Citation: Pedro José Gutiérrez-Diez, Jose Russo. Design of personalized cancer treatments by use of optimal control problems: The case of chronic myeloid leukemia[J]. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2020, 17(5): 4773-4800. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2020261
| [1] | Elif Basaran, Gulali Aktas . The relationship of vitamin D levels with hemogram indices and metabolic parameters in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. AIMS Medical Science, 2024, 11(1): 47-57. doi: 10.3934/medsci.2024004 |
| [2] | Piero Pavone, Xena Giada Pappalardo, Riccardo Lubrano, Salvatore Savasta, Alberto Verrotti, Pasquale Parisi, Raffaele Falsaperla . 4q interstitial and terminal deletion: clinical features comparison in two unrelated children. AIMS Medical Science, 2023, 10(2): 130-140. doi: 10.3934/medsci.2023011 |
| [3] | Cassandra A DeMarshall, Abhirup Sarkar, Robert G Nagele . Serum Autoantibodies as Biomarkers for Parkinsons Disease: Background and Utility. AIMS Medical Science, 2015, 2(4): 316-327. doi: 10.3934/medsci.2015.4.316 |
| [4] | Hicham Rahmi, Ben Yamine Mallouki, Fatiha Chigr, Mohamed Najimi . The effects of smoking Haschich on blood parameters in young people from the Beni Mellal region Morocco. AIMS Medical Science, 2021, 8(4): 276-290. doi: 10.3934/medsci.2021023 |
| [5] | Antonio Conti, Massimo Alessio . Proteomics for Cerebrospinal Fluid Biomarker Identification in Parkinsons Disease: Methods and Critical Aspects. AIMS Medical Science, 2015, 2(1): 1-6. doi: 10.3934/medsci.2015.1.1 |
| [6] | Hong-Yi Chang, Hung-Wen Tsai, Chiao-Fang Teng, Lily Hui-Ching Wang, Wenya Huang, Ih-Jen Su . Ground glass hepatocytes provide targets for therapy or prevention of hepatitis B virus-related hepatocellular carcinoma. AIMS Medical Science, 2018, 5(2): 90-101. doi: 10.3934/medsci.2018.2.90 |
| [7] | Carman K.M. Ip, Jun Yin, Patrick K.S. Ng, Shiaw-Yih Lin, Gordon B. Mills . Genomic-Glycosylation Aberrations in Tumor Initiation, Progression and Management. AIMS Medical Science, 2016, 3(4): 386-416. doi: 10.3934/medsci.2016.4.386 |
| [8] | Ying Chen, Sok Kean Khoo, Richard Leach, Kai Wang . MTA3 Regulates Extravillous Trophoblast Invasion Through NuRD Complex. AIMS Medical Science, 2017, 4(1): 17-27. doi: 10.3934/medsci.2017.1.17 |
| [9] | Vanessa J. White, Ramesh C. Nayak . Re-circulating Phagocytes Loaded with CNS Debris: A Potential Marker of Neurodegeneration in Parkinsons Disease?. AIMS Medical Science, 2015, 2(1): 26-34. doi: 10.3934/medsci.2015.1.26 |
| [10] | K.E. Khalid, Hamdi Nouri Nsairat, Jingwu Z. Zhang . The Presence of Interleukin 18 Binding Protein Isoforms in Chinese Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis. AIMS Medical Science, 2016, 3(1): 103-113. doi: 10.3934/medsci.2016.1.103 |
Accumulation of fluids in the pleural cavity is classified into transudates and exudates. Transudate is usually composed of ultra filtrates of plasma and poor cellular content and protein concentration. On the other hand, in typical exudates, the cellular content is much greater than that of transudates and a greater variety of cells is usually present. These cells may be inflammatory or neoplastic, depending on the cause of the exudate. The concentration of protein is often greater than that found in transudate, i.e. < 3 g/dL, but not invariably so, as there is considerable overlap between the ranges [1,2]. The traditional classification of pleural effusion into transudates and exudates is still useful because it indicates the physiopathologic mechanism involved. More specifically, pleural exudates emerge due to alteration of hydrostatic and/or colloid osmotic pressures in plural capillaries, or as a result of fluid passing from the peritoneal cavity to the pleural cavity via a defect in the diaphragm or lymph vessels. The criteria proposed by Light et al. in 1972 are currently used to discriminate between transudates and exudates [3]. However, the distinction between transudates and exudates is not presently clear due to a possible overlap between the two. To date, different parameters have been applied to differentiate between the two conditions, such as pleural fluid protein level, pleural fluid cholesterol (CHOL), lactic dehydrogenase (LDH) level, and pleural fluid/serum protein ratio [4,5]. These approaches are unreliable, as they tend to result in misclassification of many effusions [6]. This study aimed to determine the diagnostic utility of CHOL, LDH, and protein ratios in the differentiation between transudate and exudate in pleuritis cases of different etiology and assess the relationship between pleural effusion and serum level of CHO, LDH, and protein.
This is a descriptive study aiming to evaluate the diagnostic role of the pleural effusion/serum (CHOL, LDH, and protein) ratios in the differentiation between exudate and transudate effusion. The study was conducted in Khartoum state hospitals, Sudan, during the period from May 2012 to May 2014.
Pleural effusion and serum samples were collected from 135 patients with definite diagnosis of having pleural effusion, all of whom were aged 18 years or older. All patients gave informed consent for participating in the study. The following evidence was used to include or exclude the cases [7].
1) Congestive heart failure: presence of clinical features (increased JVP, tachycardia, ventricular gallop) with cardiomegaly or echocardiac evidence of cardiac dysfunction.
2) Renal diseases: elevated urea (> 20 mmol/L) or creatinine > 167 μmol/L with or without signs or symptoms of fluid overload.
3) Malignancy: confirmed by cytology or histological proof of malignant tumor and in absence of all other conditions associated with pleural effusion.
4) Liver cirrhosis: positive ultrasonography or CT findings with clinical and lab evidence of hepatic derangements and portal hypertension.
5) Infective effusion: clear evidence of infection (positive microbiologic culture), elevated CRP or leukocytosis or positive sputum stain.
6) Hypoalbuminemia: serum albumin < 20 mg/L.
Pleural effusion and serum samples were collected from all patients. Thoracentesis was performed to collect pleural effusion, while serum was collected from the venous blood using a 5 mL syringe. CHOL, LDH, and protein levels were measured in both samples.
The CHOL level was measured using an enzymatic colorimetric method, whereby all cholesterol is freed from the lipoproteins and is subsequently oxidized. When the oxidized CHOL is formed, H2O2 is produced, which in turn reacts with the reagent 4-aminoantipyrine to form a red compound. The increase in absorbance at the 520 nm wavelength is proportional to the CHOL level (Cobas Integra system; Roche Diagnostic). LDH level was measured by UV spectrophotometry at 36 oC and 340 nm. In this process, LDH catalyses the oxidation of lactate to pyruvate in the presence of Nicotinamide Adenine Dinucleotide (NAD), which is subsequently reduced to NADH. The rate of NADH formation measured at 340 nm is directly proportional to the serum LDH activity (TECO DIAGNOSTICS). Protein level was measured by quantitative calorimetric (Burt) method, whereby protein forms a colored chelate complex with cupric ions (Cu2+) in an alkaline environment containing sodium potassium tartrate. The product yields a light blue to violet complex that absorbs light at 540 nm. One cupric ion forms a colored coordination complex with four to six peptide bonds in its vicinity. The intensity of the color produced is proportional to the amount of peptide bonds participating in the reaction (HiPer® Protein Estimation Teaching Kit (Quantitative) HimediaLaboratories TM).
The data collected as a part of the study was analyzed by using Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS). Descriptive and other statistics test results were expressed in tables and figures.
In this study, the diagnostic utility of CHOL, LDH, and protein ratios in the differentiation between exudate and transudate pleural effusions was assessed. The study sample comprised of 135 patients aged > 20 (mean age 51), referred to different hospitals in the Khartoum State, in whom pleural effusion was clinically diagnosed. As shown in Table 1 and Figure 1, two groups of individuals were classified according to the diagnostic yields of their effusions. In 95 (70.4%) of study participants, exudative effusion was diagnosed, whereas the remaining 40 (29.6%) had transudate effusion.
| Eff. type | Frequency | Percent (%) |
| Exudate | 95 | 70.4% |
| Transudate | 40 | 29.6% |
| Total | 135 | 100.0% |
DownLoad: CSV
Figure 1. Distribution of the study population by effusion type.
Table 2 and Figure 2 show the distribution of the study population by effusion type and gender. As can be seen, both exudative and transudate effusion was more predominant in male patients, at 64 (67.4%) and 23 (56.5%), respectively.
| Male | Female | Total | ||||
| Eff. Type | No | % | No | % | No | % |
| Exudate | 64 | 67.4% | 31 | 32.6% | 95 | 70.4% |
| Transudate | 23 | 56.5% | 17 | 42.5% | 40 | 29.6% |
| Total | 87 | 64.4 | 48 | 45.6 | 135 | 100.0% |
DownLoad: CSV
Figure 2. Distribution of the study population by effusion type and gender.
The distribution of the study population by effusion type and age is shown in Table 3 and Figure 3. In patients with exudative effusion, the majority (48, or 50.5%) of the study population were in the ˃ 60 age group, followed by the 41-60, and 20-40 age groups, which comprised of 28 (29.5%) and 19 (20%) individuals, respectively. On the other hand, transudate effusion was the most prevalent in the 41-60 age group (18 or 45%), followed by the ˃ 60, and 20-40 age groups, which consisted of 12 (30%) and 10 (25%) patients, respectively.
| 20-40 | 41-60 | > 60 | Total | |||||
| Eff. type | No | % | No | % | No | % | No | % |
| Exudate | 19 | 20 % | 28 | 29.5 % | 48 | 50.5 % | 95 | 70.4 % |
| Transudate | 10 | 25 % | 18 | 45 % | 12 | 30 % | 40 | 29.6 % |
| Total | 29 | 21.5 % | 46 | 34 % | 60 | 44.4 % | 135 | 100 % |
DownLoad: CSV
Figure 3. Distribution of the study population by effusion type and age.
Table 4 and Figure 4, presents the study population distribution by effusion type and clinical diagnosis. As can be seen from the data, among patients with exudative effusion, tuberculosis was the most common cause, diagnosed in 52 (54.7%) individuals, followed by pneumonia (18, 18.9%), pulmonary cancer (10, 10.5%), pulmonary embolism (9, 9.5%), and rheumatoid disease (6, 6.3). However, at 22 (55%), hepatic cirrhosis was the most prevalent condition among patients with transudate effusion, followed by congestive heart failure, which affected 18 (45%) individuals.
| T.B | Pneu. | Pulm Ca. | Pulm emboli | Rheum Disease | Hepatic Cirrhosis | CHF | Total | |||||||||
| Eff. | No | % | No | % | No | % | No | % | No | % | No | % | No | % | No | % |
| Exud | 52 | 54.7% | 18 | 18.9% | 10 | 10.5% | 9 | 9.5% | 6 | 6.3% | 0 | 0% | 0 | 0% | 95 | 70.4% |
| Trans | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0% | 0 | 0% | 0 | 0% | 0 | 0% | 22 | 55% | 18 | 45% | 40 | 29.6% |
| Total | 52 | 38.5% | 18 | 13.3% | 10 | 7.4% | 9 | 6.7% | 6 | 4.4% | 22 | 16.3% | 18 | 14.8% | 135 | 100% |
DownLoad: CSV
Figure 4. Distribution of the study population by effusion type clinical diagnosis.
Table 5 shows the levels of CHOL, LDH, and protein in serum and effusion samples among the study population. The level of all studied parameters in both serum and effusion fluid was significantly higher in the patients in the exudative group compared to those affected by transudate effusion. The differences among the mean values of all parameters was statistically significant at p = 0.000.
| Parameter | Type of sample | Type of effusion | Mean ± SEM |
| CHOL | Pleural fluid | Exudate | 1.92 ± 0.75 mmol/L * |
| Transudate | 0.52 ± 0.28 mmol/L * | ||
| Serum | Exudate | 3.56 ± 0.84 mmol/L * | |
| Transudate | 1.63 ± 0.75 mmol/L * | ||
| Protein | Pleural fluid | Exudate | 3.56 ± 095 g/dL * |
| Transudate | 0.93 ± 0.35 g/dL * | ||
| Serum | Exudate | 5.25 ± 0.88 g/dL * | |
| Transudate | 1.55 ± 0.61 g/dL * | ||
| LDH | Pleural fluid | Exudate | 285 ± 25 IU * |
| Transudate | 160 ± 22 IU * | ||
| Serum | Exudate | 235 ± 45 IU * | |
| Transudate | 134 ± 18 IU * |
DownLoad: CSVPearson correlation between the CHOL, LDH, and protein levels in serum and effusion samples is shown in Table 6. As can be seen from the data, high correlation was observed between CHOL level in effusion samples and LDH level in serum samples with r = 0.867. Similarly, CHOL level in serum samples was correlated with LDH level in effusion samples, as was LDH level in serum samples and protein level in effusion samples (with r = 0.855 and r = 0.824, respectively). A relatively good association was observed between protein and CHOL levels in effusion samples, with r = 0.791. Similarly, Pearson correlation values indicated association between the CHOL, LDH, and protein ratios and clinical diagnosis. In particular, high correlation was observed between CHOL ratio and clinical diagnosis, with r = 0.971), as well as LDH and protein ratios (at r = 0.863 and r = 0.597, respectively).
| Parameters | CHOL. Seru. | CHOL. Eff. | LDH Seru. | LDH Eff. | Prot. Seru. | Prot. Eff. | ||||||
| r | sig | r | sig | r | sig | r | sig | r | sig | r | sig | |
| CHOL.Seru. | 1 | 0.777** | 0.000 | 0.673** | 0.000 | 0.855** | 0.000 | 0.529** | 0.000 | 0.532** | 0.000 | |
| CHOL. Eff. | 0.777** | 0.000 | 1 | 0.867** | 0.000 | 0.667** | 0.000 | 0.061 | 0.000 | 0.791** | 0.000 | |
| LDH Seru. | 0.673** | 0.000 | 0.867** | 0.000 | 1 | 0.761** | 0.000 | 0.207** | 0.005 | 0.824** | 0.000 | |
| LDH Eff. | 0.855** | 0.000 | 0.667** | 0.000 | 0.761** | 0.000 | 1 | 0.690** | 0.000 | 0.630** | 0.000 | |
| Prot. Seru. | 0.529** | 0.000 | 0.061** | 0.000 | 0.207** | 0.005 | 0.690** | 0.000 | 1 | 0.699** | 0.000 | |
| Prot. Eff. | 0.532** | 0.000 | 0.791** | 0.000 | .824** | 0.000 | 0.630** | 0.000 | 0.699** | 0.000 | 1 | |
| ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). | ||||||||||||
DownLoad: CSVTable 7 shows the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of the CHOL, LDH, and protein ratios in differentiating between exudates and transudates. The highest values of these indicators pertained to the CHOL ratio, which showed 97.7% sensitivity, 100% specificity, 100% positive predictive value, and 95% negative predictive value. This was followed by the LDH ratio, with 86% sensitivity, 97.4% specificity, 97.4% positive predictive value, and 97% negative predictive value, and finally protein ratio, with 81.4% sensitivity, 81.6% specificity, 89.7% positive predictive value, and 70.4 % negative predictive value.
| Parameters | Sensitivity | Specificity | PPV | NPV | p value |
| CHOL ratio | 97.7% | 100.0% | 100.0% | 95.0% | < 0.0001 |
| Protein ratio | 81.4% | 81.6% | 89.7% | 70.4% | < 0.0001 |
| LDH ratio | 86.0% | 97.4% | 97.4% | 79.0% | < 0.0001 |
DownLoad: CSVThis study assessed the diagnostic utility of CHOL, LDH, and protein ratios in differentiating between exudative and transudate pleural effusion of different etiologies. The study sample comprised of 135 patients with accumulated pleural effusion, of whom 93 (68.9%) were diagnosed with exudates and 42 (31.1%) with transudates. Subsequent analyses revealed that exudate effusion was more prevalent in males (64, 67.4%) and among patients aged ˃ 60 years old (48, 50.5%). Tuberculosis was the most frequent cause of pleural effusion, with 52 (38.5%) cases, followed by hepatic cirrhosis (22, 16.3%), which is in line with the findings reported by Liam et al. [8], who suggested that the most common cause of exudative effusion was tuberculosis. The same results were also obtained by Kalaajieh [9], who concurred that tuberculosis is the most frequent cause of exudative pleural effusions.
Cholesterol CHOL ratio identified exudative effusion with a sensitivity of 97.7% and specificity of 100%, whereas LDH ratio had a sensitivity of 86.0% and specificity of 97.4%. Finally, protein ratio achieved sensitivity and specificity of 81.4% and 81.6%, respectively. These results are consistent with those reported by Wilcox et al. [10], who concluded that Light's criteria, cholesterol and pleural fluid LDH levels, and the pleural fluid cholesterol-to-serum ratio are the most accurate diagnostic indicators for pleural exudates. Sánchez et al. [11] reported similar results and concluded that the cholesterol in pleural liquid/cholesterol in serum quotient was the most productive and useful parameter (with 96% sensitivity and 97% specificity).
Pearson correlation test of the CHOL, LDH and protein ratio yielded 0.971, 0.863, and 0.597 values, respectively. This result suggests that CHOL ratio is more highly correlated than LDH and protein ratios with the clinical diagnosis for exudates, which is significant at the 0.01 level. These results are similar to those obtained by Hamal et al. [12], who suggested that CHOL ratio is more highly correlated than protein ratio with the clinical diagnosis for exudate. Jiménez et al. [13] also reported that the highest diagnostic yield was observed with the combination of pleural cholesterol, pleural LDH, and the pleural fluid/serum protein ratio.
Based on the present study findings and a review of extant work in this field, it can be concluded that:
1. Analysis of the CHOL ratio in serum and effusion samples is the best diagnostic tool in the differentiation between exudative and transudate pleural effusions.
2. Tuberculosis is most frequently observed as a causative agent of exudative pleural effusion.
3. CHOL level in serum and effusion samples has a better sensitivity, specificity and positive predictive value in differentiating exudates and transudates than do LDH and protein levels in the same samples.
I am deeply indebted to all who supported me and gave me advice during this study. A great debt of gratitude is owed to all hospital technicians for their assistance in sample collection and preparation. Finally, I would like to thank all my colleagues and friends for their encouragement and support during the preparation of this study.
| [1] | A. J. Lotka, Contribution to the Theory of Periodic Reaction, J. Phys. Chem., 14 (1910), 271-274. |
| [2] | A. J. Lotka, Analytical Note on Certain Rhythmic Relations in Organic Systems, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 6 (1920), 410-415. |
| [3] | A. J. Lotka, Elements of Physical Biology, Williams and Wilkins, 1925. |
| [4] | V. Volterra, Variazioni e fluttuazioni del numero d'individui in specie animali conviventi, Mem. R. Accad. Naz. Lincei, 2 (1926), 31-113. |
| [5] | V. Volterra, Fluctuations in the abundance of a species considered mathematically, Nature, 118, (1926), 558-560. |
| [6] | V. Volterra, Leçons sur la théorie mathématique de la lutte pour la vie, Paris: Gauthier-Villars, 1931. |
| [7] | L. A. Loeb, K. R. Loeb, J. P. Anderson, Multiple mutations and cancer, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 100 (2003), 776-781. |
| [8] | G. Magombedze, W. Garira, E. Mwenje, C. P. Bhunu, Optimal control for HIV-1 multi-drug therapy, Int. J. Comp. Math., 88 (2011), 314-340. |
| [9] | N. Tarfulea, A mathematical model for HIV treatment with time-varying antiretroviral therapy, Int. J. Comp. Math., 88, (2011), 3217-3235. |
| [10] | Y. Koizumi, S. Iwami, Mathematical modeling of multi-drugs therapy: A challenge for determining the optimal combinations of antiviral drugs, Theor. Biol. Med. Mod., 11 (2014), 41. |
| [11] | H. T. Banks, Modeling and Control in the Biomedical Sciences, Springer, 1975. |
| [12] | J. D. Murray, Mathematical Biology I: An Introduction, Springer, 2002. |
| [13] | J. D. Murray, Mathematical Biology II: Spatial Models and Biomedical Applications, Springer, 2003. |
| [14] | C. W. Clark, Mathematical Bioeconomics. The Optimal Management of Renewable Resources, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1990. |
| [15] | U. Ledzewicz, H. Schättler, A. Friedman, E. Kashdan, Mathematical methods and models in Biomedicine, Springer, 2013. |
| [16] | M. Eisen, Mathematical Methods and Models in the Biological Sciences, Prentice Hall, 1988. |
| [17] | P. J. Gutiérrez Diez, I. H. Russo, J. Russo, The Evolution of the Use of Mathematics in Cancer Research, Springer, 2012. |
| [18] | A. Świerniak, U. Ledzewicz, H. Schättler, Optimal Control for a Class of Compartmental Models in Cancer Chemotherapy, Int. J. Appl. Math. Comp. Sci., 13 (2003), 357-368. |
| [19] | J. M. Murray, Optimal control for a cancer chemotherapy problem with general growth and cost functions, Math. Biosci. 98 (1990), 273-287. |
| [20] | J. M. Murray, Some optimal control problems in cancer chemotherapy with a toxicity limit, Math. Biosci., 100 (1990), 49-67. |
| [21] | S. Nanda, H. Moore, S. Lenhart, Optimal control of treatment in a mathematical model of chronic myelogenous leukemia, Math. Biosci., 210 (2007), 143-156. |
| [22] | B. E. Aïnseba, C. Benosman, Optimal control for resistance and suboptimal response in CML, Math. Biosci., 227 (2010), 81-93. |
| [23] |
K. Schepers, E. M. Pietras, D. Reynaud, J. Flach, M. Binnewies, T. Garg, et al., Myeloproliferative neoplasia remodels the endosteal bone marrow niche into a self-reinforcing leukemic niche, Cell Stem Cell, 13 (2013), 285-299. doi: 10.1016/j.stem.2013.06.009
|
| [24] | S. Kapoor, V. P. Rallabandi, C. Sakode, R. Padhi, P.K. Roy, A patient-specific therapeutic approach for tumour cell population extinction and drug toxicity reduction using control systems-based dose-profile design, Theor. Biol. Med. Mod., 10 (2013), 68. |
| [25] | P. J. Gutiérrez-Diez, M. Á.,López-Marcos, J. Martínez-Rodríuez, J. Russo, The effects of time valuation in cancer optimal therapies: A study of chronic myeloid leukemia, Theor. Biol. Med. Mod., 16 (2019), 10. |
| [26] | M. Baccarani, F. Castagnetti, G. Gugliotta, G. Rosti, A review of the European LeukemiaNet recommendations for the management of CML, Ann. Hematol., 94 (2015), S141-S147. |
| [27] | M. W. Deininger, J. G. Hodgson, N. P. Shah, J. E. Cortes, D. W. Kim, F. E. Nicolini, et al., Compound mutations in BCR-ABL1 are not major drivers of primary or secondary resistance to ponatinib in CP-CML patients, Blood, 127 (2016), 703-712. |
| [28] | F. Michor, T. P. Hughes, Y. Iwasa, S. Branford, N. P. Shah, C. L. Sawyers, et al., Dynamics of chronic myeloid leukaemia, Nature, 435 (2005), 1267-1270. |
| [29] | D. Murray Lyon, Does the reaction to adrenalin obey Weber's Law?, J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther., 21 (1923), 229-235. |
| [30] | M. Inoue, K. Kaneko, Weber's law for biological responses in autocatalytic networks of chemical reactions, Phys. Rev. Lett., 107 (2011), 048301. |
| [31] | H. W. Sinn, Weber's law and the biological evolution of risk preferences: The selective dominance of the logarithmic utility function, Gen. Pap. Risk Ins. Theor., 28 (2002), 87-100. |
| [32] | R. Capdeville, S. Silverman, Imatinib: A targeted clinical drug development, Semin. Hematol., 40 (2003), 15-20. |
| [33] | M. Bonifacio, F. Stagno, L. Scaffidi, M. Krampera, F. Di Raimondo, Management of Chronic Myeloid Leukemia in Advanced Phase, Front. Oncol., 9 (2019), 1132. |
| [34] | S. Soverini, A. Hochhaus, F. E. Nicolini, F. Gruber, T. Lange, G. Saglio, et al., BCR-ABL kinase domain mutation analysis in chronic myeloid leukemia patients treated with tyrosine kinase inhibitors: Recommendations from an expert panel on behalf of European LeukemiaNet. Blood, 118 (2011), 1208-1215. |
| [35] | I. Galinsky, S. Buchanan, Guide to Interpreting Disease Responses in Chronic Myeloid Leukemia, J. Adv. Prac. Oncol., 3, (2012), 225-236. |
| [36] | S. Prabhu, D. Saadat, M. Zhang, L. Halbur, J. P. Fruehauf, S. T. Ong, A novel mechanism for BCR-ABL action: BCR-ABL-mediated induction of the eIF4F translation initiation complex and mRNA translation, Oncogene, 26 (2007), 1188-1200. |
| [37] | L. Hu, L. Pu, D. Yang, C. Zhang, H. Wang, Y. Ding, et al., How to detect the rare BCR-ABL (e14a3) transcript: A case report and literature review, Oncol. Lett., 14 (2017), 5619-5623. |
| [38] | S. I. Ismail, R. G. Naffa, A. F. Yousef, M. T. Ghanim, Incidence of BCR-ABL fusion transcripts in healthy individuals, Mol. Med. Rep. 9 (2014), 1271-1276. |
| [39] |
T. Hughes, G. Saglio, A. Quintás-Cardama, M. J. Mauro, D. W. Kim, J. H. Lipton, et al., BCR-ABL1 mutation development during first-line treatment with dasatinib or imatinib for chronic myeloid leukemia in chronic phase, Leukemia, 29 (2015), 1832-1838. doi: 10.1038/leu.2015.168
|
| [40] | J. Kaeda, D. O'Shea, R. M. Szydlo, E. Olavarria, F. Dazzi, D. Marin, et al., Serial measurement of BCR-ABL transcripts in the peripheral blood after allogeneic stem cell transplantation for chronic myeloid leukemia: An attempt to define patients who may not require further therapy, Blood, 107 (2006), 4171-4176. |
| [41] | M. Houshmand, G. Simonetti, P. Circosta, V. Gaidano, A. Cignetti, G. Martinelli, et al., Chronic myeloid leukemia stem cells, Leukemia, 33 (2019), 1543-1556. |
| [42] | F. Loscocco, G. Visani, S. Galimberti, A. Curti, A. Isidori, BCR-ABL Independent Mechanisms of Resistance in Chronic Myeloid Leukemia, Front. Oncol., 9 (2019), 939. |
| [43] | H. Kitamura, Y. Tabe, T. Ai, K. Tsuchiya, M. Yuri, S. Misawa, et al., A new highly sensitive real-time quantitative-PCR method for detection of BCR-ABL1 to monitor minimal residual disease in chronic myeloid leukemia after discontinuation of imatinib, PLoS One, 14 (2019), e0207170. |
| [44] | R. Arora, R. D. Press, Measurement of BCR-ABL1 transcripts on the International Scale in the United States: Current status and best practices, Leuk. Lymphoma, 58 (2017), 8-16. |
| [45] | Physycians' Desk Reference, PDR Network (ed) 64 edition, LLC at Montvale, 2010. |
| [46] | A. Quintás-Cardama, J. Cortes, H. Kantarjian, Biology of Chronic and Acute Myeloid Leukemia, in The Molecular Basis of Cancer, Elsevier, (2008), 371-383. |
| [47] | L. Löf, L. Arngården, U. Olsson-Strömberg, B. Siart, M. Jansson, J. S. Dahlin, et al., Flow Cytometric Measurement of Blood Cells with BCR-ABL1 Fusion Protein in Chronic Myeloid Leukemia, Sci. Rep. 7 (2017), 623. |
| [48] | D. Raspadori, P. Pacelli, A. Sicuranza, E. Abruzzese, A. Iurlo, D. Cattaneo, et al., Flow Cytometry Assessment of CD26+ Leukemic Stem Cells in Peripheral Blood: A Simple and Rapid New Diagnostic Tool for Chronic Myeloid Leukemia, Cytometry Part B, 96 (2019), 294-299. |
| [49] | F. E. Craig, K. A. Foon, Flow cytometric immunophenotyping for hematologic neoplasms, Blood, 111 (2008), 3941-3967. |
| [50] | D. Campana, Minimal residual disease in acute lymphoblastic leukemia, Semin. Hematol., 46 (2009), 100-106. |
| [51] | D. Campana, Role of minimal residual disease monitoring in adult and pediatric acute lymphoblastic leukemia, Haematol./Oncol. Clin. N.A., 23 (2009), 1083-1098. |
| [52] | N. Shah,Medical management of CML, Hematology, 1 (2007), 371-375. |
| [53] | P. K. Bhamidipati, H. Kantarjian, J. Cortes, A. M. Cornelison, E. Jabbour, Management of imatinib-resistant patients with chronic myeloid leukemia, Ther. Adv. Hematol., 4 (2013), 103-117. |
| [54] | M. S. Marcolino, E. Boersma, N. C. D. Clementino, A. V. Macedo, A. D. Marx-Neto, M. H. C. R. Silva, et al., Imatinib treatment duration is related to decreased estimated glomerular filtration rate in chronic myeloid leukemia patients, Ann. Oncol., 22 (2011), 2073-2079. |
| [55] | M. Baccarani, J. Cortes, F. Pane, D. Niederwieser, G. Saglio, J. Apperley, et al., Chronic myeloid leukemia: An update of concepts and management recommendations of European LeukemiaNet, J. Clin. Oncol., 27 (2009), 6041-6051. |
| [56] | R. A. Everett, Y. Zhao, K. B. Flores, Y. Kuang, Data and implication based comparison of two chronic myeloid leukemia models, Math. Biosci. Eng., 10 (2013), 1501-1518. |
| [57] | C. Fava, G. Saglio, Can we and should we improve on frontline imatinib therapy for chronic myeloid leukemia?, Semin. Hematol., 47 (2010), 319-326. |
| [58] | P. Valent, Imatinib-resistant chronic myeloid leukemia (CML): Current concepts on pathogenesis and new emerging pharmacologic approaches, Biol. Targets Ther., 1 (2007), 433-448. |
| [59] | R. Bhatia, Chronic Myeloid Leukemia, in Hematology, seventh edition, Elsevier, (2018), 1055-1070. |
| [60] | T. R. Randolph, Myeloproliferative neoplasms, in Rodak's Hematology Clinical Applications and Principles, St. Louis, Missouri: Saunders, (2015), 561-590. |
| [61] | N. Bouizem, M. Helal, B. Aïnseba, A. Lakmeche, Leukemia mathematical model, ITM Web Conf., 4 (2015), 01006. |
| [62] | A. Hochhaus, S. Kreil, A. S. Corbin, P. La Rosée, M. C. Müller, T. Lahaye, et al., Molecular and chromosomal mechanisms of resistance to imatinib (STI571) therapy, Leukemia, 16 (2002), 2190-2196. |
| [63] | V. Karavasilis, A. Reid, R. Sinha, J. S. De Bono, Cancer drug resistance, in Cancer Drug Design and Discovery, (S. Neidle ed.), (2008), Elsevier. |
| [64] | M. Baccarani, G. Saglio, J. Goldman, A. Hochhaus, B. Simonsson, F. Appelbaum, et al., Evolving concepts in the management of chronic myeloid leukemia: recommendations from an expert panel on behalf of the European Leukemia Net, Blood, 108 (2006), 1809-1820. |
| [65] | R.P. Nelson Jr, K. Cornetta, K. E. Ward, S. Ramanuja, C. Fausel, L.D. Cripe, Desensitization to imatinib in patients with leukemia, Ann. Allergy, Asthma, Immunol., 97 (2006), 216-222. |
| [66] | M. Albayrak, H. Celebi, A. Albayrak, E. S. Can, V. Aslan, B. Onec, et al., Serious skin reaction associated with imatinib in a patient with chronic myeloid leukemia, Eurasian J. Med., 43 (2011), 192-195. |
| [67] | V. Chou, S. McClelland, D. Resnick, M. Lee-Wong, Successful Desensitization of an Adult with Type I Hypersensitivity to Imatinib, Internet J. Asthma, Allergy Immunol., 4 (2004), 2. |
| [68] | E. Faber, M. Divoká, I. Skoumalová, M. Novák, I. Marešová, K. Mičová, et al., A lower dosage of imatinib is sufficient to maintain undetectable disease in patients with chronic myeloid leukemia with long-term low-grade toxicity of the treatment, Leuk. Lymphoma, 57 (2016), 370-375. |
| [69] | Y. Zhu, S. X. Qian, Clinical efficacy and safety of imatinib in the management of Ph(+) chronic myeloid or acute lymphoblastic leukemia in Chinese patients, OncoTargets Ther., 7 (2014), 395-404. |
| [70] | European Leukemia Net, 2020. Available from: https://www.leukemia-net.org/content/leukemias/cml/euro_and_sokal_score/index_eng.html. |
| [71] | L. C. Kuntegowdanahalli, G. B. Kanakasetty, A. H. Thanky, L. Dasappa, L. A. Jacob, S. B. Mallekavu, et al., Prognostic and predictive implications of Sokal, Euro and EUTOS scores in chronic myeloid leukaemia in the imatinib era-experience from a tertiary oncology centre in Southern India, Ecancermedicalscience, 10 (2016), 679. |
| [72] | S. Chhikara, S. Sazawal, K. Singh, R. Chaubey, H. Pati, S. Tyagi, et al., Comparative analysis of the Sokal, Euro and European Treatment and Outcome Study score in prognostication of Indian chronic myeloid leukemia-chronic phase patients on imatinib, S.A. J. Cancer, 7, (2018), 258-262. |
| [73] |
J. Hasford, M. Baccarani, V. Hoffmann, J. Guilhot, S. Saussele, G. Rosti, et al., Predicting complete cytogenetic response and subsequent progression-free survival in 2060 patients with CML on imatinib treatment: the EUTOS score, Blood, 118 (2011), 686-692. doi: 10.1182/blood-2010-12-319038
|
| [74] | M. Baccarani, F. Castagnetti, G. Gugliotta, G. Rosti, A review of the European Leukemia Net recommendations for the management of CML, Ann. Hematol., 94 (2015), S141-S147. |
| [75] | M. Schemionek, T. Spieker, L. Kerstiens, C. Elling, M. Essers, A. Trumpp, et al., Leukemic spleen cells are more potent than bone marrow-derived cells in a transgenic mouse model of CML, Leukemia, 26, (2012), 1030-1037. |
| [76] | L.O. Ngolet, I. Kocko, A. Elira-Dokekias, Pregnancy and Accelerated Phase of Myeloid Chronic Leukemia Treated with Imatinib: A Case Report from a Developing Country, Case Rep. Hematol., (2016), 6104948. |
| [77] | E. Fimmel, Y. S. Semenov, A. S. Bratus, On optimal and suboptimal treatment strategies for a mathematical model of leukemia, Math. Biosci. Eng., 10 (2013), 151-165. |
| [78] | M. Bocchia, A. Sicuranza, E. Abruzzese, A. Iurlo, S. Sirianni, A. Gozzini, et al., Residual Peripheral Blood CD26+ Leukemic Stem Cells in Chronic Myeloid Leukemia Patients During TKI Therapy and During Treatment-Free Remission, Front. Oncol., 8 (2018), 194 |
| [79] | G. Caocci, B. Martino, M. Greco, E. Abruzzese, M. M. Trawinska, S. Lai, et al., Killer immunoglobulin-like receptors can predict TKI treatment-free remission in chronic myeloid leukemia patients, Exp. Hematol., 43 (2015), 1015-1018. |
Figures(18) / Tables(1)
Pedro José Gutiérrez-Diez, Jose Russo. Design of personalized cancer treatments by use of optimal control problems: The case of chronic myeloid leukemia[J]. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2020, 17(5): 4773-4800. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2020261
| Eff. type | Frequency | Percent (%) |
| Exudate | 95 | 70.4% |
| Transudate | 40 | 29.6% |
| Total | 135 | 100.0% |
DownLoad: CSV| Male | Female | Total | ||||
| Eff. Type | No | % | No | % | No | % |
| Exudate | 64 | 67.4% | 31 | 32.6% | 95 | 70.4% |
| Transudate | 23 | 56.5% | 17 | 42.5% | 40 | 29.6% |
| Total | 87 | 64.4 | 48 | 45.6 | 135 | 100.0% |
DownLoad: CSV| 20-40 | 41-60 | > 60 | Total | |||||
| Eff. type | No | % | No | % | No | % | No | % |
| Exudate | 19 | 20 % | 28 | 29.5 % | 48 | 50.5 % | 95 | 70.4 % |
| Transudate | 10 | 25 % | 18 | 45 % | 12 | 30 % | 40 | 29.6 % |
| Total | 29 | 21.5 % | 46 | 34 % | 60 | 44.4 % | 135 | 100 % |
DownLoad: CSV| T.B | Pneu. | Pulm Ca. | Pulm emboli | Rheum Disease | Hepatic Cirrhosis | CHF | Total | |||||||||
| Eff. | No | % | No | % | No | % | No | % | No | % | No | % | No | % | No | % |
| Exud | 52 | 54.7% | 18 | 18.9% | 10 | 10.5% | 9 | 9.5% | 6 | 6.3% | 0 | 0% | 0 | 0% | 95 | 70.4% |
| Trans | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0% | 0 | 0% | 0 | 0% | 0 | 0% | 22 | 55% | 18 | 45% | 40 | 29.6% |
| Total | 52 | 38.5% | 18 | 13.3% | 10 | 7.4% | 9 | 6.7% | 6 | 4.4% | 22 | 16.3% | 18 | 14.8% | 135 | 100% |
DownLoad: CSV| Parameter | Type of sample | Type of effusion | Mean ± SEM |
| CHOL | Pleural fluid | Exudate | 1.92 ± 0.75 mmol/L * |
| Transudate | 0.52 ± 0.28 mmol/L * | ||
| Serum | Exudate | 3.56 ± 0.84 mmol/L * | |
| Transudate | 1.63 ± 0.75 mmol/L * | ||
| Protein | Pleural fluid | Exudate | 3.56 ± 095 g/dL * |
| Transudate | 0.93 ± 0.35 g/dL * | ||
| Serum | Exudate | 5.25 ± 0.88 g/dL * | |
| Transudate | 1.55 ± 0.61 g/dL * | ||
| LDH | Pleural fluid | Exudate | 285 ± 25 IU * |
| Transudate | 160 ± 22 IU * | ||
| Serum | Exudate | 235 ± 45 IU * | |
| Transudate | 134 ± 18 IU * |
DownLoad: CSV| Parameters | CHOL. Seru. | CHOL. Eff. | LDH Seru. | LDH Eff. | Prot. Seru. | Prot. Eff. | ||||||
| r | sig | r | sig | r | sig | r | sig | r | sig | r | sig | |
| CHOL.Seru. | 1 | 0.777** | 0.000 | 0.673** | 0.000 | 0.855** | 0.000 | 0.529** | 0.000 | 0.532** | 0.000 | |
| CHOL. Eff. | 0.777** | 0.000 | 1 | 0.867** | 0.000 | 0.667** | 0.000 | 0.061 | 0.000 | 0.791** | 0.000 | |
| LDH Seru. | 0.673** | 0.000 | 0.867** | 0.000 | 1 | 0.761** | 0.000 | 0.207** | 0.005 | 0.824** | 0.000 | |
| LDH Eff. | 0.855** | 0.000 | 0.667** | 0.000 | 0.761** | 0.000 | 1 | 0.690** | 0.000 | 0.630** | 0.000 | |
| Prot. Seru. | 0.529** | 0.000 | 0.061** | 0.000 | 0.207** | 0.005 | 0.690** | 0.000 | 1 | 0.699** | 0.000 | |
| Prot. Eff. | 0.532** | 0.000 | 0.791** | 0.000 | .824** | 0.000 | 0.630** | 0.000 | 0.699** | 0.000 | 1 | |
| ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). | ||||||||||||
DownLoad: CSV| Parameters | Sensitivity | Specificity | PPV | NPV | p value |
| CHOL ratio | 97.7% | 100.0% | 100.0% | 95.0% | < 0.0001 |
| Protein ratio | 81.4% | 81.6% | 89.7% | 70.4% | < 0.0001 |
| LDH ratio | 86.0% | 97.4% | 97.4% | 79.0% | < 0.0001 |
DownLoad: CSV| Eff. type | Frequency | Percent (%) |
| Exudate | 95 | 70.4% |
| Transudate | 40 | 29.6% |
| Total | 135 | 100.0% |
| Male | Female | Total | ||||
| Eff. Type | No | % | No | % | No | % |
| Exudate | 64 | 67.4% | 31 | 32.6% | 95 | 70.4% |
| Transudate | 23 | 56.5% | 17 | 42.5% | 40 | 29.6% |
| Total | 87 | 64.4 | 48 | 45.6 | 135 | 100.0% |
| 20-40 | 41-60 | > 60 | Total | |||||
| Eff. type | No | % | No | % | No | % | No | % |
| Exudate | 19 | 20 % | 28 | 29.5 % | 48 | 50.5 % | 95 | 70.4 % |
| Transudate | 10 | 25 % | 18 | 45 % | 12 | 30 % | 40 | 29.6 % |
| Total | 29 | 21.5 % | 46 | 34 % | 60 | 44.4 % | 135 | 100 % |
| T.B | Pneu. | Pulm Ca. | Pulm emboli | Rheum Disease | Hepatic Cirrhosis | CHF | Total | |||||||||
| Eff. | No | % | No | % | No | % | No | % | No | % | No | % | No | % | No | % |
| Exud | 52 | 54.7% | 18 | 18.9% | 10 | 10.5% | 9 | 9.5% | 6 | 6.3% | 0 | 0% | 0 | 0% | 95 | 70.4% |
| Trans | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0% | 0 | 0% | 0 | 0% | 0 | 0% | 22 | 55% | 18 | 45% | 40 | 29.6% |
| Total | 52 | 38.5% | 18 | 13.3% | 10 | 7.4% | 9 | 6.7% | 6 | 4.4% | 22 | 16.3% | 18 | 14.8% | 135 | 100% |
| Parameter | Type of sample | Type of effusion | Mean ± SEM |
| CHOL | Pleural fluid | Exudate | 1.92 ± 0.75 mmol/L * |
| Transudate | 0.52 ± 0.28 mmol/L * | ||
| Serum | Exudate | 3.56 ± 0.84 mmol/L * | |
| Transudate | 1.63 ± 0.75 mmol/L * | ||
| Protein | Pleural fluid | Exudate | 3.56 ± 095 g/dL * |
| Transudate | 0.93 ± 0.35 g/dL * | ||
| Serum | Exudate | 5.25 ± 0.88 g/dL * | |
| Transudate | 1.55 ± 0.61 g/dL * | ||
| LDH | Pleural fluid | Exudate | 285 ± 25 IU * |
| Transudate | 160 ± 22 IU * | ||
| Serum | Exudate | 235 ± 45 IU * | |
| Transudate | 134 ± 18 IU * |
| Parameters | CHOL. Seru. | CHOL. Eff. | LDH Seru. | LDH Eff. | Prot. Seru. | Prot. Eff. | ||||||
| r | sig | r | sig | r | sig | r | sig | r | sig | r | sig | |
| CHOL.Seru. | 1 | 0.777** | 0.000 | 0.673** | 0.000 | 0.855** | 0.000 | 0.529** | 0.000 | 0.532** | 0.000 | |
| CHOL. Eff. | 0.777** | 0.000 | 1 | 0.867** | 0.000 | 0.667** | 0.000 | 0.061 | 0.000 | 0.791** | 0.000 | |
| LDH Seru. | 0.673** | 0.000 | 0.867** | 0.000 | 1 | 0.761** | 0.000 | 0.207** | 0.005 | 0.824** | 0.000 | |
| LDH Eff. | 0.855** | 0.000 | 0.667** | 0.000 | 0.761** | 0.000 | 1 | 0.690** | 0.000 | 0.630** | 0.000 | |
| Prot. Seru. | 0.529** | 0.000 | 0.061** | 0.000 | 0.207** | 0.005 | 0.690** | 0.000 | 1 | 0.699** | 0.000 | |
| Prot. Eff. | 0.532** | 0.000 | 0.791** | 0.000 | .824** | 0.000 | 0.630** | 0.000 | 0.699** | 0.000 | 1 | |
| ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). | ||||||||||||
| Parameters | Sensitivity | Specificity | PPV | NPV | p value |
| CHOL ratio | 97.7% | 100.0% | 100.0% | 95.0% | < 0.0001 |
| Protein ratio | 81.4% | 81.6% | 89.7% | 70.4% | < 0.0001 |
| LDH ratio | 86.0% | 97.4% | 97.4% | 79.0% | < 0.0001 |
