Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) is the most commonly used serum marker for prostate cancer. It plays a role in cancer detection, treatment monitoring, and more recently, in guiding adaptive therapy protocols, where treatment is alternated based on PSA levels. However, the relationship between PSA levels and tumor volume remains poorly understood. Empirical evidence suggests that different cancer cell types produce varying amounts of PSA. Despite this, current mathematical cancer models often assume either that all cell types contribute equally to PSA levels or that only certain subpopulations produce PSA at fixed rates. In this study, we compare Zhang et al.’s classical adaptive therapy protocol with the standard of care, which involves continuous maximum tolerable dose treatment, under different assumptions regarding PSA production. Specifically, we explore the possibility that testosterone-dependent, testosterone-producing, and testosterone-independent cells contribute to PSA production to varying degrees. We use the time to competitive release as a proxy for the time to disease progression. Our findings indicate that adaptive therapy consistently results in a longer time to competitive release compared to the standard of care, regardless of the assumptions about PSA production. However, when testosterone-independent cells are the sole PSA producers, Zhang et al.’s adaptive therapy protocol becomes inapplicable, as PSA levels never fall to half of their initial value, preventing therapy discontinuation. Additionally, we observe that the number and duration of treatment cycles in adaptive therapy are highly sensitive to assumptions about how much each cell type contributes to PSA production. Overall, our results emphasize the need for a deeper understanding of patient-specific PSA dynamics, which could enhance the effectiveness of adaptive therapy in prostate cancer treatment.

We present a game-theoretic model of a polymorphic cancer cell population where the treatment-induced resistance is a quantitative evolving trait. When stabilization of the tumor burden is possible, we expand the model into a Stackelberg evolutionary game, where the physician is the leader and the cancer cells are followers. The physician chooses a treatment dose to maximize an objective function that is a proxy of the patient’s quality of life. In response, the cancer cells evolve a resistance level that maximizes their proliferation and survival. Assuming that cancer is in its ecological equilibrium, we compare the outcomes of three different treatment strategies: giving the maximum tolerable dose throughout, corresponding to the standard of care for most metastatic cancers, an ecologically enlightened therapy, where the physician anticipates the short-run, ecological response of cancer cells to their treatment, but not the evolution of resistance to treatment, and an evolutionarily enlightened therapy, where the physician anticipates both ecological and evolutionary consequences of the treatment. Of the three therapeutic strategies, the evolutionarily enlightened therapy leads to the highest values of the objective function, the lowest treatment dose, and the lowest treatment-induced resistance. Conversely, in our model, the maximum tolerable dose leads to the worst values of the objective function, the highest treatment dose, and the highest treatment-induced resistance.

Stackelberg evolutionary game (SEG) theory combines classical and evolutionary game theory to frame interactions between a rational leader and evolving followers. In some of these interactions, the leader wants to preserve the evolving system (e.g. fisheries management), while in others, they try to drive the system to extinction (e.g. pest control). Often the worst strategy for the leader is to adopt a constant aggressive strategy (e.g. overfishing in fisheries management or maximum tolerable dose in cancer treatment). Taking into account the ecological dynamics typically leads to better outcomes for the leader and corresponds to the Nash equilibria in game-theoretic terms. However, the leader's most profitable strategy is to anticipate and steer the eco-evolutionary dynamics, leading to the Stackelberg equilibrium of the game. We show how our results have the potential to help in fields where humans try to bring an evolutionary system into the desired outcome, such as, among others, fisheries management, pest management and cancer treatment. Finally, we discuss limitations and opportunities for applying SEGs to improve the management of evolving biological systems. This article is part of the theme issue 'Half a century of evolutionary games: a synthesis of theory, application and future directions'.

Evolutionary game theory mathematically conceptualizes and analyzes biological interactions where one’s fitness not only depends on one’s own traits, but also on the traits of others. Typically, the individuals are not overtly rational and do not select, but rather inherit their traits. Cancer can be framed as such an evolutionary game, as it is composed of cells of heterogeneous types undergoing frequency-dependent selection. In this article, we first summarize existing works where evolutionary game theory has been employed in modeling cancer and improving its treatment. Some of these game-theoretic models suggest how one could anticipate and steer cancer’s eco-evolutionary dynamics into states more desirable for the patient via evolutionary therapies. Such therapies offer great promise for increasing patient survival and decreasing drug toxicity, as demonstrated by some recent studies and clinical trials. We discuss clinical relevance of the existing game-theoretic models of cancer and its treatment, and opportunities for future applications. Moreover, we discuss the developments in cancer biology that are needed to better utilize the full potential of game-theoretic models. Ultimately, we demonstrate that viewing tumors with evolutionary game theory has medically useful implications that can inform and create a lockstep between empirical findings and mathematical modeling. We suggest that cancer progression is an evolutionary competition between different cell types and therefore needs to be viewed as an evolutionary game.