In mathematical models of eco-evolutionary dynamics with a quantitative trait, two species with different strategies can coexist only if they are separated by a valley or peak of the adaptive landscape. A community is ecologically and evolutionarily stable if each species’ trait sits on global, equal fitness peaks, forming a saturated ESS community. However, the adaptive landscape may allow communities with fewer (undersaturated) or more (hypersaturated) species than the ESS. Non-ESS communities at ecological equilibrium exhibit invasion windows of strategies that can successfully invade. Hypersaturated communities can arise through mutual invasibility where each non-ESS species’ strategy lies in another’s invasion window. Hypersaturation in ESS communities with more than 1 species remains poorly understood. We use the G-function approach to model niche coevolution and Darwinian dynamics in a Lotka–Volterra competition model. We confirm that up to 2 species can coexist in a hypersaturated community with a single-species ESS if the strategy is scalar-valued, or 3 species if the strategy is bivariate. We conjecture that at most n·s+1 species can form a hypersaturated community, where n is the number of ESS species at the strategy’s dimension s. For a scalar-valued 2-species ESS, 4 species coexist by “straddling” the would-be ESS traits. When our model has a 5-species ESS, we can get 7 or 8, but not 9 or 10, species coexisting in the hypersaturated community. In a bivariate model with a single-species ESS, an infinite number of 3-species hypersaturated communities can exist. We offer conjectures and discuss their relevance to ecosystems that may be non-ESS due to invasive species, climate change, and human-altered landscapes.

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'.

Nature exhibits rapid evolution in response to human activities. When using natural resources for their own profit, humans should account for such responses. Stackelberg evolutionary games (SEG) offer a method for modeling interactions between a rational leader (humans) and evolutionary followers (nature). The followers evolve according to the principles of natural selection, and the leader tries to steer these inevitable responses in a desired direction. While the separate elements of this method, Stackelberg and evolutionary game theory, are well established, their joint realization in SEG theory is underdeveloped. Thus far, simple examples and formalisms of SEGs have considered models where the manager and evolving species have a scalar-valued controller and scalar-valued trait, respectively. Here we provide examples from cancer therapy, fisheries management, and pest control to illustrate extensions of SEG theory, where managers are attempting to control a Darwinian system. The models we develop and present highlight extensions of SEG theory to include vector-valued management strategies and vector-valued traits in the evolving species, and traits influencing different life-history stages of the species under management. Throughout we highlight the mathematical challenges that lie ahead.

This paper develops and analyzes a Markov chain model for the treatment of cancer. Cancer therapy is modeled as the patient's Markov Decision Problem, with the objective of maximizing the patient's discounted expected quality of life years. Patients make decisions on the duration of therapy based on the progression of the disease as well as their own preferences. We obtain a powerful analytic decision tool through which patients may select their preferred treatment strategy. We illustrate the tradeoffs patients in a numerical example and calculate the value lost to a cohort in suboptimal strategies. In a second model patients may make choices to include drug holidays. By delaying therapy, the patient temporarily forgoes the gains of therapy in order to delay its side effects. We obtain an analytic tool that allows numerical approximations of the optimal times of delay.

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.

Rapid evolution is ubiquitous in nature. We briefly review some of this quite broadly, particularly in the context of response to anthropogenic disturbances. Nowhere is this more evident, replicated and accessible to study than in cancer. Curiously cancer has been late - relative to fisheries, antibiotic resistance, pest management and evolution in human dominated landscapes - in recognizing the need for evolutionarily informed management strategies. The speed of evolution matters. Here, we employ game-theoretic modeling to compare time to progression with continuous maximum tolerable dose to that of adaptive therapy where treatment is discontinued when the population of cancer cells gets below half of its initial size and re-administered when the cancer cells recover, forming cycles with and without treatment. We show that the success of adaptive therapy relative to continuous maximum tolerable dose therapy is much higher if the population of cancer cells is defined by two cell types (sensitive vs. resistant in a polymorphic population). Additionally, the relative increase in time to progression increases with the speed of evolution. These results hold with and without a cost of resistance in cancer cells. On the other hand, treatment-induced resistance can be modeled as a quantitative trait in a monomorphic population of cancer cells. In that case, when evolution is rapid, there is no advantage to adaptive therapy. Initial responses to therapy are blunted by the cancer cells evolving too quickly. Our study emphasizes how cancer provides a unique system for studying rapid evolutionary changes within tumor ecosystems in response to human interventions; and allows us to contrast and compare this system to other human managed or dominated systems in nature.

Fish populations subject to heavy exploitation are expected to evolve over time smaller average body sizes. We introduce Stackelberg evolutionary game theory to show how fisheries management should be adjusted to mitigate the potential negative effects of such evolutionary changes. We present the game of a fisheries manager versus a fish population, where the former adjusts the harvesting rate and the net size to maximize profit, while the latter responds by evolving the size at maturation to maximize the fitness. We analyze three strategies: i) ecologically enlightened (leading to a Nash equilibrium in game-theoretic terms); ii) evolutionarily enlightened (leading to a Stackelberg equilibrium) and iii) domestication (leading to team optimum) and the corresponding outcomes for both the fisheries manager and the fish. Domestication results in the largest size for the fish and the highest profit for the manager. With the Nash approach the manager tends to adopt a high harvesting rate and a small net size that eventually leads to smaller fish. With the Stackelberg approach the manager selects a bigger net size and scales back the harvesting rate, which lead to a bigger fish size and a higher profit. Overall, our results encourage managers to take the fish evolutionary dynamics into account. Moreover, we advocate for the use of Stackelberg evolutionary game theory as a tool for providing insights into the eco-evolutionary consequences of exploiting evolving resources.

The application of evolutionary and ecological principles to cancer prevention and treatment, as well as recognizing cancer as a selection force in nature, has gained impetus over the last 50 years. Following the initial theoretical approaches that combined knowledge from interdisciplinary fields, it became clear that using the eco-evolutionary framework is of key importance to understand cancer. We are now at a pivotal point where accumulating evidence starts to steer the future directions of the discipline and allows us to underpin the key challenges that remain to be addressed. Here, we aim to assess current advancements in the field and to suggest future directions for research. First, we summarize cancer research areas that, so far, have assimilated ecological and evolutionary principles into their approaches and illustrate their key importance. Then, we assembled 33 experts and identified 84 key questions, organized around nine major themes, to pave the foundations for research to come. We highlight the urgent need for broadening the portfolio of research directions to stimulate novel approaches at the interface of oncology and ecological and evolutionary sciences. We conclude that progressive and efficient cross-disciplinary collaborations that draw on the expertise of the fields of ecology, evolution and cancer are essential in order to efficiently address current and future questions about cancer.

In the absence of curative therapies, treatment of metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) using currently available drugs can be improved by integrating evolutionary principles that govern proliferation of resistant subpopulations into current treatment protocols. Here we develop what is coined as an ‘evolutionary stable therapy’, within the context of the mathematical model that has been used to inform the first adaptive therapy clinical trial of mCRPC. The objective of this therapy is to maintain a stable polymorphic tumor heterogeneity of sensitive and resistant cells to therapy in order to prolong treatment efficacy and progression free survival. Optimal control analysis shows that an increasing dose titration protocol, a very common clinical dosing process, can achieve tumor stabilization for a wide range of potential initial tumor compositions and volumes. Furthermore, larger tumor volumes may counter intuitively be more likely to be stabilized if sensitive cells dominate the tumor composition at time of initial treatment, suggesting a delay of initial treatment could prove beneficial. While it remains uncertain if metastatic disease in humans has the properties that allow it to be truly stabilized, the benefits of a dose titration protocol warrant additional pre-clinical and clinical investigations.

For cancer, we develop a 2-D agent-based continuous-space game-theoretical model that considers cancer cells’ proximity to a blood vessel. Based on castrate resistant metastatic prostate cancer (mCRPC), the model considers the density and frequency (eco-evolutionary) dynamics of three cancer cell types: those that require exogenous testosterone (T ⁺ ), those producing testosterone (TP), and those independent of testosterone (T ⁻ ). We model proximity to a blood vessel by imagining four zones around the vessel. Zone 0 is the blood vessel. As rings, zones 1–3 are successively farther from the blood vessel and have successively lower carrying capacities. Zone 4 represents the space too far from the blood vessel and too poor in nutrients for cancer cell proliferation. Within the other three zones that are closer to the blood vessel, the cells’ proliferation probabilities are determined by zone-specific payoff matrices. We analyzed how zone width, dispersal, interactions across zone boundaries, and blood vessel dynamics influence the eco-evolutionary dynamics of cell types within zones and across the entire cancer cell population. At equilibrium, zone 3’s composition deviates from its evolutionary stable strategy (ESS) towards that of zone 2. Zone 2 sees deviations from its ESS because of dispersal from zones 1 and 3; however, its composition begins to resemble zone 1’s more so than zone 3’s. Frequency-dependent interactions between cells across zone boundaries have little effect on zone 2’s and zone 3’s composition but have decisive effects on zone 1. The composition of zone 1 diverges dramatically from both its own ESS, but also that of zone 2. That is because T ⁺ cells (highest frequency in zone 1) benefit from interacting with TP cells (highest frequency in zone 2). Zone 1 T ⁺ cells interacting with cells in zone 2 experience a higher likelihood of encountering a T ^P cell than when restricted to their own zone. As expected, increasing the width of zones decreases these impacts of cross-boundary dispersal and interactions. Increasing zone widths increases the persistence likelihood of the cancer subpopulation in the face of blood vessel dynamics, where the vessel may die or become occluded resulting in the “birth” of another blood vessel elsewhere in the space. With small zone widths, the cancer cell subpopulations cannot persist. With large zone widths, blood vessel dynamics create cancer cell subpopulations that resemble the ESS of zone 3 as the larger area of zone 3 and its contribution to cells within the necrotic zone 4 mean that zones 3 and 4 provide the likeliest colonizers for the new blood vessel. In conclusion, our model provides an alternative modeling approach for considering density-dependent, frequency-dependent, and dispersal dynamics into cancer models with spatial gradients around blood vessels. Additionally, our model can consider the occurrence of circulating tumor cells (cells that disperse into the blood vessel from zone 1) and the presence of live cancer cells within the necrotic regions of a tumor.

Importance: While systemic therapy for disseminated cancer is often initially successful, malignant cells, using diverse adaptive strategies encoded in the human genome, almost invariably evolve resistance, leading to treatment failure. Thus, the Darwinian dynamics of resistance are formidable barriers to all forms of systemic cancer treatment but rarely integrated into clinical trial design or included within precision oncology initiatives. Observations: We investigate cancer treatment as a game theoretic contest between the physician's therapy and the cancer cells' resistance strategies. This game has 2 critical asymmetries: (1) Only the physician can play rationally. Cancer cells, like all evolving organisms, can only adapt to current conditions; they can neither anticipate nor evolve adaptations for treatments that the physician has not yet applied. (2) It has a distinctive leader-follower (or "Stackelberg") dynamics; the "leader" oncologist plays first and the "follower" cancer cells then respond and adapt to therapy. Current treatment protocols for metastatic cancer typically exploit neither asymmetry. By repeatedly administering the same drug(s) until disease progression, the physician "plays" a fixed strategy even as the opposing cancer cells continuously evolve successful adaptive responses. Furthermore, by changing treatment only when the tumor progresses, the physician cedes leadership to the cancer cells and treatment failure becomes nearly inevitable. Without fundamental changes in strategy, standard-of-care cancer therapy typically results in "Nash solutions" in which no unilateral change in treatment can favorably alter the outcome. Conclusions and Relevance: Physicians can exploit the advantages inherent in the asymmetries of the cancer treatment game, and likely improve outcomes, by adopting more dynamic treatment protocols that integrate eco-evolutionary dynamics and modulate therapy accordingly. Implementing this approach will require new metrics of tumor response that incorporate both ecological (ie, size) and evolutionary (ie, molecular mechanisms of resistance and relative size of resistant population) changes.

In metastatic castrate resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), abiraterone is conventionally administered continuously at maximal tolerated dose until treatment failure. The majority of patients initially respond well to abiraterone but the cancer cells evolve resistance and the cancer progresses within a median time of 16 months. Incorporating techniques that attempt to delay or prevent the growth of the resistant cancer cell phenotype responsible for disease progression have only recently entered the clinical setting. Here we use evolutionary game theory to model the evolutionary dynamics of patients with mCRPC subject to abiraterone therapy. In evaluating therapy options, we adopt an optimal control theory approach and seek the best treatment schedule using nonlinear constrained optimization. We compare patient outcomes from standard clinical treatments to those with other treatment objectives, such as maintaining a constant total tumor volume or minimizing the fraction of resistant cancer cells within the tumor. Our model predicts that continuous high doses of abiraterone as well as other therapies aimed at curing the patient result in accelerated competitive release of the resistant phenotype and rapid subsequent tumor progression. We find that long term control is achievable using optimized therapy through the restrained and judicious application of abiraterone, maintaining its effectiveness while providing acceptable patient quality of life. Implementing this strategy will require overcoming psychological and emotional barriers in patients and physicians as well as acquisition of a new class of clinical data designed to accurately estimate intratumoral eco-evolutionary dynamics during therapy.

We propose a model with two types of cancer cells differentiated by their defense mechanisms against the immune system. “Selfish” cancer cells develop defense mechanisms that benefit the individual cell, whereas “cooperative” cells deploy countermeasures that increase the chance of survival of every cell. Our phenotypes capture the two main features of the tumor's efforts to avoid immune destruction, crypticity against immune cells for the selfish cells, and tumor-induced immunosuppression for the cooperative cells. We identify steady states of the system and show that only homogeneous tumors can be stable in both size and composition. We show that under generic parameter values, a tumor of selfish cells is more benign than a tumor of cooperative cells, and that a treatment against cancer crypticity may promote immunosuppression and increase cancer growth.

For over 100 years it has been recognized that insect pests evolve resistance to chemical pesticides. More recently, managers have advocated restrained use of pesticides, crop rotation, the use of multiple pesticides, and pesticide-free sanctuaries as resistance management practices. Game theory provides a conceptual framework for combining the resistance strategies of the insects and the control strategies of the pest manager into a unified conceptual and modelling framework. Game theory can contrast an ecologically enlightened application of pesticides with an evolutionarily enlightened one. In the former case the manager only considers ecological consequences whereas the latter anticipates the evolutionary response of the pests. Broader applications of this game theory approach include anti-biotic resistance, fisheries management and therapy resistance in cancer.

Metastatic prostate cancer is initially treated with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). However, resistance typically develops in about 1 year – a clinical condition termed metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). We develop and investigate a spatial game (agent based continuous space) of mCRPC that considers three distinct cancer cell types: (1) those dependent on exogenous testosterone (T⁺), (2) those with increased CYP17A expression that produce testosterone and provide it to the environment as a public good (T^P), and (3) those independent of testosterone (T⁻). The interactions within and between cancer cell types can be represented by a 3 × 3 matrix. Based on the known biology of this cancer there are 22 potential matrices that give roughly three major outcomes depending upon the absence (good prognosis), near absence or high frequency (poor prognosis) of T⁻ cells at the evolutionarily stable strategy (ESS). When just two cell types coexist the spatial game faithfully reproduces the ESS of the corresponding matrix game. With three cell types divergences occur, in some cases just two strategies coexist in the spatial game even as a non-spatial matrix game supports all three. Discrepancies between the spatial game and non-spatial ESS happen because different cell types become more or less clumped in the spatial game – leading to non-random assortative interactions between cell types. Three key spatial scales influence the distribution and abundance of cell types in the spatial game: i. Increasing the radius at which cells interact with each other can lead to higher clumping of each type, ii. Increasing the radius at which cells experience limits to population growth can cause densely packed tumor clusters in space, iii. Increasing the dispersal radius of daughter cells promotes increased mixing of cell types. To our knowledge the effects of these spatial scales on eco-evolutionary dynamics have not been explored in cancer models. The fact that cancer interactions are spatially explicit and that our spatial game of mCRPC provides in general different outcomes than the non-spatial game might suggest that non-spatial models are insufficient for capturing key elements of tumorigenesis.