Back

75 Years of Mathematical Oncology

Pradelli, F.; Strobl, M.; Marzban, S.; de Kermenguy, F.; Barnett, A.; Ganesan, K.; Lorenzo, G.; Hormuth, D. A.; Hamis, S.; Bhaskar, D.; Anderson, A. R. A.; West, J.

2026-01-14 cancer biology
10.64898/2026.01.13.699306 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Mathematics has long provided a quantitative framework to interpret cancer biology and treatment. Driven by richer biological and clinical data, the field has evolved into a multidisciplinary and translational endeavor - giving rise to Mathematical Oncology. Yet, the fields strong interdisciplinarity obscures a comprehensive view of its evolution, as well as the boundaries between Mathematical Oncology and adjacent domains. Here, we address this gap through a comprehensive bibliometric analysis spanning 75 years of mathematical research in oncology. Using a manually curated corpus ([~]1,500 papers) and a large query-based dataset ([~]19,000 papers), we map the fields conceptual and collaborative development over time. Independent analyses reveal sustained growth, high impact, and pronounced interdisciplinarity, together with a gradual shift from fundamental cancer biology toward therapeutic modeling. This reorientation underpins the emergence of Mathematical Oncology as a distinct field, separate from Systems Biology and Pharmacokinetics / Pharmacodynamics. We show how diverse concepts interlace within Mathematical Oncology, bridging applied mathematics, optimal control, evolutionary theory, and imaging. Collectively, we demonstrate that Mathematical Oncology is not merely the application of mathematics to cancer, but the use of interpretable models integrating clinical, biological, and physical knowledge to improve screening, understand disease evolution, guide therapy, and strengthen forecasting.

Matching journals

The top 10 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.