Can We Negotiate with a Tumor?

Abstract

Recent progress in deciphering the molecular portraits of tumors promises an era of more personalized drug choices. However, current protocols still follow standard fixed-time schedules, which is not entirely coherent with the common observation that most tumors do not grow continuously. This unpredictability of the increases in tumor mass is not necessarily an obstacle to therapeutic efficiency, particularly if tumor dynamics could be exploited. We propose a model of tumor mass evolution as the integrated result of the dynamics of two linked complex systems, tumor cell population and tumor microenvironment, and show the practical relevance of this nonlinear approach.

About the Authors:

Claire M. Wolfrom

Contributed equally to this work with: Claire M. Wolfrom, Michel Laurent

Affiliation: Equipe « Dynamiques cellulaires et modélisation », Inserm Unité 757, Université Paris-Sud, Orsay, France

Michel Laurent

Contributed equally to this work with: Claire M. Wolfrom, Michel Laurent

* E-mail: [email protected]

Affiliation: Equipe « Dynamiques cellulaires et modélisation », Inserm Unité 757, Université Paris-Sud, Orsay, France

Jean Deschatrette

Affiliation: Equipe « Dynamiques cellulaires et modélisation », Inserm Unité 757, Université Paris-Sud, Orsay, France

Introduction

The dynamics of tumor mass increase are determinant for therapeutic efficacy. Numerous mathematical models have been developed in attempts to elucidate the mechanisms underlying tumor mass dynamics. This approach is difficult because of two characteristics of tumor size increase: the variability of the dynamics, and the complexity of the causative factors.

Imaging techniques allow observations of the dynamics of tumor mass increase. The findings illustrate the wide variability of tumor doubling-times in different patients, even for a single histopathological type of tumor. Such variability has been demonstrated for lung [1], pituitary [2], liver [3], [4], brain [5], [6], prostate [7], blood [8], head and neck [9], kidney [10], [11], and breast [12]–[14] cancers. The same longitudinal studies also showed that, with the exception of very rapidly growing cancers which tend to follow exponential or Gompertz-like kinetics [15], [16], the rate of tumor progression in any one patient can vary substantially over time. For all the tumor types listed above, untreated tumor growth can vary from partial regression to no growth, to growth phases with variable rates; furthermore, these phases appear to be unpredictable [ref above and 17, 18]. Thus, fixed portraits of tumor growth are very unlikely to reflect the clinical reality.

In addition to the nonlinearity of tumor growth, the second difficulty associated with mathematical modeling of tumor growth lies in the complexity of influential factors. A host of factors in tumor cells and in the tumor cell microenvironment contribute to determining the progression of tumors. Cellular factors include rates of tumor cell death and of cell division (measured as indexes by pathologists), and also epigenetic and genetic status, including telomere repair activity [19], [20] and various driver mutations, which somehow define the degree of malignancy of tumor cells. For instance, ten subtypes of breast cancer have been described, with various genetic variants resulting in distinct tumor development profiles [21]. Variability of this type has also been shown for gastric cancer [22] and colorectal cancer [23]. The tumor cell microenvironment, defined here as all tumor constituents other than tumoral cells, can both restrain and promote tumor growth, and the equilibrium between the two effects is variable [24], [25]. The microenvironment includes biochemical factors such as local concentrations of oxygen [26]–[29], nutrients [30]–[33], and H+ ions [34]–[36], physical features such as matrix density [37] and vascularization [38], immunological defenses [39], [40], and the various different cell types and their relative proportions in the tumor [41]. These microenvironmental factors are all difficult to quantify, vary considerably both between tumors and between parts of any single tumor [42], and display dynamic and unpredictable changes. This complexity has been translated into increasingly complicated models, which, however, seldom correspond well to observations made by physicians and radiologists. We propose that a better approach to the spontaneous irregularity of growth of most malignancies would be nonlinear analysis and modeling, and that this approach may have clinical applications.

Model and Methods

Model of nonlinear tumor growth

In view of the practical considerations described above, we chose to use a novel approach to modeling tumor growth. We considered the evolution of tumor mass as the net result of interplay between two complex systems: a “tumor cells” system (Cell) and a “tumor cell environment” system (Env). Clinical observations indicate that: both systems oscillate with marked and unpredictable irregularities; their components are nevertheless strongly determined by various feedback and feedforward controls; and the two systems are linked to each other. These properties are characteristic of coupled chaotic oscillatory systems. They also imply that tumor mass evolution will depend upon the integration of the dynamics of these two systems (Cell and Env).

Various types of mathematical oscillators, initially describing physical measures, have been used to model systems with similar characteristics.

The rationale for the choice of the “Cell” oscillator was as follows: i) a two-well oscillator was selected because our previous work on chaotic-like oscillations of tumor and progenitor cell proliferation, in vitro and in vivo, had shown a balance between high/low fixed points [43]–[45]; and ii) the level of complexity of the oscillator required at least three linked variables to reflect interplay between three critical and complex mechanisms which control a cell population: cell death, which varies greatly in some tumors [46]–[48], cell proliferation which fluctuates, and genetic status, including telomere repair [19], [43] and gene expression, which displays oscillations [48], [49]. The three-variable Lorenz oscillator was adapted to these constraints, and was used to illustrate the “Cell” oscillator (Figure 1A), which was written thus:

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

Figure 1. Phase plane representation of the uncoupled Lorenz-Cell oscillator (Fig. A) and the Duffing-Env oscillator (Fig. B).

For the Cell oscillator, parameter p₁ is constant (p₁ = 10) indicating the absence of coupling between cellular and environmental oscillators. Parameters and equations are as indicated in the Model and methods section.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0103834.g001

The rationale for the choice of the “Env” oscillator was as follows: i) a two-well oscillator was selected to reflect the balance between the enhancing and inhibitory effects of the tumor cell environment; ii) the oscillator had to include both a damping term reflecting soluble and immune defenses, and a restoring force reflecting autostimulatory effects of tumor cells and the tumor matrix [24], [50], [51]; iii) periodicity had to be introduced into the oscillator to reflect the net influence of metabolic and hormonal clocks [52]–[54]. The classical Duffing oscillator including a periodic external forcing is adapted to these constraints and was therefore chosen as the “Env” oscillator (Figure 1B), written thus:where εx³ is the restoring force of the system, δy is the damping force, and γ cos(ωt) is the periodic external forcing.

The two oscillators were then coupled, to reflect the reciprocal influences of the dynamics of the tumor cell population and the dynamics of the microenvironment. Synchronization was obtained using parameter p₁ of the Cell oscillator proportional to the y or x variable of the Env oscillator (p₁ = 100 y_env or p₁ = 100 x_env). Our hypothesis was that the integrated signal of the two coupled oscillatory systems would result in waves of tumor growth at times of synchronized maxima of each oscillator. In both equations, we purposely kept standard values of variables and parameters responsible for chaotic behavior of the two oscillators. Although unrelated to biological numbers, the use of these values is coherent with our general approach.

Integrated signal and external control of the coupled oscillators

Our next step was to interfere with the oscillators to test how we could curb the integrated signal reflecting tumor mass increase. By analogy with what occurs in clinical practice, the interference with the Cell oscillator would illustrate the effects of chemotherapy, which directly induces tumor cell death, and the interferences with the Env oscillator would illustrate the effects of various adjuvant treatments. In general, progressive control of a Duffing oscillator requires at least one of three actions: increasing the damping effect [55], decreasing amplitude of the restoring force, or adjusting the frequency and amplitude of periodic external driving [56]. Therefore, we examined how changes in these three phenomena changed the synchronization of the two systems.

Results

Synchronization of the two oscillators

Phase locking of the two oscillators was obtained directly using parameter p₁ of the Cell oscillator proportional to the variable y of the Env oscillator, while the amplitudes of the two systems remained variable and uncorrelated. As a result of synchronization, the Cell oscillator showed grouped bursts of fluctuations, strictly linked to ascending segments of oscillations of the Env oscillator (Figure 2A and B). The coupling was very robust, and was observed with similar strength when any one of the three variables of the Cell oscillator was used for coupling. Synchronization was also obtained using another type of coupling, such as p₁ proportional to the variable x of the Duffing equation, and again the Cell oscillator displayed bursts of fluctuations linked to the peaks of the controlling Env oscillator. However, the Cell oscillator was entrained only by peaks corresponding to positive values of the variable x of Env, or, in other words, the right well of the Env oscillator. The Env left well did not affect the activity of the Cell oscillator (Figure 3A and B). Changes in coupling intensity by increasing the values of parameter p₁ (to 10, 50, 100, or 1000) resulted in increased numbers of harmonics in each burst of the Cell oscillator. However, synchronization remained identical and neither the onset nor the length of bursts were affected (data not shown).

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

Figure 2. Burst oscillations result from the coupling of the Env oscillator (Fig. 2A) and the Cell oscillator (Fig. 2B).

Coupling was obtained through the p₁ parameter in the Cell oscillator, by setting p₁ = 100 y_env, where y_env is the y variable of the Env oscillator. The data shown represent the changes through time of the y variable of the master, Env oscillator (Fig. 2 A) and of the x variable of the coupled Cell oscillator (Fig. 2 B). Parameters and equations are as indicated in the Model and methods section.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0103834.g002

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

Figure 3. Bursting is observed by coupling the Cell oscillator to either of the two variables of the Env oscillator (Fig. 3A,B,C).

Unlike the model in Figure 2, coupling is obtained by setting p₁ = 100 x_env, where x_env is the first variable of the Env oscillator. C: cumulated signal of the synchronized Cell oscillator.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0103834.g003

Integrated signal and external control of the coupled oscillators

The integrated signal from the Cell oscillator synchronized with the Env oscillator was alternating irregular ascending or descending staircase segments. The slope of the signal varied according to sampling intervals, a direct consequence of the classical dependence of chaotic oscillators on initial conditions. This signal was clearly consistent with the fluctuating evolution of tumor mass, displaying increases with variable slope, with phases of stability and partial regressions (Figure 3 C). However, to predict the long-term net result of the activity of the whole system, which illustrates the progression of tumor mass, the total length of the silencing intervals of the Cell oscillator appear to be particularly significant: the value of this length is not dependent on the conditions of integration.

External control

1. We tested the consequences of a smaller amplitude (the value of parameter γ = 1.5 rather than 2.5) and lower frequency (parameter ω = 1.3 rather than 1.5) of the external periodic force of the Env oscillator. This resulted in irregular alternation between positive and negative peaks of the Env oscillator, with increased frequency of peaks in the left well of the Env oscillator (negative x). Under these conditions, the coupled Cell oscillator was insensitive to negative x Env peaks and was only entrained by positive x values (Figure 4 A, B,C).

2. An increase in the restoring force of the Env oscillator (that is an increase of ε to 0.5), changed the form of oscillations, which became more periodical, displaying large regular peaks, with perfectly synchronized bursts of the Cell oscillator (data not shown). In contrast, a decrease of ε to 0.1 resulted in alternating zones of positive and negative peaks of the Env oscillator, and corresponding zones of low amplitude bursts and prolonged silence of the Cell oscillator (Figure 5).

3. An increase in parameter δ made the basal motif of the Env oscillator more complex with the emergence of shouldering of the peaks. However, the Cell oscillator bursts responded to each of the x-positive Env peaks. In contrast, a decrease in δ made the Env oscillations simpler, and again the Cell oscillator responded to each x-positive peak of the leading Env oscillator (data not shown).

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

Figure 4. Influence of the pattern of evolution of the Env oscillator (Fig. A) on the response of the coupled Cell oscillator (Fig. B, C): effects of γ and ω.

As in Figure 2, except that the changes through time of the Env oscillator were modified by making γ = 1.5 and ω = 1.3 (in place of 2.5 and 1.5, respectively). As a consequence, the Env oscillator exhibited irregularly alternating large (positive x zone) and small peaks (negative x zone). Under these conditions, the coupled Cell oscillator only responded to large peaks and did not respond to small peaks. C: cumulated signal of the synchronized Cell oscillator.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0103834.g004

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

Figure 5. Influence of changes in the pattern of evolution of the Env oscillator (Fig. A) on the response of the coupled Cell oscillator (Fig. B, C): role of ε.

As in Figure 2, except that the changes through time of the Env oscillator were modified by making ε = 0.1 (in place of 0.25). As a consequence, the Env oscillator exhibited grouped large (positive x) peaks alternating with grouped small (negative x) peaks. Under these conditions, the coupled Cell oscillator only responded to bundles of large peaks. C: cumulated signal of the synchronized Cell oscillator displaying prolonged phases of silencing.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0103834.g005

Discussion

We show in this analysis that two linked chaotic systems, images of the tumor cell population and tumor cell environment, respectively, are readily and solidly synchronized. As a result, all large positive peaks of the Env oscillator, which correspond to the positive x domain in the phase space portrait, entrained bursts of the Cell oscillator. When changes in parameters led to the peaks of the Env oscillator being in the negative domain, the coupled Cell oscillator was inactive. The integrated signal resulting from this synchronization was an irregular staircase curve, a profile consistent with the waves of tumor cell proliferation as commonly observed in vivo: waves of progressive irregular increases of tumoral mass interspersed with plateaus and partial regressions.

The irregular growth of many malignancies has consequences for therapy. In particular, therapeutic inefficacy is likely during phases where there is either no net tumor growth or tumor regression, raising issues about the overtreatment of some tumors as recently discussed [57]–[59]. A new step in the personalization of treatments involving adapting therapy time-schedules to the velocity of tumor growth may be beneficial. This would require considering the tumor as a mostly chaotic system in which “initial conditions” (i.e. the net energy for growth) changes constantly. Various random variations must necessarily be included in this complex system of feedback controls, as in all physiological systems. These complex dynamics result in inter- and intra-individual variability, making the prediction of tumor growth phases impossible; nevertheless, the detection of circulating tumor cells [60] and sequential imaging [61]–[65] can be used for regular monitoring of tumor mass evolution. An adapted therapeutic approach would tend to control, progressively, the complex tumor system rather than eradicating it in one step. This strategy was recently proposed by Gatenby et al using ovarian cancer cells grown in SCID mice: the so-called “adaptive therapy” persistently controlled, and in some cases finally suppressed, the tumors, with minimal toxicity and prolonged mouse survival. This therapy involved treatment with small doses of carboplatin, only when a tumor increased in size, but did not involve trying directly to eliminate it [40], [66], [67]. The initial goal of these authors was to allow chemosensitive cells to survive so that they limit the proliferation of resistant cells. Also, prolonged intervals between treatments allow some recovery of cell chemosensitivity [68], [69]. Our interpretation is that tailoring treatment to the irregular dynamics of tumor growth also supported physiological control. According to our model of synchronized “tumor cell” and “tumor cell environment” oscillators, the various changes in parameters which influence the integrated signal may find analogy in three types of actions, all of which have some degree of antitumor effect in clinical practice. The first action is “adaptive therapy” to destroy newly proliferating cells, thereby decreasing what we refer to above as the restoring force of the tumor, so that every growth phase of the tumor is opposed to by proportional chemotherapy. Second, increased damping in the tumor cell microenvironment is very similar to what results from persistent multidisciplinary support such as moderate use of hyperoxia [70], [28], [29] and systemic buffers [35], [36], glucose metabolism control [71], [72], and immunity enhancement [72], [73]. In particular, immunity can maintain cancer cells in a dormant state [40], [74]. The third interference would be to regularize the periodic stimulations affecting cell proliferation. The antitumor effects of circadian re-entrainment by light and meal-timing in murine models illustrate this point well [52], [53]. Extratumoral periodic forces also include hormonal clocks [75]–[78], which should be considered in their rhythmic pattern.

A further possible advantage of “negotiating” with the tumor according to the phases of its dynamics is to avoid the boomerang-effect of tumor mass eradication, which frequently induces compensatory growth of both the residual tumor cells [79]–[82] and of the frequent and early occurring dormant micrometastases [83]–[85].

Clearly, adapted randomized trials in models are required if sufficient evidence is to be obtained to validate this negotiating approach. However, there are potential clinical benefits of developing some guerilla strategies for overcoming the nonlinearity of tumor growth.

Acknowledgments

The authors gratefully acknowledge Dr Alex Edelman for English editorial assistance; and funding from the Association Biologie du Cancer et Dynamiques Complexes.

Author Contributions

Conceived and designed the experiments: CMW ML JD. Performed the experiments: CMW ML JD. Analyzed the data: CMW ML JD. Contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools: CMW ML JD. Contributed to the writing of the manuscript: CMW ML.

Citation: Wolfrom CM, Laurent M, Deschatrette J (2014) Can We Negotiate with a Tumor? PLoS ONE 9(8): e103834. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0103834

References

1. Jennings SG, Winer-Muram HT, Tann M, Ying J, Dowdeswell I (2006) Distribution of stage I lung cancer growth rates determined with serial volumetric CT measurements. Radiology 241: 554–563.

2. Tanaka Y, Hongo K, Tada T, Sakai K, Kakizawa Y, et al. (2003) Growth pattern and rate in residual nonfunctioning pituitary adenomas: correlations among tumor volume doubling time, patient age, and MIB-1 index. J Neurosurg 98: 359–365.

3. Barbara L, Benzi G, Gaiani S, Fusconi F, Zironi G, et al. (1992) Natural history of small untreated hepatocellular carcinoma in cirrhosis: a multivariate analysis of prognostic factors of tumor growth rate and patient survival. Hepatology 16: 132–137.

4. Colombo M (1998) The natural history of hepatocellular carcinoma in Western countries. Hepatogastroenterology 45 Sup3: 1221–1225.

5. Kasuya H, Kubo O, Tanaka M, Amano K, Kato K, et al. (2006) Clinical and radiological features related to the growth potential of meningioma. Neurosurg Rev 29: 293–297.

6. Whittle IR, Smith C, Navoo P, Collie D (2004) Meningiomas. Lancet 363: 1535–1543.

7. Klotz L (2007) Active surveillance for favorable-risk prostate cancers: who, how and why? Nature Clin Pract Oncol 4: 692–698.

8. Kaufman Y, Amaraglio N, Rosenthal E, Hirsh YJ, Many A, et al. (2005) Proliferation response of leukemic cells to CD70 ligation oscillates with recurrent remission and relapse in a low-grade lymphoma. J Immunol 175: 6940–6947.

9. Jensen AR, Nellemann HM, Overgaard J (2007) Tumor progression in waiting time for radiotherapy in head and neck cancer. Radiotherapy and oncology 84: 5–10.

10. Kunkle DA, Crispen PL, Chen DY, Greenberg RE, Uzzo RG (2007) Enhancing renal masses with zero net growth during active surveillance. J Urol 177: 849–853.

11. Zhang J, Kang SK, Wang L, Touijer A, Hricak H (2009) Distribution of renal tumor growth rates determined by using serial volumetric CT measurements. Radiology 250: 137–144.

12. Heuser L, Spratt JS, Polk HC Jr (1979) Growth rates of primary breast cancers. Cancer 43: 1888–1894.

13. Speer JF, Petrosky VE, Retsky MW, Wardwell RH (1984) A stochastic numerical model of breast cancer growth that simulates clinical data. Cancer Res 44: 4124–4130.

14. Tubiana M, Koscielny S (1991) Natural history of human breast cancer: recent data and clinical implications. Breast Cancer Res Treat 18: 125–140.

15. Gompertz B (1825) On the nature of the function expressive of the law of human mortality, and on a new mode of determining the value of life contingencies. Philos Trans R Soc London [Biol] 115: 513–553.

16. Norton L (1988) A Gompertzian model of human breast cancer growth. Cancer Res 48: 7067–7071.

17. Retsky MW, Wardwell RH, Swartzendruber DE, Headley DL (1987) Prospective computerized simulation of breast cancer: comparison of computer predictions with nine sets of biological and clinical data. Cancer Res 47: 4982–4987.

18. Retsky MW, Swartzendruber DE, Wardwell RH, Bame PD (1990) Is Gompertzian or exponential kinetics a valid description of individual human cancer growth? Med Hypotheses 33: 95–106.

19. Blackburn EH, Greider CW, Szostak JW (2006) Telomeres and telomerase: the path from maize, tetrahymena and yeast to human cancer and aging. Nat Med 12: 1133–1138.

20. Staunton MJ, Gaffney EF (1995) Tumor type is a determinant of susceptibility to apoptosis. Am J Clin Pathol 103: 300–307.

21. Curtis C, Shah SP, Chin SF, Turashvili G, Rueda OM, et al. (2012) The genomic and transcriptomic architecture of 2,000 breast tumours reveals novel subgroups. Nature 486: 346–352.

22. Smyth EC, Cunningham D (2012) Targeted therapy for gastric cancer. Curr Treat Options Oncol 13: 377–389.

23. Balschun K, Haag J, Wenke AK, von Schönfels W, Schwartz NT, et al. (2011) KRAS, NRAS, PIK3CA exon20, and BRAF genotypes in synchronous and metachronous primary colorectal cancers, diagnostic and therapeutic implications. J Mol Diagn 13: 436–445.

24. Bissell MJ, Hines WC (2011) Why don’t we get more cancer? A proposed role of the microenvironment in restraining cancer progression. Nat Med 17: 320–329.

25. Rounov-Jessen L, Bissell MJ (2009) Breast cancer by proxy: can the microenvironment be both the cause and consequence? Trends Mol Med 15: 5–13.

26. Axelson H, Fredlund E, Ovenberger M, Landberg G, Pahimans S (2005) Hypoxia-induced dedifferentiation of tumor cells – a mechanism behind heterogeneity and aggressiveness of solid tumors. Semin Cell Dev Biol 16: 554–563.

27. Bennewith KL, Dedhar S (2011) Targeting hypoxic tumour cells to overcome metastasis. BMC Cancer 11: 504.

28. Moen I, Oyan AM, Kalland KH, Tronstadt KJ, Akslen LA, et al. (2009) Hyperoxic treatment induces mesenchymal-to-epithelial transition in a rat adenocarcinoma model. PloS One 4: e6381.

29. Raa A, Stansberg C, Steen VM, Bjekvig R, Reed RK, et al. (2007) Hyperoxia retards growth and induces apoptosis and loss of glands and blood vessels in DMBA-induced rat mammary tumors. BMC Cancer 7: 23.

30. Bonucelli G, Tsirigos A, Whitaker-Menezes D, Pavlides L, Pestell RG, et al. (2010) Ketones and lactate fuel tumor growth and metastasis: evidence that epithelial cancer cells use oxidative mitochondrial metabolism. Cell Cycle 9: 3506–3514.

31. Cairns RA, Harris IS, Mak TW (2011) Regulation of cancer cell metabolism. Nature Reviews Cancer 11: 85–95.

32. Levine AJ, Puzio-Kuter AM (2010) The control of the metabolic switch in cancers by oncogenes and tumor suppressor genes. Science 330: 1340–1344.

33. Nieman KM, Kenny HA, Penicka CV, Ladanyi A, Buell-Gutbrod R, et al. (2010) Adipocytes promote ovarian cancer metastases and provide energy for rapid tumor growth. Nature Medicine 17: 1498–1503.

34. Gatenby RA (2007) Cellular adaptations to hypoxia and acidosis during somatic evolution of breast cancer. Br J Cancer 97: 646–653.

35. Robey IF, Baggett BK, Kirkpatrick ND, Roe DJ, Dosescu J, et al. (2009) Bicarbonate increases tumor pH and inhibits spontaneous metastases. Cancer Res 69: 2260–2268.

36. Silva AS, Yunes JA, Gillies RJ, Gatenby RA (2009) The potential role of systemic buffers in reducing intratumoral extracellular pH and acid-mediated invasion. Cancer Res 69: 2677–2684.

37. Engler AJ, Sweeney HL, Discher DE, Schwarzbauer JE (2006) Matrix elasticity directs stem cell linage specification. Cell 126: 677–689.

38. Padera TP, Stoll BR, Tooredman JB, Capen D, Di Tomaso E, et al. (2004) Cancer cells compress intra-tumour vessels. Nature 427: 695.

39. Bindea G, Mlecnik B, Fridman WH, Galon G (2011) The prognostic impact of anti-cancer immune response: a novel classification of cancer patients. Semin Immunopathol 33: 335–340.

40. Koebel CM, Vermi W, Swann JB, Arafa N, Rodig SJ, et al. (2007) Adaptive immunity maintains occult cancer in an equilibrium state. Nature 450: 903–907.

41. Polyak K, Haviv I, Campbell IG (2009) Coevolution of tumor cells and their microenvironment. Trends Genet 25: 30–38.

42. Marusyk A, Polyak K (2010) Tumor heterogeneity: causes and consequences. Biochimica Biophysica Acta, Reviews on Cancer 1805: 105–133.

43. Deschatrette J, Lauga J, Maigné J, Wolfrom C (2003) Telomeres and telomerase activity are regulated as a complex system in cultured hepatoma cells. Complexus 1: 134–141.

44. Laurent M, Deschatrette J, Wolfrom CM (2010) Unmasking chaotic attributes in time series of living cell populations. PloS One 5: e9346.

45. Wolfrom C, Martin OC, Laurent M, Deschatrette J (2007) Sinusoidal swinging dynamics of the telomere repair and cell growth activation functions of telomerase in rat liver cancer cells. FEBS Letters 581: 125–130.

46. Ehemann V, Sykora J, Vera-Delgado J, Lange A, Otto HF (2003) Flow cytometric detection of spontaneous apoptosis in human breast cancer using the TUNEL technique. Cancer Lett 194: 125–131.

47. Meggiato C, Calabrese F, Valente M, Favaretto E, Bialello E, et al. (2000) Spontaneous apoptosis and proliferation in human pancreatic cancer. Pancreas 20 (2): 117–122.

48. Coulon A, Gandrillon O, Beslon G (2010) On the spontaneous stochastic dynamics of a single gene: complexity of the molecular interplay at the promoter. BMC Systems Biology 4: 2–38.

49. Raj A, van Oudenaarden A (2008) Nature, nurture, or chance: stochastic gene expression and its consequences. Cell 135: 216–226.

50. Kucerova L, Matuskova M, Hlubinova K, Altanerova V, Altaner C (2010) Tumor cell behaviour modulation by mesenchymal stromal cells. Mol Cancer 9: 129.

51. Lam WA, Cao L, Umesh V, Keung AJ, Sen S, et al. (2010) Extracellular matrix rigidity modulates neuroblastoma cell differentiation and N-Myc expression. Mol Cancer 9: 35–53.

52. Li XM, Delaunay F, Dulong S, Claustrat B, Zampero S, et al. (2010) Cancer inhibition through circadian reprogramming of tumor transcriptome with meal timing. Cancer Res 70: 3351–3360.

53. Filipski E, Innominato PF, Wu M, Li XM, Iacobelli S, et al. (2005) Effects of light and food schedules on liver and tumor molecular clocks in mice. J Nat Cancer Inst 97: 507–517.

54. Wu J, Dauchy RT, Tirrell PC, Wu SS, Lynch DT, et al. (2011) Light at night activates IGF-1R/PDK1 signaling and accelerates tumor growth in human breast cancer xenografts. Cancer Res 71: 2622–2631.

55. Nguyen LK, Kulasiri D (2009) On the functional diversity of dynamical behaviour in genetic and metabolic feedback systems. BMC Syst Biol 3: 51.

56. Pikovsky AS, Rosenblum MG, Osipov GV, Kurths J (1997) Phase synchronization of chaotic oscillators by external driving. Physica D 104: 219–238.

57. Kalager M, Adami HO, Bretthauer M, Tamimi RM (2012) Overdiagnosis of invasive breast cancer due to mammography screening: results from the Norwegian screening program. Ann Intern Med 156: 491–499.

58. Welch HG, Black WC (2010) Overdiagnosis in cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 102: 605–613.

59. Zhal PH, Gotzsche PC, Maehlen J (2011) Natural history of breast cancers detected in the Swedish mammography screening programme: a cohort study. Lancet Oncol 12: 1118–1124.

60. Pantel K, Brakenhof RH, Brandt B (208) Detection, clinical relevance and specific biological properties of disseminating tumour cells. Nat Rev Cancer 8: 329–340.

61. Dancey JE, Dodd LE, Ford R, Kaplan R, Mooney, et al (2009) Recommendations for the assessment of progression in randomised cancer treatment trials. Eur J Cancer 45: 281–289.

62. Eisenhauer EA, Therasse P, Bogaerts J, Schwartz LH, Sargent D, et al. (2009) New Responsee Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur J Cancer 45: 228–247.

63. Gwyther SJ, Schwartz LH (2008) How to assess anti-tumour efficacy by imaging techniques. Eur J Cancer 44: 39–45.

64. Sargent DJ, Rubinstein L, Schwartz L, Dancey JE, Gatsonis C, et al. (2009) Validation of novel imaging methodologies for use as cancer clinical trial endpoint. Eur J Cancer 45: 290–299.

65. Whal RL, Jacene H, Kasamon Y, Lodge MA (2009) From RECIST to PERCIST: evolving considerations from PET response criteria in solid tumors. J Nucl Med 50: 122S–150S.

66. Gatenby RA, Silva AS, Gillies RJ, Frieden BR (2009) Adaptive therapy. Cancer Res 69: 4894–4903.

67. Gatenby RA, Brown J, Vincent T (2009) Lessons from applied ecology: cancer control using an evolutionary double bind. Cancer Res 69: 7499–7502.

68. Cara S, Tannock IF (2001) Retreatment of patients with the same chemotherapy: implications for clinical mechanisms of drug resistance. Annals of Oncology 12: 23–37.

69. Frei E III, Richardson P, Avigan D, Bunnell C, Wheeler C, et al. (1999) The interval between courses of high-dose chemotherapy with stem cell rescue: therapeutic hypotheses. Bone Marrow Transplant 24: 939–945.

70. Galluzzo M, Pennacchietti S, Rosano S, Comoglio PM, Michieli P (2009) Prevention of hypoxia by myoglobin expression in human tumor cells promotes differentiation and inhibits metastasis. J Clin Invest 119: 865–875.

71. Dowling RJ, Goodwin PJ, Stambolic V (2011) Understanding the benefit of metformin use in cancer treatment. BMC Med 9: 33–39.

72. Ferguson RD, Novosyadlyy R, Fierz Y, Alikhani N, Sun H, et al. (2012) Hyperinsulinemia enhances c-myc-mediated mammary tumor development and advances metastatic progression to the lung in a mouse model type 2 diabetes. Breast Can Res 14: R8.

73. De la Cruz-Merino L, Grande-Pulido E, Albero-Tamarit A, Codes-Manuel de Villena ME (2008) Cancer and immune response: old and new evidence for future challenges. Oncologist 13: 1426–1454.

74. Teng MW, Swann JB, Koebel CM, Schreiber RD, Smyth MJ (2008) Immune-mediated dormancy: an equilibrium with cancer. J Leuko Biol 84: 988–993.

75. Baik M, Yu JH, Hennighausen L (2011) Growth hormone-STAT5 regulation of growth, hepatocellular carcinoma, and liver metabolism. Ann NY Acad Sci 1229: 29–37.

76. Lee S, Donehower LA, Herron AJ, Moore DD, Fu L (2010) Disrupting circadian homeostasis of sympathetic signaling promotes tumor development in mice. PloS One 5: e10995.

77. Ulanet DB, Ludwig DL, Kahn CR, Hanahan D (2010) Insulin receptor functionally enhances multistage tumor progression and conveys intrinsic resistance to IGF-1R targeted therapy. Proc Nat Acad Sci 107: 10791–10798.

78. Sood AK, Bhatty R, Kemet AA, Lauden CV, Stratton MR, et al. (2009) The cancer genome. Nature 458: 719–724.

79. Demicheli R, Retsky MW, Hrushesky WJ, Baum M, Gukas ID (2008) The effects of surgery on tumor growth: a century of investigations. Ann Oncol 19: 1821–1828.

80. Enderling H, Hlatky L, Hahnfeldt P (2009) Migration rules: tumours are conglomerates of self-metastases. Br J Cancer 100: 1917–1925.

81. Prehn RT (1991) The inhibition of tumor growth by tumor mass. Cancer Res 51: 2–4.

82. Vassileva V, Allen CJ, Piquette-Miller M (2008) Effects of sustained and intermittent paclitaxel therapy on tumor repopulation in ovarian cancer. Mol Cancer Ther 7: 630–63.

83. Huseman Y, Geigl JB, Schubert F, Musiani P, Meyer M, et al. (2008) Systemic spread is an early step in breast cancer. Cancer Cell 13: 56–68.

84. Riethdorf S, Wikman H, Pantel K (2008) Review: Biological relevance of disseminated tumor cells in cancer patients. Int J Cancer 123: 1991–2006.

85. Slade MJ, Payne R, Riethdorf S, Ward B, Zaidi SA, et al. (2009) Comparison of bone marrow disseminated tumor cells and blood-circulating tumor cells in breast cancer patients after primary treatment. Br J Cancer 100: 160–166.