pith. sign in

arxiv: 2508.12297 · v1 · pith:MQLEBK7Vnew · submitted 2025-08-17 · 🧬 q-bio.TO · q-bio.QM

A stochastic agent-based model for simulating tumor-immune dynamics and evaluating therapeutic strategies

Yuhong Zhang , Chenghang Li , Boya Wang , Jinzhi Lei This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-21 22:07 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🧬 q-bio.TO q-bio.QM
keywords stochastic agent-based modeltumor-immune dynamicstherapeutic strategiesdrug resistancecombination therapycancer simulationimmunotherapytargeted therapy
0
0 comments X

The pith

New agent-based model shows targeted therapy with immunotherapy best controls tumors and delays resistance.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

This paper builds a stochastic agent-based model that simulates how tumors grow alongside immune cells in a spatial 2D environment. The model includes tumor cells and three types of T cells, with rules for their division, death, movement, and interactions. When different treatments are applied in the simulations, all reduce tumor size but the combination of targeted therapy and immunotherapy works best at keeping tumors in check and slowing resistance. The results also show that treatment strength does not increase effectiveness linearly and point to sweet spots for dosing. Overall, it provides a flexible computer tool to study and improve cancer treatment approaches.

Core claim

The authors create a simulation where individual cells follow probabilistic rules for growth and interaction within a grid representing the tumor microenvironment. Applying therapies in this virtual setting reveals that combination approaches, in particular targeted therapy alongside immunotherapy, suppress tumor expansion more successfully than single treatments and push back the development of resistant tumor cells. The simulations also produce patterns of immune cells being excluded from tumor areas, matching observations in patients.

What carries the argument

The stochastic agent-based model incorporating spatial cell interactions, heterogeneity, and resistance evolution among tumor cells, cytotoxic T lymphocytes, helper T cells, and regulatory T cells.

If this is right

  • All therapies suppress tumor growth to varying degrees.
  • Combination therapies achieve the most effective tumor control and delay resistance.
  • Nonlinear relationship between treatment intensity and therapeutic efficacy exists.
  • Optimal dosing thresholds can be identified.
  • The model is useful for evaluating and optimizing cancer treatment strategies.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Validating the model against real patient data could make it a tool for personalizing combination therapies.
  • The spatial exclusion of immune cells highlighted here may explain why some immunotherapies fail and suggest ways to overcome that.
  • Future versions could test therapies in more complex settings like 3D tumors or with additional cell types.
  • Such models might help prioritize which drug combinations to test in clinical trials.

Load-bearing premise

The rules set for cell proliferation, apoptosis, migration, immune regulation, and drug responses in the model reflect the true dynamics of tumors and the immune system.

What would settle it

A set of experiments that track tumor size and the numbers and locations of immune cells over time in response to the simulated therapies, which would either confirm or contradict the quantitative results from the model.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.12297 by Boya Wang, Chenghang Li, Jinzhi Lei, Yuhong Zhang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Mechanistic diagram of intercellular interactions within the tumor-immune microenvironment. Tumor cells evade immune surveillance by inducing apoptosis in CTLs and Th cells, while promoting Treg proliferation. Tregs further exert immunosuppressive functions to enhance the death of CTLs and Th cells. Th cells augment antitumor immune response by stimulating CTL proliferation, with CTLs serving as the key ef… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Schematic diagram of cell fate decision rules. (A) Rules for updating cellular behaviors: death, proliferation, migration, and stationarity. (B) Definition of distance from a cancer cell. The model is implemented in the C++ programming language and runs on both Linux and Microsoft Windows systems. The program workflow is shown in Fig.3 and Algorithm 1. The main steps are: (1) System initialization: Read al… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Stochastic simulation computational workflow. The left panel shows the main procedural framework. The two key modules used for calculating cell update rates (purple) and updating states (red) are shown as color-coded flowcharts. 10 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Simulation of tumor evolution under tumor-immune cell interactions. (A) Cell population dynamics over 60 days, with shaded regions showing the ranges of 100 stochastic simulations and solid lines indicating their mean values. (B) The ratio of CTLs to tumor cells over time. (C) Two-dimensional spatial distributions recorded every 5 days: gray dots for tumor cells, red dots for CTLs, green dots for Tregs, bl… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Simulated tumor-immune system dynamics under radiotherapy. (A) Radiotherapy is administered from day 5 to day 60 on top of baseline simulation. Solid lines show averaged cell population changes across 100 stochastic simulations. (B) Change in the ratio of CTLs to the number of tumor cells over time under radiotherapy. (C) Tumor-immune system spatial distributions at different time points. 14 [PITH_FULL_IM… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Simulation of tumor-immune system dynamics under targeted therapy. (A) Cell population changes from day 5 to day 60 with targeted therapy on top of baseline simulation. Solid lines show mean values from 100 stochastic simulations (B) CTL to tumor cell number ratio changes over time. (C) Two-dimensional spatial distributions of the tumor-immune system at selected timepoints. 16 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/ful… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Simulated tumor-immune system dynamics under immunotherapy. (A) Cell population changes from day 5, when immune checkpoint inhibitor treatment begin, until day 60, when the simulation ended. Solid lines show averages of 100 simulations. (B) Changes in the ratio of CTLs to tumor cells over time under immunotherapy. (C) Two-dimensional spatial distributions of the tumor-immune system at selected time points.… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Dynamic changes of tumor cell drug resistance during targeted therapy and immunotherapy. The probability distribution of drug resistance metrics across all tumor cells is calculated every 10 days. (A) Distribution under targeted therapy. (B) Distribution under immunotherapy. The findings based on model simulations provide crucial insights into the mechanisms of tumor drug resistance evolution under differe… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Cell population comparisons under different treatment modalities at day 60. (A) Tumor cell count. (B) Cytotoxic T cell count. (C) Regulatory T cell count. (D) Helper T cell count. immunosuppressive cell activity. These results provide critical evidence for optimizing treatment strategies, suggesting that combination therapies may further improve therapeutic outcomes. To comprehensively evaluate the efficac… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Therapeutic efficacy evaluation under monotherapies and combination therapies. (A) Radiotherapy. (B) Targeted therapy. (C) Immunotherapy. (D) Radiotherapy plus immunotherapy. (E) Radiotherapy plus targeted therapy. (F) Targeted therapy plus immunotherapy. dynamics (Figs. 11–13). This approach enables quantitative comparison of therapeutic efficacy across strategies and their dynamic impacts on the TME. Th… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Dynamic evolution of the tumor-immune system under varying radiotherapy intensities. By adjusting the tumor cell radiosensitivity parameter p C dea,rad to simulate different intensities—p C dea,rad = 200.00, 300.00, 400.00, 500.00, 600.00—five parameter sets are tested. (A) Tumor cells. (B) Cytotoxic T cells. (C) Regulatory T cells. (D) Helper T cells. Following targeted therapy initiation, tumor cell cou… view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Dynamic evolution of the tumor-immune system under varying targeted therapy intensities. The regulatory coefficient p C dea,tar for targeted therapy-induced tumor cell death is varied to simulate different treatment intensities, with five parameter values tested: p C dea,tar = 200.00, 300.00, 400.00, 500.00, 600.00. (A) Tumor cells. (B) Cytotoxic T cells. (C) Regulatory T cells. (D) Helper T cells. Increa… view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Dynamic evolution of the tumor-immune system under varying immunotherapy intensities. Different treatment intensities are simulated by adjusting the immunotherapy-induced tumor cell death rate coefficient p C dea,ICI , with five parameter sets: p C dea,ICI = 14, 000.00, 16, 000.000, 18, 000.00, 22, 000.00, 24, 000.00. (A) Tumor cells. (B) Cytotoxic T cells. (C) Regulatory T cells. (D) Helper T cells. 4. C… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Tumor-immune interactions are central to cancer progression and treatment outcomes. In this study, we present a stochastic agent-based model that integrates cellular heterogeneity, spatial cell-cell interactions, and drug resistance evolution to simulate tumor growth and immune response in a two-dimensional microenvironment. The model captures dynamic behaviors of four major cell types--tumor cells, cytotoxic T lymphocytes, helper T cells, and regulatory T cells--and incorporates key biological processes such as proliferation, apoptosis, migration, and immune regulation. Using this framework, we simulate tumor progression under different therapeutic interventions, including radiotherapy, targeted therapy, and immune checkpoint blockade. Our simulations reproduce emergent phenomena such as immune privilege and spatial immune exclusion. Quantitative analyses show that all therapies suppress tumor growth to varying degrees and reshape the tumor microenvironment. Notably, combination therapies--especially targeted therapy with immunotherapy--achieve the most effective tumor control and delay the emergence of resistance. Additionally, sensitivity analyses reveal a nonlinear relationship between treatment intensity and therapeutic efficacy, highlighting the existence of optimal dosing thresholds. This work demonstrates the utility of agent-based modeling in capturing complex tumor-immune dynamics and provides a computational platform for optimizing cancer treatment strategies. The model is extensible, biologically interpretable, and well-suited for future integration with experimental or clinical data.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents a stochastic agent-based model in a two-dimensional microenvironment that simulates tumor-immune dynamics using four cell types (tumor cells, cytotoxic T lymphocytes, helper T cells, and regulatory T cells). The model incorporates proliferation, apoptosis, migration, immune regulation, and drug resistance evolution to evaluate monotherapies (radiotherapy, targeted therapy, immune checkpoint blockade) and combinations. It claims to reproduce emergent behaviors such as immune privilege and spatial immune exclusion, with quantitative results indicating that all therapies suppress tumor growth to varying degrees and that combination therapies, especially targeted therapy with immunotherapy, achieve the most effective tumor control while delaying resistance emergence; sensitivity analyses further identify nonlinear relationships between treatment intensity and efficacy with optimal dosing thresholds.

Significance. An extensible, spatially explicit stochastic agent-based framework that integrates cellular heterogeneity and resistance dynamics could serve as a useful platform for in silico testing of therapeutic strategies in computational oncology. The reproduction of immune exclusion and the exploration of combination effects address relevant biological questions. However, because the reported therapy rankings and nonlinear thresholds derive from forward simulations with uncalibrated parameters and lack quantitative comparison to experimental datasets, the specific efficacy claims have limited predictive value even if the modeling approach itself is sound.

major comments (2)
  1. Abstract: The central claim that 'combination therapies—especially targeted therapy with immunotherapy—achieve the most effective tumor control and delay the emergence of resistance' is not supported by any reported quantitative validation metrics, error bars, statistical comparisons, or direct matching to experimental tumor-volume time series or TIL counts, rendering the ranking an output of the chosen (uncalibrated) parameter set rather than a robust prediction.
  2. Model formulation and parameter section: The free parameters governing cell proliferation and apoptosis rates, therapy efficacy and resistance, and immune interaction strengths are stated without reference to measured values from any specific tumor model system; no calibration to time-series data or hold-out validation against independent experiments is described, which is load-bearing for all quantitative therapy-ranking conclusions.
minor comments (1)
  1. Abstract: The phrase 'quantitative analyses show...' would be clearer if the specific metrics (e.g., mean tumor cell count at day 30, resistance fraction) were named.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and detailed comments on our manuscript. We have addressed each major point below, clarifying the scope of our modeling study and indicating where revisions will be made to better contextualize our claims and parameter choices.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: Abstract: The central claim that 'combination therapies—especially targeted therapy with immunotherapy—achieve the most effective tumor control and delay the emergence of resistance' is not supported by any reported quantitative validation metrics, error bars, statistical comparisons, or direct matching to experimental tumor-volume time series or TIL counts, rendering the ranking an output of the chosen (uncalibrated) parameter set rather than a robust prediction.

    Authors: We agree that the reported therapy rankings and efficacy observations are outputs of forward simulations using a chosen parameter set and are not accompanied by statistical validation or direct matching to experimental time series. The study is designed as an in silico exploration of an extensible framework rather than a calibrated predictive model for a specific system. We will revise the abstract to explicitly state that these results are model-derived insights under the simulated conditions and will add language emphasizing the need for experimental validation in future work. revision: yes

  2. Referee: Model formulation and parameter section: The free parameters governing cell proliferation and apoptosis rates, therapy efficacy and resistance, and immune interaction strengths are stated without reference to measured values from any specific tumor model system; no calibration to time-series data or hold-out validation against independent experiments is described, which is load-bearing for all quantitative therapy-ranking conclusions.

    Authors: The parameter values were drawn from literature-reported ranges for typical tumor-immune interactions to enable the model to reproduce qualitative emergent behaviors such as immune exclusion. No calibration to a specific experimental dataset was performed, as the primary goal is to introduce a general stochastic agent-based platform. We will expand the parameter section with additional citations to the sources of the chosen ranges and include a dedicated discussion subsection outlining approaches for future calibration and validation against experimental data. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: forward simulations from stated rules produce outcomes without retroactive definition or self-referential fitting.

full rationale

The paper defines an agent-based model with explicit stochastic rules for proliferation, apoptosis, migration, immune regulation, and drug responses across four cell types, then executes forward simulations to generate tumor growth trajectories and therapy rankings. Reported results (e.g., combination therapy superiority, emergent immune exclusion) are direct consequences of these input rules and parameter choices rather than quantities used to calibrate or redefine the rules themselves. No equations or sections indicate that simulation outputs are fed back to adjust core dynamics, no self-citation load-bearing uniqueness theorems are invoked, and no fitted parameters are relabeled as independent predictions. The framework is therefore self-contained as a computational exploration tool; any limitations lie in external validation rather than internal circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on numerous domain assumptions about cellular behaviors and a large set of tunable parameters whose values are not reported in the abstract.

free parameters (3)
  • cell proliferation and apoptosis rates
    Rates governing division and death for each cell type must be assigned to produce realistic growth dynamics.
  • therapy efficacy and resistance parameters
    Values controlling how radiotherapy, targeted agents, and checkpoint blockade affect cells and how resistance evolves are required for the reported outcomes.
  • immune interaction strengths
    Parameters determining suppression by regulatory T cells and activation by helper T cells are needed to generate immune exclusion and response.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Tumor cells, cytotoxic T lymphocytes, helper T cells, and regulatory T cells interact through proliferation, apoptosis, migration, and immune regulation in a two-dimensional spatial microenvironment.
    This is the foundational description of the model components given in the abstract.
  • domain assumption Drug resistance emerges over time under therapeutic pressure.
    Invoked to explain why combination treatments delay resistance.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5766 in / 1513 out tokens · 75871 ms · 2026-05-21T22:07:06.145308+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

61 extracted references · 61 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    D. S. Chen, I. Mellman, Oncology meets immunology: The cancer-immunity cycle, Immunity 39 (1) (2013) 1–10. doi:10.1016/j.immuni.2013.07.012

    work page doi:10.1016/j.immuni.2013.07.012 2013

  2. [3]

    T. F. Gajewski, H. Schreiber, Y.-X. Fu, Innate and adaptive immune cells in the tumor microenvi- ronment, Nat Immunol 14 (10) (2013) 1014–1022. doi:10.1038/ni.2703

    work page doi:10.1038/ni.2703 2013

  3. [4]

    M. D. Vesely, M. H. Kershaw, R. D. Schreiber, M. J. Smyth, Natural innate and adaptive immunity to cancer, Annu Rev Immunol 29 (2011) 235–271. doi:10.1146/annurev-immunol-031210-101324

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-immunol-031210-101324 2011

  4. [5]

    St Paul, P

    M. St Paul, P. S. Ohashi, The roles of CD8(+) T cell subsets in antitumor immunity, Trends Cell Biol 30 (9) (2020) 695–704. doi:10.1016/j.tcb.2020.06.003

    work page doi:10.1016/j.tcb.2020.06.003 2020

  5. [6]

    Galassi, T

    C. Galassi, T. A. Chan, I. Vitale, L. Galluzzi, The hallmarks of cancer immune evasion., Cancer Cell 42 (11) (2024) 1825–1863. doi:10.1016/j.ccell.2024.09.010

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ccell.2024.09.010 2024

  6. [7]

    R. D. Schreiber, L. J. Old, M. J. Smyth, Cancer immunoediting: Integrating immunity’s roles in can- cer suppression and promotion, Science 331 (6024) (2011) 1565–1570. doi:10.1126/science.1203486

    work page doi:10.1126/science.1203486 2011

  7. [8]

    G. Albi, R. Chignola, F. Ferrarese, Efficient ensemble stochastic algorithms for agent-based models with spatial predator–prey dynamics, Math Comput Simulat 199 (2022) 317–340. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matcom.2022.03.019

    work page doi:10.1016/j.matcom.2022.03.019 2022

  8. [9]

    Metzcar, Y

    J. Metzcar, Y. Wang, R. Heiland, P. Macklin, A review of cell-based computational modeling in cancer biology, JCO Clin Cancer Inform 3 (2019) 1–13. doi:10.1200/CCI.18.00069

    work page doi:10.1200/cci.18.00069 2019

  9. [10]

    T. S. Deisboeck, Z. Wang, P. Macklin, V. Cristini, Multiscale cancer modeling, Annu Rev Biomed Eng 13 (2011) 127–155. doi:10.1146/annurev-bioeng-071910-124729

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-bioeng-071910-124729 2011

  10. [11]

    Merelli, G

    E. Merelli, G. Armano, N. Cannata, F. Corradini, M. d’Inverno, A. Doms, P. Lord, A. Martin, L. Milanesi, S. M¨ oller, M. Schroeder, M. Luck, Agents in bioinformatics, computational and systems biology., Brief Bioinform 8 (1) (2007) 45–59. doi:10.1093/bib/bbl014

    work page doi:10.1093/bib/bbl014 2007

  11. [12]

    A. R. Anderson, A. M. Weaver, P. T. Cummings, V. Quaranta, Tumor morphology and phenotypic evolution driven by selective pressure from the microenvironment, Cell 127 (5) (2006) 905–915. doi:10.1016/j.cell.2006.09.042

    work page doi:10.1016/j.cell.2006.09.042 2006

  12. [13]

    A. R. A. Anderson, V. Quaranta, Integrative mathematical oncology, Nat Rev Cancer 8 (3) (2008) 227–234. doi:10.1038/nrc2329

    work page doi:10.1038/nrc2329 2008

  13. [14]

    J. West, M. Robertson-Tessi, A. R. Anderson, Agent-based methods facilitate integrative science in cancer, Trends Cell Biol 33 (4) (2023) 300–311. doi:10.1016/j.tcb.2022.10.006

    work page doi:10.1016/j.tcb.2022.10.006 2023

  14. [15]

    Zhang, Z

    L. Zhang, Z. Wang, J. A. Sagotsky, T. S. Deisboeck, Multiscale agent-based cancer modeling., J Math Biol 58 (4-5) (2009) 545–559. doi:10.1007/s00285-008-0211-1

    work page doi:10.1007/s00285-008-0211-1 2009

  15. [16]

    Zhang, L

    L. Zhang, L. L. Chen, T. S. Deisboeck, Multi-scale, multi-resolution brain cancer modeling, Math Comput Simulat 79 (7) (2009) 2021–2035. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matcom.2008.09.007

    work page doi:10.1016/j.matcom.2008.09.007 2009

  16. [17]

    C. Gong, O. Milberg, B. Wang, P. Vicini, R. Narwal, L. Roskos, A. S. Popel, A computational multi- scale agent-based model for simulating spatio-temporal tumour immune response to PD1 and PDL1 inhibition, J R Soc Interface 14 (134) (2017) 20170320. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsif.2017.0320. 23

    work page doi:10.1098/rsif.2017.0320 2017

  17. [18]

    Jalalimanesh, H

    A. Jalalimanesh, H. Shahabi Haghighi, A. Ahmadi, M. Soltani, Simulation-based optimization of radiotherapy: Agent-based modeling and reinforcement learning, Math Comput Simulat 133 (2017) 235–248. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matcom.2016.05.008

    work page doi:10.1016/j.matcom.2016.05.008 2017

  18. [19]

    J. W. Hickey, E. Agmon, N. Horowitz, T.-K. Tan, M. Lamore, J. B. Sunwoo, M. W. Covert, G. P. Nolan, Integrating multiplexed imaging and multiscale modeling identifies tumor phenotype conversion as a critical component of therapeutic T cell efficacy, Cell Syst 15 (4) (2024) 322–338.e5. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cels.2024.03.004

    work page doi:10.1016/j.cels.2024.03.004 2024

  19. [20]

    Kashyap, M

    A. Kashyap, M. A. Rapsomaniki, V. Barros, A. Fomitcheva-Khartchenko, A. L. Martinelli, A. F. Rodriguez, M. Gabrani, M. Rosen-Zvi, G. Kaigala, Quantification of tumor heterogene- ity: From data acquisition to metric generation, Trends Biotechnol 40 (6) (2022) 647–676. doi:10.1016/j.tibtech.2021.11.006

    work page doi:10.1016/j.tibtech.2021.11.006 2022

  20. [21]

    Hausser, U

    J. Hausser, U. Alon, Tumour heterogeneity and the evolutionary trade-offs of cancer, Nat Rev Cancer 20 (4) (2020) 247–257. doi:10.1038/s41568-020-0241-6

    work page doi:10.1038/s41568-020-0241-6 2020

  21. [22]

    Turajlic, A

    S. Turajlic, A. Sottoriva, T. Graham, C. Swanton, Resolving genetic heterogeneity in cancer, Nat Rev Genet 20 (7) (2019) 404–416. doi:10.1038/s41576-019-0114-6

    work page doi:10.1038/s41576-019-0114-6 2019

  22. [23]

    Marine, S.-J

    J.-C. Marine, S.-J. Dawson, M. A. Dawson, Non-genetic mechanisms of therapeutic resistance in cancer., Nat Rev Cancer 20 (12) (2020) 743–756. doi:10.1038/s41568-020-00302-4

    work page doi:10.1038/s41568-020-00302-4 2020

  23. [24]

    Vasan, J

    N. Vasan, J. Baselga, D. M. Hyman, A view on drug resistance in cancer., Nature 575 (7782) (2019) 299–309. doi:10.1038/s41586-019-1730-1

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-019-1730-1 2019

  24. [25]

    Z.-D. Shi, K. Pang, Z.-X. Wu, Y. Dong, L. Hao, J.-X. Qin, W. Wang, Z.-S. Chen, C.-H. Han, Tumor cell plasticity in targeted therapy-induced resistance: mechanisms and new strategies., Signal Transduct Target Ther 8 (1) (2023) 113. doi:10.1038/s41392-023-01383-x

    work page doi:10.1038/s41392-023-01383-x 2023

  25. [26]

    Zhang, C

    C. Zhang, C. Shao, X. Jian, Y. Bai, M. Li, H. Shi, J. Lei, X. Zhong, Individual cell-based modeling of tumor cell plasticity-induced immune escape after CAR-T therapy, Comput Syst Oncol 1 (2021) e21029

    work page 2021

  26. [27]

    R. A. Gatenby, J. S. Brown, Integrating evolutionary dynamics into cancer therapy, Nat Rev Clin Oncol 17 (11) (2020) 675–686. doi:10.1038/s41571-020-0411-1

    work page doi:10.1038/s41571-020-0411-1 2020

  27. [28]

    G. P. Dunn, C. M. Koebel, R. D. Schreiber, Interferons, immunity and cancer immunoediting, Nat Rev Immunol 6 (11) (2006) 836–848. doi:10.1038/nri1961

    work page doi:10.1038/nri1961 2006

  28. [29]

    M. M. Gubin, M. D. Vesely, Cancer immunoediting in the era of immuno-oncology, Clin Cancer Res 28 (18) (2022) 3917–3928. doi:10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-21-1804

    work page doi:10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-21-1804 2022

  29. [30]

    M. J. Smyth, D. I. Godfrey, J. A. Trapani, A fresh look at tumor immunosurveillance and immunotherapy, Nat Immunol 2 (4) (2001) 293–299. doi:10.1038/86297

    work page doi:10.1038/86297 2001

  30. [31]

    Hanahan, R

    D. Hanahan, R. A. Weinberg, The hallmarks of cancer, Cell 100 (1) (2000) 57–70. doi:10.1016/s0092- 8674(00)81683-9

    work page doi:10.1016/s0092- 2000

  31. [32]

    Hanahan, R

    D. Hanahan, R. A. Weinberg, Hallmarks of cancer: The next generation, Cell 144 (5) (2011) 646–674. doi:10.1016/j.cell.2011.02.013

    work page doi:10.1016/j.cell.2011.02.013 2011

  32. [33]

    Hanahan, Hallmarks of cancer: New dimensions, Cancer Discov 12 (1) (2022) 31–46

    D. Hanahan, Hallmarks of cancer: New dimensions, Cancer Discov 12 (1) (2022) 31–46. doi:10.1158/2159-8290.CD-21-1059

    work page doi:10.1158/2159-8290.cd-21-1059 2022

  33. [34]

    Raskov, A

    H. Raskov, A. Orhan, J. P. Christensen, I. G¨ ogenur, Cytotoxic CD8+ T cells in cancer and cancer immunotherapy, Brit J Cancer 124 (2) (2020) 359–367. doi:10.1038/s41416-020-01048-4

    work page doi:10.1038/s41416-020-01048-4 2020

  34. [35]

    Philip, A

    M. Philip, A. Schietinger, CD8+ T cell differentiation and dysfunction in cancer, Nat Rev Immunol 22 (4) (2021) 209–223. doi:10.1038/s41577-021-00574-3

    work page doi:10.1038/s41577-021-00574-3 2021

  35. [36]

    J. R. Giles, A.-M. Globig, S. M. Kaech, E. J. Wherry, CD8+ T cells in the cancer-immunity cycle, Immunity 56 (10) (2023) 2231–2253. doi:10.1016/j.immuni.2023.09.005. 24

    work page doi:10.1016/j.immuni.2023.09.005 2023

  36. [37]

    Vasconcelos, S

    Z. Vasconcelos, S. M¨ uller, D. Guipouy, W. Yu, C. Christophe, S. Gadat, S. Valitutti, L. Dupr´ e, Individual human cytotoxic T lymphocytes exhibit intraclonal heterogeneity during sustained killing, Cell Rep 11 (9) (2015) 1474–1485. doi:10.1016/j.celrep.2015.05.002

    work page doi:10.1016/j.celrep.2015.05.002 2015

  37. [38]

    Khazen, M

    R. Khazen, M. Cazaux, F. Lemaˆ ıtre, B. Corre, Z. Garcia, P. Bousso, Functional heterogeneity of cytotoxic T cells and tumor resistance to cytotoxic hits limit anti-tumor activity in vivo, EMBO J 40 (11) (Apr. 2021). doi:10.15252/embj.2020106658

    work page doi:10.15252/embj.2020106658 2021

  38. [39]

    D. H. Raulet, M. J. Bevan, A differentiation factor required for the expression of cytotoxic T-cell function, Nature 296 (5859) (1982) 754–757. doi:10.1038/296754a0

    work page doi:10.1038/296754a0 1982

  39. [40]

    F. Y. Liew, Th1 and th2 cells: A historical perspective, Nat Rev Immunol 2 (1) (2002) 55–60. doi:10.1038/nri705

    work page doi:10.1038/nri705 2002

  40. [41]

    Spolski, P

    R. Spolski, P. Li, W. J. Leonard, Biology and regulation of IL-2: From molecular mechanisms to human therapy, Nat Rev Immunol 18 (10) (2018) 648–659. doi:10.1038/s41577-018-0046-y

    work page doi:10.1038/s41577-018-0046-y 2018

  41. [42]

    Okazaki, S

    T. Okazaki, S. Chikuma, Y. Iwai, S. Fagarasan, T. Honjo, A rheostat for immune responses: The unique properties of PD-1 and their advantages for clinical application, Nat Immunol 14 (12) (2013) 1212–1218. doi:10.1038/ni.2762

    work page doi:10.1038/ni.2762 2013

  42. [43]

    Patsoukis, Q

    N. Patsoukis, Q. Wang, L. Strauss, V. A. Boussiotis, Revisiting the PD-1 pathway., Sci Adv 6 (38) (Sep 2020). doi:10.1126/sciadv.abd2712

    work page doi:10.1126/sciadv.abd2712 2020

  43. [44]

    Zou, Regulatory T cells, tumour immunity and immunotherapy, Nat Rev Immunol 6 (4) (2006) 295–307

    W. Zou, Regulatory T cells, tumour immunity and immunotherapy, Nat Rev Immunol 6 (4) (2006) 295–307. doi:10.1038/nri1806

    work page doi:10.1038/nri1806 2006

  44. [45]

    Facciabene, G

    A. Facciabene, G. T. Motz, G. Coukos, T-regulatory cells: Key players in tumor immune escape and angiogenesis, Cancer Res 72 (9) (2012) 2162–2171. doi:10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-11-3687

    work page doi:10.1158/0008-5472.can-11-3687 2012

  45. [46]

    Togashi, K

    Y. Togashi, K. Shitara, H. Nishikawa, Regulatory T cells in cancer immunosuppression — implica- tions for anticancer therapy, Nat Rev Clin Oncol 16 (6) (2019) 356–371. doi:10.1038/s41571-019- 0175-7

    work page doi:10.1038/s41571-019- 2019

  46. [47]

    L. Zhou, M. M. Chong, D. R. Littman, Plasticity of CD4+ T cell lineage differentiation, Immunity 30 (5) (2009) 646–655. doi:10.1016/j.immuni.2009.05.001

    work page doi:10.1016/j.immuni.2009.05.001 2009

  47. [48]

    A. J. Ozga, M. T. Chow, A. D. Luster, Chemokines and the immune response to cancer, Immunity 54 (5) (2021) 859–874. doi:10.1016/j.immuni.2021.01.012

    work page doi:10.1016/j.immuni.2021.01.012 2021

  48. [49]

    Nagarsheth, M

    N. Nagarsheth, M. S. Wicha, W. Zou, Chemokines in the cancer microenvironment and their rele- vance in cancer immunotherapy, Nat Rev Immunol 17 (9) (2017) 559–572. doi:10.1038/nri.2017.49

    work page doi:10.1038/nri.2017.49 2017

  49. [50]

    K. E. de Visser, J. A. Joyce, The evolving tumor microenvironment: From cancer initiation to metastatic outgrowth, Cancer Cell 41 (3) (2023) 374–403. doi:10.1016/j.ccell.2023.02.016

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ccell.2023.02.016 2023

  50. [51]

    J. A. Joyce, D. T. Fearon, T cell exclusion, immune privilege, and the tumor microenvironment, Science 348 (6230) (2015) 74–80. doi:10.1126/science.aaa6204

    work page doi:10.1126/science.aaa6204 2015

  51. [52]

    De Ruysscher, G

    D. De Ruysscher, G. Niedermann, N. G. Burnet, S. Siva, A. W. M. Lee, F. Hegi-Johnson, Radiotherapy toxicity., Nat Rev Dis Primers 5 (1) (2019) 13. doi:10.1038/s41572-019-0064-5

    work page doi:10.1038/s41572-019-0064-5 2019

  52. [53]

    R. A. Chandra, F. K. Keane, F. E. M. Voncken, C. R. J. Thomas, Contemporary radiotherapy: Present and future., Lancet 398 (10295) (2021) 171–184. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(21)00233-6

    work page doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(21)00233-6 2021

  53. [54]

    A. C. Begg, F. A. Stewart, C. Vens, Strategies to improve radiotherapy with targeted drugs., Nat Rev Cancer 11 (4) (2011) 239–253. doi:10.1038/nrc3007

    work page doi:10.1038/nrc3007 2011

  54. [55]

    H. E. Barker, J. T. E. Paget, A. A. Khan, K. J. Harrington, The tumour microenvironment after radiotherapy: Mechanisms of resistance and recurrence., Nat Rev Cancer 15 (7) (2015) 409–425. doi:10.1038/nrc3958

    work page doi:10.1038/nrc3958 2015

  55. [56]

    H. Y. Choi, J.-E. Chang, Targeted therapy for cancers: From ongoing clinical trials to FDA- approved drugs, Int J Mol Sci 24 (17) (2023) 13618. doi:10.3390/ijms241713618. 25

    work page doi:10.3390/ijms241713618 2023

  56. [57]

    Ramos, M

    P. Ramos, M. Bentires-Alj, Mechanism-based cancer therapy: Resistance to therapy, therapy for resistance, Oncogene 34 (28) (2014) 3617–3626. doi:10.1038/onc.2014.314

    work page doi:10.1038/onc.2014.314 2014

  57. [58]

    S. Lu, J. E. Stein, D. L. Rimm, D. W. Wang, J. M. Bell, D. B. Johnson, J. A. Sosman, K. A. Schalper, R. A. Anders, H. Wang, C. Hoyt, D. M. Pardoll, L. Danilova, J. M. Taube, Comparison of biomarker modalities for predicting response to PD-1/PD-L1 checkpoint blockade: A systematic review and meta-analysis., JAMA Oncol 5 (8) (2019) 1195–1204. doi:10.1001/ja...

    work page doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.1549 2019

  58. [59]

    C. Sun, R. Mezzadra, T. N. Schumacher, Regulation and function of the PD-L1 checkpoint., Immunity 48 (3) (2018) 434–452. doi:10.1016/j.immuni.2018.03.014

    work page doi:10.1016/j.immuni.2018.03.014 2018

  59. [60]

    S. V. Sharma, D. Y. Lee, B. Li, M. P. Quinlan, F. Takahashi, S. Maheswaran, U. McDermott, N. Azizian, L. Zou, M. A. Fischbach, K.-K. Wong, K. Brandstetter, B. Wittner, S. Ramaswamy, M. Classon, J. Settleman, A chromatin-mediated reversible drug-tolerant state in cancer cell subpopulations., Cell 141 (1) (2010) 69–80. doi:10.1016/j.cell.2010.02.027

    work page doi:10.1016/j.cell.2010.02.027 2010

  60. [61]

    S. Ma, J. Lei, X. Lai, Modeling tumour heterogeneity of PD-L1 expression in tumour progression and adaptive therapy, J Math Biol 86 (2023) 38

    work page 2023

  61. [62]

    Eisenhauer, P

    E. Eisenhauer, P. Therasse, J. Bogaerts, L. Schwartz, D. Sargent, R. Ford, J. Dancey, S. Arbuck, S. Gwyther, M. Mooney, L. Rubinstein, L. Shankar, L. Dodd, R. Kaplan, D. Lacombe, J. Verweij, New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: Revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1), Eur J Cancer 45 (2) (2009) 228–247. doi:10.1016/j.ejca.2008.10.026. 26

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ejca.2008.10.026 2009