This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Ritter, G. Articles by Burmistrov, D. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Ritter, G. Articles by Burmistrov, D. Social Bookmarking                   What's this?

The multistage model of cancer development: some implications

Harvard University Department of Physics, Cambridge, USA, ritter{at}fas.harvard.edu

Richard Wilson

Harvard University Department of Physics, Cambridge, USA

Francesco Pompei

Harvard University Department of Physics, Cambridge, USA, Exergen Corp., Watertown, MA, USA

Dimitriy Burmistrov

Harvard University Department of Physics, Cambridge, USA, Menzie-Cura and Associates, Winchester, MA, USA

The multistage model, introduced by Armitage and Doll, was very successful at describing many features of cancer development. Doll and Peto noted a significant departure below the prediction of the model and suggested that this could be due to undercounting of cases at older ages, or to the ‘biology of extreme old age.’ Moolgavkar pointed out that it could also be due to the approximation used. The recent observation that cancer incidence falls rapidly above age 80 has stimulated new modelling investigations, such as the Pompei-Wilson beta model (which does reproduce the rapid fall). In the present paper, we argue that Moolgavkar’s criticisms, while mathematically correct, do not affect the conclusions, particularly the constancy of the number of stages across different cancer registries (Cook, Doll and Fellingham. 1969: A mathematical model for the age distribution of cancer in man. International Journal of Cancer 4, 93-112). We discuss several exact solutions, compare them with the most recent data, and prove rigorously that the standard Armitage-Doll multistage model can never reproduce the sharp turnaround in cancer incidence at old age seen in the data. We discuss in detail multistage processes which have a property observed in many laboratory studies, namely that some stages progress much faster than the others. We verify mathematically the intuition that sufficiently fast stages do not appreciably affect the incidence rate of cancer, and discuss implications of this fact for cancer treatment strategies. We also show that the simplest possible modification of the Armitage-Doll model to incorporate cellular senescence just leads to the Pompei-Wilson beta model.

Key Words: beta model • cancer incidence • carcinogenesis • cellular senescence • multistage model • old age

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				C. Harding, F. Pompei, E. E. Lee, and R. Wilson Cancer Suppression at Old Age Cancer Res., June 1, 2008; 68(11): 4465 - 4478. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]