4.4 Article

On the importance of the submicrovascular network in a computational model of tumour growth

期刊

MICROVASCULAR RESEARCH
卷 84, 期 2, 页码 188-204

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.mvr.2012.06.001

关键词

-

资金

  1. CNRS [PEPS-INS2I 2010-2011]
  2. French National Network
  3. Rhone-Alpes Institute for Complex System (RNCS)
  4. Rhone-Alpes Institute for Complex System (IXXI)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A computational model is potentially a powerful tool to apprehend complex phenomena like solid tumour growth and to predict the outcome of therapies. To that end, the confrontation of the model with experiments is essential to validate this tool. In this study, we develop a computational model specifically dedicated to the interpretation of tumour growth as observed in a mouse model with a dorsal skinfold chamber. Observation of the skin vasculature at the dorsal window scale shows a sparse network of a few main vessels of several hundreds micrometers in diameter. However observation at a smaller scale reveals the presence of a dense and regular interconnected network of capillaries about ten times smaller. We conveniently designate this structure as the submicrovascular network (SMVN).(1) The question that we wish to answer concerns the necessity of explicitly taking into account the SMVN in the computational model to describe the tumour evolution observed in the dorsal chamber. For that, simulations of tumour growth realised with and without the SMVN are compared and lead to two distinct scenarios. Parameters that are known to strongly influence the tumour evolution are then tested in the two cases to determine to which extent those parameters can be used to compensate the observed differences between these scenarios. Explicit modelling of the smallest vessels appears mandatory although not necessarily under the form of a regular grid. A compromise between the two investigated cases can thus be reached. (C) 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据