The available mathematical models describing tumor growth and the effect of anticancer treatments on tumors in animals are of limited use within the drug industry. A simple and effective model would allow applying quantitative thinking to the preclinical development of oncology drugs. In this article, a minimal pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic model is presented, based on a system of ordinary differential equations that link the dosing regimen of a compound to the tumor growth in animal models. The growth of tumors in nontreated animals is described by an exponential growth followed by a linear growth. In treated animals, the tumor growth rate is decreased by a factor proportional to both drug concentration and number of proliferating tumor cells. A transit compartmental system is used to model the process of cell death, which occurs at later times. The parameters of the pharmacodynamic model are related to the growth characteristics of the tumor, to the drug potency, and to the kinetics of the tumor cell death. Therefore, such parameters can be used for ranking compounds based on their potency and for evaluating potential differences in the tumor cell death process. The model was extensively tested on discovery candidates and known anticancer drugs. It fitted well the experimental data, providing reliable parameter estimates. On the basis of the parameters estimated in a first experiment, the model successfully predicted the response of tumors exposed to drugs given at different dose levels and/or schedules. It is, thus, possible to use the model prospectively, optimizing the design of new experiments.

Population modeling of tumor size dynamics has recently emerged as an important tool in pharmacometric research. A series of new mixed‐effects models have been reported recently, and we present herein a synthetic view of models with published mathematical equations aimed at describing the dynamics of tumor size in cancer patients following anticancer drug treatment. This selection of models will constitute the basis for the Drug Disease Model Resources (DDMoRe) repository for models on oncology.CPT: Pharmacometrics & Systems Pharmacology (2014) 3, e113; doi:10.1038/psp.2014.12; advance online publication 7 May 2014

OBJECTIVE: After testing of a wearable artificial pancreas (AP) during evening and night (E/N-AP) under free-living conditions in patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D), we investigated AP during day and night (D/N-AP) for 1 month. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Twenty adult patients with T1D who completed a previous randomized crossover study comparing 2-month E/N-AP versus 2-month sensor augmented pump (SAP) volunteered for 1-month D/N-AP nonrandomized extension. AP was executed by a model predictive control algorithm run by a modified smartphone wirelessly connected to a continuous glucose monitor (CGM) and insulin pump. CGM data were analyzed by intention-to-treat with percentage time-in-target (3.9–10 mmol/L) over 24 h as the primary end point. RESULTS: Time-in-target (mean ± SD, %) was similar over 24 h with D/N-AP versus E/N-AP: 64.7 ± 7.6 vs. 63.6 ± 9.9 (P = 0.79), and both were higher than with SAP: 59.7 ± 9.6 (P = 0.01 and P = 0.06, respectively). Time below 3.9 mmol/L was similarly and significantly reduced by D/N-AP and E/N-AP versus SAP (both P < 0.001). SD of blood glucose concentration (mmol/L) was lower with D/N-AP versus E/N-AP during whole daytime: 3.2 ± 0.6 vs. 3.4 ± 0.7 (P = 0.003), morning: 2.7 ± 0.5 vs. 3.1 ± 0.5 (P = 0.02), and afternoon: 3.3 ± 0.6 vs. 3.5 ± 0.8 (P = 0.07), and was lower with D/N-AP versus SAP over 24 h: 3.1 ± 0.5 vs. 3.3 ± 0.6 (P = 0.049). Insulin delivery (IU) over 24 h was higher with D/N-AP and SAP than with E/N-AP: 40.6 ± 15.5 and 42.3 ± 15.5 vs. 36.6 ± 11.6 (P = 0.03 and P = 0.0004, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: D/N-AP and E/N-AP both achieved better glucose control than SAP under free-living conditions. Although time in the different glycemic ranges was similar between D/N-AP and E/N-AP, D/N-AP further reduces glucose variability.

In the last decades three-dimensional (3D) in vitro cancer models have been proposed as a bridge between bidimensional (2D) cell cultures and in vivo animal models, the gold standards in the preclinical assessment of anticancer drug efficacy. 3D in vitro cancer models can be generated through a multitude of techniques, from both immortalized cancer cell lines and primary patient-derived tumor tissue. Among them, spheroids and organoids represent the most versatile and promising models, as they faithfully recapitulate the complexity and heterogeneity of human cancers. Although their recent applications include drug screening programs and personalized medicine, 3D in vitro cancer models have not yet been established as preclinical tools for studying anticancer drug efficacy and supporting preclinical-to-clinical translation, which remains mainly based on animal experimentation. In this review, we describe the state-of-the-art of 3D in vitro cancer models for the efficacy evaluation of anticancer agents, focusing on their potential contribution to replace, reduce and refine animal experimentations, highlighting their strength and weakness, and discussing possible perspectives to overcome current challenges.

Genomic variant interpretation is a critical step of the diagnostic procedure, often supported by the application of tools that may predict the damaging impact of each variant or provide a guidelines-based classification. We propose the application of Machine Learning methodologies, in particular Penalized Logistic Regression, to support variant classification and prioritization. Our approach combines ACMG/AMP guidelines for germline variant interpretation as well as variant annotation features and provides a probabilistic score of pathogenicity, thus supporting the prioritization and classification of variants that would be interpreted as uncertain by the ACMG/AMP guidelines. We compared different approaches in terms of variant prioritization and classification on different datasets, showing that our data-driven approach is able to solve more variant of uncertain significance (VUS) cases in comparison with guidelines-based approaches and in silico prediction tools.