Loading [MathJax]/jax/output/SVG/jax.js
Research article Special Issues

Analysis and analytical simulation for a biophysical fractional diffusive cancer model with virotherapy using the Caputo operator

  • In this paper, a biophysical fractional diffusive cancer model with virotherapy is thoroughly analyzed and analytically simulated. The goal of this biophysical model is to represent both the dynamics of cancer development and the results of virotherapy, which uses viruses to target and destroy cancer cells. The Caputo sense is applied to the fractional derivatives. We look at the governing model's existence and uniqueness. For analytical solutions, the Laplace residual power series approach is used. The study investigates the model's dynamic behavior, shedding light on the development of cancer and the effects of virotherapy. The research advances our knowledge of cancer modeling and treatment options. Numerical simulations show the agreement between the analytical results and the related numerical solutions, proving the usefulness of the analytical solution.

    Citation: Mohammed Alabedalhadi, Mohammed Shqair, Ibrahim Saleh. Analysis and analytical simulation for a biophysical fractional diffusive cancer model with virotherapy using the Caputo operator[J]. AIMS Biophysics, 2023, 10(4): 503-522. doi: 10.3934/biophy.2023028

    Related Papers:

    [1] Mati ur Rahman, Mehmet Yavuz, Muhammad Arfan, Adnan Sami . Theoretical and numerical investigation of a modified ABC fractional operator for the spread of polio under the effect of vaccination. AIMS Biophysics, 2024, 11(1): 97-120. doi: 10.3934/biophy.2024007
    [2] Shaimaa A. M. Abdelmohsen, D. Sh. Mohamed, Haifa A. Alyousef, M. R. Gorji, Amr M. S. Mahdy . Mathematical modeling for solving fractional model cancer bosom malignant growth. AIMS Biophysics, 2023, 10(3): 263-280. doi: 10.3934/biophy.2023018
    [3] Mehmet Yavuz, Fuat Usta . Importance of modelling and simulation in biophysical applications. AIMS Biophysics, 2023, 10(3): 258-262. doi: 10.3934/biophy.2023017
    [4] Ulrich Lüttge . Physics and the molecular revolution in plant biology: union needed for managing the future. AIMS Biophysics, 2016, 3(4): 501-521. doi: 10.3934/biophy.2016.4.501
    [5] Zachary Mekus, Jessica Cooley, Aaron George, Victoria Sabo, Morgan Strzegowski, Michelle Starz-Gaiano, Bradford E. Peercy . Effects of cell packing on chemoattractant distribution within a tissue. AIMS Biophysics, 2018, 5(1): 1-21. doi: 10.3934/biophy.2018.1.1
    [6] Mario P. Carante, Francesca Ballarini . Modelling cell death for cancer hadrontherapy. AIMS Biophysics, 2017, 4(3): 465-490. doi: 10.3934/biophy.2017.3.465
    [7] Yasir Nadeem Anjam, Mehmet Yavuz, Mati ur Rahman, Amna Batool . Analysis of a fractional pollution model in a system of three interconnecting lakes. AIMS Biophysics, 2023, 10(2): 220-240. doi: 10.3934/biophy.2023014
    [8] James C.L. Chow . Applications of artificial intelligence, mathematical modeling and simulation in medical biophysics. AIMS Biophysics, 2021, 8(1): 121-123. doi: 10.3934/biophy.2021009
    [9] James C.L. Chow . Computer method and modeling: Medical biophysics applications in cancer therapy, medical imaging and drug delivery. AIMS Biophysics, 2021, 8(3): 233-235. doi: 10.3934/biophy.2021017
    [10] James C.L. Chow . Biophysical insights into nanomaterial-induced DNA damage: mechanisms, challenges, and future directions. AIMS Biophysics, 2024, 11(3): 340-369. doi: 10.3934/biophy.2024019
  • In this paper, a biophysical fractional diffusive cancer model with virotherapy is thoroughly analyzed and analytically simulated. The goal of this biophysical model is to represent both the dynamics of cancer development and the results of virotherapy, which uses viruses to target and destroy cancer cells. The Caputo sense is applied to the fractional derivatives. We look at the governing model's existence and uniqueness. For analytical solutions, the Laplace residual power series approach is used. The study investigates the model's dynamic behavior, shedding light on the development of cancer and the effects of virotherapy. The research advances our knowledge of cancer modeling and treatment options. Numerical simulations show the agreement between the analytical results and the related numerical solutions, proving the usefulness of the analytical solution.



    Cancer stands as one of the most lethal diseases worldwide, ranking as the second leading cause of death globally. According to the World Health Organization, approximately 9.6 million lives were claimed by cancer in 2018 alone, accounting for about 1 in 6 deaths. Developing countries bear the highest impact of this burden, contributing nearly 70% of the annual cancer-related fatalities. In response, policymakers have recognized the significance of prioritizing cancer prevention and control to safeguard the nation's productivity [1],[2]. Researchers have also devoted considerable time and effort to discovering effective treatments, enhancing the efficiency of current low-cost therapies and exploring methods to boost patients' immune systems in their battle against cancer [3],[4].

    In recent times, significant progress has been made in developing cancer therapies that can effectively target tumors without harming healthy neighboring tissues. Genetic engineering has played a pivotal role in this pursuit, leading to the discovery of a promising cancer treatment involving genetically altered viruses [5]. These engineered viruses, known as oncolytic viruses, have the unique ability to infect cancer cells specifically. They grow within the abnormal tumor cells and destroy them without affecting the surrounding healthy cells or normal tissue. The process involves the oncolytic viruses interacting with the tumor cell, leading to a burst of new oncolytic viruses. The burst size, which measures the number of new viruses resulting from the lysis of an infected tumor cell, serves as an important indicator of the oncolytic virus's replicability [6]. The treatment of cancer varies according to individual situations, and different therapies may be employed alone or in combination, including surgery, radiotherapy, chemotherapy, hormone therapy, immunotherapy and virotherapy. Virotherapy has emerged as a promising approach, wherein a reprogrammed virus, termed an oncolytic virus, is utilized. Oncolytic viruses effectively infect and destroy cancer cells, harnessing the cell's genetic machinery to replicate themselves and spread to neighboring uninfected cells [7]. This innovative treatment holds immense potential in the ongoing fight against cancer.

    Biophysics is a branch of physics that is concerned with studying biological phenomena depending on physical theories, laws, methods and physical quantities. The biophysics concept was introduced in 1892 by Karl Pearson and then expanded and developed to solve extremely difficult problems cannot be solved. Biophysics includes different biological and medical branches, which will be listed as the following: Firstly, it is concerned with studying the structure of many biological phenomena, like DNA, and analyzing its data depending on physical laws and theories. Another biophysical field is the construction of mathematical models (for viruses, pathogens, proteins etc.), developing the needed computer codes, and performing the simulation of the studied case to find the required target. Moreover, building models computationally of the human body, like the brain and nervous systems, is an important biophysical field that gives a better understanding of their working and also tells us how molecules, like blood hormones and other liquids and gases, move around the body. Biophysics used physical and geometrical optics to develop medical imaging like PET scans, CT scans and MRIs. It developed medical devices that are used in radiation therapy, cardiology, defibrillators, pacemakers, artificial heart valves and other fields. It's also used in ecosystems that give us detailed information about the human body, like a pregnant woman's follow-up.

    Biophysical models that are expressed mathematically have proven valuable in understanding and addressing various biological and medical challenges, encompassing cancer models involving diverse therapies [8],[9], prey-predator models [9], epidemic models [10][13], HIV infection models [14][16], COVID-19 models [17], food chain models [18], smoking models [19], glycolysis models [20], drinking population models [21] and vector–host disease models [22]. Among these, some researchers have investigated mathematical models concerning cancer treated with virotherapy, investigating the intricate interaction between the virus and the tumor. Wodarz's foundational biophysical model explored tumor growth in the presence of virotherapy treatment [23], and subsequent modifications of the model aimed to explore the correlation between burst size and virus replicability. The findings revealed that larger burst sizes correspond to a decrease in cancer cells [24]. Conversely, other models have focused on understanding the immune system's response to virotherapy. As the immune system perceives viruses as foreign entities and acts to eliminate them, it may manifest a negative response to virotherapy, potentially compromising the effectiveness of the viral treatment [25]. Numerous studies have also explored the dynamics of interactions between uninfected and infected cells, as well as various immune responses [26],[27]. In this context, a review of Wodarz's fundamental model of oncolytic virus replication [28],[29] is utilized. This model investigates tumor growth and the infection term through a system of ordinary differential equations (ODEs). In this work, the branch of biophysics is concerned with developing a mathematical model in medicine, where the analysis and analytical simulation for a diffusive cancer model in the fractional form is considered. The present study aims to conduct a comprehensive analysis and develop analytical simulations for a fractional diffusive cancer model incorporating virotherapy, utilizing the Caputo operator. The objective is to gain a deeper understanding of the dynamics of the cancer-virus interaction and evaluate the potential efficacy of virotherapy as a treatment strategy for cancer.

    The authors in [30] have reformulated the model of oncolytic virus replication that studies the tumor growth and the infection term common with virotherapy and immune response and its impact in both uninfected and infected cells by considering five populations, as follows:

    ϕ1(t,x)ta12ϕ1(t,x)x2=p1ϕ1(1ϕ1ϕ2)p2ϕ1ϕ3p3ϕ1ϕ5,ϕ2(t,x)ta22ϕ2(t,x)x2=p2ϕ1ϕ3ϕ2μ1ϕ2ϕ5,ϕ3(t,x)ta32ϕ3(t,x)x2=p4ϕ2p2ϕ1ϕ3p5ϕ3p6ϕ3ϕ5,ϕ4(t,x)ta42ϕ4(t,x)x2=p7p8ϕ4s1ϕ2ϕ4s2ϕ1ϕ4,ϕ5(t,x)ta52ϕ5(t,x)x2=s1ϕ2ϕ4+s2ϕ1ϕ4μ2ϕ5,

    subject to the initial population data ϕi(0,x)=ϕ0i, i = 1, …, 5. In model (1), the parameters ai, i = 1, …, 5 denote the diffusion terms. The five-cell population are ϕ1(t, x) uninfected cancer cells, ϕ2(t, x) infected cancer cells, ϕ3(t, x) free virus, ϕ4(t, x) naive immune cells and ϕ5(t, x) activated immune cells. The description of parameters that appear in (1) can be arranged as, see [31],[32].

    In this work, we introduce a moderation for model (1) by substituting the time derivative with the Caputo fractional derivative. This modification makes the sides of the equations in the model (1) have not the same dimension, which requires using an auxiliary parameter σ, see [33]. Based on this discussion, we present the following fractional diffusive cancer model with virotherapy:

    1σ1αDαc,tϕ1(t,x) a12ϕ1(t,x)x2=p1ϕ1(1ϕ1ϕ2)p2ϕ1ϕ3p3ϕ1ϕ5,1σ1αDαc,tϕ2(t,x)a22ϕ2(t,x)x2=p2ϕ1ϕ3ϕ2μ1ϕ2ϕ5,1σ1αDαc,tϕ3(t,x)a32ϕ3(t,x)x2=p4ϕ2p2ϕ1ϕ3p5ϕ3p6ϕ3ϕ5,1σ1αDαc,tϕ4(t,x)a42ϕ4(t,x)x2=p7p8ϕ4s1ϕ2ϕ4s2ϕ1ϕ4,1σ1αDαc,tϕ5(t,x)a52ϕ5(t,x)x2=s1ϕ2ϕ4+s2ϕ1ϕ4μ2ϕ5,

    where Dαc,t denotes the Caputo fractional derivative concerning the time t of order α > 0. The urgent need to progress cancer research serves as the inspiration for our paper. Understanding the complicated dynamics of cancer growth and the effectiveness of treatment approaches is crucial since cancer creates significant issues around the world. Our research is driven by the objective to advance cancer research through illuminating cancer modeling and therapeutic strategies. We specifically look at how fractional calculus can be used, especially in the Caputo sense, to improve our understanding of how cancer progresses. In addition, our research explores the potential topic of virotherapy, which uses viruses to target and treat cancer cells. We examine the potential of virotherapy and assess its potency as a cancer treatment strategy within a mathematical modeling framework.

    The existence and uniqueness of the governing model (2) are examined in this paper. In order to solve the cancer model, it applies the Laplace residual power series method (LRPSM) [34] as an analytical tool, demonstrating its applicability and usefulness in solving real-world issues, which combine the power series method and the Laplace transform method [35]

    The paper is organized as an introduction in the first section. In Section 2, we present the definition of the Caputo derivative and some of its properties. Section 3 is devoted to investigating the existence and uniqueness of the proposed model. The LRPSM is employed to obtain analytical solutions in Section 4. In Section 5, we present some obtained numerical results in tables and figures. Discussion about the obtained results is presented in Section 6. Finally, some conclusions are provided in Section 7.

    This section is devoted to introducing some basic concepts about fractional calculus and the essential properties and results that will be useful in our work.

    Definition 1. [36] For an integrable function ϕ, the Caputo derivative of fractional order α ∈ (0,1) is given by:

    Dαc,tϕ(t,x)=1Γ(mα)t0mϕ(t,x)tm (tτ)αm+1dτ,

    where t ≥ 0, m = [α] + 1. The Riemann-Liouville fractional integral of order α, Re (α) > 0 is given by:

    Jαtϕ(t,x)=1Γ(α)t0(tτ)α1ϕ(τ,x)dτ.

    Lemma 1. [36] For 0 < α < 1 and t ≥ 0, we get the following property for the Caputo derivative:

    JαtDαc,tϕ(t,x)=ϕ(t,x)m1i=0iϕ(0,x)it  tii!.

    Definition 2. [36] Let ϕ(t, x) be a piecewise continuous function on [0, ∞) × I and of exponential order η. The Laplace transformation (LT) of ϕ(t, x) is defined as:

    Φ(s,x)=L{ϕ(t,x)}=0estϕ(t,x)dt,s>η,

    while the inverse Laplace transformation of Φ(s, x) is given by:

    ϕ(t,x)=L1{Φ(s,x)}=v+iviestΦ(s,x)ds,v=Re(s)>v0,

    where ν0 lies in the right half plane of the absolute convergence of the Laplace integral.

    Lemma 2. [37] Let ϕ(t, x) be a piecewise continuous function on [0, ∞) × I and of exponential order η. Then the Laplace transformation of Dαtϕ(t,x),0<α<1 is given by:

    L{Dαc,tϕ(t,x)}=sαΦ(s,x)m1i=0sαi1iϕ(0,x)it  .

    This section is devoted to show that the fractional model (2) has a unique solution using the fixed point theorem. Toachive our goal, the model (2) can be written as:

    σα1Dαc,tϕi(t,x)=Fi(t,ϕi),i=1,,5,

    such that

    F1(t,ϕ1)=a12ϕ1(t,x)x2+p1ϕ1(1ϕ1ϕ2)p2ϕ1ϕ3p3ϕ1ϕ5,F2(t, ϕ2)=a22ϕ2(t,x)x2+p2ϕ1ϕ3ϕ2μ1ϕ2ϕ5,F3(t,ϕ3)=a32ϕ3(t,x)x2+p4ϕ2p2ϕ1ϕ3p5ϕ3p6ϕ3ϕ5,F4(t,ϕ4)=a42ϕ4(t,x)x2+p7p8ϕ4s1ϕ2ϕ4s2ϕ1ϕ4,F5(t, ϕ5)=a52ϕ5(t,x)x2+s1ϕ2ϕ4+s2ϕ1ϕ4μ2ϕ5.

    Apply the Riemann-Liouville fractional integral to both sides of the model (9) with the aid of Lemma 1 and (10) to get:

    ϕi(t,x)ϕ0i=σ1αΓ(α)t0Fi(t,ϕi)(tτ)α1dτ,i=1,,5.

    To show that the kernels Fi(t,ϕi),i=1,,5 satisfy the Lipschitz condition we introduce the following assumption:

    C1: For the continuous functions ϕi and ˉϕi,i=1,,5 belong to L[0,1], there exist constants ωi,ˉωi,ω*𝔑,i=1,,5, such that the following hold true:

    ϕi(t,x)ωi,

    2ϕi(t,x)x22ˉϕi(t,x)x2ˉωiϕi(t,x)ˉϕi(t,x),

    ϕ21(t,x)ˉϕ21(t,x)ω*ϕ1(t,x)ˉϕ1(t,x),

    for i = 1, …, 5. Now, we can introduce the following result:

    Theorem 1. The kernels Fi(t,ϕi),i=1,,5 satisfy the Lipschitz conditions and contraction, provided that the assumption C1 and the following inequalities are satisfied:

    β1=a1ˉω1+p1+p1ω*+p1ω2+p2ω3+p3ω5<1,

    β2=a2ˉω2+1+μ1ω5<1,

    β3=a3ˉω3+p2ω1+p5+p6ω5<1,

    β4=a4ˉω4+p8+s1ω2+s2ω1<1,

    β5=a5ˉω5+μ2<1.

    Proof. Using the definition of F1(t,ϕ1) in (10) with aid of assumption C1, we get:

    F1(t,ϕ1)F1(t,ˉϕ1)=a1(2ϕ1(t,x)x22ˉϕ1(t,x)x2)+p1(ϕ1ˉϕ1)p1(ϕ21ˉϕi2)p1ϕ2(ϕ1ˉϕ1)p2ϕ3(ϕ1ˉϕ1)p3ϕ5(ϕ1ˉϕ1)(a12ϕ1(t,x)x22ˉϕ1(t,x)x2+p1ϕ1ˉϕ1+p1ϕ21ˉϕ21+p1ϕ2ϕ1ˉϕ1+p2ϕ3ϕ1ˉϕ1+p3ϕ5ϕ1ˉϕ1)(a1ˉω1+p1+p1ω*+p1ω2+p2ω3+p3ω5)ϕ1ˉϕ1β1ϕ1ˉϕ1.

    Now, we show that the kernel F2(t,ϕ2) satisfies the Lipschitz condition.

    F2(t,ϕ2)F2(t,ˉϕ2)=a2(2ϕ2(t,x)x22ˉϕ2(t,x)x2)(ϕ2ˉϕ2)μ1ϕ5(ϕ2ˉϕ2)(a22ϕ2(t,x)x22ˉϕ2(t,x)x2+ϕ2ˉϕ2+μ1ϕ5ϕ2ˉϕ2)(a2ˉω2+1+μ1ω5)ϕ2ˉϕ2β2ϕ2ˉϕ2.

    We are going to prove that F3(t,ϕ3) satisfies the Lipschitz condition.

    F3(t, ϕ3)F3(t, ˉϕ3)=a3(2ϕ3(t,x)x22ˉϕ3(t,x)x2)p2ϕ1(ϕ3ˉϕ3)p5(ϕ3ˉϕ3)p6ϕ5(ϕ3ˉϕ3)(a32ϕ3(t,x)x22ˉϕ3(t,x)x2+p2ϕ1ϕ3ˉϕ3+p5ϕ3ˉϕ3+p6ϕ5ϕ3ˉϕ3)(a3ˉω3+p2ω1+p5+p6ω5)ϕ3ˉϕ3β3ϕ3ˉϕ3.

    Regarding the kernel F4(t,ϕ4), we can see that it achieves the Lipschitz condition through the following:

    F4(t, ϕ4)F4(t,ˉϕ4)=a4(2ϕ4(t,x)x22ˉϕ4(t,x)x2)p8(ϕ4ˉϕ4)s1ϕ2(ϕ4ˉϕ4)s2ϕ1(ϕ4ˉϕ4)(a42ϕ4(t,x)x22ˉϕ4(t,x)x2+p8ϕ4ˉϕ4+s1ϕ2ϕ4ˉϕ4+s2ϕ1ϕ4ˉϕ4)(a4ˉω4+p8+s1ω2+s2ω1)ϕ4ˉϕ4β4ϕ4ˉϕ4.

    Finally, for the kernel F5(t,ϕ5), we obtain:

    F5(t, ϕ5)F5(t, ˉϕ5)=a5(2ϕ5(t,x)x22ˉϕ5(t,x)x2)μ2(ϕ5ˉϕ5)(a52ϕ5(t,x)x22ˉϕ5(t,x)x2+μ2ϕ5ˉϕ5)(a5ˉω5+μ2)ϕ5ˉϕ5β5ϕ5ˉϕ5.

    From the discussion in (20)–(24) with aid (15)–(19), we obtain that the kernels Fi(t,ϕi),i=1,,5 satisfy the Lipschitz conditions and contraction.

    According to (11), we define the following recursions:

    Ψi,q(t)=ϕi,q(t,x)ϕi,q1(t,x)=σ1αΓ(α)t0(Fi(t,ϕi,q1)Fi(t,ϕi,q2))(tτ)α1dτ.

    We take the norm for the sides of (25) with the help of Theorem 1 and we obtain:

    Ψi,q(t)=ϕi,q(t,x)ϕi,q1(t,x)=σ1αΓ(α)t0(Fi(t,ϕi,q1)Fi(t,ϕi,q2))(tτ)α1dτσ1αΓ(α)t0Fi(t,ϕi,q1)Fi(t,ϕi,q2)(tτ)α1dτσ1αΓ(α)βit0Ψi,q1(τ)dτ,

    for i = 1, …, 5. Now, we can present the following result:

    Theorem 2. The fractional diffusive cancer model (2) has a solution provided that the assumption C1 and the following inequality holds the true:

    β*=maxi=1,,5βi<1.

    Proof. Firstly, we define:

    Qi,q(t)=ϕi,q+1(t,x)ϕi(t,x),i=1,,5.

    Using the results obtained in (26), we obtain:

    Qi,q(t)=ϕi,q+1(t,x)ϕi,1(t,x)(σ1αΓ(α))qϕi,1(t,x)ϕi(t,x)β*q,

    for i = 1, …, 5. This means the functions Qi,q(t)0 as q → ∞ for i = 1, …, 5. This completes the proof.

    For the uniqueness analysis for the solution of the model (2), we introduce the following Theorem:

    Theorem 3. The fractional diffusive cancer model (2) has a unique solution provided that the assumption C1 and the following inequality hold:

    1σ1αΓ(α)βi0,

    for i = 1, …, 5.

    Proof. Assume that the model (2) has another pair of solutions ϕ*i(t,x),i=1,,5. Then, ϕ*i satisfies the integral system:

    ϕ*i(t,x)=ϕ0i+σ1αΓ(α)t0Fi(t,ϕ*i)(tτ)α1dτ,i=1,,5.

    Consequently, with the help of (11) and (31), one has:

    ϕi(t,x)ϕ*i(t,x)σ1αΓ(α)t0Fi(t,ϕi)Fi(t,ϕ*i)(tτ)α1dτσ1αΓ(α) βiϕi(t,x)ϕ*i(t,x),

    for i = 1, …, 5. Thus, we conclude:

    (1σ1αΓ(α) βi)ϕi(t,x)ϕ*i(t,x)0.

    Therefore, using the assumption (30) and the obtained result (33), we observe that ϕi(t,x)ϕ*i(t,x)=0 for i = 1, …, 5, which implies ϕi(t,x)=ϕ*i(t,x).

    In this section, we try to utilize the LRPSM to construct an analytical solution for the fractional diffusive cancer model (2). This method was investigated in many works in the literature. As a first step, we take the Laplace transformation with respect to temporal variable t to both sides for the equations in the biophysical model (2), and we get:

    1σ1αL{Dαc,tϕ1(t,x)}=a1L{2ϕ1(t,x)x2}+p1L{ϕ1}p1L{ϕ21}p1L{ϕ1ϕ2}p2L{ϕ1ϕ3}p3L{ϕ1ϕ5},

    1σ1αL{Dαc,tϕ2(t,x)}=a2L{2ϕ2(t,x)x2}+p2L{ϕ1ϕ3}L{ϕ2}μ1L{ϕ2ϕ5},

    1σ1αL{Dαc,tϕ3(t,x)}=a3L{2ϕ3(t,x)x2}+p4L{ϕ2}p2L{ϕ1ϕ3}p5L{ϕ3}p6L{ϕ3ϕ5},

    1σ1αL{Dαc,tϕ4(t,x)}=a4L{2ϕ4(t,x)x2}+p7sp8L{ϕ4}s1L{ϕ2ϕ4}s2L{ϕ1ϕ4},

    1σ1αL{Dαc,tϕ5(t,x)}=a5L{2ϕ5(t,x)x2}+s1L{ϕ2ϕ4}+s2L{ϕ1ϕ4}μ2L{ϕ5}.

    Assume that L{ϕi(t,x)}=Φi(s,x) for i = 1, …, 5. Using Lemma 2, then we can rewrite Eqs (34)(38) as:

    Φ1(s,x)=ϕ01s+σ1αsα(a12Φ1(s,x)x2+p1Φ1(s,x)p1L{(L1{Φ1(s,x)})2}p1L{L1{Φ1(s,x)}L1{Φ2(s,x)}}p2L{L1{Φ1(s,x)}L1{Φ3(s,x)}}p3L{L1{Φ1(s,x)}L1{Φ5(s,x)}}),

    Φ2(s,x)=ϕ02s+σ1αsα(a22Φ2(s,x)x2+p2L{L1{Φ1(s,x)}L1{Φ3(s,x)}}Φ2(s,x)μ1L{L1{Φ2(s,x)}L1{Φ5(s,x)}}),

    Φ3(s,x)=ϕ03s+σ1αsα(a32Φ3(s,x)x2+p4Φ2(s,x)p2L{L1{Φ1(s,x)}L1{Φ3(s,x)}}p5Φ3(s,x)p6L{L1{Φ3(s,x)}L1{Φ5(s,x)}}),

    Φ4(s,x)=ϕ04s+σ1αsα(a42Φ4(s,x)x2+p7sp8Φ4(s,x)s1L{L1{Φ2(s,x)}L1{Φ4(s,x)}}s2L{L1{Φ1(s,x)}L1{Φ4(s,x)}}),

    Φ5(s,x)=ϕ05s+σ1αsα(a52Φ5(s,x)x2+s1L{L1{Φ2(s,x)}L1{Φ4(s,x)}}+s2L{L1{Φ1(s,x)}L1{Φ4(s,x)}}μ2Φ5(s,x)).

    The proposed technique assumes that the solution of the system (39)–(43) can be given in the following form:

    Φi(s,x)=r=0bi,r(x)srα+1,

    for i = 1, …, 5. Hence, the nth-truncated solution can be written as:

    Φni(s,x)=nr=0bi,r(x)srα+1,

    for i = 1, …, 5. It is important to note here that the discussion of series convergence (44) has been presented in detail in the literature. To determine the initial guess bi,0(x), we present the following Lemma:

    Lemma 3. [37] Let ϕ(t, x) be a piecewise continuous function on [0, ∞) × I and suppose that Φ(s,x)=L{ϕ(t,x)}. Then,

    limssΦ(s,x)=ϕ(x,0),xI.

    According to this lemma, we obtain the initial guess bi,0(x)=ϕ0i, for i = 1, …, 5. Therefore, the nth-truncated solution (45) is:

    Φni(s,x)=ϕ0is+nr=1bi,r(x)srα+1.

    for i = 1, …, 5. Now, define the Laplace residual functions, LResi(s, x), related to (39), (43) as:

    LRes1(s,x)=Φ1(s,x)ϕ01sσ1αsα(a12Φ1(s,x)x2+p1Φ1(s,x)p1L{(L1{Φ1(s,x)})2}p1L{L1{Φ1(s,x)}L1{Φ2(s,x)}}p2L{L1{Φ1(s,x)}L1{Φ3(s,x)}}p3L{L1{Φ1(s,x)}L1{Φ5(s,x)}})

    LRes2(s,x)=Φ2(s,x)ϕ02sσ1αsα(a22Φ2(s,x)x2+p2L{L1{Φ1(s,x)}L1{Φ3(s,x)}}Φ2(s,x)μ1L{L1{Φ2(s,x)}L1{Φ5(s,x)}}),

    LRes3(s,x)=Φ3(s,x)ϕ03sσ1αsα(a32Φ3(s,x)x2+p4Φ2(s,x)p2L{L1{Φ1(s,x)}L1{Φ3(s,x)}}p5Φ3(s,x)p6L{L1{Φ3(s,x)}L1{Φ5(s,x)}}),

    LRes4(s,x)=Φ4(s,x)ϕ04sσ1αsα(a42Φ4(s,x)x2+p7sp8Φ4(s,x)s1L{L1{Φ2(s,x)}L1{Φ4(s,x)}}s2L{L1{Φ1(s,x)}L1{Φ4(s,x)}}),

    LRes5(s,x)=Φ5(s,x)ϕ05sσ1αsα(a52Φ5(s,x)x2+s1L{L1{Φ2(s,x)}L1{Φ4(s,x)}}+s2L{L1{Φ1(s,x)}L1{Φ4(s,x)}}μ2Φ5(s,x)).

    Consequently, the nth-truncated Laplace residual functions, LResni(s,x) gives:

    LResn1(s,x)=Φn1(s,x)ϕ01sσ1αsα(a12Φn1(s,x)x2+p1Φn1(s,x)p1L{(L1{Φn1(s,x)})2}p1L{L1{Φn1(s,x)}L1{Φn2(s,x)}}p2L{L1{Φn1(s,x)}L1{Φn3(s,x)}}p3L{L1{Φn1(s,x)}L1{Φn5(s,x)}}),

    LResn2(s,x)=Φn2(s,x)ϕ02sσ1αsα(a22Φn2(s,x)x2+p2L{L1{Φn1(s,x)}L1{Φn3(s,x)}}Φn2(s,x)μ1L{L1{Φn2(s,x)}L1{Φn5(s,x)}}),

    LResn3(s,x)=Φn3(s,x)ϕ03sσ1αsα(a32Φn3(s,x)x2+p4Φn2(s,x)p2L{L1{Φn1(s,x)}L1{Φn3(s,x)}}p5Φn3(s,x)p6L{L1{Φn3(s,x)}L1{Φn5(s,x)}}),

    LResn3(s,x)=Φn3(s,x)ϕ03sσ1αsα(a32Φn3(s,x)x2+p4Φn2(s,x)p2L{L1{Φn1(s,x)}L1{Φn3(s,x)}}p5Φn3(s,x)p6L{L1{Φn3(s,x)}L1{Φn5(s,x)}}),

    LResn5(s,x)=Φn5(s,x)ϕ05sσ1αsα(a52Φn5(s,x)x2+s1L{L1{Φn2(s,x)}L1{Φn4(s,x)}}+s2L{L1{Φn1(s,x)}L1{Φn4(s,x)}}μ2Φn5(s,x)).

    Substitute the nth-truncated solution (47) into (53)–(57) and multiply both sides by s+1,n=1,2,, then solve the obtained algebraic system:

    limssnα+1LResni(s,x)=0,i=1,,5,

    recursively, we can construct the desired coefficients bi,r(x),r=1,2,,n,i=1,,5. Substitute the obtained coefficients bi,r(x),r=1,2,,n,i=1,,5, into (47) and take the inverse Laplace transformation to get the nth-approximating solution for the model (2). Mathematica software packages have been used to carry out numerical operations and implement these steps, and good results have been obtained, which are shown in the tables and graphics that follow.

    Mathematica software packages have been used to carry out numerical operations and implement the LRPSM steps, and good results have been obtained, which are shown in the following tables and graphics. We consider the parameters values as:

    p1=0.36,p2=0.11,p3=0.36,p4=2,p5=0.2,p6=0.16,p7=0.2,p8=0.036,s1=0.2,s2=0.6,μ1=0.2,μ2=0.2,σ=1,

    where the diffusion terms have been ignored. The initial conditions are considered to be:

    ϕ01=0.9,ϕ02=0.5,ϕ03=0.5,ϕ04=0.1,ϕ05=0.2.

    Table 1.  The obtained approximating solution and consecutive error for ϕ1(t, x).
    ϕ1 α = 0.7 α = 0.8 α = 0.9
    t n = 12 Cons. error n = 12 Cons. error n = 12 Cons. error
    0.0 0.9 0. 0.9 0. 0.9 0.
    0.05 0.869556 1.50134×10−6 0.877364 2.60966×10−7 0.883454 3.88549×10−8
    0.10 0.853121 7.94671×10−6 0.862143 1.93827×10−6 0.870032 3.91385×10−7
    0.15 0.84067 0.000018064 0.849575 5.57897×10−6 0.858074 1.35895×10−6
    0.20 0.830679 0.000026955 0.838806 0.000010453 0.847238 2.94107×10−6
    0.25 0.822476 0.000027029 0.829438 0.000014448 0.837352 4.63598×10−6
    0.30 0.815675 8.46132×10−6 0.821235 0.000014016 0.828313 5.28832×10−6
    0.35 0.810025 0.000040525 0.814038 4.14269×10−6 0.820051 2.96148×10−6
    0.40 0.805345 0.000133453 0.807733 0.000021673 0.812508 5.17429×10−6
    0.45 0.801498 0.000285446 0.802227 0.000071436 0.805644 0.0000229425
    0.50 0.798372 0.000513105 0.797448 0.000154666 0.799419 0.0000552528

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    Tables 15 show the constructed 12th-approximating solutions with the consecutive's errors Cons. error=|ϕ12i(t,x)ϕ10i(t,x)| for i = 1, …, 5, while the fractional derivative order α was considered at different values, namely, α = 0.7, 0.8 and 0.9.

    Table 2.  The obtained approximating solution and consecutive error for ϕ2(t, x).
    ϕ2 α=0.7 α=0.8
    t n=12 Cns. error n=12 Cns. error n=12 Cns. error
    0.0 0.5 0. 0.5 0. 0.5 0.
    0.05 0.414695 0.0278302 0.46312 0.0144803 0.46312 0.00533069
    0.10 0.38382 0.0279867 0.436334 0.0166077 0.436334 0.00697546
    0.15 0.362181 0.0257097 0.413554 0.0165377 0.413554 0.0075667
    0.20 0.345027 0.0225955 0.393491 0.0154264 0.393491 0.00754935
    0.25 0.330471 0.0191055 0.375492 0.0136755 0.375492 0.00710043
    0.30 0.317513 0.0154189 0.359148 0.0114537 0.359148 0.00629806
    0.35 0.305529 0.0116211 0.344173 0.00883497 0.344173 0.00517247
    0.40 0.294078 0.00776245 0.330348 0.00585034 0.330348 0.00372742
    0.45 0.282863 0.000388074 0.3175 0.00251017 0.3175 0.00195099
    0.50 0.271599 0.0000100722 0.305488 0.00118415 0.305488 0.000178169

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV
    Table 3.  The obtained approximating solution and consecutive error for ϕ3(t, x).
    ϕ3 α = 0.7 α = 0.8 α = 0.9
    t n = 12 Cons. error n = 12 Cons. error n = 12 Cons. error
    0.0 0.5 0. 0.5 0. 0.5 0.
    0.05 0.644472 0.045007 0.599373 0.0244092 0.564569 0.00919114
    0.10 0.692191 0.0419884 0.649591 0.0267009 0.610252 0.011673
    0.15 0.723653 0.0353151 0.686508 0.0251402 0.648133 0.0122183
    0.20 0.747336 0.0276257 0.715764 0.0218049 0.680626 0.0116462
    0.25 0.76662 0.0196291 0.739875 0.0174025 0.708973 0.0102803
    0.30 0.783305 0.011576 0.760276 0.0122192 0.733963 0.0082597
    0.35 0.798523 0.00357516 0.777902 0.00637158 0.756154 0.00563334
    0.40 0.813068 0.00431047 0.793425 0.00009915 0.775972 0.0024003
    0.45 0.827543 0.0120294 0.807359 0.00718621 0.793758 0.00146972
    0.50 0.842434 0.0195285 0.820122 0.0148963 0.809796 0.00602461

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV
    Table 4.  The obtained approximating solution and consecutive error for ϕ4(t, x).
    ϕ4 α = 0.7 α = 0.8 α = 0.9
    t n = 12 Cons. error n = 12 Cons. error n = 12 Cons. error
    0.0 0.1 0. 0.1 0. 0.1 0.
    0.05 0.126757 0.00957402 0.117179 0.00459332 0.110726 0.0016085
    0.10 0.138236 0.0109146 0.1273 0.00578666 0.119012 0.00224923
    0.15 0.147054 0.0113296 0.135662 0.00634612 0.126452 0.00262193
    0.20 0.154538 0.0113626 0.143043 0.00659669 0.133356 0.00284274
    0.25 0.161212 0.0111952 0.149781 0.00666291 0.139874 0.00296152
    0.30 0.167346 0.0109086 0.156062 0.00660614 0.146097 0.00300474
    0.35 0.173105 0.0105452 0.162009 0.00646095 0.152088 0.00298795
    0.40 0.178599 0.0101296 0.167706 0.00624854 0.157897 0.00292086
    0.45 0.183904 0.00967705 0.173215 0.00598291 0.16356 0.00280981
    0.50 0.189079 0.00919809 0.178585 0.00567387 0.16911 0.00265906

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV
    Table 5.  The approximating solution and consecutive error for ϕ5(t, x).
    ϕ5 α = 0.7 α = 0.8 α = 0.9
    t n = 12 Cons. error n = 12 Cons. error n = 12 Cons. error
    0.0 0.2 0. 0.2 0. 0.2 0.
    0.05 0.206742 0.00290742 0.203839 0.00119685 0.202196 0.000369395
    0.10 0.210533 0.00384924 0.20671 0.0017899 0.204221 0.000605914
    0.15 0.213619 0.00434446 0.209354 0.00221154 0.206261 0.000802981
    0.20 0.216253 0.00458287 0.211838 0.0025194 0.20832 0.000972549
    0.25 0.218534 0.00465173 0.214185 0.00274339 0.210388 0.00112127
    0.30 0.220519 0.00460176 0.2164 0.00290371 0.212454 0.00125462
    0.35 0.222237 0.00446589 0.218486 0.00301551 0.214507 0.00137773
    0.40 0.223709 0.00426681 0.220439 0.00309066 0.216533 0.00149549
    0.45 0.224947 0.00402073 0.222256 0.00313866 0.218523 0.00161254
    0.50 0.225959 0.00373937 0.223933 0.00316709 0.220463 0.0017332

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    In Tables 610, we present the obtained approximating solution, absolute error and relative error at derivative order α = 1. The obtained LRPS approximating solutions were compared with the results introduced in [1] to get the absolute error and relative error

    Table 6.  The obtained approximating solution, absolute error and relative error for ϕ1(t, x) at α = 1.
    n=10 n=12
    t ϕ110 Absolute error Relative error ϕ112 Absolute error Relative error
    0.0 0.9 0. 0. 0.9 0. 0.
    0.1 0.877745 7.17257*10−11 8.17158*10−11 0.876644 5.69753*10−13 6.49109*10−13
    0.2 0.856335 3.58754*10−8 4.18941*10−8 0.85535 1.1399*10−9 1.33114*10−9
    0.3 0.836492 1.32805*10−6 1.58764*10−6 0.836107 9.49436*10−8 1.13502*10−7
    0.4 0.81874 0.0000168147 0.0000205378 0.8189 2.13707*10−6 2.61025*10−6
    0.5 0.803419 0.000117807 0.000146654 0.803705 0.0000233949 0.0000291234

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV
    Table 7.  The obtained approximating solution, absolute error and relative error for ϕ2(t, x) at α = 1.
    n=10 n=12
    t Φ210 Absolute error Relative error Φ312 Absolute error Relative error
    0.0 0.5 0. 0. 0.5 0. 0.
    0.1 0.46058 4.18554*10−13 9.08754*10−13 0.436334 8.88178*10−16 1.92839*10−15
    0.2 0.421527 2.13127*10−10 5.05606*10−10 0.393491 1.62209*10−12 3.84813*10−12
    0.3 0.383196 8.11667*10−9 2.11815*10−8 0.359148 1.38989*10*−10 3.62711*10−10
    0.4 0.345913 1.06703*10−7 3.08468*10−7 0.330348 3.24831*10−9 9.39054*10−9
    0.5 0.30997 7.82004*10−7 2.52285*10−6 0.305488 3.71971*10−8 1.20003*10−7

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV
    Table 8.  The obtained approximating solution, absolute error and relative error for ϕ3(t, x) at α = 1.
    n=10 n=12
    t Φ310 Absolute error Relative error Φ312 Absolute error Relative error
    0.0 0.5 0. 0. 0.5 0. 0.
    0.1 0.563571 2.3348*10−13 4.14286*10−13 0.577673 3.33067*10−16 5.90994*10−16
    0.2 0.626687 1.19007*10−10 1.89898*10−10 0.644734 6.94445*10−13 1.10812*10−12
    0.3 0.688906 4.54208*10−9 6.59318*10−9 0.702467 5.96421*10*−11 8.6575*10−11
    0.4 0.749811 5.98891*10−8 7.98722*10−8 0.752006 1.39805*10−9 1.86454*10−9
    0.5 0.809021 4.40555*10−7 5.44553*10−7 0.794359 1.60693*10−8 1.98626*10−8

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV
    Table 9.  The obtained approximating solution, absolute error and relative error for ϕ4(t, x) at α = 1.
    n=10 n=12
    t Φ410 Absolute error Relative error Φ412 Absolute error Relative error
    0.0 0.1 0. 0. 0.1 0. 0.
    0.1 0.113305 1.38778*10−17 1.22481*10−16 0.112931 0. 0.
    0.2 0.126608 0. 0. 0.125314 2.77556*10−17 2.19224*10−16
    0.3 0.139907 2.77556*10−16 1.98386*10−15 0.137249 2.77556*10−17 1.98386*10−16
    0.4 0.153199 3.80251*10−15 2.48207*10−14 0.148832 2.77556*10−17 1.81173*10−16
    0.5 0.166482 2.81164*10−14 1.68885*10−13 0.160154 2.77556*10−17 1.66718*10−16

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV
    Table 10.  The obtained approximating solution, absolute error and relative error for ϕ5(t, x) at α = 1.
    n=10 n=12
    t Φ510 Absolute error Relative error Φ512 Absolute error Relative error
    0.0 0.2 0. 0. 0.2 0. 0.
    0.1 0.204026 6.09755*10−16 2.98862*10−15 0.20266 8.67362*10−19 4.25124*10−18
    0.2 0.208039 3.11725*10−13 1.4984*10−12 0.205764 8.20524*10−16 3.9441*10−15
    0.3 0.212026 1.19446*10−11 5.63358*10−11 0.209207 7.06882*10−14 3.33395*10−13
    0.4 0.215974 1.58357*10−10 7.33224*10−10 0.212889 1.66606*10−12 7.71418*10−12
    0.5 0.219872 1.17299*10−9 5.33485*10−9 0.216713 1.92826*10−11 8.76991*10−11

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    For more demonstration, we present Figure 1 that shows the LRPS approximating solutions at different fractional derivative orders. In addition, we show the comparative results obtained at different approximate levels, namely, n = 100 and n = 12.

    Figure 1.  (Left): 2D plots of the obtained approximating solutions when n = 12; (Right): Comparison between the obtained numerical solution when n = 12 and n = 10, with (a) ϕ1(t, x), (b) ϕ2(t, x), (c) ϕ3(t, x), (d) ϕ4(t, x) and (e) ϕ5(t, x).

    The present study investigates the dynamics of a fractional diffusive cancer model incorporating virotherapy, a promising approach that utilizes viruses to combat cancer cells. The model utilizes the Caputo fractional derivative to describe the non-local dynamics of the cancer cells and the virotherapy treatment. The study employs analytical techniques and simulation methods to gain insights into the behavior of the model under various scenarios. The findings shed light on the potential efficacy of virotherapy in controlling cancer growth and highlight the significance of fractional calculus in modeling complex biological systems.

    Initially, the present study focused on and refined the model of oncolytic virus replication. This model investigates the intricate relationship between tumor growth, virotherapy's infection dynamics, immune response and their collective impact on both infected and uninfected cells. To achieve a comprehensive understanding, we have precisely considered five distinct populations within the system as speculated in [1]. We proposed a modification (1) to the model by incorporating the Caputo fractional derivative in place of the traditional time derivative. This alteration leads to a difference in dimensions on the sides of the equations in the model (1). Consequently, to address this disparity, we introduce an auxiliary parameter σ, as referenced in [3] for diffusive cancer models with virotherapy.

    The results from equation [9] show the uniqueness of our model for virotherapy's infection dynamics. This section interprets the findings from both the analytical stability analysis and the numerical simulations. It elaborates on the implications of the results for virotherapy as a potential cancer treatment strategy and discusses the potential challenges and limitations of the model in capturing the complexity of cancer dynamics. Furthermore, we also analyzed the LRPSM to derive an analytical solution for the fractional diffusive cancer model (2). Numerical operations using Mathematica software packages were used to implement the LRPSM steps, and we obtained very significant results. The results are demonstrated in Tables 110 and Figures 1a–1e.

    The results in Tables 110 and Figures 1a–1e showed that during virotherapy, the number of infected cells reduces but the number of healthy cells also decrease. But according to our results, if there is a high concentration of Za, there will be an increase of healthy cells. For centuries, researchers have extensively explored the immune response against cancer cells. It has been established that the immune system actively surveils the body to identify and target abnormal cells. In our investigation, we focused on the diffusion coefficient of the immune system, denoted as d5, in the context of cancer treatment. To study the effect of the treatment on cancer growth, we employed the tanh-expansion method to obtain solutions for model (6). The solution, represented by equation (23), reveals that the diffusion coefficient d5 is influenced by d1, d2, d3 and d4. Specifically, we observed that the diffusion of activated immune system cells (d5) increases when the diffusion coefficients of the virus (d2) or infected cells (d3) decrease. Conversely, the diffusion of activated immune system cells (d5) decreases as the diffusion of the virus (d2) or infected cells (d3) increases. These findings shed light on the intricate interactions between different components within the system and provide valuable insights into the role of diffusion coefficients in the treatment's impact on cancer growth and immune response.

    Based on the results obtained from the analytical simulation of the diffusive cancer model with virotherapy using the Caputo operator, we predict that this approach can potentially help reduce the side effects of virotherapy. The use of the Caputo fractional derivative allows for a more accurate representation of the underlying dynamics, which could lead to improved treatment strategies and better management of the therapy's impact on both infected and uninfected cells. By gaining deeper insights into the system's behavior through analytical methods, it may be possible to optimize the treatment and enhance its efficacy while minimizing undesirable side effects, thereby advancing the field of virotherapy for cancer treatment. The combination of analytical techniques and numerical simulations enhances our understanding of the system's behavior, paving the way for more effective and targeted cancer treatments in the future. The study's findings contribute to the growing field of fractional calculus applications in modeling complex biological systems and hold promise for advancements in cancer therapy.

    We have studied the existence and uniqueness of the solution to this proposed and important model by presenting the main theories in this work. In addition, the LRPSM was applied to derive approximate solutions for the presented fractional model. The steps of this method were implemented using Mathematica software packages and good results were extracted. The results obtained were presented through tables showing the approximate solutions of the model. Moreover, a comparison of the derived solutions with other results presented in the literature was introduced to evaluate the efficiency of this method and its smoothness of use to solve such systems. As a future work, this fractional model can be studied by considering another fractional operator, such as the Atangana-Baleanu fractional operator, and comparing the results to clarify the extent to which the results are affected by changing the fractional operator. Also, other numerical techniques can be used to derive approximate solutions for this model and compare them with the results presented in this work, considering different values of the parameters. To provide a thorough understanding of cancer dynamics, future research may investigate more intricate and realistic cancer models, taking into account elements like tumor heterogeneity, geographical impacts and varying immune responses. The mathematical model can be improved through experimental validation, which includes observations of cancer cell and immune system behavior in response to virotherapy. Performing a sensitivity analysis to look at parameter variations might give insights into how robust the results are and help pinpoint important elements affecting results. Through clinical trials and case studies, it is possible to examine the clinical applicability of virotherapy for particular cancer types and determine its viability and effectiveness in actual treatment situations.

    The authors declare they have not used Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools in the creation of this article.

    The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

    All authors conceived of the study, participated in its design and coordination, drafted the manuscript, participated in the sequence alignment and read and approved the final manuscript.



    [1] Zeeshan A, Majeed A, Ellahi R (2016) Effect of magnetic dipole on viscous ferro-fluid past a stretching surface with thermal radiation. J Mol Liq 215: 549-554. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molliq.2015.12.110
    [2] Ramli N, Ahmad S, Pop I Slip effects on MHD flow and heat transfer of ferrofluids over a moving flat plate, AIP Conference Proceedings (2017). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4995847
    [3] Rashad AM (2017) Impact of anisotropic slip on transient three dimensional MHD flow of ferrofluid over an inclined radiate stretching surface. J Egypt Math Soc 25: 230-237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joems.2016.12.001
    [4] Hussanan A, Salleh MZ, Khan I (2018) Microstructure and inertial characteristics of a magnetite ferrofluid over a stretching/shrinking sheet using effective thermal conductivity model. J Mol Liq 255: 64-75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molliq.2018.01.138
    [5] Fukuhara H, Ino Y, Todo T (2016) Oncolytic virus therapy: a new era of cancer treatment at dawn. Cancer Sci 107: 1373-1379. https://doi.org/10.1111/cas.13027
    [6] Tian JP (2011) The replicability of oncolytic virus: defining conditions in tumor virotherapy. Math Biosci Eng 8: 841-860. http://dx.doi.org/10.3934/mbe.2011.8.841
    [7] Younoussi ME, Hajhouji Z, Hattaf K, et al. (2021) A new fractional model for cancer therapy with M1 oncolytic virus. Complexity 2021: 99344070. https://doi.org/10.1155/2021%2F9934070
    [8] Kumar S, Kumar A, Samet B, et al. (2020) A chaos study of tumor and effector cells in fractional tumor-immune model for cancer treatment. Chaos Soliton Fract 141: 110321. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chaos.2020.110321
    [9] Gómez-Aguilar JF, López-López MG, Alvarado-Martínez VM, et al. (2017) Chaos in a cancer model via fractional derivatives with exponential decay and Mittag-Leffler law. Entropy 19: 681. https://doi.org/10.3390/e19120681
    [10] Zhang Z, ur Rahman G, Gómez-Aguilar JF, et al. (2022) Dynamical aspects of a delayed epidemic model with subdivision of susceptible population and control strategies. Chaos Soliton Fract 160: 112194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chaos.2022.112194
    [11] Zhang L, ur Rahman M, Haidong Q, et al. (2022) Fractal-fractional anthroponotic cutaneous Leishmania model study in sense of Caputo derivative. Alex Eng J 61: 4423-4433. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aej.2021.10.001
    [12] Chu YM, Rashid S, Karim S, et al. (2023) New configurations of the fuzzy fractional differential Boussinesq model with application in ocean engineering and their analysis in statistical theory. CMES-Comp Model Eng 137: 1573-1611. https://doi.org/10.32604/cmes.2023.027724
    [13] Shen WY, Chu YM, ur Rahman M, et al. (2021) Mathematical analysis of HBV and HCV co-infection model under nonsingular fractional order derivative. Results Phys 28: 104582. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rinp.2021.104582
    [14] Umar M, Sabir Z, Raja MAZ, et al. (2021) Neuro-swarm intelligent computing paradigm for nonlinear HIV infection model with CD4+ T-cells. Math Comput Simulat 188: 241-253. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matcom.2021.04.008
    [15] Alharbey RA, Aljahdaly NH (2022) On fractional numerical simulation of HIV infection for CD8+ T-cells and its treatment. Plos One 17: e0265627. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0265627
    [16] Xiao T, Tang YL, Zhang QF (2021) The existence of sign-changing solutions for Schrödinger-Kirchhoff problems in R3. AIMS Math 6: 6726-6733. http://dx.doi.org/10.3934/math.2021395
    [17] Liu X, Arfan M, Ur Rahman M, et al. (2023) Analysis of SIQR type mathematical model under Atangana-Baleanu fractional differential operator. Comput Method Biomec 26: 98-112. https://doi.org/10.1080/10255842.2022.2047954
    [18] Sami A, Ali A, Shafqat R, et al. (2023) Analysis of food chain mathematical model under fractal fractional Caputo derivative. Math Biosci Eng 20: 2094-2109. http://dx.doi.org/10.3934/mbe.2023097
    [19] Haidong Q, Rahman MU, Arfan M (2023) Fractional model of smoking with relapse and harmonic mean type incidence rate under Caputo operator. J Appl Math Comput 69: 403-420. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12190-022-01747-6
    [20] Chu YM, Khan MS, Abbas M, et al. (2022) On characterizing of bifurcation and stability analysis for time fractional glycolysis model. Chaos Soliton Fract 165: 112804. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chaos.2022.112804
    [21] Jin F, Qian ZS, Chu YM, et al. (2022) On nonlinear evolution model for drinking behavior under Caputo-Fabrizio derivative. J Appl Anal Comput 12: 790-806. http://dx.doi.org/10.11948/20210357
    [22] Chu YM, Khan MF, Ullah S, et al. (2023) Mathematical assessment of a fractional-order vector–host disease model with the Caputo–Fabrizio derivative. Math Method Appl Sci 46: 232-247. https://doi.org/10.1002/mma.8507
    [23] Aljahdaly NH, Ashi HA (2021) Exponential time differencing method for studying prey-predator dynamic during mating period. Comput Math Method M 2021: 2819145. https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/2819145
    [24] Wodarz D (2003) Gene therapy for killing p53-negative cancer cells: use of replicating versus nonreplicating agents. Hum Gene Ther 14: 153-159. https://doi.org/10.1089/104303403321070847
    [25] Jenner AL, Kim PS, Frascoli F (2019) Oncolytic virotherapy for tumours following a Gompertz growth law. J Theor Biol 480: 129-140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtbi.2019.08.002
    [26] Marelli G, Howells A, Lemoine NR, et al. (2018) Oncolytic viral therapy and the immune system: a double-edged sword against cancer. Front Immunol 9: 866. https://doi.org/10.3389/fimmu.2018.00866
    [27] Komarova NL, Wodarz D (2014) Targeted Cancer Treatment in Silico.Springer.
    [28] Wodarz D (2001) Viruses as antitumor weapons: defining conditions for tumor remission. Cancer Res 61: 3501-3507.
    [29] Wodarz D, Komarova N (2009) Towards predictive computational models of oncolytic virus therapy: basis for experimental validation and model selection. PloS One 4: e4271. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0004271
    [30] Aljahdaly NH, Almushaity NA (2023) A diffusive cancer model with virotherapy: Studying the immune response and its analytical simulation. AIMS Math 8: 10905-10928. https://doi.org/10.3934/math.2023553
    [31] Al-Johani N, Simbawa E, Al-Tuwairqi S (2019) Modeling the spatiotemporal dynamics of virotherapy and immune response as a treatment for cancer. Commun Math Biol Neurosci 2019: 28. https://doi.org/10.28919/cmbn%2F4294
    [32] Simbawa E, Al-Johani N, Al-Tuwairqi S (2020) Modeling the spatiotemporal dynamics of oncolytic viruses and radiotherapy as a treatment for cancer. Comput Math Method M 2020: 3642654. https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/3642654
    [33] Gómez-Aguilar JF, Rosales-García JJ, Bernal-Alvarado JJ, et al. (2012) Fractional mechanical oscillators. Rev Mex Fís 58: 348-352.
    [34] Burqan A, Shqair M, El-Ajou A, et al. (2023) Analytical solutions to the coupled fractional neutron diffusion equations with delayed neutrons system using Laplace transform method. AIMS Math 8: 19297-19312. https://doi.org/10.3934/math.2023984
    [35] Shqair M, Ghabar I, Burqan A (2023) Using Laplace residual power series method in solving coupled fractional neutron diffusion equations with delayed neutrons system. Fractal Fract 7: 219. https://doi.org/10.3390/fractalfract7030219
    [36] Al-Smadi M, Freihat A, Khalil H, et al. (2017) Numerical multistep approach for solving fractional partial differential equations. Int J Comp Meth 14: 1750029. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219876217500293
    [37] Oqielat MN, Eriqat T, Al-Zhour Z, et al. (2023) Construction of fractional series solutions to nonlinear fractional reaction–diffusion for bacteria growth model via Laplace residual power series method. Int J Dynam Control 11: 520-527. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40435-022-01001-8
  • This article has been cited by:

    1. Carlo Bianca, The Role of the Table of Games in the Discrete Thermostatted Kinetic Theory, 2024, 12, 2227-7390, 2356, 10.3390/math12152356
    2. Kottakkaran Sooppy Nisar, Muhammad Farman, Evren Hincal, Mathematical analysis and chaotic behavior of cancer treatment with virotherapy by using fractional integral sustainable approach, 2025, 1598-5865, 10.1007/s12190-025-02397-0
  • Reader Comments
  • © 2023 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)
通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
  • 1. 

    沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

  1. 本站搜索
  2. 百度学术搜索
  3. 万方数据库搜索
  4. CNKI搜索

Metrics

Article views(981) PDF downloads(51) Cited by(2)

Figures and Tables

Figures(1)  /  Tables(10)

/

DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
Return
Return

Catalog