↓ Skip to main content

Optimal Therapy Scheduling Based on a Pair of Collaterally Sensitive Drugs

Overview of attention for article published in Bulletin of Mathematical Biology, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#37 of 1,430)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (88th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
20 X users

Readers on

mendeley
30 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
Optimal Therapy Scheduling Based on a Pair of Collaterally Sensitive Drugs
Published in
Bulletin of Mathematical Biology, May 2018
DOI 10.1007/s11538-018-0434-2
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Despite major strides in the treatment of cancer, the development of drug resistance remains a major hurdle. One strategy which has been proposed to address this is the sequential application of drug therapies where resistance to one drug induces sensitivity to another drug, a concept called collateral sensitivity. The optimal timing of drug switching in these situations, however, remains unknown. To study this, we developed a dynamical model of sequential therapy on heterogeneous tumors comprised of resistant and sensitive cells. A pair of drugs (DrugA, DrugB) are utilized and are periodically switched during therapy. Assuming resistant cells to one drug are collaterally sensitive to the opposing drug, we classified cancer cells into two groups, [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text], each of which is a subpopulation of cells resistant to the indicated drug and concurrently sensitive to the other, and we subsequently explored the resulting population dynamics. Specifically, based on a system of ordinary differential equations for [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text], we determined that the optimal treatment strategy consists of two stages: an initial stage in which a chosen effective drug is utilized until a specific time point, T, and a second stage in which drugs are switched repeatedly, during which each drug is used for a relative duration (i.e., [Formula: see text]-long for DrugA and [Formula: see text]-long for DrugB with [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text]). We prove that the optimal duration of the initial stage, in which the first drug is administered, T, is shorter than the period in which it remains effective in decreasing the total population, contrary to current clinical intuition. We further analyzed the relationship between population makeup, [Formula: see text], and the effect of each drug. We determine a critical ratio, which we term [Formula: see text], at which the two drugs are equally effective. As the first stage of the optimal strategy is applied, [Formula: see text] changes monotonically to [Formula: see text] and then, during the second stage, remains at [Formula: see text] thereafter. Beyond our analytic results, we explored an individual-based stochastic model and presented the distribution of extinction times for the classes of solutions found. Taken together, our results suggest opportunities to improve therapy scheduling in clinical oncology.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 20 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 30 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 30 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 23%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 13%
Student > Bachelor 2 7%
Professor 1 3%
Other 2 7%
Unknown 9 30%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Mathematics 6 20%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 10%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 10%
Arts and Humanities 1 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 3%
Other 6 20%
Unknown 10 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 18. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 October 2021.
All research outputs
#2,391,016
of 30,000,048 outputs
Outputs from Bulletin of Mathematical Biology
#37
of 1,430 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#38,567
of 347,586 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Bulletin of Mathematical Biology
#2
of 34 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 30,000,048 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,430 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 347,586 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 34 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.