Temporal Optimization of Radiation Therapy to Heterogeneous Tumour Populations and Cancer Stem Cells
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract External beam radiation therapy is a key part of modern cancer treatments which uses high doses of radiation to destroy tumour cells. Despite its widespread usage and extensive study in theoretical, experimental, and clinical works, many questions still remain about how best to administer it. Many mathematical studies have examined optimal scheduling of radiotherapy, and most come to similar conclusions. Importantly though, these studies generally assume intratumoral homogeneity. But in recent years, it has become clear that tumours are not homogeneous masses of cancerous cells, but wildly heterogeneous masses with various subpopulations which grow and respond to treatment differently. One subpopulation of particular importance is cancer stem cells (CSCs) which are known to exhibit higher radioresistence compared with non-CSCs. Knowledge of these differences between cell types could theoretically lead to changes in optimal treatment scheduling. Only a few studies have examined this question, and interestingly, they arrive at apparent conflicting results. However, an understanding of their assumptions reveals a key difference which leads to their differing conclusions. In this paper, we generalize the problem of temporal optimization of dose distribution of radiation therapy to a two cell type model. We do so by creating a mathematical model and a numerical optimization algorithm to find the distribution of dose which leads to optimal cell kill. We then create a data set of optimization solutions and use data analysis tools to learn the relationships between model parameters and the qualitative behaviour of optimization results. Analysis of the model and discussion of biological importance are provided throughout. We find that the key factor in predicting the behaviour of the optimal distribution of radiation is the ratio between the radiosensitivities of the present cell types. These results can provide guidance for treatment in cases where clinicians have knowledge of tumour heterogeneity and of the abundance of CSCs.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".