Back

Assessing the Operational Feasibility of Evolutionary Therapy in Metastatic Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

Soboleva, A.; Honasoge, K. S.; Molnarova, E.; Dingemans, A.-M.; Grossmann, I.; Rezaei, J.; Stankova, K.

2026-02-26 cancer biology
10.64898/2026.02.25.707957 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Evolutionary cancer therapy (ECT) applies principles of evolutionary game theory to prolong the effectiveness of cancer treatment by curbing the development of treatment resistance. It was shown to increase time to progression while decreasing the cumulative drug dose. ECT individually tailors treatment schedules for patients based on their cancer dynamics and, thus, requires regular follow-up and precise measurements of the cancer burden. The current literature on ECT often overlooks clinical realities, such as rather long intervals between tests, possible appointment delays and measurement errors, in the development of the treatment protocols. In this study, we assess the clinical feasibility of ECT for metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We create virtual patients with cancer dynamics described by the polymorphic Gompertzian model, based on data from the START-TKI clinical trial. We assess the effects of longer test intervals, measurement error and appointment delays on the expected time to progression under the evolutionary therapy protocols. We show that a higher containment level, although it increases time to progression in the models predictions, may lead to premature treatment failure in the presence of measurement error and appointment delay. Further, we show that the ECT protocol with a single containment bound is more robust to the clinical realities than the protocol with two bounds. Finally, we show that a dynamically adjusted treatment protocol can be beneficial for individual patients, but requires a thorough follow-up. This study contributes to the design of a clinical trial and the future clinical implementation of evolutionary therapy for NSCLC.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS Computational Biology
1633 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
22.7%
2
Bulletin of Mathematical Biology
84 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
10.2%
3
Journal of Theoretical Biology
144 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.9%
4
Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering
23 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.4%
5
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 27%
6.4%
50% of probability mass above
6
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 18%
6.4%
7
npj Systems Biology and Applications
99 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
4.9%
8
Computers in Biology and Medicine
120 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
4.3%
9
Expert Systems with Applications
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.5%
10
iScience
1063 papers in training set
Top 16%
1.7%
11
Physical Biology
43 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.5%
12
PeerJ
261 papers in training set
Top 9%
1.3%
13
Cancers
200 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.2%
14
Heliyon
146 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.0%
15
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 51%
1.0%
16
Frontiers in Molecular Biosciences
100 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.9%
17
Cancer Research
116 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.9%
18
Quantitative Biology
11 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.9%
19
BMC Bioinformatics
383 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.9%
20
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 61%
0.8%
21
Frontiers in Immunology
586 papers in training set
Top 8%
0.8%
22
Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal
216 papers in training set
Top 9%
0.8%
23
Mathematical Biosciences
42 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.6%
24
BMC Cancer
52 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.5%