Game theory-wise treatment plans to advance the standard of care include men with advanced prostate cancer
August 9. 2018. Game theory can be used to identify potential flaws in current cancer treatment approaches and to select new strategies to improve outcomes in patients with metastatic cancer, according to a review study published online today, August 9, in JAMA Oncology.
Authored by a mathematician, an evolutionary biologist, and clinical physicians from the Moffitt Cancer Center and Maastricht University in the Netherlands, the study challenges decades-old methods. The usual method of treating metastatic cancer involves repeatedly administering the same drug(s) until disease progression. The drugs are given according to Maximum Tolerated Dose (MTD), i.e. the highest dose of a drug or treatment that does not cause intolerable side effects. The maximum tolerated dose is decided via clinical trials by testing increasing doses on different groups of people until the highest dose with acceptable side effects is found.
“Current treatments for metastatic cancers, by giving the same drug repeatedly at the maximum tolerated dose, can inadvertently increase the speed with which cancer cells can evolve effective counter measures and then regrow,” said Robert A. Gatenby, M.D., co-director of Moffitt’s Center of Excellence in Evolutionary Therapy, one of the leaders of this new line of research.
“Today, therapy is usually changed only when the tumor progresses. By using this strategy the physician cedes control to the cancer,” Gatenby said. “Although standard practice for decades, administering drugs at maximum-tolerated dose until progression is rarely the optimal game theoretic strategy for metastatic cancers.”
“The current maximum-tolerated dose approach will only be successful if the cancer cell population is made up of similar cells that are unable to adapt and evolve quickly,” said Joel Brown, Ph.D., an evolutionary biologist at Moffitt. “That is rarely what we see for cancers that have widely metastasized. We can and must anticipate, steer and exploit the cancer cells’ evolutionary responses to our therapies.”
“Implicit in conventional treatment strategies,” the authors write, ” . . . is that maximum benefit to the patient requires maximum tumor cell killing. In metastatic, incurable clinical settings, this strategy is intuitively appealing. Yet, it may be evolutionarily unwise.”
The JAMA review article includes examples from prostate cancer. “As shown in [these figures] maximum cell killing is an optimal strategy only if no cancer cells are capable of evolving a successful resistance to the applied therapy. However, if 1 or more cancer subpopulations are resistant a priori or capable of evolving adaptations quickly (i.e,. before the treatment kills them), this strategy will fail.
Further, the physician has the advantage of always “playing” first – the cancer cells cannot begin to evolve resistance until a therapy has been administered. As the article puts it, they cannot “evolve adaptations for treatments that the physician has not yet applied.”
Ideally, an experienced medical oncologist with a full range of prescribing resources can play hard on behalf of each individual patient, continuously adjusting treatment and forcing the cancer cells to constantly change their response to unpredictable attacks from new drugs or combinations of drugs.
A first step is to set the precise goal of treatment. Is it to cure the patient or is it to prolong life? This allows the physician to better balance a therapy’s benefits against its potential toxicity and effects on the patient’s quality of life. What will be done if some of the cancer cells are resistant to therapy? If the goal is to cure, then resistant cells must be killed or prevented. If the goal is control, then physicians can use evolutionary principles to minimize the proliferation of resistant cells while limiting the toxicity of treatment.
Up against the relative stupidity of the disease, the physician can continuously analyze dynamics inside the tumor cell population based on the tumor response during each treatment cycle. With the aid of a mathematical model, this can provide information to improve the outcomes in subsequent cycles – a well-recognized approach in recursive games, termed Bellman’s Principle.
All this points toward an upgrading of “precision medicine” for metastatic cancers. In addition to using molecular techniques to identify treatment targets, precision medicine should integrate strategies to deal with the evolution of resistance which almost invariably leads to failure of even highly successful targeted therapies. The health team should design an explicit Resistance Management Plan (RMP) for each patient. And outcomes of every patient should be analyzed too, in the fashion of After Action Reports compiled by emergency response teams. By learning from each individual patient, personalized oncology can itself evolve and improve over time.
While this approach is designed for incurable metastatic cancers, Katerina Stankova, Ph.D., a mathematician at Maastricht University and an expert on game theory, notes that the full dynamics of Stackelberg games have not yet been rigorously explored. “As we develop the mathematics in conjunction with cancer therapies, we expect that our analyses will uncover novel game-theoretic, evolutionary strategies that may increase the probability of curing even aggressive and heterogeneous cancers,” Stankova added.
Sources & Links
Optimizing Cancer Treatment Using Game Theory: A Review
JAMA Oncology, August 9, 2018 (full article, free).
The study was supported by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program, the James S. McDonnell Foundation grant, a V Foundation grant and the National Institutes of Health/National Cancer Institute.
USC Viterbi researchers apply biology-based mathematical models to optimize chemotherapy treatment. USC Viterbi researchers apply biology-based mathematical models to optimize chemotherapy treatment Ashleen Knutsen | March 27, 2018