer. J. Clin. Oncol., 29(27):3686–3694, 2011

    work page 2011

  68. [68]

    A. C. Small and W. K. Oh. Bevacizumab treatment of prostate cancer. Expert Opin. Biol. Ther., 12(9):1241–1249, 2012

    work page 2012

  69. [69]

    K. R. Swanson, L. D. True, D. W. Lin, K. R. Buhler, R. Vessella, and J. D. Murray. A quantitative model for the dynamics of serum prostate-specific antigen as a marker for cancerous growth: an explanation for a medical anomaly. Am. J. Pathol. , 158(6):2195–2199, 2001

    work page 2001

  70. [70]

    A. J. ten Tije, J. Verweij, M. A. Carducci, W. Graveland, T. Rogers, T. Pronk, M. Verbruggen, F. Dawkins, and S. D. Baker. Prospective evaluation of the pharmacokinetics and toxicity profile of docetaxel in the elderly. J. Clin. Oncol., 23(6):1070–1077, 2005

    work page 2005

  71. [71]

    B. J. Trock. Application of metabolomics to prostate cancer. Urol. Oncol., 29(5):572–581, 2011

    work page 2011

  72. [72]

    Vilanova, I

    G. Vilanova, I. Colominas, and H. Gomez. Computational modeling of tumor-induced angiogenesis. Arch. Com- putat. Methods Eng. , 24(4):1071–1102, 2017

    work page 2017

  73. [73]

    R. T. Vollmer. Dissecting the dynamics of serum prostate-specific antigen. Am. J. Clin. Pathol. , 133(2):187–193, 2010

    work page 2010

  74. [74]

    Weidner, P

    N. Weidner, P. Carroll, J. Flax, W. Blumenfeld, and J. Folkman. Tumor angiogenesis correlates with metastasis in invasive prostate carcinoma. Am. J. Pathol. , 143(2):401–409, 1993

    work page 1993

  75. [75]

    J. A. Weis, M. I. Miga, L. R. Arlinghaus, X. Li, V. Abramson, A. B. Chakravarthy, P. Pendyala, and T. E. Yankeelov. Predicting the response of breast cancer to neoadjuvant therapy using a mechanically coupled reaction–diffusion model. Cancer Res., 75(22):4697–4707, 2015

    work page 2015

  76. [76]

    S. Wise, J. Lowengrub, H. Frieboes, and V. Cristini. Three-dimensional multispecies nonlinear tumor growth-I: Model and numerical method. J. Theor. Biol. , 253(3):524–543, 2008

    work page 2008

  77. [77]

    J. Xu, G. Vilanova, and H. Gomez. A mathematical model coupling tumor growth and angiogenesis. PLoS ONE, 11(2):e0149422, 2016

    work page 2016

  78. [78]

    T. E. Yankeelov, N. Atuegwu, D. Hormuth, J. A. Weis, S. L. Barnes, M. I. Miga, E. C. Rericha, and V. Quaranta. Clinically relevant modeling of tumor growth and treatment response. Sci. Transl. Med., 5(187):187ps9, 2013. 33

    work page 2013