The goal of this project was to utilize mechanistic simulation to demonstrate a methodology that could determine drug combination dose schedules and dose intensities that would be most effective in eliminating multidrug-resistant cancer cells in early-stage colon cancer. An agent-based model of cell dynamics in human colon crypts was calibrated using measurements of human biopsy specimens. Mutant cancer cells were simulated as cells that were resistant to each of two drugs when the drugs were used separately. The drugs, 5-flurouracil and sulindac, have different mechanisms of action. An artificial neural network was used to generate nearly 200,000 two-drug dose schedules. A high-performance computer simulated each dose schedule as a in silico clinical trial and evaluated each dose schedule for its efficiency to cure (eliminate) multidrug-resistant cancer cells and its toxicity to the host, as indicated by continued crypt function. Among the dose schedules that were generated, 2,430 dose schedules were found to cure all multidrug-resistant mutants in each of the 50 simulated trials and retained colon crypt function. One dose schedule was optimal; it eliminated multidrug-resistant cancer cells with the minimum toxicity and had a time schedule that would be practical for implementation in the clinic. These results demonstrate a procedure to identify which combination drug dose schedules could be most effective in eliminating drug-resistant cancer cells. This was accomplished using a calibrated agent–based model of a human tissue, and a high-performance computer simulation of clinical trials.

Significance:

The results of computer-simulated clinical trials suggest a practical dose schedule for two drugs, 5-fluorouracil and sulindac, that could eliminate multidrug resistant early-stage colon cancer cells with minimum toxicity to the host.

The purpose of cancer therapy is to eliminate existing malignant cells or to intercept premalignant cells from progressing to malignancy. Three modes of therapy include stopping abnormal cells from proliferating (cytotoxic chemotherapy), inhibiting the function of specific proteins (precision therapy), or restoring immune function (immunotherapy). The effective implementation of each of these modes of therapy requires choices, including which drug or combination of drugs to employ, the intensity of the drug (dose), the time during which the drug is applied (duration), and how often the drug is applied (interval). Each of these choices needs to be reevaluated when drug-resistant cancer cells evolve, a frequent clinical concern (1).

The purpose of this project was to develop a methodology for determining the optimum drug dose schedules for cancer chemotherapy. This includes optimizing drug combination chemotherapy for multidrug-resistant cancer cells. The challenge was to determine the dose intensity, duration, and interval for each drug that would eliminate multidrug-resistant cancer cells with the least accumulated toxicity. As an example, we focused on colon cancer which starts with the abnormal proliferation of cells in the colon crypt, and two drugs 5-flurouracil (5-FU) and sulindac with distinct mechanisms of action. 5-FU interferes with DNA synthesis and is cytotoxic to dividing cells (2, 3), whereas sulindac induces apoptosis of cells at the crypt lumen interface (4).

In colon cancer, adjuvant chemotherapy is commonly administered after cancer surgery. However, adjuvant chemotherapy has only a modest effect on the 5-year recurrence-free survival of colorectal cancer (5–9). Some recurrence is associated with the evolution of mutant tumor cells that are resistant to one or more chemotherapeutic drugs (10). There are several mechanisms by which cancer cells acquire resistance to chemotherapeutic drugs (11–13). For instance, cancer cells can become resistant to a single drug, such as the widely used 5-FU, through mutation or amplification of the gene coding for the target enzyme thymidylate synthetase (2, 3). Other mechanisms of resistance to 5-FU include enhanced drug efflux due to changes in the ATP-binding cassette protein (14, 15), or a reduction in the rate of cellular division in cancer stem cells (16), dormant cells (17–20), senescent cells (21), persister cells (22, 23), and polyploid cells (24).

Several strategies have been developed to overcome drug resistance of cancer cells. Higher doses of a drug have been suggested (25), but may not be tolerated because of increased host toxicity (26). DeVita and colleagues pioneered the use of drug combinations to overcome resistance to a single drug (27, 28), which has continued to be employed (29). Another strategy to develop modified dose schedules that would be more effective against cancer cells while sparing normal host cells of toxic side effects. Such modified dose schedules include repeated low doses (metronomic therapy), alternating schedules, sequential schedules, and intermittent schedules (30). For instance, Chandra and colleagues (31) used intermittent doses of sulindac for prevention and Leder and colleagues (32) investigated intermittent doses of radiation for the treatment of glioblastoma.

We have previously investigated intermittent dose schedules for the prevention and treatment of colon cancer. An agent-based computer model of cell proliferation in the colon crypt was developed and calibrated using measurements of human biopsy specimens (33). The behavior of the model was verified by reproducing three features of biological crypts that had previously been observed, that is, induction of adenomas by mutations that occurred at the top or bottom of the crypts (34), monoclonal conversion by neutral drift (35), and robust recovery from perturbation by exposure to a cytotoxic agent (36).

We previously used the computer model to determine the optimum dose schedules for the prevention of colon cancer (37, 38) and optimum dose schedules for colon cancer therapy using a single drug (39, 40). However, an optimum dose schedule for two drugs needs to specify the dose intensity, dose duration, and interval of each of the two drugs to accomplish the following objectives: it cures (kills and eliminates) the highest percentage of cancer cells, induces the lowest amount of damage due to drug cytotoxicity, allows crypts to recover and retain function, and has clinically practical time schedules. The goal of this project was to demonstrate a methodology to determine the optimum dose schedules for a combination of two chemotherapeutic drugs that could eliminate multidrug-resistant cancer cells with minimal toxicity to the host. This is a challenging multiobjective optimization problem (41).

Here we report the optimum dose schedules for drug combination therapy in multidrug-resistant early-stage colon cancer. The example drugs 5-FU and sulindac have different mechanisms of action. A high-performance computer was used to simulate hundreds of thousands of clinical trials using different dose schedules. Among these, a subset of dose schedules was determined to eliminate doubly-resistant cancer cells from the colon crypt while retaining crypt function. Notably, we were able to identify specific dose schedules that eliminate cancer cells with the least cytotoxicity, allow recovery of normal crypt function, and have a clinically practical therapy time schedule.

Colon Crypt Computer Model

Colon_Crypt_Model_041321.nlogo is an agent-based model of cell dynamics in crypts of the human colon. It was revised with new features from previous models, as described in detail (33, 42). This model is available as a Supplementary file. It was developed in the application NetLogo version 5.3.1, and was revised to run in NetLogo version 6.2.0. It does not run on the web version of NetLogo. NetLogo is a multiagent programmable modeling environment. It was authored by Uri Wilenski and developed at the Center for Connected Learning and Computer-Based Modeling. It is a multiplatform (Mac, Windows, or Linux) open-source application. NetLogo version 6.2.0, can be downloaded from http://ccl.northwestern.edu/netlogo/download.shtml.

The model describes cell dynamics in colon crypts, including stem cells, proliferating cells, and differentiated cells. The number of cells in crypts is maintained as new cells are produced from proliferating cells and differentiated cells are removed from the top lumen surface (35).

The model was calibrated with cell numbers measured in a human biopsy specimen (33). A histologic slide containing sections from a biopsy of the sigmoid colon of a normal patient was stained with the anti-body MIB-1 to the proliferating antigen Ki-67, and counterstained with hematoxylin. Positively stained cells were considered proliferating cells. Unstained cells at the bottom of the crypt were considered quiescent stem cells. Unstained cells near the top of the crypt were considered differentiated cells.

The model assumes that the probability that a cell will divide is determined, in part, by its position in a microenvironment gradient along the crypt axis, with the probability of division higher at the bottom than at the top. The probability that a cell will die is determined, in part, by its position in another microenvironment gradient along the crypt axis, with the probability of dying higher at the top than at the bottom. Stem cells at the bottom of the crypt are in a quiescent niche.

Model parameter values of the divide gradient and die gradient were determined that reproduced the mean and variance of each cell type measured in multiple crypts (33). The “Info” tab accessible at the interface of the model contains additional descriptions of each feature of the model, and the basis for choosing each default parameter. The “Code” tab accessible at the interface of the model contains the Netlogo code and extensive comments.

The behavior of the model was verified as reproducing three features of the biological crypts that had previously been observed, that is, induction of adenomas by mutations occurring at the top or at the bottom of the crypts (34), monoclonal conversion by neutral drift (35), and robust recovery from perturbation by exposure to a cytotoxic agent (36).

High-performance Computer Simulation

To explore the parameter space of chemotherapeutic dose schedules efficiently, the NetLogo crypt model described above was ported to C++ using established methods (43, 44). The C++ files are available as Supplementary files.

The dose schedules for a single drug are defined by three variables: duration, interval, and dose (represented as lethality for cytotoxic drugs and PTreatment for apoptosis-inducing drugs). The duration of the dose is the time during which cells in a crypt are exposed to either a cytotoxic or an apoptotic drug. The interval between the doses was defined as the time from the beginning of one dose to the beginning of the next dose. The cytotoxic treatment computer model parameter, lethality is a factor that increases the probability that a cell will die above that determined by the cell's position in the crypt. The lethality factor affects both normal cells and mutant cells. Apoptotic treatment changes the size of the crypt by altering the probability that a cell at the top of the crypt will die. This is controlled by the computer model parameter PTreatment (CptDieMax). Smaller crypts increase the probability that a cell, normal or cancer, will be removed at the top of the crypt.

Each cytotoxic treatment parameter set consisted of a dose schedule described by a parameter set of one value for duration, one value for interval, and one value of cytotoxic lethality. Each apoptotic treatment parameter set consisted of a dose schedule described by a parameter set of one value of duration, one value of interval, and one value of PTreatment (CptDieMax). For cytotoxic therapy, the duration of treatment was varied from 1 to 48 timesteps with increments of 1 step, the interval of treatment was varied from 2 to 96 steps with increments of 2 steps (with the requirement that the interval is greater than the duration). Each computer step was estimated to correspond to approximately 4 hours of human time based upon the kinetics of recovery from chemotherapy of the model and of humans (45). The lethality factor was varied from 1 to 20 in increments of 0.25. For apoptotic therapy, the duration of treatment was varied from 1 to 48 timesteps with increments of 1 step, the interval of treatment was varied from 2 to 96 steps with increments of 2 steps, and the apoptotic treatment parameter PTreatment (CptDieMax) was varied from 1 to 20 in increments of 0.25. The limit of apoptotic treatment was such that the size of the crypt did not decrease to less than 1,399 total cells, the lowest number measured in biopsy specimens (33).

Each combination of cytotoxic treatment and apoptotic treatment parameter set had a cytotoxic duration, cytotoxic interval, cytotoxic lethality, in combination with apoptotic duration, apoptotic interval, and apoptotic PTreatment (CptDieMax). A comprehensive and/or brute-force exploration of this entire parameter space would require the execution of more than 100 billion simulation runs, rendering the problem computationally intractable to available resources because each set of 50 stochastic replicate simulations takes approximately 2 minutes on a single processing core. To address this challenge, we utilized a previously validated active learning approach (46) to intelligently explore the parameter space, and automatically remove dose schedules that would generate excess toxicity from consideration. In this approach, we began by generating a complete set of combination drug dose schedules, and trained an artificial neural network (ANN) to determine toxicity (whether or not the toxicity of a specific dose schedule would lead to extinguishment of the colon crypt) of a combination drug dose schedule using 100,000 randomly selected combination dose schedules. The trained ANN then makes a toxicity prediction (will this dose schedule be sufficiently toxic to extinguish the crypt) for every enumerated dose schedule; this is tractable as thousands of dose schedule can be evaluated per second compared with the minutes needed to execute 50 stochastic replicates of the simulation. The algorithm then selects the 10,000 dose schedules for which the toxicity classification generated by the current ANN was most uncertain [i.e., the probability of being in class 1 (toxicity below maximum toxicity threshold) and class 2 (dose schedule generates toxicity at or above the maximum toxicity threshold) was closest to 0.5]. The algorithm then runs the simulation using those dose schedules, adds the results to the training set, and retrains the network. This process was continued iteratively until both the sensitivity and specificity of the trained network exceeded 99% (99.6% sensitivity and 99.4% specificity). Ultimately, this required 184,320 combination dose schedules. We then executed the simulations for the dose schedules that had been classified as “nontoxic,” meaning that while colon crypts may have experienced some decrease in size from the chemotherapeutic agent, it would not be extinguished.

The result is that we only had to execute the simulation for 184,320 dose schedules instead of 100 billion. The drawback is that the results are not perfect; there are a small number of false positives and negatives. False positives (i.e., a dose schedule classified as nontoxic when it is actually toxic) are not a problem, as they are discovered when simulating the filtered set of combination dose schedules. False negatives could be potentially problematic as they remain unexplored; however, because such a large parameter space of drug combinations was explored, there were numerous candidate dose schedules that generated low toxicity and excellent cure rates; therefore perfection was not required. Thus, while the results are not perfect, they are justified by the significant computational cost-savings provided by the algorithm.

We recognize that the variability of the simulation-generated toxicity is dependent and interlinked with the mutation rate of crypt cells and the rate at which they are eliminated by the therapy and/or dose schedule. Thus, some of the determined dose schedules would likely be eliminated should they be tested against more stochastic replicates. We have addressed this limitation in two ways: (i) we have subselected clinically tractable dose schedules, and (ii) those dose schedules are not at the boundaries of plausibility. The latter consideration is most important as those dose schedules closest to the boundaries of plausibility will be most sensitive to the increase in stochastic replicates. As illustration, consider a hypothetical dose schedule that has a 100% cure rate with a drug concentration of 7.5 and above, and 100% nontoxic rate with a drug concentration below 15 when measured using 50 stochastic replicates. If one were to double the amount of replicates, one may expect that the cure rate of drug concentrations of 7.5 may dip below 100%, while the number of people who were injured or killed by drug toxicity when given a dose schedule with a drug concentration of 15 may rise above 0. Thus, the most robust dose schedules will be those that meet our filtering criteria (cure all cancer, kill no one due to toxicity) that are located centrally in the dose-schedule parameter space rather than at the boundaries.

Model Implementation Details

Cancer cells grow faster than normal cells; controlling for their position in the crypt, a cancer cell has a 16% greater probability of dividing and a 10% greater probability of dying than a normal cells. Drug-resistant cancer cells grow faster than normal cells but grow slower than cancer cells. They have an 8% greater probability of dividing than normal cells, and a 5% greater probability of dying than normal cells (37).

Cancer cells or drug-resistant cancer cells were simulated by mutating proliferating cells. Mutations were initiated at 200 steps from the start of each run. Therapy was initiated when cancer cells or drug resistant cancer cells reached 50% of the total number of cells in the crypts. For combination therapy, the cytotoxic treatment and apoptotic treatments were initiated simultaneously. To account for the effects of randomness in the model, 50 stochastic replicates were performed for each dose schedule.

Data Availability

The computer model codes and data generated in this study are described below. They are available as Supplementary files.

Model: The Netlogo model “Colon_Crypt_Model_041321.nlogo” contains a graphical user interface, explanatory information text, annotated code, and the Behavior Space Tool used to run the code. It is available as a Supplementary file at https://doi.org/10.7282/00000169. The C++ code version of the model is available as four Supplementary files: "agents_axelrodCC.h", "axelrod_cc_simulationFunctions.cpp", "Parameters.h", and "SingleCrypt_ACC.cpp". They are available at https://doi.org/10.7282/00000172.

Data: The 913 different dose schedules that cured all cancer cells in 100% of 50 simulation runs while retaining crypt function are available in the Supplementary Table S1. The 2430 dose schedules that cured all doubly-resistant mutants in 100% of 50 independent trials and allowed crypts to recover are available in the Supplementary Table S2.

Specific Dose Schedules of a Cytotoxic Drug can Eliminate Cancer Cells from Colon Crypts While Retaining Crypt Function

Colon cancer begins with the abnormal proliferation of some cells in the normal colon crypt. In normal crypts, the total number of cells is maintained by a balance of cell division among the stem cells and proliferating cells at the bottom two-thirds of the crypt, and new cells moving up the crypt where they are removed by apoptosis at the top of the crypt (35). Abnormal cells, with higher rates of cell division and cell death, may be initiated at the bottom, the lower third, or the top third of the crypt (33, 47, 48). These cells move up the crypt and are removed, but if the population of these cells multiples faster than they can be removed they will fill the crypt and form an adenoma, an early stage in invasive cancer (49). In this project, we refer to these abnormally proliferating, incipient cancer cells simply as cancer cells.

Cytotoxic chemotherapy, with 5-FU which inhibits DNA synthesis, kills dividing cells, both normal and cancer cells. The rationale for using a cytotoxic drug is that rapidly dividing cancer cells are killed more efficiently than slower dividing normal cells and quiescent stem cells. An effective therapeutic index can be achieved in early-stage colon cancer only if a drug dose schedule can be identified to remove cancer cells and maintain crypt function. This can be accomplished using intermittent doses. Between doses, drug-resistant quiescent cells sense a decrease in the number of normal cells, awake from quiescence, actively divide, and a restore the normal number of crypt cells. Thus, the crypt function can be maintained.

We identified intermittent dose schedules for a cytotoxic drug that can eliminate cancer cells from the colon crypt while retaining crypt function. As described in the Materials and Methods section, a high-performance computer was used to generate 184,320 parameter sets, each with a different duration of drug exposure, interval between drug exposure, and lethality. Among these 184,320 parameter sets, 913 different dose schedules cured all cancer cells in 100% of 50 simulation runs, while retaining crypt function (Supplementary Table S1).

Among the dose schedules that cured all cancer cells, we selected those that showed the least negative effect on crypt function. An intermittent dose schedule with a duration of 1 step, interval between doses of 42 steps, and lethality of 5.75 reduced the crypt size to 59.27% of the average size of an untreated crypt (Table 1, line 1) and allowed crypts to recover between doses. Cancer cells exposed to this intermittent cytotoxic treatment decreased in number to zero in an average of 71.01 steps (Table 1, line 1), the equivalent to 11.8 days (Fig. 1, Cytotoxic, Sensitive).

TABLE 1

Dose schedules and results

Dose schedulePercent cureTime to cureCrypt size
Cancer cell type (drug response)Drug treatmentCytotoxicApoptotic(n = 50 runs)StepsDays(% untreated)
1. Sensitive Cytotoxic 1, 42, 5.75a  100 71.01b 11.84 59.27c 
2. Resistant mutantd Cytotoxic 1, 42, 8.25  100 194.56 32.43 63.94 
3. Resistant mutant Apoptotic  1, 84, 3.5 N/A N/A N/A 
4. Resistant mutant Combination 1, 42, 7.5 1, 84, 3.5 100 133 22.17 48.3 
5. Resistant mutant Cytotoxic 1, 42, 7.5  66 311 51.28 63.01 
Dose schedulePercent cureTime to cureCrypt size
Cancer cell type (drug response)Drug treatmentCytotoxicApoptotic(n = 50 runs)StepsDays(% untreated)
1. Sensitive Cytotoxic 1, 42, 5.75a  100 71.01b 11.84 59.27c 
2. Resistant mutantd Cytotoxic 1, 42, 8.25  100 194.56 32.43 63.94 
3. Resistant mutant Apoptotic  1, 84, 3.5 N/A N/A N/A 
4. Resistant mutant Combination 1, 42, 7.5 1, 84, 3.5 100 133 22.17 48.3 
5. Resistant mutant Cytotoxic 1, 42, 7.5  66 311 51.28 63.01 

aThe numbers, in order, are as follows: duration of dose steps, interval steps between doses, intensity of cytotoxic treatment or of apoptotic treatment (defined in Materials and Methods section).

bOne step is estimated to be 4 hours.

cIndicates the extent of perturbation, crypts recover.

dResistant mutant means relatively resistant compared with sensitive cancer cell, requiring higher cytotoxic dose and longer time to cure.

FIGURE 1

Kinetics of curing cells treated with cytotoxic or combination therapy. The time to cure the sensitive cancer cells treated with cytotoxic treatment is 11.84 days (blue line), the resistant mutant treated with cytotoxic treatment is 32.43 days (black line), and the resistant mutant treated with combination of cytotoxic and apoptotic treatment is 22.17 days (red line).

FIGURE 1

Kinetics of curing cells treated with cytotoxic or combination therapy. The time to cure the sensitive cancer cells treated with cytotoxic treatment is 11.84 days (blue line), the resistant mutant treated with cytotoxic treatment is 32.43 days (black line), and the resistant mutant treated with combination of cytotoxic and apoptotic treatment is 22.17 days (red line).

Close modal

Cancer Cells may Evolve Resistance to Multiple Drugs

Mutant cancer cells may evolve to become resistant to a cytotoxic drug (11, 13), including 5-FU in colon cancer (3, 12). Drug-resistant cancer cells in the crypt were modeled as dividing at a slower rate and dying at a lower rate than the drug-sensitive cancer cells described above. In the absence of a cytotoxic drug, the drug-sensitive cancer cells had a division rate of 1.16 ×, and a cell death rate of 1.1 × of normal cells at the same position in the colon crypt; whereas the cancer cells that were relatively drug resistant had a division rate of 1.08 ×, and death rate of 1.05 × of normal cells at the same position in the colon crypt.

One strategy to eliminate relatively resistant cancer cells is to increase the cytotoxic dose. However, an increase in dose intensity is limited by an increase in undesirable side effects. The best increased dose schedule was the one that could cure 100% of the relatively resistant cancer cells (Table 1, line 2) with the least effect on crypt size, that is, that is 63.94% of the average size of an untreated crypt. This dose schedule required an increased in lethality from 5.75 to 8.25. Although the relatively resistant cancer cells could all be cured, the time to cure was increased from 71.01 to 194.56 steps, the equivalent to an increase of 11.8 to 33 days (Fig. 1, Cytotoxic, Resistant). However, the increase in time to cure resulted in an undesirable increase in the accumulated cytotoxic doses from 9.69 to 38.42 (Fig. 2, Resistant mutant, Cytotoxic).

FIGURE 2

Accumulated cytotoxic dose for each cell type and each drug treatment. The sensitive cancer cell treated with a single cytotoxic drug is cured with an accumulated cytotoxic dose of 9.64 lethality units (left). The resistant mutant treated with a single cytotoxic drug accumulates more cytotoxic dose, 38.42 lethality units (middle). However, the resistant mutant treated with a combination of cytotoxic and apoptotic drugs accumulates less cytotoxic dose, 23.95 lethality units (right). Mean and SEM, n = 50, t test; *, P < 0.05; **, P < 0.01.

FIGURE 2

Accumulated cytotoxic dose for each cell type and each drug treatment. The sensitive cancer cell treated with a single cytotoxic drug is cured with an accumulated cytotoxic dose of 9.64 lethality units (left). The resistant mutant treated with a single cytotoxic drug accumulates more cytotoxic dose, 38.42 lethality units (middle). However, the resistant mutant treated with a combination of cytotoxic and apoptotic drugs accumulates less cytotoxic dose, 23.95 lethality units (right). Mean and SEM, n = 50, t test; *, P < 0.05; **, P < 0.01.

Close modal

Another strategy to eliminate cancer cells that are resistant to one drug is to treat the cells with a different drug with a different mechanism of action. For example, the drug sulindac induces apoptosis of cells at the lumen interface at the top of the crypt (4). A smaller number of cells per crypt was more efficient in removing cells, both normal cells and mutant cells. Sulindac reduces the number of cells per crypt whereas a cytotoxic drug interferes with DNA synthesis in dividing cells. Therefore, sulindac and 5-FU have different mechanisms of action.

Sulindac has been shown to be effective in the primary prevention of colon cancer in animal models (31, 50–53) and is a component of treatment of patients with familial adenomatous polyposis (54–56). Sulindac is being tested in chemoprevention clinical trials (57, 58). Although sulindac is an effective component in chemoprevention studies, it is not sufficient by itself to cure the slow-dividing cancer cells (Table 1, line 3). Slow-dividing cancer cells that are resistant to 5-FU are also resistant to sulindac. In this context, the slow dividing cancer cells are examples of multidrug-resistant cancer cells.

An Effective Drug Combination Dose Schedule can be Identified that Eliminates Multidrug-resistant Cancer Cells with Least Harmful Side Effects

Another strategy to overcome the resistance of cancer cells to a single drug, or resistance to each of the two drugs separately, is to treat cancer cells with a combination of two drugs with different mechanisms of action (29, 30, 59). There are several challenges to combination chemotherapy with the intention of eliminating mutants that are resistant to each of the two drugs. The challenges include the following: achieving the highest percent cure of the cancer cells, having the least accumulated cytotoxic dose to reduce undesirable side effects, allowing normal cells in tissues to recover function, and determining time schedules that are practical to administer in the clinic. This is a multiobjective optimization problem that requires weighting several objectives against practical considerations (41).

In this example, two drugs with different mechanisms of action are the cytotoxic drug 5-FU and the apoptotic drug sulindac. To determine the dose schedule for each drug, a high-performance computer was used to simulate 170,000 different dose schedules for each of the two drugs in combination, noting that information from these 170,000 simulations was sufficient to predict the effects of dose schedules that were not simulated. The initial dose for each drug was administered simultaneously, and the time of subsequent doses of each drug was determined by its own interval. Of the complete set of dose schedules, 2,430 were found that cured all doubly resistant mutants in 100% of 50 independent trials and allowed crypts to recover (Supplementary Table S2).

However, most of these curative dose schedules are not practical to implement during the working hours of most infusion clinics. For instance, a dose schedule of four steps would require a patient to be in the infusion clinic for an inconvenient 16 hours, which is more than the usual 8 hours even 10 hours working day. A dose schedule with an interval between doses of 34 steps would require an interval of 5.7 days, which would quickly go out of synch with the 7-day week. Nevertheless, among the 2,430 drug combination dose schedules that could cure all double-resistant cancer cells, we identified a schedule that could be conveniently administered in the clinic (Table 1, line 4). This dose schedule has the cytotoxic drug 5-FU administered for 1 step (4 hours), every 42 steps (1 week), and has the apoptotic drug sulindac administered for 1 step (4 hours), every 84 steps (2 weeks).

For this convenient dose schedule, the average time to cure the doubly-resistant cancer cells by combination drug treatment was 133 steps (Table 1, line 4), equivalent to 24.17 days (Fig. 1, Combination/Resistant). This is a shorter time than the average time to cure the double-resistant cancer cells by 5-FU cytotoxic treatment alone, 194.56 steps (Table 1, line 2), equivalent to 32.43 days (Fig. 1, Cytotoxic/Resistant).

Although a shorter time to cure is desirable, another important objective is to reduce the accumulated cytotoxic doses to reduce the extent of undesirable side effects. The accumulated cytotoxic dose was calculated for each cancer cell type and each drug treatment. Each accumulated cytotoxic dose was calculated as lethality × (time to cure/interval). The selected combination drug treatment (Table 1, line 4) had a lower accumulated dose, 23.95 lethality units, to cure the resistant cancer cells than did the single drug (cytotoxic 5-FU) treatment, 38.42 lethality units (Fig. 2, Resistant mutant, Combination).

Summary of Results

The flowchart (Fig. 3) summarizes the different outcomes when cancer cells or multidrug-resistant cancer cells are exposed to different treatments. Cancer cells may be cured (eliminated) by any one of the 913 different cytotoxic (5-FU) treatments. Multidrug-resistant cancer cells cannot be cured by cytotoxic treatment alone, or by apoptotic (sulindac) treatment alone. Multidrug-resistant cancer cells may be cured by high doses of cytotoxic treatment alone; however, the required accumulated doses are nearly twice that of combination treatment, which may not be tolerated by the host. An artificial neural network generated 170,000 combinations of cytotoxic and apoptotic doses schedules. Of these, 2,430 can cure multidrug-resistant cancer cells, have accumulated dose schedules that are tolerable, have crypts that recover between doses and remain functional. Notably, one of these combination dose schedules is optimal because it has dose durations and intervals between doses that is practical to implement in the clinic.

FIGURE 3

Flowchart summarizing the different outcomes when cancer cells or multidrug-resistant cancer cells are exposed to different treatments. Cancer cells could be eliminated (cured) by any one of 913 cytotoxic (5-FU) treatment dose schedules, out of 184,320 dose schedules simulated. Multidrug-resistant cancer cells could not be cured when exposed to any one of 184,320 cytotoxic (5-FU) treatment dose schedules, or separately to any one of 184,320 apoptotic (sulindac) treatment dose schedules; except by high-dose cytotoxic treatment when accumulated doses were not tolerable. An artificial neural network selected 170,000 combination cytotoxic and apoptotic dose schedules and among them discovered 2,430 that could cure all multidrug-resistant (MDR) cancer cells, had accumulated doses that are tolerable, and had crypts that recovered between doses and remained functional. One of these 2,430 dose schedules is optimal because it has timing of dose duration and intervals between doses that are practical to be implemented in the clinic as shown in Fig. 4.

FIGURE 3

Flowchart summarizing the different outcomes when cancer cells or multidrug-resistant cancer cells are exposed to different treatments. Cancer cells could be eliminated (cured) by any one of 913 cytotoxic (5-FU) treatment dose schedules, out of 184,320 dose schedules simulated. Multidrug-resistant cancer cells could not be cured when exposed to any one of 184,320 cytotoxic (5-FU) treatment dose schedules, or separately to any one of 184,320 apoptotic (sulindac) treatment dose schedules; except by high-dose cytotoxic treatment when accumulated doses were not tolerable. An artificial neural network selected 170,000 combination cytotoxic and apoptotic dose schedules and among them discovered 2,430 that could cure all multidrug-resistant (MDR) cancer cells, had accumulated doses that are tolerable, and had crypts that recovered between doses and remained functional. One of these 2,430 dose schedules is optimal because it has timing of dose duration and intervals between doses that are practical to be implemented in the clinic as shown in Fig. 4.

Close modal

Figure 4 shows the results of the optimal combination chemotherapeutic dose schedule given in Table 1, line 4. A cytotoxic treatment of 4 hours duration at intervals of 7 days, and apoptotic treatment of 4 hours duration at intervals of 14 days, was applied to colon crypts containing 50% of multidrug-resistant cancer cells. The results showed that the number of cancer cells was reduced to zero in 22 days; the total number of normal crypt cells recovered between treatments and continued to function.

FIGURE 4

Timeline of curing multidrug-resistant cancer cells. Combination cytotoxic (5-FU) treatment (4 hours duration, interval 7 days) and apoptotic (sulindac) treatment (4 hours duration, interval 14 days) reduced the number of cancer cells from 50% of the number of cells in the colon crypt to zero in 22 days, while allowing the total number of crypt cells to recover between treatments. The crypt is cured of cancer cells and the crypts remain functional.

FIGURE 4

Timeline of curing multidrug-resistant cancer cells. Combination cytotoxic (5-FU) treatment (4 hours duration, interval 7 days) and apoptotic (sulindac) treatment (4 hours duration, interval 14 days) reduced the number of cancer cells from 50% of the number of cells in the colon crypt to zero in 22 days, while allowing the total number of crypt cells to recover between treatments. The crypt is cured of cancer cells and the crypts remain functional.

Close modal

In this study, we have addressed four challenges associated with chemotherapy for early colon cancer. These include (i) eliminating all cancer cells while retaining normal crypt function, (ii) overcoming the evolution of cancer cells that may become multidrug resistant, (iii) determining dose schedules that have the least undesirable side effects, and (iv) developing dose schedules that have timing that is practical to administer in the clinic. This is a multiobjective optimization problem that requires weighting several objectives against practical considerations (41, 60).

Abnormally proliferating cells in the colon crypt may fill the crypt and form an adenoma, which is an early stage of colon cancer. If the crypt is treated with a cytotoxic drug such as 5-FU, the proliferation of the abnormal cells is inhibited, and an adenoma is not formed. Cytotoxic drugs will also inhibit the proliferation of normal cells in the crypt. However, stem cells, some of which are quiescent, are relatively resistant. Some intermittent dose schedules will eliminate proliferating cancer cells; however, between doses quiescent stem cells can become active, divide, and provide normal cells that proliferate and restore crypt function.

We have met the first challenge through the discovery of intermittent cytotoxic drug dose schedules that can remove cancer cells while retaining normal crypt function, with each dose schedule consisting of a set of values for three parameters; the duration of drug exposure, interval between drug exposure, and intensity of the drug dose. We solved this problem by utilizing an agent-based computer model of cell dynamics in the human colon crypt (33). This model was calibrated using measurements of crypts in human biopsy specimens, and its behavior was validated by reproducing experimental and clinical observations. The model allowed dimension reduction by providing constraints that limited all possible parameter sets to a realistic subset. A high-performance computer was used to generate a large number of parameter sets, each with three specific values representing drug duration, interval, and intensity. A subset of parameter values that eliminated cancer cells while retaining crypt function in all simulated trials was then identified.

We met the second challenge by determining dose schedules that eliminate cancer cells that are resistant to each of the two drugs, that is, multidrug resistance. For example, we simulated two drugs with different mechanisms of action. 5-FU inhibits DNA synthesis and is cytotoxic to dividing cells. Sulindac induces apoptosis of crypt cells at the lumen interface and reduces the size of the crypt making the crypt more efficient in removing cancer cells as they move up to the top of the crypt. The cytotoxic drug targets rapidly dividing cancer cells, whereas the apoptotic drug targets normal cells at the top of the crypt. The challenge of eliminating drug-resistant cancer cells was accomplished by identifying the schedules for the two drugs in combination. As described above, a large number of parameter sets of dose schedules were generated using a high-performance computer that simulated the removal of doubly resistant cancer cells from an agent-based model of colon crypts. Subsets of parameter sets that successfully eliminated cancer cells while retaining crypt function in all simulated trials were then identified.

We have met the third challenge by identifying a subset of combination drug dose schedules that can eliminate multidrug-resistant cancer cells with less undesirable side effects than a single cytotoxic drug treatment. This was accomplished by recognizing that some combination dose schedules would eliminate multidrug-resistant cancer cells in a shorter time and with less cytotoxic intensity, than the time and intensity required for single cytotoxic drug treatment. Such combination chemotherapy dose schedules accumulate less exposure to cytotoxic doses than a single cytotoxic therapy. Therefore, this combination chemotherapy would have less of an undesirable side effect than a single chemotherapy alone.

We have met the fourth challenge by recognizing that a specific dose schedule would have treatment times for each of the two drugs that are practical for implementation in the clinic. Most infusion clinics that administer chemotherapy drugs are open for only 8 to 10 hours a day, and only 5 or 6 days a week. This dose schedule includes two drugs administered for 4 hours at any time during the day. The cytotoxic drug 5-FU would be administered at intervals of one week, and the apoptotic drug sulindac administered at intervals of 2 weeks.

The dose schedule that we identified for combination chemotherapy (Table 1, line 4) has a specific dose duration, dose intervals, and dose intensities for each of the two drugs with different mechanisms of action. It can eliminate multidrug-resistant cancer cells with minimal undesirable side effects, and could be practical to administer in the clinic.

Several other agent-based models have been described and used in related studies. An agent-based model focused on stem cell dynamics in the colon crypt has been developed (61) and an agent-based model has been developed and colorectal tumor growth stimulated on a high-performance computer with the intention, in the future, of optimizing therapeutic strategies (62). A multiscale agent-based model has been used to investigate the synergistic effects of a large space of dose combinations using local and global optimization algorithms (63). Our own agent-based model differs from the other models in the following ways: it was calibrated with measurements of human biopsy specimens, and it reproduces the dynamics of colon crypt cells (stem cells, proliferating cells, and differentiated cells) that we observed experimentally (33).

The choice of dose schedules in combination drug therapy has been the subject of many investigations. For instance, a mathematical equation was derived to determine the time between maximally effective chemotherapy cycles (64). The optimal timing of drug sequences has been described as an important factor in multidrug adaptive therapies (65). The dosing frequencies and order of the two drugs were investigated using a stochastic model of tumor cell eradication that explored pharmacokinetics and drug combinations (66, 67). The question of sequential or simultaneous treatment of two drugs has been address in several studies. Bozic and colleagues (68) favor simultaneous, whereas Fang and colleagues (69) indicate that sequential inhibition minimizes toxicity while maintain efficacy, and Katouli and colleagues (70) conclude that “best-drug-first, worst-drug-longer” is best, even in the presence of cross-resistance. In our investigation, we avoided choosing between the order of the two drugs and the question of simultaneous or sequential. We start doses of two drugs at the same time and then, in a large number of different trials, each drug is applied with its own duration and interval. As the schedules progressed, the doses of each of the two drugs were being applied at different times. Thus, all schedule combinations, sequential and alternating, were evaluated.

An active line of investigation for combination chemotherapy is to utilize knowledge of the molecular biology of the drugs and their targets. This includes screening for the co-occurrence of altered genes in pharmacogenomics profiles (71), inhibiting multiple pathways instead of a single pathway (72), considering metabolic networks to predict combinations of synthetic lethal drugs (73), and coinhibition of several kinases. The high-throughput testing of drug combinations has been initiated in collaborative programs (74). Such screening is being enabled by machine-learning algorithms and mathematical models that evaluate the responses of multiple cell lines to multiple drugs that affect multiple targets (60, 75, 76). These efforts will provide information on new drug combinations. Our work complements these efforts by suggesting a method for determining the most efficacious dose schedules for new drug combinations.

This study has some limitations. As it focuses on drug-resistant cells in colon crypts during the early stages of colon cancer, it does not address other aspects of cancer progression such as metastasis. Moreover, it does not account for toxicities in other tissues and organs such as neuropathy, cardiotoxicity, and neutropenia. However, toxicity of the colon crypts is measurable as a loss of the total number of cells in the crypt; therefore, it may be considered as a quantitative surrogate for the toxicity of other tissues and organs. More comprehensive models are currently being developed (77–79).

Confidence in the predictions of these simulation results would be enhanced if they could be validated in a biological system. Mouse models are not appropriate because mouse colon crypts are smaller than human colon crypts and cell kinetics would be expected to be different. In vitro human colon stem cell–derived organoids and in vivo patient-derived xenografts would not be appropriate because the human crypts would not be in the real human microenvironment and human physiologic environment.

A clinical trial could provide the necessary information to test our predictions. It would not be necessary to design a new clinical trial specifically to test the predictions. Rather, it would be possible to take advantage of clinical trials designed for other purposes. For instance, clinical trials designed to test the efficacy of new candidate drugs and new combinations of drugs are common. Such trials would be informative if they included each of several features: patients with multidrug-resistant colon cancer treated with a candidate cytotoxic drug in combination with sulindac and several different dose schedules. The results of such trials could be used to test our prediction that a cytotoxic drug and sulindac at intervals of 7 and 14 days, respectively, would have a greater 3-year survival rate or a longer median progression-free survival time than other dose schedules. However, a recent search of the website ClinicalTrials.gov does not find a trial with each of these features. A future trial may be informative.

In summary, we have described a method to determine dose schedules in combination chemotherapy that eliminates colon cancer cells that have evolved resistance to each of two drugs, retain normal colon crypt function, has minimal side effects, and would be practical to administer (Fig. 4). This was accomplished by generating thousands of dose schedules with a high-performance computer that simulated cell dynamics in an agent-based model of colon crypts, and identifying the subset of dose schedules that are the most effective.

D.E. Axelrod reports grants and non-financial support from NIH during the conduct of the study. No disclosures were reported by the other author.

C. Cockrell: Conceptualization, resources, data curation, software, formal analysis, funding acquisition, validation, investigation, visualization, methodology, writing-review and editing. D.E. Axelrod: Conceptualization, resources, data curation, software, formal analysis, supervision, funding acquisition, validation, investigation, visualization, methodology, writing-original draft, writing-review and editing.

C. Cockrell thanks Gary An, MD, for discussions on agent-based modeling techniques. D.E. Axelrod thanks the members of the Rutgers University Division of Life Sciences Information Technology Support Group and the Human Genetics Institute of New Jersey Information Technology Support Group for computer services, the Rutgers University SOAR Repository staff for file archive services, and Daniel Axelrod for suggestions on graphic design.

Financial support: C. Cockrell was supported by the NIH (grant no. U01EB025825). D.E. Axelrod. was supported by the Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey (grant no. PA30CA072720), the Human Genetics Institute of New Jersey, and the New Jersey Breast Cancer Research Fund.

Note: Supplementary data for this article are available at Cancer Research Communications Online (https://aacrjournals.org/cancerrescommun/).

1.
Leary
M
,
Heerboth
S
,
Lapinska
K
,
Sarkar
S
.
Sensitization of drug resistant cancer cells: a matter of combination therapy
.
Cancers
2018
;
10
:
483
.
2.
Zhang
N
,
Yin
Y
,
Xu
SJ
,
Chen
WS
.
5-Fluorouracil: mechanisms of resistance and reversal strategies
.
Molecules
2008
;
13
:
1551
69
.
3.
Blondy
S
,
David
V
,
Verdier
M
,
Mathonnet
M
,
Perraud
A
,
Christou
N
.
5-Fluorouracil resistance mechanisms in colorectal cancer: from classical pathways to promising processes
.
Cancer Sci
2020
;
111
:
3142
54
.
4.
Keller
JJ
,
Offerhaus
GJ
,
Polak
M
,
Goodman
SN
,
Zahurak
ML
,
Hyland
LM
, et al
.
Rectal epithelial apoptosis in familial adenomatous polyposis patients treated with sulindac
.
Gut
1999
;
45
:
822
8
.
5.
Moertel
CG
,
Fleming
TR
,
Macdonald
JS
,
Macdonald
JS
,
Haller
DG
,
Laurie
JA
, et al
.
Intergroup study of fluorouracil plus levamisole as adjuvant therapy for stage II/Dukes' B2 colon cancer
.
J Clin Oncol
1995
;
13
:
2936
43
.
6.
Schippinger
W
,
Samonigg
H
,
Schaberi-Moser
R
,
Greil
R
,
Thödtmann
R
,
Tschmelitsch
J
, et al
.
A prospective randomised phase III trial of adjuvant chemotherapy with 5-fluorouracil and leucovorin in patients with stage II colon cancer
.
Br J Cancer
2007
;
97
:
1021
7
.
7.
André
T
,
Colin
P
,
Louvet
C
,
Gamelin
E
,
Bouche
O
,
Achille
E
, et al
.
Semimonthly versus monthly regimen of fluorouracil and leucovorin administered for 24 or 36 weeks as adjuvant therapy in stage II and III colon cancer: results of a randomized trial
.
J Clin Oncol
2003
;
21
:
2896
903
.
8.
Quasar Collaborative Group
.
Adjuvant chemotherapy versus observation in patients with colorectal cancer: a randomised study
.
Lancet
2007
;
370
:
2020
9
.
9.
Matsuda
C
,
Ishiguro
M
,
Teramukai
S
,
Kajiwara
Y
,
Fujii
S
,
Kinugasa
Y
, et al
.
A randomised-controlled trial of 1-year adjuvant chemotherapy with oral tegafur-uracil versus surgery alone in stage II colon cancer: SACURA trial
.
Eur J Cancer
2018
;
96
:
54
63
.
10.
Foo
J
,
Michor
F
.
Evolution of acquired resistance to anti-cancer therapy
.
J Theoret Biol
2014
;
355
:
10
20
.
11.
Holohan
C
,
Van Schaeybroeck
S
Longley
DB
,
Johnston
PG
.
Cancer drug resistance: an evolving paradigm
.
Nat Rev Cancer
2013
;
13
:
714
26
.
12.
Mansoori
B
,
Mohammadi
A
,
Davudian
S
,
Shirjang
S
,
Baradaran
B
.
The different mechanisms of cancer drug resistance: a brief review
.
Adv Pharm Bull
2017
;
7
:
339
48
.
13.
Garraway
LA
,
Janne
PA
.
Circumventing cancer drug resistance in the era of personalized medicine
.
Cancer Discov
2012
;
2
:
214
26
.
14.
Mesci
S
,
Marakli
S
,
Yazgan
B
,
Yildirim
T
.
The effect of ATP-binding cassette (ABC) transporters in human cancers
.
Int J Sci Lett
2019
;
1
:
14
9
.
15.
Bukowski
K
,
Kciuk
M
,
Kontek
R
.
Mechanisms of multidrug resistance in cancer chemotherapy
.
Int J Mol Sci
2020
;
21
:
3233
.
16.
Shiokawa
D
,
Sakai
H
,
Ohata
H
,
Miyazaki
T
,
Kanda
Y
,
Sekine
S
, et al
.
Slow-cycling cancer stem cells regulate progression and chemoresistance in colon cancer
.
Cancer Res
2020
;
80
:
4445
64
.
17.
Paez
D
,
Labonte
MJ
,
Bohanes
P
,
Zjamg
W
,
Benhanim
L
,
Ning
Y
, et al
.
Cancer dormancy: a model of early dissemination and late cancer recurrence
.
Clin Cancer Res
2012
;
18
:
645
53
.
18.
Chen
D
,
Jiao
Y
,
Torquato
S
.
A cellular automaton model for tumor dormancy: emergence of a proliferative switch
.
PLoS One
2014
;
9
:
e109934
.
19.
Shen
S
,
Vagner
S
,
Robert
C
.
Persistent cancer cells: the deadly survivors
.
Cell
2020
;
183
:
860
74
.
20.
Rehman
SK
,
Haynes
J
,
Collignon
E
,
Brown
KR
,
Wang
Y
Nixon
AML
, et al
.
Colorectal cancer cells enter a diapause-like DTP state to survive chemotherapy
.
Cell
2021
;
184
:
226
42
.
21.
Gordon
RR
,
Nelson
PS
.
Cellular senescence and cancer chemotherapy resistance
.
Drug Resist Updat
2012
;
15
:
123
31
.
22.
Oren
Y
,
Tsabar
M
,
Cuoco
MS
,
Amir-Zilberstein
L
,
Cabanos
HF
,
Hütter
J-C
, et al
.
Cycling cancer persister cells arise from lineages with distinct programs
.
Nature
2021
;
596
:
576
82
.
23.
Gomez
K
,
Rabadan
R
.
A persistent look at how tumours evade therapy
.
Nature
2021
;
596
:
491
3
.
24.
Pienta
KJ
,
Hammarlund
EU
,
Brown
JS
,
Amend
SR
,
Axelrod
RM
.
Cancer recurrence and lethality are enabled by enhanced survival and reversible cell cycle arrest of polyaneuploid cells
.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A
2021
;
118
:
e2020838118
.
25.
Liston
DR
,
Davis
M
.
Clinically relevant concentrations of anticancer drugs: a guide for nonclinical studies
.
Clin Cancer Res
2017
;
23
:
3489
98
.
26.
Shah
M
,
Rahman
A
,
Theoret
MR
,
Pazdur
R
.
The drug-dosing conundrum in oncology – when less is more
.
N Engl J Med
2021
;
385
:
1445
7
.
27.
DeVita
VT
,
Schein
PS
.
The use of drugs in combination for the treatment of cancer: rationale and results
.
N Engl J Med
1973
;
288
:
998
1006
.
28.
DeVita
VT
Jr
,
Young
RC
,
Canellos
GP
.
Combination versus single agent chemotherapy: a review of the basis for selection of drug treatment of cancer
.
Cancer
1975
;
35
:
98
110
.
29.
Bayat Mokhtari
R
,
Homayouni
TS
,
Baluch
N
,
Morgatskaya
E
,
Kumar
S
,
Das
B
, et al
.
Combination therapy in combating cancer
.
Oncotarget
2017
;
8
:
38022
43
.
30.
Settleman
J
,
Neto
JMF
,
Bernards
R
.
Thinking differently about cancer treatment regimens
.
Cancer Discov
2021
;
11
:
1016
23
.
31.
Chandra
S
,
Nymeyer
AC
,
Rice
PF
,
Gerner
EW
,
Barton
JK
.
Intermittent dosing with sulindac provides effective colorectal cancer chemoprevention in the azoxymethane-treated mouse model
.
Cancer Prev Res
2017
;
10
:
459
66
.
32.
Leder
K
,
Pitter
K
,
LaPlant
Q
,
Hambardumyan
D
,
Ross
BD
,
Chan
TA
, et al
.
Mathematical modeling of PDGF-driven glioblastoma reveals optimized radiation dosing schedules
.
Cell
2014
;
156
:
603
16
.
33.
Bravo
R
,
Axelrod
DE
.
A calibrated agent-based computer model of stochastic cell dynamics in normal human colon crypts useful for in silico experiments
.
Theoret Biol Med Model
2013
;
10
:
66
.
34.
Wright
NA
,
Poulsom
R
.
Top down or bottom up? Competing management structures in the morphogenesis of colorectal neoplasms
.
Gut
2002
;
51
:
306
8
.
35.
Humphries
A
,
Wright
NA
.
Colonic crypt organization and tumorigenesis
.
Nat Rev Cancer
2008
;
8
:
415
24
.
36.
Paulus
U
,
Potten
CS
,
Loeffler
M
.
A model of the control of cellular regeneration in the intestinal crypt after perturbation based solely on local stem cell regulation
.
Cell Prolif
1992
;
25
:
559
78
.
37.
Axelrod
DE
,
Bravo
R
.
Chemoprevention of colon cancer: advantage of intermittent pulse treatment schedules quantified by computer simulation of human colon crypts
.
Converg Sci Phys Oncol
2017
;
3
:
0350034
.
38.
Cockrell
C
,
Teague
J
,
Axelrod
DE
.
Prevention of colon cancer recurrence from minimal residual disease: computer optimized dose schedules of intermittent apoptotic adjuvant therapy
.
JCO Clin Cancer Inform
2020
;
4
:
514
20
.
39.
Axelrod
DE
,
Vedula
S
,
Obaniyi
J
.
Effective chemotherapy of heterogeneous and drug-resistant early colon cancers by intermittent dose schedules: a computer simulation study
.
Cancer Chemother Pharmacol
2017
;
79
:
889
98
.
40.
Cockrell
C
,
Axelrod
DE
.
Optimization of dose schedules for chemotherapy of early colon cancer determined by high-performance computer simulations
.
Cancer Inform
2019
;
18
:
1176935118822804
.
41.
Emmerich
MTM
,
Deutz
AH
.
A tutorial on multiobjective optimization: fundamentals and evolutionary methods
.
Nat Comput
2018
;
17
:
585
609
.
42.
Axelrod
DE
.
Chronotherapy of early colon cancer: advantage of morning dose schedules
.
Cancer Inform
2022
;
21
:
11769351211067697
.
43.
Cockrell
C
,
An
G
.
Sepsis reconsidered: Identifying novel metrics for behavioral landscape characterization with a high-performance computing implementation of an agent-based model
.
J Theoret Biol
2017
;
430
:
157
68
.
44.
An
G
.
In silico experiments of existing and hypothetical cytokine-directed clinical trials using agent-based modeling
.
Crit Care Med
2004
;
32
:
2050
60
.
45.
Shimada
Y
,
Yoshino
M
,
Wakui
A
,
Nakao
I
,
Futatsuki
K
,
Sakata
Y
, et al
.
Phase II study of CPT-11, a new camptothecin derivative, in metastatic colorectal cancer
.
J Clin Oncol
1993
;
11
:
909
13
.
46.
Cockrell
C
,
Ozik
J
,
Collier
N
,
An
G
.
Nested active learning for efficient model contextualization and parameterization: pathway to generating populations using multi-scale computational models
.
Simulation
2021
;
97
:
287
96
.
47.
Shih
IM
,
Wang
TL
,
Traverso
G
,
Romans
K
,
Hamilton
SR
,
Ben-Sasson
S
, et al
.
Top-down morphogenesis of colorectal tumors
.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A
2001
;
98
:
2640
5
.
48.
Preston
SL
,
Wong
WM
,
Chan
AO
,
Poulsom
R
,
Jeffery
R
,
Goodlad
RA
, et al
.
Bottom-up histogenesis of colorectal adenomas: origin in the monocryptal adenoma and initial expansion by crypt fission
.
Cancer Res
2003
;
63
:
3819
25
.
49.
Leslie
A
,
Carey
FA
,
Pratt
NR
,
Steele
RJ
.
The colorectal adenoma-carcinoma sequence
.
Br J Surg
2002
;
89
:
845
60
.
50.
Sun
BC
,
Ahao
XL
,
Zhang
SW
,
Liu
Y-X
,
Wang
L
,
Wang
X
.
Sulindac induces apoptosis and protects against colon carcinoma in mice
.
World J Gastroenterol
2005
;
11
;
2822
6
.
51.
Beazer-Barclay
Y
,
Levy
DB
,
Moser
AR
,
Dove
WF
,
Hamilton
SR
,
Vogelstein
B
, et al
.
Sulindac suppresses tumorigenesis in the Min mouse
.
Carcinogenesis
1996
;
17
:
1757
60
.
52.
Fischer
JM
,
Schepers
AG
,
Cleavers
H
,
Shibata
D
,
Liskay
RM
.
Occult progression by Apc-deficient intestinal crypts as a target for chemoprevention
.
Carcinogenesis
2014
;
35
:
237
46
.
53.
Bowen
CM
,
Walter
L
,
Borras
E
,
Wu
W
,
Ozcan
Z
,
Chang
K
, et al
.
Combination of sulindac and bexarotene for prevention of intestinal carcinogenesis in familial adenomatous polypsis
.
Cancer Prev Res
2021
;
14
:
851
62
.
54.
Meyskens
FL
Jr
,
McLaren
CE
,
Pelot
D
,
Fujikawa-Brooks
S
,
Carpenter
PM
,
Hawk
E
, et al
.
Difluoromethylornithine plus sulindac for the prevention of sporadic colorectal adenomas: a randomized placebo controlled double-blind trial
.
Cancer Prev Res
2008
;
1
:
32
8
.
55.
Lynch PM Chemoprevention of familial adenomatous polyps
.
Fam Cancer
2016
;
15
:
467
75
.
56.
Samadder
NJ
,
Kuwada
SK
,
Boucher
KM
,
Byne
K
,
Kanth
P
,
Samowitz
W
, et al
.
Association of sulindac and erlotinib vs placebo with colorectal neoplasia in familial adenomatous polyposis: secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial
.
JAMA Oncol
2018
;
4
:
671
7
.
57.
Giardiello
FM
,
Yang
VW
,
Hylind
LM
,
Krush
AJ
,
Petersen
GM
,
Trimbath
JD
, et al
.
Primary chemoprevention of familial adenomatous polyposis with sulindac
.
N Engl J Med
2002
;
364
:
1054
9
.
58.
Zelli
JA
.
Adenoma and second primary prevention trial (PACES)
.
ClinicalTrials.gov
2011
, identifier: NCT01349881.2011.
59.
Al-Lazikani
B
,
Banerji
U
,
Workman
P
.
Combinatorial drug therapy for cancer in the post-genomic era
.
Nat Biotechnol
2012
;
30
:
679
92
.
60.
Pulkkinen
OI
,
Gautam
P
,
Mustonen
V
,
Aittokallio
T
.
Multiobjective optimization identifies cancer-selective combination therapies
.
PLoS Comp Biol
2020
;
16
:
e1008538
.
61.
Kagawa
Y
,
Horita
N
,
Taniguchi
H
,
Tsuneda
S
.
Modeling of stem cell dynamics in human colonic crypts in silico
.
J Gastroenterol
2014
;
49
:
263
9
.
62.
Kang
G
,
Márquez
C
,
Barat
A
,
Byrne
AT
,
Prehn
JHM
,
Sorribes
J
, et al
.
Colorectal tumour simulation using agent based modelling and high performance computing
.
Future Gener Comput Syst
2017
;
67
:
387
408
.
63.
Gao
H
,
Yin
Z
,
Cao
Z
,
Zhang
L
.
Developing an agent-based drug model to investigate the synergistic effects of drug combinations
.
Molecule
2017
;
22
:
2209
.
64.
Lopez
AG
,
Iarosz
KC
,
Batista
AM
,
Seoane
JM
,
Viana
RL
,
Sanjuan
MAF
.
The dose-dense principle in chemotherapy
.
J Theoret Biol
2017
;
430
:
169
76
.
65.
West
J
,
You
L
,
Zhang
J
,
Gatnby
RA
,
Brown
JS
,
Newton
PK
, et al
.
Towards multidrug adaptive therapy
.
Cancer Res
2020
;
80
:
1578
89
.
66.
Chakrabarti
S
,
Michor
F
.
Pharmacokinetics and drug interactions determine optimum combination strategies in computational models of cancer evolution
.
Cancer Res
2017
;
77
:
3908
21
.
67.
Irurzun-Arana
I
,
McDonald
TO
,
Troconiz
IF
,
Michor
F
.
Pharmacokinetic profiles determine optimal combination treatment schedules in computational models of drug resistance
.
Cancer Res
2020
;
80
:
3372
82
.
68.
Bozic
I
,
Reiter
JG
,
Allen
B
,
Antal
T
,
Chatterjee
K
,
Shah
P
, et al
.
Evolutionary dynamics of cancer in response to targeted combination therapy
.
Elife
2013
;
2
:
e00747
.
69.
Fang
Y
,
McGrail
DJ
,
Sun
C
,
Labrie
M
,
Chen
X
,
Zhang
D
, et al
.
Sequential therapy with PARP and WEE1 inhibitors minimizes toxicity while maintaining efficacy
.
Cancer Cell
2019
;
35
:
851
67
.
70.
Katouli
AA
,
Komarova
NL
.
The worst drug rule revisited: mathematical modeling of cyclic cancer treatments
.
Bull Math Biol
2011
;
73
:
549
84
.
71.
Wang
L
,
Wang
H
,
Song
D
,
Xu
M
,
Liebmen
M
.
New strategies for targeting drug combinations to overcome mutation-driven drug resistance
.
Semin Cancer Biol
2017
;
42
:
44
51
.
72.
Azmi
AS
,
Wang
Z
,
Philip
PA
,
Mohammad
RM
,
Sarkar
FH
.
Proof of concept: network and systems biology approaches aid in the discovery of potent anticancer drug combinations
.
Mol Cancer Ther
2010
;
9
:
3137
44
.
73.
Folger
O
,
Jerby
L
,
Frezza
C
,
Gottlieb
E
,
Ruppin
E
,
Shlomi
T
.
Predicting selective drug targets in cancer through metabolic networks
.
Mol Syst Biol
2011
;
7
:
501
.
74.
Scarlett
UK
,
Chang
DC
,
Murtagh
TJ
,
Flaherty
KT
.
High-throughput testing of novel-novel combination therapies for cancer: an idea whose time has come
.
Cancer Discov
2016
;
6
:
956
62
.
75.
Yuan
B
,
Shen
C
,
Luna
A
,
Korkut
A
,
Marks
DS
,
Ingram
J
, et al
.
CellBox: interpretable machine learning for perturbation biology with application to the design of cancer combination therapy
.
Cell Syst
2021
;
12
:
128
40
.
76.
Kuenzi
BM
,
Park
J
,
Fong
SH
,
Sanchez
KS
,
Lee
J
,
Kreiserg
JF
, et al
.
Predicting drug response and synergy using a deep learning model of human cancer cells
.
Cancer Cell
2020
;
38
:
672
84
.
77.
Cockrell
C
,
Christley
S
,
An
G
.
Investigation of inflammation and tissue patterning in the gut using a spatially explicit general-purpose model of enteric tissue (SEGMEnT)
.
PLoS Comp Biol
2014
;
10
:
e1003507
.
78.
Cockrell
RC
,
Christley
S
,
Chang
E
,
An
G
.
Towards anatomic scale agent-based modeling with a massively parallel spatially explicit general-purpose model of enteric tissue (SEGMEnT_HPC)
.
PLoS One
2015
;
10
:
e0122192
.
79.
Cockrell
RC
,
Stack
ME
,
An
G
.
Sa1357 Supercomputing ulcerative colitis-associated cancer simulations to bridge mechanism with epidemiology
.
Gastroenterology
2016
;
150
:
S295
.
This open access article is distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) license.