Jana L Gevertz et al 2008 Phys. Biol. 5 036010 doi:10.1088/1478-3975/5/3/036010
Jana L Gevertz1, George T Gillies2,3,4 and Salvatore Torquato1,5,6,7,8
Show affiliationsThe holy grail of computational tumor modeling is to develop a simulation tool that can be utilized in the clinic to predict neoplastic progression and propose individualized optimal treatment strategies. In order to develop such a predictive model, one must account for many of the complex processes involved in tumor growth. One interaction that has not been incorporated into computational models of neoplastic progression is the impact that organ-imposed physical confinement and heterogeneity have on tumor growth. For this reason, we have taken a cellular automaton algorithm that was originally designed to simulate spherically symmetric tumor growth and generalized the algorithm to incorporate the effects of tissue shape and structure. We show that models that do not account for organ/tissue geometry and topology lead to false conclusions about tumor spread, shape and size. The impact that confinement has on tumor growth is more pronounced when a neoplasm is growing close to, versus far from, the confining boundary. Thus, any clinical simulation tool of cancer progression must not only consider the shape and structure of the organ in which a tumor is growing, but must also consider the location of the tumor within the organ if it is to accurately predict neoplastic growth dynamics.
87.17.Aa Modeling, computer simulation of cell processes
07.05.Bx Computer systems: hardware, operating systems, computer languages, and utilities
Issue 3 (10 September 2008)
Received 6 May 2008, accepted for publication 12 August 2008
Published 29 September 2008
Jana L Gevertz et al 2008 Phys. Biol. 5 036010
David C. Jewitt 2002 The Astronomical Journal 123 1039
A Zavatta et al 2008 New J. Phys. 10 123006
Placidus B Amama et al 2007 Nanotechnology 18 385303
Myounggu Park et al 2006 Nanotechnology 17 2294
Andrea Alessandrini and Paolo Facci 2005 Meas. Sci. Technol. 16 R65
J P Lestone et al 1997 J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys. 23 1349
Matt Finer et al 2009 Environ. Res. Lett. 4 034005
D. I. Pontin et al. 2009 ApJ 700 1449
A. L. Wilmot-Smith et al. 2009 ApJ 704 1288