Review Article | Published:

In silico cancer modeling: is it ready for prime time?

Nature Clinical Practice Oncology volume 6, pages 3442 (2009) | Download Citation



At the dawn of the era of personalized, systems-driven medicine, computational or in silico modeling and the simulation of disease processes is becoming increasingly important for hypothesis generation and data integration in both experiments and clinics alike. Arguably, the use of these techniques is nowhere more visible than in oncology. To illustrate the field's vast potential, as well as its current limitations, we briefly review selected studies on modeling malignant brain tumors. Implications for clinical practice, and for clinical trial design and outcome prediction, are also discussed.

Key points

  • In generating experimentally testable hypotheses and facilitating multimodality data integration, in silico modeling is a driving force behind cancer systems biology

  • As exemplified by reviewing selected works on malignant brain tumors, practical applications for computational and mathematical cancer modeling reach from simulating aspects of tumor initiation and progression to modeling of treatment effect

  • In silico modeling is a tool geared to aiding experimental researchers and physicians in investigating the complex processes involved in tumorigenesis, thus supporting innovative discovery research and accelerating the identification of promising targets

  • Although there is no single simulator platform that fits all needs, discrete–continuum (hybrid) modeling, especially agent-based approaches, is particularly promising in integrating molecular, microscopic and macroscopic oncology data and in analyzing processes across scales in space and time

Access optionsAccess options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from $8.99

All prices are NET prices.


  1. 1.

    et al. (2006) In the pursuit of complexity: systems medicine in cancer biology. Cancer Cell 9: 245–247

  2. 2.

    (2002) Computational systems biology. Nature 420: 206–210

  3. 3.

    et al. (2006) Cancer: a systems biology disease. Biosystems 83: 81–90

  4. 4.

    (1998) Self-organization, complexity and chaos: the new biology for medicine. Nat Med 4: 882–885

  5. 5.

    et al. (2006) The clinical applications of a systems approach. PLoS Med 3: e209

  6. 6.

    The Integrative Cancer Biology Program []

  7. 7.

    et al. (2006) Tumor morphology and phenotypic evolution driven by selective pressure from the microenvironment. Cell 127: 905–915

  8. 8.

    et al. (2006) Evolution of cooperation among tumor cells. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 103: 13474–13479

  9. 9.

    and (2003) An evolutionary model of carcinogenesis. Cancer Res 63: 6212–6220

  10. 10.

    et al. (2006) Evolutionary game theory in an agent-based brain tumor model: exploring the 'Genotype-Phenotype' link. J Theor Biol 238: 146–156

  11. 11.

    et al. (2003) Does tumor growth follow a “universal law”. J Theor Biol 225: 147–151

  12. 12.

    et al. (2006) The dynamic evolution of the power exponent in a universal growth model of tumors. J Theor Biol 240: 459–463

  13. 13.

    and (2000) Fractals and cancer. Cancer Res 60: 3683–3688

  14. 14.

    (1997) Fractals in pathology. J Pathol 182: 1–8

  15. 15.

    (2005) Conceptual and practical implications of breast tissue geometry: toward a more effective, less toxic therapy. Oncologist 10: 370–381

  16. 16.

    et al. (2007) The human disease network. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104: 8685–8690

  17. 17.

    et al. (1994) Analysis of growth of multicellular tumour spheroids by mathematical models. Cell Prolif 27: 73–94

  18. 18.

    and (1982) Evaluation of some mathematical models for tumor growth. Int J Biomed Comput 13: 19–36

  19. 19.

    et al. (2003) A cellular automaton model for tumour growth in inhomogeneous environment. J Theor Biol 225: 257–274

  20. 20.

    et al. (2007) A cell-based model exhibiting branching and anastomosis during tumor-induced angiogenesis. Biophys J 92: 3105–3121

  21. 21.

    et al. (2006) Mathematical modelling of dynamic adaptive tumour-induced angiogenesis: clinical implications and therapeutic targeting strategies. J Theor Biol 241: 564–589

  22. 22.

    and (2004) Lattice and non-lattice models of tumour angiogenesis. Bull Math Biol 66: 1785–1819

  23. 23.

    and (2004) An error catastrophe in cancer. J Theor Biol 228: 47–54

  24. 24.

    et al. (2006) Modeling somatic evolution in tumorigenesis. PLoS Comput Biol 2: e108

  25. 25.

    et al. (2005) Computational modeling of the immune response to tumor antigens. J Theor Biol 237: 390–400

  26. 26.

    et al. (2004) Analysis of a three-way race between tumor growth, a replication-competent virus and an immune response. Bull Math Biol 66: 605–625

  27. 27.

    et al. (2007) Predictive oncology: a review of multidisciplinary, multiscale in silico modeling linking phenotype, morphology and growth. Neuroimage 37 (Suppl 1): S120–S134

  28. 28.

    (1972) Models for the growth of a solid tumor by diffusion. Stud Appl Math: 317–340

  29. 29.

    (1976) On the growth and stability of cell cultures and solid tumors. J Theor Biol 56: 229-242

  30. 30.

    and (1993) Modelling the growth of solid tumours and incorporating a method for their classification using nonlinear elasticity theory. J Math Biol 31: 431–473

  31. 31.

    et al. (2005) Nonlinear simulation of tumor necrosis, neo-vascularization and tissue invasion via an adaptive finite-element/level-set method. Bull Math Biol 67: 211–259

  32. 32.

    and (2006) Dynamics and pattern formation in invasive tumor growth. Phys Rev Lett 96: 188103

  33. 33.

    et al. (2006) An integrated computational/experimental model of tumor invasion. Cancer Res 66: 1597–1604

  34. 34.

    and (1996) A patient-specific in vivo tumor model. Math Biosci 136: 111–140

  35. 35.

    et al. (2005) Realistic simulation of the 3-D growth of brain tumors in MR images coupling diffusion with biomechanical deformation. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 24: 1334–1346

  36. 36.

    et al. (2007) A recursive anisotropic fast marching approach to reaction diffusion equation: application to tumor growth modeling. Inf Process Med Imaging 20: 687–699

  37. 37.

    (1977) The Finite Element Method, edn 3. London: NCGraw-Hill

  38. 38.

    et al. (1997) The interaction of growth rates and diffusion coefficients in a three-dimensional mathematical model of gliomas. J Neuropathol Exp Neurol 56: 704–713

  39. 39.

    et al. (1995) The modeling of diffusive tumors. J Biol System 3: 937–945

  40. 40.

    et al. (1995) A mathematical model of glioma growth: the effect of chemotherapy on spatio-temporal growth. Cell Prolif 28: 17–31

  41. 41.

    et al. (1996) A mathematical model of glioma growth: the effect of extent of surgical resection. Cell Prolif 29: 269–288

  42. 42.

    et al. (1994) Tumors of the Central Nervous Systems, edn 3. Washington, DC: Armed Forces Institute Pathology

  43. 43.

    et al. (1993) The new WHO classification of brain tumours. Brain Pathol 3: 255–268

  44. 44.

    et al. (1993) Histological Typing of Tumors of the Central Nervous System, edn 2. Berlin: Springer

  45. 45.

    et al. (2000) A quantitative model for differential motility of gliomas in grey and white matter. Cell Prolif 33: 317–329

  46. 46.

    et al. (2002) Virtual brain tumours (gliomas) enhance the reality of medical imaging and highlight inadequacies of current therapy. Br J Cancer 86: 14–18

  47. 47.

    and (1997) Two-dimensional models of tumour angiogenesis and anti-angiogenesis strategies. IMA J Math Appl Med Biol 14: 189–205

  48. 48.

    et al. (2000) Simulated brain tumor growth dynamics using a three-dimensional cellular automaton. J Theor Biol 203: 367–382

  49. 49.

    et al. (2000) Cellular automaton of idealized brain tumor growth dynamics. Biosystems 55: 119–127

  50. 50.

    (1994) Cellular Automata and Complexity: Collected Papers. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley

  51. 51.

    et al. (2001) Pattern of self-organization in tumour systems: complex growth dynamics in a novel brain tumour spheroid model. Cell Prolif 34: 115–134

  52. 52.

    and (2003) The impact of “search precision” in an agent-based tumor model. J Theor Biol 224: 325–337

  53. 53.

    et al. (2002) Emerging patterns in tumor systems: simulating the dynamics of multicellular clusters with an agent-based spatial agglomeration model. J Theor Biol 219: 343–370

  54. 54.

    et al. (2005) Simulating the impact of a molecular 'decision-process' on cellular phenotype and multicellular patterns in brain tumors. J Theor Biol 233: 469–481

  55. 55.

    and (2006) The effects of EGF-receptor density on multiscale tumor growth patterns. J Theor Biol 238: 771–779

  56. 56.

    and (2007) Genetic pathways to primary and secondary glioblastoma. Am J Pathol 170: 1445–1453

  57. 57.

    et al. (2005) Molecular determinants of the response of glioblastomas to EGFR kinase inhibitors. N Engl J Med 353: 2012–2024

  58. 58.

    et al. (2007) Development of a three-dimensional multiscale agent-based tumor model: simulating gene-protein interaction profiles, cell phenotypes and multicellular patterns in brain cancer. J Theor Biol 244: 96–107

  59. 59.

    et al. (2002) Computational modeling of the dynamics of the MAP kinase cascade activated by surface and internalized EGF receptors. Nat Biotechnol 20: 370–375

  60. 60.

    et al. (2004) A mathematical model of the effects of hypoxia on the cell-cycle of normal and cancer cells. J Theor Biol 229: 395–411

  61. 61.

    et al. (2007) Computer simulation of glioma growth and morphology. Neuroimage 37 (Suppl 1): S59–S70

  62. 62.

    et al. (2002) Quantifying efficacy of chemotherapy of brain tumors with homogeneous and heterogeneous drug delivery. Acta Biotheor 50: 223–237

  63. 63.

    et al. (2006) Mathematical modeling of cancer progression and response to chemotherapy. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther 6: 1361–1376

  64. 64.

    et al. (2007) A mathematical model of the treatment and survival of patients with high-grade brain tumours. J Theor Biol 245: 112–124

  65. 65.

    et al. (2007) Mathematical modelling of survival of patients with glioblastoma following radical and palliative radiotherapy. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 19: S35–S36

  66. 66.

    et al. (2004) A four-dimensional simulation model of tumour response to radiotherapy in vivo: parametric validation considering radiosensitivity, genetic profile and fractionation. J Theor Biol 230: 1–20

  67. 67.

    (1989) The linear-quadratic formula and progress in fractionated radiotherapy. Br J Radiol 62: 679–694

  68. 68.

    et al. (2006) A four-dimensional computer simulation model of the in vivo response to radiotherapy of glioblastoma multiforme: studies on the effect of clonogenic cell density. Br J Radiol 79: 389–400

  69. 69.

    et al. (2005) A mathematical model of combination therapy using the EGFR signaling network. Biosystems 80: 57–69

  70. 70.

    et al. (2007) Computational modeling to predict effect of treatment schedule on drug delivery to prostate in humans. Clin Cancer Res 13: 1278–1287

  71. 71.

    and (2005) Molecular imaging in the clinical arena. JAMA 293: 855–862

  72. 72.

    Center for the Development of a Virtual Tumor []

  73. 73.

    et al. (2007) Advancing cancer systems biology: introducing the Center for the Development of a Virtual Tumor, CViT. Cancer Informatics: 1–8

  74. 74.

    et al. (2008) Simulating brain tumor heterogeneity with a multiscale agent-based model: linking molecular signatures, phenotypes and expansion rate. Math Comput Model (in press) [10.1016/j.mcm.2008.05.011]

Download references


This work has been supported, in part, by NIH grants CA 085139 and CA 113004 (CViT; and by the Harvard-MIT (HST) Athinoula A Martinos Center for Biomedical Imaging and the Department of Radiology at Massachusetts General Hospital.

Author information


  1. TS Deisboeck is Assistant Professor of Radiology and J Yoon is a Postdoctoral Research Fellow at the Complex Biosystems Modeling Laboratory, Harvard-MIT (HST) Athinoula A Martinos Center for Biomedical Imaging, Massachusetts General Hospital, Charlestown, MA, USA,

    • Thomas S Deisboeck
    • , Le Zhang
    • , Jeongah Yoon
    •  & Jose Costa
  2. L Zhang is Assistant Professor, Department of Mathematical Sciences, Michigan Technological University, Houghton, MI, USA, and

  3. J Costa is Professor of Pathology and Medicine (Oncology), Department of Pathology, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA.


  1. Search for Thomas S Deisboeck in:

  2. Search for Le Zhang in:

  3. Search for Jeongah Yoon in:

  4. Search for Jose Costa in:

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Thomas S Deisboeck.

About this article

Publication history