- Research
- Open Access
- Published:
Analysis of a free boundary problem modeling spherically symmetric tumor growth with angiogenesis and a periodic supply of nutrients
Boundary Value Problems volume 2023, Article number: 61 (2023)
Abstract
In this paper, we study a free boundary problem modeling spherically symmetric tumor growth with angiogenesis and a periodic supply of nutrients. The mathematical model is a free boundary problem since the external radius of the tumor denoted by \(R(t)\) changes with time. The characteristic of this model is the consideration of both angiogenesis and periodic external nutrient supply. The cells inside the tumor absorb nutrient \(u(r,t)\) through blood vessels and attracts blood vessels at a rate proportional to α. Thus on the boundary, we have
where \(\psi (t)\) is the nutrient concentration provided externally. Considering that the nutrient provided externally to the tumor are generally provided periodically, in this paper, we assume that \(\psi (t)\) is a periodic function. Sufficient conditions for a tumor to disappear are given. We investigate the existence, uniqueness, and stability of solutions. The results show that when the nutrient concentration exceeds a certain value and c is sufficiently small, the solutions of the model can be arbitrarily close to the unique periodic function as \(t\rightarrow\infty\).
1 Introduction
Over the past few decades, various mathematical models were proposed to study different stages and different effects on tumor growth, such as studies on avascular stage (see, e.g., [1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 10, 12, 16, 17]), studies on the stage with angiogenesis (see, e.g., [11, 13, 14, 20]), studies on the effect of inhibitors [4, 7–9], studies on the effects of time delays [2, 3, 8, 9, 15, 18, 19], and so on. The main goal of this paper is to study the effects of periodic nutrient supply on the dynamics of tumor growth with angiogenesis.
In this paper, we study the following mathematical model:
where
In the model, \(u(r,t)\) and \(R(t)\) are two unknown functions, where \(u(r,t)\) is the nutrient concentration, and \(R(t)\) denotes the external radius; λu in equation (2.1) is the consumption rate of nutrient; α is a positive constant, which represents the density of blood vessels; \(\psi (t)\) is a positive-valued function showing the concentration of nutrient outside the tumor; su is the proliferation rate; the first term on the right-hand side of equation (2.3) is the total volume increase caused by cell proliferation. The second term on the right-hand side of equation (2.3) is the total volume decrease caused by the natural death, and the natural death rate is sũ, which is a constant. c is a positive constant, which represents the ratio of the nutrient diffusion time scale to the tumor growth time scale; for details, see [9, 12]. From [4, 7] we know that \(c\ll 1\).
The above model in the case where \(\alpha =\infty \) and \(c=0\) has been studied by Bai and Xu [1]. Under two-dimensional nonradial symmetric perturbations, the linear stability of periodic solutions is studied by Huang et al. [14]. Recently, He and Xing [13] extend the results of [1] and discussed the three-dimensional nonradially symmetric perturbations. The above model in the case where \(\alpha =\infty \) and
induced by the Gibbs–Thomson relation, has been studied by Wu [16, 17], where σ̄ and \(\gamma _{0}\) are constants, κ represents the mean curvature of the outer boundary of the tumor, and \(\gamma _{0}\) describes cell-to-cell adhesiveness. The case where \(\psi (t)\) is assumed to be a positive constant but α is considered more general and is a function of t has been studied by Friedman and Lam [11]. In [11] the concentration of nutrient outside the tumor is assumed to be a constant, but in this paper, as we can see from (2.2), we assume that the nutrient provided externally to the tumor is generally provided periodically, so that \(\psi (t)\) is a periodic function. This assumption is clearly more reasonable.
We give aufficient conditions for a tumor to disappear, and the results show that the tumor will tend to disappear when the average nutrient concentration provided by the outside is lower than a certain value within a cycle time (Theorem 3.1). We investigate the existence, uniqueness, and stability of solutions. We also study the asymptotic behavior of the solutions. The results show that when the nutrient concentration exceeds a certain value and c is sufficiently small, the solutions of the model can be arbitrarily close to the unique periodic function as \(t\rightarrow\infty\) (Theorem 3.6).
The paper is arranged as follows: In Sect. 2, we prove the global existence and uniqueness of solutions to the system. In Sect. 3, we study the asymptotic behavior of the solutions.
2 Global existence and uniqueness
By the change of variables
after dropping “\(\,\hat{}\,\)”, we simplify the problem to the following system:
In this paper, we assume that the following conditions are satisfied:
(A1) ψ is a positive-valued differentiable function on \((0,\infty )\) and \(\psi (t)=\psi (t+\omega )\), where \(\omega >0\) is a constant. Moreover, there exists a positive constant \(B_{0}>0\) such that \(|\psi '(t)|\leq B_{0}\) for \(t\geq 0\).
(A2) \(u_{0}(r)\) is a twice differentiable function.
We denote
Let
Lemma 2.1
(1) \(p'(x)<0\) for all \(x>0\), \(\lim_{x\rightarrow 0+}p(x)=1/3\), and \(\lim_{x\rightarrow \infty}p(x)=0\).
(2) \(g'(x)>0\) for \(x\geq 0\), \(\lim_{x\rightarrow 0^{+}}g(x)=0\), \(\lim_{x\rightarrow \infty} g(x)=1\).
(3) \(G'(x)<0\) for \(x>0\), \(\lim_{x\rightarrow 0^{+}}G(x)=1/3\), \(\lim_{x\rightarrow \infty} G(x)=0\).
Proof
(1) See [12]. Property (2) is from [11]. (3) can be easily obtained from (1) and (2). □
Lemma 2.2
Let \((u(r,t),R(t))\) be a solution of (2.1)–(2.5). Then for \(0< c<\psi _{*}/B_{0}\), we have the following prior estimates:
(1) \(0\leq u(r,t)\leq \psi (t)\) for \(r\leq R(t)\), \(t\geq 0\).
(2) \(K_{1}R(t)\leq R'(t)\leq K_{2} R(t)\), where \(K_{1}=-\tilde{u}/3\) and \(K_{2}=(\psi ^{*}-\tilde{u})/3\).
(3) \(R_{0}e^{K_{1}t}\leq R(t)\leq R_{0}e^{K_{2}t}\) for all \(t\geq 0\).
Proof
(1) For \(0< c<\psi _{*}/B_{0}\), it is easy to check that \(u_{1}=0\) and \(u_{2}=\psi (t)\) are lower and upper solutions to problem (2.1), (2.2), and (2.5). According to the comparison principle, it follows that \(0\leq u(r,t)\leq \psi (t)\) for \(r\leq R(t)\), \(t\geq 0\).
(2) Using (1), from (2.5) we get
which implies \(K_{1}R(t)\leq R'(t)\leq K_{2} R(t)\), where \(K_{1}=-\tilde{u}/3\) and \(K_{2}=(\psi ^{*}-\tilde{u})/3\).
(3) From (2), integrating the three parts separately, we readily get that \(R_{0}e^{K_{1}t}\leq R(t)\leq R_{0}e^{K_{2}t}\) for all \(t\geq 0\). This completes the proof. □
Theorem 2.3
For \(c>0\) sufficiently small, problem (2.1)–(2.5) has a unique solution \((u(r,t),R(t))\) for \(t\geq 0\).
Proof
First, the free boundary problem can be transformed into a fixed boundary problem by variable transformation \(r\mapsto \frac {r}{R(t)}\), and then the existence and uniqueness of the solution follow by the Banach fixed point theorem. The proof is completely similar to that of Theorem 1.1 in [20], and we omit the details. This competes the proof. □
3 Asymptotic behavior of the solutions
Theorem 3.1
If \(\bar{\psi}<\tilde{u}\), then for any positive initial value \(R_{0}\), we have \(\lim_{t\rightarrow \infty}R(t)=0\).
Proof
From Lemma 2.2(1) we obtain
It follows that for \(t\geq 0\),
and
For any \(\zeta \in [0,\omega ]\), integrating with respect to t from ζ to \(\zeta +n\omega \) both sides of (3.2), we obtain
which implies \(\lim_{t\rightarrow \infty}R(t)=0\), where we use the fact
This completes the proof. □
Let
Then v satisfies the following equations:
Consider the following equation:
By the comparison principle we get
Lemma 3.2
Let ψ satisfies (A1). If \(\bar{\psi}>\tilde{u}\), then
(1) there exists a unique positive ω-periodic solution \(\bar{R}(t)\) to (3.6).
(2) Let \(\tilde{R}(t)\) be a positive solution of (3.6). Then there exist positive constants \(C_{0}\) and γ such that
Proof
(1) Since \(G'(x)<0\) and \(G(x)\in (0,1/3)\) (see Lemma 2.1(3)), if \(\tilde{u}<\bar{\psi}\leq \psi ^{*}\), then
Let
For \(R_{0}\in [x_{1},x_{2}]\), let \(\tilde{R}(t)\) be the solution of (3.6) with initial value \(R_{0}\). Define the map F: \([x_{1},x_{2}]\rightarrow (0,\infty )\) by \(F(R_{0})=\tilde{R}(T)\). First, we prove that F maps \([x_{1},x_{2}]\) into itself. For \(R_{0}\in [x_{1},x_{2}]\), it is obvious that \(x_{2}\) is an upper solution of (3.6). It follows that
Thus \(\tilde{R}(\omega )\leq x_{2}\). Consider the following initial problem:
By the comparison principle we have
Since \(G(x)<1/3\) (see Lemma 2.1(3)), we get
It follows that
for \(0\leq t\leq \omega \). Since
we can get
From (3.9), (3.11), and (3.12) it follows that \(\tilde{R}(\omega )\in [x_{1}, x_{2}]\). Thus F maps \([x_{1}, x_{2}]\) into itself. Since the solution \(\tilde{R}(t)\) depends continuously on the initial value \(R_{0}\), it follows that F is continuous. By Brouwer’s fixed point theorem, F has a fixed point \(\bar{R}(0)\). It follows that the solution \(\bar{R}(t)\) of (3.6) through the initial point \((0, R_{0})\) is a positive ω-periodic solution.
Next, we will prove that \(\bar{R}(t)\) is a global attractor of all other positive solutions, which also implies the uniqueness of the periodic solution \(\bar{R}(t)\).
(2) Let
Inequality (3.7) implies that \(\bar{R}^{*}\geq \bar{R}_{*}>0\).
The uniqueness of the solution of (3.6) and the comparison principle imply that if \(\tilde{R}(0)>\bar{R}(0)\), then there must be \(\tilde{R}(t)>\bar{R}(t)\) for \(t>0\), and if \(\tilde{R}(0)<\bar{R}(0)\), then \(\bar{R}(t)<\bar{R}\) for \(t>0\). Assume that \(\tilde{R}(t)>\bar{R}\) for \(t>0\) (the proof of the case where \(\tilde{R}(t)<\bar{R}\) for \(t>0\) is similar and is omitted). Let
Then \(y(t)>0\) for \(t>0\), and
where
and
Therefore
It follows that
for \(t>0\), and hence
for \(t>0\).
For the case \(\tilde{R}(t)<\bar{R}\) for \(t>0\), using similar arguments, it is not hard to get
where
Taking \(\gamma =\min \{\psi _{*}A_{0}\bar{R}_{*}\exp (y(0), \psi _{*}A_{1} \bar{R}_{*}\exp (y(0)\}\) and \(C_{0}=|1-\exp (y(0))|\bar{R}^{*}\), from (3.16) and (3.17) we easily get
for \(t>0\). This completes the proof of Lemma 3.2. □
Lemma 3.3
Let \((u(r,t),R(t))\) be a solution of (2.1)–(2.5). Suppose that for \(T_{0}\in (0, \infty )\) and \(a>0\),
Suppose further that
Then there exists positive constant C and \(c_{0}\), depending only on \(a,\alpha, K_{0},L_{0}, M_{0}, \psi ^{*}\), such that
for \(0\leq r\leq R(t)\), \(0< t\leq T_{0}\), and \(0< c\leq c_{0}\).
Proof
Direct calculation yields
By (3.18) we get that for \(0\leq r\leq R(t)\),
where C only depends on \(\psi ^{*}, \alpha \), and a.
Let
Then
Since
and \(u_{+}(r,0)\geq u_{0}(r)\), by the comparison principle it follows that
Using similar arguments, we easily get
This completes the proof. □
If \(\psi _{*}>\tilde{u}\), then
Noticing that \(G'(x)<0\) and \(G(x)\in (0,1/3)\), we can get that \(G(x)=\frac {\tilde{u}}{3\psi _{*}}\) and \(G(y)=\frac {\tilde{u}}{3\psi ^{*}}\) have unique positive constants solutions \(X_{0}\) and \(Y_{0}\), respectively, and \(X_{0}\leq Y_{0}\).
Lemma 3.4
Let \((u(r,t),R(t))\) be a solution of (2.1)–(2.5). Suppose that \(R_{0}\in [a,1/a]\) for some \(a>0\). When \(\psi _{*}>\tilde{u}\), there exists a positive constant \(c_{0}\), independent of c, such that
for \(t\geq 0\) and \(c\in (0,c_{0}]\).
Proof
If inequality (3.23) does not hold for some t, then there exists \(T>0\) such that for \(t\in [0,T)\),
and either \(R(T)=2 \max \{\bar{R}, 1/a\}\) or \(R(T)=\frac {1}{2}\min \{\bar{R}, a\}\).
If \(R(T)=2 \max \{Y_{0}, 1/a\}\), then it follows that \(R'(T)\geq 0\). From (3.1) notice that for \(0\leq t< T\),
and we get that \(|R'(t)|\leq K_{0}\), where \(K_{0}\) is a positive constant independent of c and T. It is obvious that \(|u(r,0)-v(r,0)|\leq \psi ^{*}\). Then by Lemma 3.3,
Then
In particular,
Notice that
so choosing \(c_{0}\) sufficiently small, for \(c\in (0,c_{0}]\), we have
which implies \(R'(T)<0\), which contradicts with \(R'(T)\geq 0\).
If \(R(T)=\frac{1}{2}\min \{X_{0}, a\}\), then the proof is similar, so we omit the details. This completes the proof. □
Lemma 3.5
Let \((u(r,t),R(t))\) be a solution of (2.1)–(2.5), and let
Suppose ψ satisfies (A1) and suppose further that \(R(t)\in [a,1/a]\) for some \(a>0\). Then there exists positive constants \(c_{0}, C\), and \(T_{0}\), independent of c, such that the following statement holds: If for \(c\in (0,c_{0}]\) and any \(b\in (0,b_{0}]\),
for \(t\geq 0\) and \(0\leq r\leq R(t)\), then for \(t\geq T_{0}\), we have
and
for \(0\leq r\leq R(t)\).
Proof
By the mean value theorem, using the facts that \(R(t)\in [a,1/a]\) and \(\bar{R}(t)\in [\bar{R}_{*},\bar{R}^{*}]\), we get
for \(t\geq 0\) and \(0\leq r\leq R(t)\). We further denote by C different constants independent of c and η. Thus
for \(t\geq 0\) and \(0\leq r\leq R(t)\). Particularly,
Since \(|R'(t)|\leq b\), by Lemma 3.3 there exists a constant \(c_{0}\) such that
Noticing that \(te^{-t}\leq 1\) for \(t>0\), it follows that
By a simple calculation we obtain that
Then for \(t\geq T_{0}>1\), we have
It follows that
If \(\psi _{*}>\tilde{u}\), then there exists \(c_{0}>0\) sufficiently small such that
for \(c\in (0,c_{0}]\) and any \(b\in (0,b_{0}]\). By arguments similar to those in the proof of Lemma 3.2, for the two initial value problems
we can get the following statements: Assume that ψ satisfies (A1). If \({\psi}_{*}>\tilde{u}\), then
(1) there exists a unique positive ω-periodic solution \(\bar{R}^{\pm}(t)\) to (3.35).
(2) For any other positive solutions of (3.35), there exists a positive constant \(\gamma _{1}\) such that
where \(C=|1-\exp (y(T_{0}))|(\bar{R}^{\pm})^{*}\), \((\bar{R}^{\pm})^{*}=\max_{0\leq t\leq \omega}\bar{R}^{\pm}(t)\), and \(R^{\pm}(t)=\bar{R}^{\pm}(t)\exp (y(t))\). Then
since \(|y(T_{0})|= \vert \ln \exp (\pm CbT_{0}) \vert \leq Cb\). Therefore
For \(t\in [T_{0},T_{0}+\omega ]\) and c sufficiently small,
where we used the fact that
Since \(\bar{R}^{+}(t)\) and \(\bar{R}^{-}(t)\) are periodic functions with the same period ω, we have
for \(t\geq T_{0}\). By the comparison principle it follows that
and
Therefore
From (3.28) we obtain
By (3.30) we get
where \(\gamma =\min \{\gamma _{1},1/c_{0}\}\). Then (3.29) implies
Then (3.27) follows from (3.32)–(3.34) and (3.38)–(3.42). This completes the proof. □
Theorem 3.6
Let \((u(r,t),R(t))\) be a solution of (2.1)–(2.5). Assume that \(\psi _{*}>\bar{u}\). Suppose for some \(a>0\), there holds \(R_{0}\in [a,1/a]\). Then, for any \(\epsilon>0\), there exist positive constant \(c_{0}\) and \(T_{0}\) such that if \(c\in(0,c_{0}]\), there hold
and
Proof
From Lemma 3.4 we know that there exists a positive constant \(c_{0}\), independent of c, such that
for \(t\geq 0\) and \(c\in (0,c_{0}]\). Besides,
By Lemma 2.2(ii) we easily get that \(|R'(t)|\leq \frac {2}{a}(|M_{1}|+|M_{2}|)=:b_{2}\) for \(0\leq r\leq R(t)\). Then
Clearly, \(|u(r,t)-v(r,t)|\leq 2\psi (t)\leq 2\psi ^{*}=b_{4}\). Let \(b_{0}=\max \{b_{1}, b_{2}, b_{3},b_{4}\}\). Then (3.25) holds for \(0< b\leq b_{0}\). By Lemma 3.5 we obtain
and
Choose \(c_{0}\) small enough and \(T_{0}\) large enough such that
Thus, by taking the upper limit of the two sides of the above inequalities respectively, one can get the desired results. This completes the proof of Theorem 3.6. □
Availability of data and materials
Not applicable.
References
Bai, M., Xu, S.: Qualitative analysis of a mathematical model for tumor growth with a periodic supply of extenal nutrients. Pac. J. Appl. Math. 5, 217–223 (2013)
Bodnar, M., Foryś, U.: Time delay in necrotic core formation. Math. Biosci. Eng. 2, 461–472 (2005)
Byrne, H.: The effect of time delays on the dynamics of avascular tumor growth. Math. Biosci. 144, 83–117 (1997)
Byrne, H., Chaplain, M.: Growth of nonnecrotic tumors in the presence and absence of inhibitors. Math. Biosci. 130, 151–181 (1995)
Cui, S.: Analysis of a free boundary problem modeling tumor growth. Acta Math. Sin. 21, 1071–1082 (2005)
Cui, S.: Fromation of necrotic cores in the growth of tumors: analytic results. Acta Math. Sci. 26B, 781–796 (2006)
Cui, S., Friedman, A.: Analysis of a mathematical model of the effect of inhibitors on the growth of tumors. Math. Biosci. 164, 103–137 (2000)
Cui, S., Xu, S.: Analysis of mathematical models for the growth of tumors with time delays in cell proliferation. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 336, 523–541 (2007)
Foryś, U., Bodnar, M.: Time delays in regulatory apoptosis for solid avascular tumour. Math. Comput. Model. 37, 1211–1220 (2003)
Foryś, U., Mokwa-Borkowska, A.: Solid tumour growth analysis of necrotic core formation. Math. Comput. Model. 42, 593–600 (2005)
Friedman, A., Lam, K.: Analysis of a free-boundary tumor model with angiogenesis. J. Differ. Equ. 259, 7636–7661 (2015)
Friedman, A., Reitich, F.: Analysis of a mathematical model for the growth of tumors. J. Math. Biol. 38, 262–284 (1999)
He, W., Xing, R.: The existence and linear stability of periodic solution for a free boundary problem modeling tumor growth with a periodic supply of external nutrients. Nonlinear Anal., Real World Appl. 60, 103290 (2021)
Huang, Y., Zhang, Z., Hu, B.: Linear stability for a free boundary tumor model with a periodic supply of external nutients. Math. Methods Appl. Sci. 42, 1039–1054 (2019)
Piotrowska, M.J.: Hopf bifurcation in a solid avascular tumor growth model with two discrete delays. Math. Comput. Model. 47, 597–603 (2008)
Wu, J.: Stationary solutions of a free boundary problem modeling the growth of tumors with Gibbs–Thomson relation. J. Differ. Equ. 260, 5875–5893 (2016)
Wu, J.: Analysis of a mathematical model for tumor growth with Gibbs–Thomson relation. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 450, 532–543 (2017)
Xu, S.: Analysis of a delayed free boundary problem for tumor growth. Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst., Ser. B 18, 293–308 (2011)
Xu, S., Bai, M., Zhao, X.: Analysis of a solid avascular tumor growth model with time delays in proliferation process. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 391, 38–47 (2012)
Zhuang, Y., Cui, S.: Analysis of a free boundary problem modeling the growth of spherically symmetric tumors with angiogenesis. Acta Appl. Math. 161, 153–169 (2019)
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the editor and the referees for their very helpful suggestions on modification of the original manuscript.
Funding
This work is partially supported by NSF of Guangdong Province (2023A1515011911) and Foundation of Characteristic Innovation Project of Universities in Guangdong, China (2021KTSCX142).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Shihe Xu wrote the main manuscript text and Meng Bai did some analysis. All authors reviewed the manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Ethics approval and consent to participate
Not applicable.
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Xu, S., Bai, M. Analysis of a free boundary problem modeling spherically symmetric tumor growth with angiogenesis and a periodic supply of nutrients. Bound Value Probl 2023, 61 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13661-023-01742-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13661-023-01742-1
Keywords
- Tumor growth
- Free boundary problem
- Angiogenesis
- Asymptotic behavior
- Periodic solution