4.4 Article

Characterizing Chemotherapy-Induced Neutropenia and Monocytopenia Through Mathematical Modelling

期刊

BULLETIN OF MATHEMATICAL BIOLOGY
卷 82, 期 8, 页码 -

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11538-020-00777-0

关键词

Mathematical modeling; Monocytes; Neutrophils; Cyclic chemotherapy; G-CSF; Therapy rationalization

资金

  1. Natural Sciences and Research Council of Canada (NSERC)
  2. U.S. Department of Energy [89233218CNA000001]
  3. NIH [R01-AI116868, R01-OD011095]
  4. NSERC [RGPIN-2018-05062, RGPIN-2018-04546]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In spite of the recent focus on the development of novel targeted drugs to treat cancer, cytotoxic chemotherapy remains the standard treatment for the vast majority of patients. Unfortunately, chemotherapy is associated with high hematopoietic toxicity that may limit its efficacy. We have previously established potential strategies to mitigate chemotherapy-induced neutropenia (a lack of circulating neutrophils) using a mechanistic model of granulopoiesis to predict the interactions defining the neutrophil response to chemotherapy and to define optimal strategies for concurrent chemotherapy/prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF). Here, we extend our analyses to include monocyte production by constructing and parameterizing a model of monocytopoiesis. Using data for neutrophil and monocyte concentrations during chemotherapy in a large cohort of childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia patients, we leveraged our model to determine the relationship between the monocyte and neutrophil nadirs during cyclic chemotherapy. We show that monocytopenia precedes neutropenia by 3 days, and rationalize the use of G-CSF during chemotherapy by establishing that the onset of monocytopenia can be used as a clinical marker for G-CSF dosing post-chemotherapy. This work therefore has important clinical applications as a comprehensive approach to understanding the relationship between monocyte and neutrophils after cyclic chemotherapy with or without G-CSF support.

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