Hiring in life sciences? Share your open positions with our professional community. Read more Close

Advertisement

Which evolutionary game-theoretic model best captures NSCLC dynamics?

Created on 02 Jun 2026

Authors

Hasti Garjani, Johan Dubbeldam, Kateřina Staňková, Joel S Brown

Published in

PloS one. Volume 21. Issue 6. Pages e0347657. Epub Jun 01, 2026.

Abstract

Understanding and predicting the eco-evolutionary dynamics of cancer requires identifying mathematical models that best capture tumor growth and treatment response. In this study, we fit a family of two-population models to in-vitro data from non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), tracking drug-sensitive and drug-resistant cells under varying environmental conditions. The dataset, originally presented by Kaznatcheev et al., includes conditions with and without the drug Alectinib and cancer-associated fibroblasts (CAFs). We compare combinations of growth models (logistic, Gompertz, and von Bertalanffy) and drug efficacy terms (Norton-Simon, linear, and ratio-dependent) to identify which best explains the observed dynamics. Our models incorporate density dependence, frequency-dependent competition, and drug response, enabling mechanistic interpretation of tumor cell interactions. The logistic model with ratio-dependent drug efficacy best fits monoculture data. Using growth parameters from monocultures, we estimate inter-type competition coefficients in co-cultures. We find that growth rate and carrying capacity are stable across CAF conditions, while competition and drug efficacy parameters shift, altering interaction dynamics. Notably, CAFs promote coexistence between resistant and sensitive cells, whereas Alectinib results in competitive exclusion. Our results underscore the need to evaluate both model fit and biological plausibility to guide therapeutic modeling of cancer.

PMID:
42224394
Bibliographic data and abstract were imported from PubMed on 02 Jun 2026.

Read full publication at:
Please sign in to see all details.

Advertisement

Stats

  • Community rating n/a 0 votes
  • Reviewers' rating n/a 0 votes
  • Your rating

1-terrible, 9-excellent. How would you rate this publication? Sign in in to submit your rating.

  • Recommendations n/a n/a positive of 0 vote(s)
  • Views 5
  • Comments 0

Recommended by

  • No recommendations yet.

Post a comment

You need to be signed in to post comments. You can sign in here.

Comments

There are no comments yet.

Advertisement