Intratumor heterogeneity alters most effective drugs in designed combinations
Edited by Gordon B. Mills, The University of Texas, M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, and accepted by the Editorial Board June 13, 2014 (received for review December 26, 2013)
Letter
September 24, 2014
Significance
Tumors within each cancer patient have been found to be extensively heterogeneous both spatially across distinct regions and temporally in response to treatment. This poses challenges for prognostic/diagnostic biomarker identification and rational design of optimal drug combinations to minimize reoccurrence. Here we present a computational approach incorporating drug efficacy and drug side effects to derive effective drug combinations and study how tumor heterogeneity affects drug selection. We find that considering subpopulations beyond just the predominant subpopulation in a heterogeneous tumor may result in nonintuitive drug combinations. Additional analyses reveal general properties of effective drugs. This study highlights the importance of optimizing drug combinations in the context of intratumor heterogeneity and offers a principled approach toward their rational design.
Abstract
The substantial spatial and temporal heterogeneity observed in patient tumors poses considerable challenges for the design of effective drug combinations with predictable outcomes. Currently, the implications of tissue heterogeneity and sampling bias during diagnosis are unclear for selection and subsequent performance of potential combination therapies. Here, we apply a multiobjective computational optimization approach integrated with empirical information on efficacy and toxicity for individual drugs with respect to a spectrum of genetic perturbations, enabling derivation of optimal drug combinations for heterogeneous tumors comprising distributions of subpopulations possessing these perturbations. Analysis across probabilistic samplings from the spectrum of various possible distributions reveals that the most beneficial (considering both efficacy and toxicity) set of drugs changes as the complexity of genetic heterogeneity increases. Importantly, a significant likelihood arises that a drug selected as the most beneficial single agent with respect to the predominant subpopulation in fact does not reside within the most broadly useful drug combinations for heterogeneous tumors. The underlying explanation appears to be that heterogeneity essentially homogenizes the benefit of drug combinations, reducing the special advantage of a particular drug on a specific subpopulation. Thus, this study underscores the importance of considering heterogeneity in choosing drug combinations and offers a principled approach toward designing the most likely beneficial set, even if the subpopulation distribution is not precisely known.
Acknowledgments
We thank Dane Wittrup and Leona Samson for their insightful comments. Funding was provided by Integrative Cancer Biology Program Grant U54-CA112967 (to M.T.H. and D.A.L.). B.Z. is supported by National Institutes of Health/National Institute of General Medical Sciences Interdepartmental Biotechnology Training Program 5T32GM008334.
Supporting Information
Appendix (PDF)
Supporting Information
- Download
- 6.72 MB
References
1
PC Nowell, The clonal evolution of tumor cell populations. Science 194, 23–28 (1976).
2
A Marusyk, V Almendro, K Polyak, Intra-tumour heterogeneity: A looking glass for cancer? Nat Rev Cancer 12, 323–334 (2012).
3
M Snuderl, et al., Mosaic amplification of multiple receptor tyrosine kinase genes in glioblastoma. Cancer Cell 20, 810–817 (2011).
4
N Navin, et al., Tumour evolution inferred by single-cell sequencing. Nature 472, 90–94 (2011).
5
M Gerlinger, et al., Intratumor heterogeneity and branched evolution revealed by multiregion sequencing. N Engl J Med 366, 883–892 (2012).
6
F Notta, et al., Evolution of human BCR-ABL1 lymphoblastic leukaemia-initiating cells. Nature 469, 362–367 (2011).
7
K Anderson, et al., Genetic variegation of clonal architecture and propagating cells in leukaemia. Nature 469, 356–361 (2011).
8
PJ Campbell, et al., Subclonal phylogenetic structures in cancer revealed by ultra-deep sequencing. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105, 13081–13086 (2008).
9
L Ding, et al., Clonal evolution in relapsed acute myeloid leukaemia revealed by whole-genome sequencing. Nature 481, 506–510 (2012).
10
JJ Keats, et al., Clonal competition with alternating dominance in multiple myeloma. Blood 120, 1067–1076 (2012).
11
S Misale, et al., Emergence of KRAS mutations and acquired resistance to anti-EGFR therapy in colorectal cancer. Nature 486, 532–536 (2012).
12
CG Mullighan, et al., Genomic analysis of the clonal origins of relapsed acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Science 322, 1377–1380 (2008).
13
GW Swan, Role of optimal control theory in cancer chemotherapy. Math Biosci 101, 237–284 (1990).
14
J Shi, O Alagoz, FS Erenay, Q Su, A survey of optimization models on cancer chemotherapy treatment planning. Ann Oper Res, 2011).
15
RB Martin, Optimal control drug scheduling of cancer chemotherapy. Automatica 28, 1113–1123 (1992).
16
GW Swan, TL Vincent, Optimal control analysis in the chemotherapy of IgG multiple myeloma. Bull Math Biol 39, 317–337 (1977).
17
AJ Coldman, JH Goldie, A model for the resistance of tumor cells to cancer chemotherapeutic agents. Math Biosci 65, 291–307 (1983).
18
RA Beckman, GS Schemmann, C-H Yeang, Impact of genetic dynamics and single-cell heterogeneity on development of nonstandard personalized medicine strategies for cancer. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 109, 14586–14591 (2012).
19
I Bozic, et al., Evolutionary dynamics of cancer in response to targeted combination therapy. eLife 2, e00747 (2013).
20
J Foo, F Michor, Evolution of resistance to targeted anti-cancer therapies during continuous and pulsed administration strategies. PLOS Comput Biol 5, e1000557 (2009).
21
NL Komarova, D Wodarz, Drug resistance in cancer: principles of emergence and prevention. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 102, 9714–9719 (2005).
22
M Das Thakur, et al., Modelling vemurafenib resistance in melanoma reveals a strategy to forestall drug resistance. Nature 494, 251–255 (2013).
23
J Chmielecki, et al., Optimization of dosing for EGFR-mutant non-small cell lung cancer with evolutionary cancer modeling. Sci Transl Med 3, 90ra59 (2011).
24
ML Radhakrishnan, B Tidor, Optimal drug cocktail design: Methods for targeting molecular ensembles and insights from theoretical model systems. J Chem Inf Model 48, 1055–1073 (2008).
25
B Zhao, JR Pritchard, DA Lauffenburger, MT Hemann, Addressing genetic tumor heterogeneity through computationally predictive combination therapy. Cancer Discov 4, 166–174 (2014).
26
JR Pritchard, et al., Defining principles of combination drug mechanisms of action. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 110, E170–E179 (2013).
27
C Swanton, Intratumor heterogeneity: Evolution through space and time. Cancer Res 72, 4875–4882 (2012).
28
K-Y Su, et al., Pretreatment epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) T790M mutation predicts shorter EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor response duration in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol 30, 433–440 (2012).
29
H Jiang, JR Pritchard, RT Williams, DA Lauffenburger, MT Hemann, A mammalian functional-genetic approach to characterizing cancer therapeutics. Nat Chem Biol 7, 92–100 (2011).
30
JM Adams, et al., The c-myc oncogene driven by immunoglobulin enhancers induces lymphoid malignancy in transgenic mice. Nature 318, 533–538 (1985).
31
CA Schmitt, ME McCurrach, E de Stanchina, RR Wallace-Brodeur, SW Lowe, INK4a/ARF mutations accelerate lymphomagenesis and promote chemoresistance by disabling p53. Genes Dev 13, 2670–2677 (1999).
32
J Barretina, et al., The Cancer Cell Line Encyclopedia enables predictive modelling of anticancer drug sensitivity. Nature 483, 603–607 (2012).
33
R Pena-Miller, et al., When the most potent combination of antibiotics selects for the greatest bacterial load: The smile-frown transition. PLoS Biol 11, e1001540 (2013).
34
M Hegreness, N Shoresh, D Damian, D Hartl, R Kishony, Accelerated evolution of resistance in multidrug environments. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105, 13977–13981 (2008).
35
J Besnard, et al., Automated design of ligands to polypharmacological profiles. Nature 492, 215–220 (2012).
Information & Authors
Information
Published in
Classifications
Copyright
Freely available online through the PNAS open access option.
Submission history
Published online: July 7, 2014
Published in issue: July 22, 2014
Keywords
Acknowledgments
We thank Dane Wittrup and Leona Samson for their insightful comments. Funding was provided by Integrative Cancer Biology Program Grant U54-CA112967 (to M.T.H. and D.A.L.). B.Z. is supported by National Institutes of Health/National Institute of General Medical Sciences Interdepartmental Biotechnology Training Program 5T32GM008334.
Notes
This article is a PNAS Direct Submission. G.B.M. is a guest editor invited by the Editorial Board.
Authors
Competing Interests
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Altmetrics
Citations
Cite this article
Intratumor heterogeneity alters most effective drugs in designed combinations, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.
111 (29) 10773-10778,
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1323934111
(2014).
Copied!
Copying failed.
Export the article citation data by selecting a format from the list below and clicking Export.
Cited by
Loading...
View Options
View options
PDF format
Download this article as a PDF file
DOWNLOAD PDFLogin options
Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.
Personal login Institutional LoginRecommend to a librarian
Recommend PNAS to a LibrarianPurchase options
Purchase this article to access the full text.