 Research
 Open access
 Published:
A study on fractional tumorimmune interaction model related to lung cancer via generalized Laguerre polynomials
BMC Medical Research Methodology volumeÂ 23, ArticleÂ number:Â 189 (2023)
Abstract
Background
Cancer, a complex and deadly health concern today, is characterized by forming potentially malignant tumors or cancer cells. The dynamic interaction between these cells and their environment is crucial to the disease. Mathematical models can enhance our understanding of these interactions, helping us predict disease progression and treatment strategies.
Methods
In this study, we develop a fractional tumorimmune interaction model specifically for lung cancer (FTIIMLC). We present some definitions and significant results related to the Caputo operator. We employ the generalized Laguerre polynomials (GLPs) method to find the optimal solution for the FTIIMLC model. We then conduct a numerical simulation and compare the results of our method with other techniques and realworld data.
Results
We propose a FTIIMLC model in this paper. The approximate solution for the proposed model is derived using a series of expansions in a new set of polynomials, the GLPs. To streamline the process, we integrate Lagrange multipliers, GLPs, and operational matrices of fractional and ordinary derivatives. We conduct a numerical simulation to study the effects of varying fractional orders and achieve the expected theoretical results.
Conclusion
The findings of this study demonstrate that the optimization methods used can effectively predict and analyze complex phenomena. This innovative approach can also be applied to other nonlinear differential equations, such as the fractional Kleinâ€“Gordon equation, fractional diffusionwave equation, breast cancer model, and fractional optimal control problems.
Introduction
Lung cancer is diagnosed as the most common cancer [1, 2]. In 2018, an estimated 2.1 million new lung cancer cases were made, accounting for 12% of the global burden of cancer [1, 2]. Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancerrelated fatalities for men while coming in second for women across the globe [1, 2]. Tobacco smoking is in the top spot on the list of risk factors for lung cancer, accounting for 75% of lung cancers. Genetic susceptibility, occupational workplace exposure, air pollution, secondhand smoke, and radon exposure are other risk factors [3].
As of late, there has been a modest enhancement in the survival rate of individuals diagnosed with lung cancer. However, there have been considerable improvements in the chance of survival for most other types of cancer. This can be attributed to most cancer patients being diagnosed at the last stages of the disease [1]. The survival rate for all cancer types diagnosed in 5Â years from 2010 to 2016 was 63% among Black individuals, 68% among White individuals, and 67% overall. Lung cancer showed one of the lowest survival rates at about 21% [4]. According to an extensive examination of individuals with lung cancer [5], a substantial percentage of patients, ranging from 40 to 85%, experience respiratory symptoms such as coughing, shortness of breath, wheezing, and coughing up blood. Thus, continuous auscultation and lung sound monitoring [6] can be helpful for early diagnosing of such lung problems.
Lung cancer tumors are categorized into two Histologic Diagnosis groups: SmallCell Lung Carcinoma (SCLC) and NonSmall Cell Lung Carcinoma (NSCLC). NSCLC accounts for approximately 80 to 85% of all lung cancers, which include subcategories of adenocarcinoma (40%), squamous cell carcinoma (25â€“30%), and large cell carcinoma (10â€“15%) [7,8,9].
The characteristics of its microenvironment influence the progression and dissemination of a tumor. The tumor microenvironment comprises various cell types, including immune cells, cancer cells, vascular endothelial cells, epithelial cells, dendritic cells, macrophages, lymphocytes, fibroblasts, and extracellular matrix proteins. In the respiratory system, the airway epithelium serves as a protective barrier and provides an environment for the growth of lung cancer cells. The epithelial cells release inflammatory mediators that attract lymphoid cells to the airway epithelia and activate antigenpresenting cells (APCs). [10].
The human immune system can search out, detect, and destroy infected or malignant cells while keeping the host safe. However, tumors can potentially evade and escape immune examination and destruction. This escape of tumor cells from immunity includes the local development of immune suppression, induction of dysfunctional Tcell signaling for excessive immune responses, and immune upregulation of deterrent checkpoints against the indiscriminate attack on selfcells [11]. In the anticancer battle, the human body benefits from an arsenal of cytotoxic lymphocytes, macrophages, and granulocytes secreted from immune cells. The Cytotoxic T Lymphocytes (CTLs) population is leading in anticancer immunity. The CD8^{+} lymphocytes, CD4^{+} lymphocytes and lymphocytes B are soldiers of the CTL army, and natural killer (N.K.) cells and natural killer T (NKT) cells are members of the CTL cell population. A successful cytotoxic attack entails an efficient tumor antigen presentation and appropriate antigenpresenting cells (APCs) [12]. Both cytotoxic innate and adaptive immune cells are crucial for anticancer immunity. The innate immune response comprises granulocytes, macrophages, natural killer (NK) cells, mast cells, and dendritic cells (D.C.s). On the other hand, the adaptive response is comprised of B cells, CD8^{+} cytotoxic lymphocytes (CTLs), and CD4^{+} helper T cells [13].
After facing tumor antigens, immature CD4^{+} T cells are made active and polarized. They are divided into Th1, Th2, Th17, Th9, Th22, Tregs, and T follicular helper (Tfh) cells. By coordinating mediated immunity cells against cancer cells, Th1 among various subsets of CD4^{+} T cells serve a direct antitumor role [13]. The N.K. cells can also directly eliminate tumor cells via several mechanisms; 1) production of cytoplasmic granules, granzymes, and perforin, 2) induction of death receptormediated apoptosis, or 3) secretion of tumor necrosis factoralpha (TNF\(\alpha\)) to achieve the antitumor effect through antibodydependent cellular cytotoxicity from the expression of CD16 [13].
Macrophages play a critical role in innate immunity against cancer by preventing the accumulation of apoptotic cancer cells, which could trigger an autoimmune response. During the ideal phase, tumor cells express specific molecules on their surface that are recognized by macrophages, leading to the phagocytosis of tumor cells [13]. Macrophages can be divided into two major populations of alveolar and interstitial macrophages, where the former is more prevalent. The lung's inner surface contains a significant proportion of immune cells, with alveolar macrophages comprising 55% of these cells. These macrophages can be classified into two types, M1 and M2, based on their characteristics [10]. They can transform into different subsets in response to various stimuli. The IFNÎ³ factor activates macrophages, inducing them to release nitric oxide (NO) and be exposed to reactive oxygen species and lysosomal enzymes, leading to classical macrophage activation. Initially, the Th1 cells introduced the primary pathway for macrophage activation, which led to the activation of M1 macrophages. Macrophages at rest and activated by IL4 and IL13 are M2 macrophages, alternatively activated macrophages (AAMs), or antiinflammatory macrophages. M2 macrophages are responsible for counteracting the effects of M1 macrophages, achieved through the secretion of IL10. M2 macrophages also promote tissue repair by adopting an antiinflammatory profile mediated by the TGFÎ² factor and other factors. This process is essential for wound healing [14]. Dendritic cells, Bcells, and macrophages are characterized as professional antigenpresenting cells (APCs). Antiinflammatory macrophages dominate the tumor microenvironment with an impressive immune suppression function by secreted cytokines, especially transforming growth factor (TGF)Î² and IL10 [10].
Lung cancer immunotherapy provides a complex treatment additional to chemoradiotherapy by developing more comprehensive knowledge on the disturbance of antitumor immune response and the evasion mechanism of host antitumor immune defense [10, 12]. Cancer immunotherapy has priority over chemotherapy or radiotherapy for its lowrisk ratio and longlasting activity. Identifying predictive markers for predicting antitumor risks, clinical effects, and survival benefits before immunotherapies is one of the most promising directions for future research in cancer immunotherapy [13].
Scientists worldwide have developed different mathematical models for tumor disease dynamics and its characteristics. \(\ddot{O}\) zk \(\ddot{o}\) se et al. [15] developed a fractionalorder model of the tumorimmune system using Caputo derivatives to investigate changes in the population of macrophages, active macrophages, tumor cells, and host cells. The authors in [16] developed a mathematical model to study the impact of CD4â€‰+â€‰T cells on tumor regression, which included interactions between CD4â€‰+â€‰cells, cytokines, tumor cells, and host cells with treatment. Kumar et al. [17] investigated the role of vitamin intervention in enhancing the immune system using a tumorimmunevitamin (TIV) model with arbitrary order operators of CaputoFabrizio (C.F.) derivative and conformable fractional derivative in the LiouvilleCaputo (L.C.) sense. In a research paper, Cherraf et al. [18] proposed an interaction tumorimmune model in the presence of immune chemotherapy. In their model, immune cells were recruited with a constant time delay to demonstrate the role of time delay in the stimulated accumulations of cancer cells surrounded by immune cells. Their numerical simulation suggested tumor load reduction after a few months of immunochemotherapy. Another tumorimmune model was both numerically and theoretically investigated by Ahmad et al. [19] for both nonsingular and singular fractal fractional operators. In a chaotic and comparative study, the dynamic behavior of tumor and effector immune cells was interpreted by Kumar et al. [20] through the analysis of a fractional tumorimmune model. To explore the effect of immune checkpoints on tumor regression, Yu and Jang [21] examined mathematical models of tumorimmune interactions among CD4^{+} T cells, malignant tumor cells, and antitumor cytokine with an immune checkpoint inhibitor of CTLA4. Dai and Liu [22] tackled an optimal control problem for a broad range of reactionâ€“diffusion tumorimmune models with immunochemotherapy. The objective was to decrease the tumor cell burden while minimizing treatment costs and side effects. Fractional calculus is a branch of classical calculus concerned with integerorder formalism, which is presently used for different modeling approaches in various scientific fields of biomathematics, applied mathematics, physics, computer science, etc. (see [23,24,25,26,27,28,29]). Veeresha et al. [30] used the qhomotopy analyses transform method (qHATM) to solve the fractional Schistosomiasis disease model. The results showed that their approach was easier to apply and more effective in finding numerical solutions for multidimensional differential equations arising in biological phenomena. In a study by Khan et al. [31], a fractional epidemic model was numerically simulated for the novel coronavirus in the sense of the Caputo operator using generalized Adamsâ€“Bashforth Moulton. Zafar et al. [32] expressed and investigated a fractional order model for Toxoplasmosis disease in cat and human populations. They proposed a fractional extension of the multistage differential transform method to model toxoplasmosis. Cui et al. [33] investigated the dynamics of Plasmodium using a timedelayed fractionalorder RossMacdonald model for transmission periods of malaria and the order of its dynamic behavior. Abdullah et al. [34] solved a fractional temporal SEIR measles model composed of fourtime fractional ordinary differential equations (TFODEs) in three stages. In the first stage, an approximate model was solved that linearized four TFODEs. Then, an analytical solution of each TFODE was obtained at each time step. A fractional Predictorâ€“Corrector method was used in the third stage to solve the model. Hassani et al. [35] created an optimization algorithm that employs generalized polynomials to estimate the solution of an HIV infection model of CD4^{+} T cells.
Mathematical models can be adapted to try to estimate the complex dynamics of disease and simulate the appropriate and effective treatments for patients in personalized medicine. Mathematical models that are adaptable for processes critical in cancer biology will shed light on unknown points in the field of oncology. Mathematical models contribute significantly to understanding how immune and cancer cells interact and define tumorimmune dynamics [15]. It has been observed that the models made with fractionalorder differential equations (FODEs) are more compatible with the truth and provide more advantages when compared with integerorder mathematical models [15]. Tumor tissue samples were collected from nonsmall cell lung cancer patients who had chemotherapynaive. The bestfitted curve has been obtained using the real data of a lung cancer patient [15].
Mathematical modeling of the respiratory function as a response of heterogeneous tissue represents an attractive avenue toward narrowing the possibilities that should be tested before clinical trials. Feature extraction from modeling a respiratory function through a specific fractional order impedance model can be transposed to lung tumor dynamics. Furthermore, changes in the lung geometry along the levels of the respiratory tree are simulated, replacing the recurrent lung geometry for a tumorous lung with random asymmetry [36].
Recently, different algorithms have been developed for the numerical solutions of varying disease modeling systems. Ullah et al. [37] introduced a dynamic analysis of the susceptiblevaccinatedinfectedrecovered epidemic model based on meanfield approximation, evolutionary game approach, and fractionalorder derivatives. Ullah et al. [38] deliberated an epidemic model based on control measures of lockdown, physical distancing, selfprotection, quarantine, and isolation to study COVID19 behavior. Din and Zainul Abidin [39] comprehensively analyzed the fractionalorder vaccinated HepatitisB epidemic model with Mittagâ€“Leffler kernels. Din et al. [40] analyzed a system of fractional order equations for Hepatitis B using Atanganaâ€“Baleanu Caputo (ABC) derivatives. The authors in [41] explored the numerical behavior of a fractional model that pertains to hepatitis B infection. The model was analyzed using integer order operators of differentiation, which incorporated nonlocal and nonsingular kernels. Ain et al. [42] studied a disease transmission model of Middle East Lungs Coronavirus (MERSCoV) in terms of Caputo fractional order variations. Kashyap et al. [43] introduced a fractional model to examine how the mass mortality of predators is affected by the fear response of prey in the Salton Sea. A novel mathematical model was introduced to investigate the effects of interleukin10 and antiPDL1 administration on cancer [44]. UÃ§ar et al. [45] numerically simulated and analyzed a new model to describe the behavior of cancer cells. UÃ§ar et al. [46] designed a fractional susceptibleâ€“affectedâ€“infectiousâ€“suspendedâ€“recovered (SAIDR) model in the AtanganaBaleanu (A.B.) sense. UÃ§ar [47] employed fractalfractional operators to model hepatitis B outbreaks with the aid of Caputo derivatives and actual data. UÃ§ar [48] extracted results from a detailed analysis of a powered smoking model by determination and education with nonsingular derivatives. Zafar et al. [49] presented a numerical analysis of the BazykinBerzovskaya model with strong Allee effects. Zafar et al. [50] examined the numeric paradigm of a stochastic suicide substrate reaction model. Zafar et al. [51] evaluated the role of public health awareness programs in the spread of the Covid19 pandemic. Zafar et al. [52] also worked on the fractional order dynamics of human papillomavirus. Another fractionalorder model of toxoplasmosis was dynamically and numerically investigated in human and cat populations by Zafar et al. [32]. The dynamic behavior of tuberculosis was numerically modeled and simulated in the frame of different fractional derivatives by Zafar et al. [53]. Farman et al. [54] conducted a scientific investigation into the potential of genetically modified trees to reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. The study introduced a system of fractional order differential equations to model the impact of these trees on the environment. The findings of this research provide valuable insights into the potential of genetically modified trees as a tool for mitigating climate change. Hasan et al. conducted an epidemiological analysis of the symmetry in Ebola virus transmission using the power law kernel [55]. Farman et al. [56] proposed a new fractional epidemic model to observe measles transmission dynamics with a constant proportional Caputo operator. An analysis of Covid19 dynamical transmission l was also performed by Farman et al. with the CaputoFabrizio fractional derivative [57]. Tang et al. [58] considered the growth of artificial magnetic bacteria in a nonNewtonian Powellâ€“Eyring nanofluid on a stretching curved surface using a porous medium. Tang et al. [59] structured the interactions of tumorâ€“immune in the fractional derivative framework and focused on the qualitative analysis and dynamical behavior of tumorâ€“immune cell interactions. FioranelliÂ et al. [60] proposed a mechanism to induce Tcells around tumor cells using the entanglement between spinors on graphene sheets interior and exterior of the human body.
Fractional derivatives are useful in modeling complex realworld phenomena. Xu et al. [61,62,63,64] have conducted several studies that explore the impact of time delays on the bifurcation of fractional systems. These studies include stagestructured predatorâ€“prey models, 4D neural networks, multidelayed neural networks, and delayed BAM neural networks. Ahmad et al. [19, 65, 66] examined models that describe the interaction between tumors, the immune system, and vitamins. They also provided theoretical and numerical analyses of fractional fractal models with various kernels to understand this interaction better. Yuttanan and Syam [67, 68] have investigated numerical solutions to fractional partial differential equations using fractionalorder generalized Taylor wavelets and the modified operational matrix method, respectively. Rawani and Khirsariya [69, 70] have used the Haar wavelets collocation method and the Homotopy perturbation general transform technique, respectively, to find numerical and analytic solutions to nonlinear partial one and twodimensional integrodifferential equations of fractional order. These studies demonstrate the versatility and applicability of fractional derivatives in various research fields, highlighting their potential to provide new insights into complex systems.
Recent studies in the past decade have shown that compared to mathematical models of integer order, models composed of fractionalorder differential equations are more advantageous and compatible with reality. This is because many biological systems display characteristics such as aftereffects, hereditary properties, and memory that differential equations of integer order cannot fully represent. Fractionalorder differential equations perform better in modeling these complex phenomena [14].
Cancer is a leading cause of death, accounting for nearly one in six deaths worldwide. Mathematical models can improve our understanding of cancer and help inform public health policies to promote healthy lifestyles. Based on the research mentioned above, the primary focus of this article is to develop a fractional tumorimmune interaction model for lung cancer (FTIIMLC) and its numerical algorithm to capture the dynamic behaviors of the tumorimmune system.
Given the above consideration, this research article presents an optimization method with the below contributions.

â–ª The FTIIMLC model has been considered.

â–ª This article proposes new basis functions, termed generalized Laguerre polynomials (GLPs), for the approximate solution of the FTIIMLC model.

â–ª The proposed operational matrices of GLPs are utilized to convert the FTIIMLC model into a system of polynomial equations.

â–ª The convergence of the introduced GLPs algorithm is proved in this paper.

â–ª An optimization technique is designed for further efficiency improvement based on the Lagrange multipliers, and the optimal extent of unknown parameters is taken.

â–ª In case of a low number of basis functions, meaningful solutions are obtained by the proposed method.

â–ª A representation matrix form is formulated for the GLPs.

â–ª New operational matrices of ordinary and fractional derivatives are evolved for these basis functions.
This paper is structured as follows. In Sect.Â "The fractional tumorimmune interaction model related to lung cancer", we formulate the FTIIMLC model and present some definitions and valuable results of the Caputo operator. To discuss the main features of the proposed method, Sect.Â "Introducing a new basis function" is divided into three subsections of GLPs description, operational matrices of derivatives and function approximation. In Sect.Â "The convergence analysis" the convergence analysis is shown. In Sect.Â "The solution for FTIIMLC", we implement the GLPs method to achieve the optimal solution of the FTIIMLC model. Sect.Â "Numerical results and discussion" presents the numerical simulation and compares our method's results with other methods and real data. For a better understanding of the results, comparisons are also displayed as figures and tables. The main conclusions are drawn and given in Sect. "Conclusions".
The fractional tumorimmune interaction model related to lung cancer
This section considers the FTIIMLC model consisting of four fractional order differential equations to explore FTIIMLC dynamics. The model includes four dependent variables, namely:

T(t) represents the densities of tumor cells.

A(t) represents the active macrophage cells.

M(t) represents the macrophage cells.

W(t) represents the normal tissue or host cells.
This study postulates that the tumor cells are malignant and investigates two distinct mechanisms: the degradation of macrophages by active macrophages and the conversion of macrophages into active macrophages. Additionally, supporting evidence indicates a competition between the tumor cells and healthy tissues for resources and physical area [15]. It is believed that there is a negative correlation between the densities of tumor cells and those of activated macrophages and normal cells, so the fractional system (2.1) satisfies positive conditions. The following system of nonlinear differential equations is used to formulate FTIIMLC in the Caputo sense [15]:
where \({}_{0}^{C}{D}_{t}^{{\upsilon }_{i}}\), \(i=1,\mathrm{2,3},4\), denotes the fractional derivatives of order \(0<{\upsilon }_{i}\le 1\). The model (2.1) parameters and their biological meaning are given in Table 1.
In applied sciences, memory properties have broad applications for a better understanding of complex phenomena. Given their higher degree of freedom, the desired results are more attainable using fractional instead of integer derivatives. In various fields of chemistry, biology, physics, and economy, fractional differential equations are also helpful for perceiving hereditary and memory problems or processes, given their inherent properties of nonlocal operators. Readers are suggested to refer to [71, 72]. The Caputo fractional derivative, \({}_{0}^{C}{D}_{t}^{v}\) is as follows [27, 28]:
The symbol \(\Gamma (\cdot )\) represents the Gamma function, which is defined as \(\Gamma (\varrho )={\int }_{0}^{\infty }{t}^{\varrho 1}{e}^{t}dt,\) where \(\varrho >0\). The Caputo fractional derivative, utilized in the convolution integral, introduces a memory effect. As a result, the Caputo fractional derivative in (2.2) retains the dynamics of the model over a long period by incorporating the history of y(t). The following equation is valid for any \(\varpi \in {\mathbb{N}}\):
Introducing a new basis function
In this section, we only recall some basic features of Laguerre polynomials (L.P.s) and propose a new class of GLPs basis functions. The operational matrices are formed to solve FTIIMLC, and then function approximation is provided.
Description of the GLPs
Definition 3.1 (see [73] and related references) The L.P.s, \({\mathcal{L}}_{\mathrm{n}}(\mathrm{t})\), are solutions to secondorder linear differential equations \({\mathrm{ty}}^{\mathrm{^{\prime}}\mathrm{^{\prime}}}+(1\mathrm{t}){\mathrm{y}}^{\mathrm{^{\prime}}}+\mathrm{ny}=0,\mathrm{ n}\in {\mathbb{N}}\).
Definition 3.2 (see [73] and related references The power series for L.P.s, \({\mathcal{L}}_{\mathrm{n}}(\mathrm{t})\), is represented as.
The first L.P.s are given by:
The given function \(u(t)\) is generally approximated with the first terms \(n+1\) L.P.s as:
where
and
Definition 3.3 The GLPs, \({\mathcal{L}}_{m}(t)\), are formed with a change of variable. Correspondingly, \({t}^{i}\) is changed to \({t}^{i+{\beta }_{i}}\), \((i+{\beta }_{i}>0)\), on the L.P.s and provided by.
where \({\beta }_{k}\) refers to control parameters. Providing \({\beta }_{k}=0\), the GLPs are identical to the classical L.P.s.
The expression of \(v(t)\) functions using GLPs can be expressed as:
where
and
where \({\beta }_{k}\), \(k=\mathrm{1,2},\dots ,m\), are the control parameters.
The functions \(T(t)\), \(A(t)\), \(M(t)\) and \(W(t)\) can be outlined as matrices as follows:
where
and
with \({\beta }_{i}^{k}\) that represent the control parameters.
Operational matrices
The fractional derivatives of order \(0<{\upsilon }_{i}\le 1\), of \({\Phi }_{i}(t)\), \(i=\mathrm{1,2},\mathrm{3,4}\), can be shown by
where \({\mathcal{D}}_{t}^{\left({\upsilon }_{i}\right)}\) denote the following \(({m}_{i}+1)\times ({m}_{i}+1)\) operational matrices of fractional derivatives
where \({\beta }_{j}^{i}\), \({m}_{i}\), and \({\upsilon }_{i}\) (\(i=\mathrm{1,2},\mathrm{3,4}\), \(j=\mathrm{1,2},\dots ,{m}_{i}\)) respectively represent control parameters, basis function numbers, and fractional orders, with \(\Gamma (\cdot )\) implying the gamma function.
Function approximation
Suppose that \(\{1, {\mathcal{L}}_{1}\left(t\right), {\mathcal{L}}_{2}\left(t\right), \dots ,{\mathcal{L}}_{{m}_{1}}(t)\}\subset {L}^{2}[0,T]\) is a set of GLPs and \({\mathrm{\daleth }}_{{m}_{1}}=\) Span \(\{1, {\mathcal{L}}_{1}\left(t\right),{\mathcal{L}}_{2}\left(t\right),\dots , {\mathcal{L}}_{{m}_{1}}(t)\}\). Let \(S(t)\) be an arbitrary element of \({L}^{2}[0,T]\). There is a finitedimensional \({\mathrm{\daleth }}_{{m}_{1}}\) subspace of \({L}^{2}[0,T]\) space with a unique optimal approximation of F(t) in \({\mathrm{\daleth }}_{{m}_{1}}\), i.e. \({F}^{*}(t)\) such that
Since \({F}^{*}(t)\in {\mathrm{\daleth }}_{{m}_{1}}\), then the unique \({c}_{0}^{1},{c}_{1}^{1},\dots ,{c}_{{m}_{1}}^{1}\) coefficients exist such that
where Eqs. (3.11) and (3.13) are devoted to the respective definitions of\({\mathcal{C}}_{1}^{T}=[{c}_{0}^{1} {c}_{1}^{1}\dots {c}_{{m}_{1}}^{1}]\), also \({\mathfrak{D}}_{1}\) and \({\Phi }_{1}(t)\).
Any squareintegrable function \(F(t)\), \(t\in [\mathrm{0,1}]\), can be expressed in terms of GLPs as
where \({\mathcal{L}}_{m}(t)={\sum }_{k=0}^{m}\frac{(1{)}^{k}}{k!}\frac{m!}{k!(mk)!}{t}^{k+{\beta }_{k}}\) is a GLPs.
Theorem 3.4 The error in \(\mathrm{F}(\mathrm{t})\) approximation by the sum of its first \((\mathrm{m}+1)\)terms is limited to the absolute scale of all neglected coefficients. If
then for all \(F(t)\), \(m\); and \(t\in [\mathrm{0,1}]\), we have
where \(M=\mathrm{max}\{{\mathcal{L}}_{m}(t):t\in [\mathrm{0,1}]\}\).
Proof. Since \({\mathcal{L}}_{m}(t)\le M\), in view of (3.18) and (3.19), we conclude that.
This completes the proof.
The convergence analysis
In this section, the convergence analysis of GLPs is carried out in line with the following theorems.
Theorem 3.5 ([74, 75]) Let \(\mathrm{f}:[\mathrm{0,1}]\to {\mathbb{R}}\) be a continuous function. A GLP of \({\mathcal{L}}_{{\mathrm{m}}_{1}}(\mathrm{t})\) will then be for each \(\mathrm{t}\in [\mathrm{0,1}]\) and \(\upepsilon >0\) such that
Proof. Refer to [75].
Theorem 3.6 Let \(\mathrm{F}(\mathrm{t})\) be an ntimes continuously differentiable function on \([\mathrm{0,1}]\) and \({\mathrm{F}}_{\mathrm{m}}(\mathrm{t})\) be the best square approximation of \(\mathrm{F}(\mathrm{t})\) given in Eq.Â (3.18). Then, we have
where \(L={\mathrm{max}}_{t\in [\mathrm{0,1}]}{F}^{(m+1)}(t)\), where \(M=\mathrm{max}\{{\mathcal{L}}_{m}(t):t\in [\mathrm{0,1}]\}\) and \(A=\mathrm{max}\{1{t}_{0},{t}_{0}\}\).
Proof. Using Taylor's expansion of \(F(t)\), we obtain.
where \({t}_{0}\epsilon\,[0,\,1]\) and \(\xi \in [{t}_{0},t]\). Assume now that
Then, we get
Since \({F}_{m}(t)\) is the best square approximation of \(F(t)\), we deduce that
where \({F}_{m}(t)\) is the best square approximation and \(\overline{{F}_{m}}(t)\) is a GLP of degree \(m\). This amounts to
By taking the square root of both sides of the inequality above, we arrive at the necessary conclusion to finalize the proof.
Theorem 3.7 Let \(F(t)\in {C}^{m}([\mathrm{0,1}])\) and \({F}^{(k)}(t)\) be the kth derivative of \(F(t)\). If \({F}_{m}^{(k)}\), \(k=\mathrm{1,2},\dots ,n\), is the best approximation of \({F}^{(k)}(t)\), then
where\({E}_{m,k}={F}^{(k)}(t){F}_{m}^{(k)}(t)\), \(M=\mathrm{max}\{{\mathcal{L}}_{m}(t):t\in [\mathrm{0,1}]\}\) and \(L={\mathrm{max}}_{t\in [\mathrm{0,1}]}{F}^{(mk+1)}(t)\).
Proof. For any \(F(t)\in {C}^{m}([\mathrm{0,1}])\), we have \({F}^{(k)}(t)\in {C}^{mk}([\mathrm{0,1}])\). Given Theorem 3.6, we reach the desired result, which completes the proof.
Theorem 3.8 Let \(F(t)\in {C}^{m}([\mathrm{0,1}])\). Let \(n1<\upsilon \le n\) and \({}_{0}^{C}{D}_{t}^{\upsilon }{F}_{m}(t)\) be the best approximation of \({}_{0}^{C}{D}_{t}^{\upsilon }F(t)\). Then
where \({E}_{m,\upsilon }^{\upsilon }{=}_{0}^{C}{D}_{t}^{\upsilon }F(t){}_{0}^{C}{D}_{t}^{\upsilon }{F}_{m}(t)\) and \(L={\mathrm{max}}_{t\in [\mathrm{0,1}]}{F}^{(mn+1)}(t)\).
Proof. By the definition of Caputo derivative, we obtain.
This implies that
This completes the proof.
Now, we investigate the convergence of our method in one dimension by the following theorem.
Theorem 3.9 Let \(Z\) be a normed linear space, \({z}_{0}\in Z\), and \(\{{x}_{n}{\}}_{n\in {\mathbb{N}}}\subset Z\) such that \(Span \{{x}_{n}:n\in {\mathbb{N}}\}\) is a dense subset of \(Z\). If \(\{{z}_{n}{\}}_{n\in {\mathbb{N}}}\subset Z\) is the best approximation of \({z}_{0}\) in \(Span \{{x}_{1},{x}_{2},{x}_{3},\dots ,{x}_{n}\}\), then \(\{{z}_{n}{\}}_{n\in {\mathbb{N}}}\subset Z\) converges in norm to \({z}_{0}\).
Proof. By the density of \(Span \{{x}_{n}:n\in {\mathbb{N}}\}\) in \(Z\), there exists a sequence \(\{{v}_{m}{\}}_{m\in {\mathbb{N}}}\subset Span \{{x}_{n}:n\in {\mathbb{N}}\}\) such that \({v}_{m}\to {z}_{0}\) as \(m\to \infty\). We may assume that \({v}_{m}\in Span \{{x}_{1},{x}_{2},\dots ,{x}_{{n}_{m}}\}\), where \({n}_{1}<{n}_{2}<\cdots <{n}_{m}<\cdots\). In addition, from the definition of the best approximation, we obtain.
Since the sequence \(\{\parallel {z}_{n}{z}_{0}\parallel :n\in {\mathbb{N}}\}\) is decreasing in the real numbers, by employing (3.21), we conclude that there exists a subsequence of \(\{\parallel {z}_{n}{z}_{0}\parallel :n\in {\mathbb{N}}\}\) converging to some elements of real numbers. This ensures that \(\{{z}_{n}{\}}_{n\in {\mathbb{N}}}\subset Z\) converges in norm to \({z}_{0}\). This completes the proof.
Corollary 3.10 Let \(a>0\) be a fixed real number and \(Z={L}^{2}([0,a])\), equipped with the norm \(\parallel \cdot {\parallel }_{2}\), \({x}_{n}:={\mathcal{L}}_{n}\), the GLPs. In view of Theorem 3.9, we deduce that for each. \({z}_{0}\in {L}^{2}([0,a])\), the sequence \(\{{z}_{n}{\}}_{n\in {\mathbb{N}}}\) of the best approximation of \({z}_{0}\) in \(Span \{{\mathcal{L}}_{1},{\mathcal{L}}_{2},\dots ,{\mathcal{L}}_{n}\}\) converges to \({z}_{0}\) which completes the proof.
Remark 1: Similar to the arguments discussed in [76], we can prove that the solutions of system (2.1) are positively invariant and bounded.
The solution for FTIIMLC
In the present section, we will numerically solve the problem introduced in Eq.Â (2.1). For this purpose, the solutions \(T(t)\), \(A(t)\), \(M(t)\) and \(W(t)\) are approximated by GLPs as follows:
where \({\Xi }^{i}=\left[{\beta }_{1}^{i} {\beta }_{2}^{i} \dots {\beta }_{{m}_{i}}^{i}\right]\), \(i=\mathrm{1,2},\mathrm{3,4}\), are control parameters, and the coefficients \({\mathcal{C}}_{i}^{T}\), \(i=\mathrm{1,2},\mathrm{3,4}\), are unknown. From (3.16), we have:
Regarding the initial conditions presented in (2.1), we get
Now, \({\mathcal{R}}_{i}(t)\) residual functions (R.F.s), \(i=\mathrm{1,2},\mathrm{3,4}\), can be written for the fractional system (2.1) as:
From Eq.Â (2.1), we have
The 2norm of the R.F.s is generated as:
An optimization problem is utilized to determine the unknown vectors \({\mathcal{C}}_{i}\) and \({\Xi }^{i}\), \(i=\mathrm{1,2},\mathrm{3,4}\), as:
The optimization problem is constrained by Eqs. (4.5), with \(\mathcal{Q}\) serving as the objective function. To solve this problem, it is assumed that:
It should be noted that \(\xi\) represents the vector of Lagrange multipliers. The required and sufficient conditions can be optimally obtained by applying the Lagrange multipliers method, as outlined below:
Once we have solved the system above and computed \({\mathcal{C}}_{i}\) and \({\Xi }^{i}\), \(i=\mathrm{1,2},\mathrm{3,4}\), we obtain an approximate optimal solution for the problem described in Eqs. (4.1). To solve the extracted algebraic system of equations in Eq.Â (4.9), we utilize the "fsolve" command of Maple 18.
Numerical results and discussion
The GLPs method is utilized for the numerical results of FTIIMLC. Table 2 [15] provides the relevant data. The initial conditions for the simulation are \(T(0)=5\), \(A(0)=0\), \(M(0)=20\) and \(W(0)=200\). By utilizing the given parameter values, we conduct simulations for the four state variables \(\{T(\mathrm{t}),A(\mathrm{t}),M(\mathrm{t}),W(\mathrm{t})\},\) as depicted in Figs.Â 1, 2, 3 and 4, with \({m}_{1}={m}_{2}=4\), \({m}_{3}=6\), \({m}_{4}=5\), \(\zeta =150\) for \({\upsilon }_{i}=\upsilon =\left\{\mathrm{0.70,0.80,0.90,1}\right\}\), \(i=\mathrm{1,2},\mathrm{3,4}\). The runtime values and the R.F.s optimal values of the proposed method are reported in Tables 3 and 4, with \({m}_{1}={m}_{2}=4\), \({m}_{3}=6\), \({m}_{4}=5\) for \({\upsilon }_{i}=\upsilon =\left\{\mathrm{0.70,0.80,0.90,1}\right\}\), \(i=\mathrm{1,2},\mathrm{3,4}\). The approximate solutions are plotted in Figs. 5, 6, 7 and 8 with \({m}_{1}=3\), \({m}_{2}=5\), \({m}_{3}={m}_{4}=7\) for \({\upsilon }_{1}=0.28\), \({\upsilon }_{2}=0.43\), \({\upsilon }_{3}=0.87\), and \({\upsilon }_{4}=0.96\).
FiguresÂ 1 and 5 show that the densities of tumor cells are constantly increasing. The density of tumor cells is a crucial factor in drug resistance and metastasis regulation. Cancer cell density grows with cell proliferation in a space bounded by the basement membrane and enclosed by the stromal matrix [77]. There is ample evidence of the evolutionary development of tumor cells from somatic ones arising from the synergy of genetic damage accumulation, genetic feature variation, and specific environmental factor effects. During tumor progression, cellular invasion and metastasis are correlated with celltocell communication and signaling [78].
FiguresÂ 2 and 6 show that the number of activated macrophages is increasing. FiguresÂ 3 and 7 show that the number of macrophages is also rising. Macrophages play different roles ranging from their antitumor activity in the early stages of cancer development to their tumorpromoting function in established cancer [79]. Infiltration of tumorassociated macrophages is recruited to the tumor site and associated with lung tumor stage, metastasis focus, and unfavorable prognosis in solid tumors [80,81,82]. Macrophages comprise most immune infiltration in tumors and have significantly different effects on tumorigenesis depending on their phenotype within the tumor microenvironment (TME) [83].
FiguresÂ 4 and 8 show a gradually decreasing number of normal host cells. The tumor stroma comprises vasculature, extracellular matrix, basement membrane, immune cells, and fibroblasts. Despite tumorsuppressing properties of stroma host cells, they are changing with malignancy and instigating tumor cell invasion, growth, and metastasis. The progression and development of cancer strongly depend upon interactions among stromal and tumor cells [84].
Remark 2: From a numerical standpoint, our approach is distinct from other spectral methods in various aspects. The goal is to minimize the difference between the numerical and exact solutions. Spectral methods, including Legendre, Lagrange, Jacobi, and Chebyshev polynomials, require the determination of coefficients to express the solution of a differential equation as a set of basis functions. The determination of coefficients can be achieved using three common techniques: collocation, tau, and Galerkin. In this case, the residual process and the residual 2norm are utilized to convert the research problem into an optimization problem, yielding unknown optimal parameters. As a result, optimality conditions are established for a nonlinear system of algebraic equations with undetermined coefficients.
On the other hand, arbitrary smooth functions can be approximated using singular Sturmâ€“Liouville eigenfunctions of Jacobi, Chebyshev, Lagrange, Hermite, or Legendre polynomials. However, these basis functions are not optimal for approximating nonanalytic functions since the rate at which the number of basis functions approaches infinity is slower than the truncation error converging to zero in the approximation. Therefore, Generalized Laguerre Polynomials (GLPs) may be more effective alternatives.
Conclusions
This paper presents an optimization approach based on GLPs combined with Lagrange multipliers for analyzing FTIIMLC. The model's outcomes align with actual data, indicating a steady increase in tumor cell, macrophage, and activated macrophage densities and a gradual decrease in normal host cells. The proposed scheme was tested, and the results were presented in graphical and tabular forms. The computations demonstrate the method's accuracy, even in cases with limited basis functions. The article concludes that the algorithm's results help clarify FTIIMLC's biological behavior and justify theoretical statements. Also, the approach's adaptability makes it helpful in exploring various domains in medicine and biology. The authors suggest that the methodology's versatility enables researchers to address nonlinear partial differential equations, such as fractional KleinGordon, fractional diffusion wave, fractional telegraph, and fractional optimal control problems. Future research could focus on applying the proposed method to these other models and investigating their theoretical and practical implications.
Additionally, the proposed method could be applied to other types of cancer, such as breast or prostate cancer, to investigate the dynamics of tumorimmune interactions in these cases. This could involve developing new models for these types of cancer or adapting the existing FTIIMLC model to suit the specific characteristics of the tumor in question. Also, the proposed method could be further refined and improved by incorporating additional factors that influence tumorimmune interactions, such as the role of cytokines or chemokines in the tumor microenvironment. This could lead to more accurate predictions of disease progression and treatment outcomes.
Availability of data and materials
All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article.
Abbreviations
 APCs:

Antigenpresenting cells
 SCLC:

Smallcell lung carcinoma (NSCLC) nonsmall cell lung carcinoma
 FTIIMLC:

Fractional tumorimmune interaction model related to lung cancer
 CTLs:

Cytotoxic T lymphocytes
 GLPs:

Generalized Laguerre polynomials
 L.P.s:

Laguerre polynomials
References
Schabath MB, Cote ML. Cancer progress and priorities: lung cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2019;28(10):1563â€“79. https://doi.org/10.1158/10559965.EPI190221.
Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Siegel RL, Torre LA, Jemal A. Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries, CA: Cancer. J Clin. 2018;68(6):394â€“424.
Rivera GA, Wakelee H. Lung Cancer in Never Smokers. Adv Exp Med Biol. 2016;893:43â€“57. https://doi.org/10.1007/9783319242231_3.
Siegel RL, Miller KD, Fuchs HE, Jemal A. Cancer Statistics, 2021. CA Cancer J Clin. 2021;71(1):7â€“33.
Ferrell B, Koczywas M, Grannis F, Harrington A. Palliative care in lung cancer. Surg Clin North Am. 2011;91(2):403â€“ix. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.suc.2010.12.003.
Liu H, Barekatain M, Roy A, Liu S, Cao Y, Tang Y, Shkel A, Kim ES. MEMS piezoelectric resonant microphone array for lung sound classification. J Micromech Microeng. 2023;33:044003. https://doi.org/10.1088/13616439/acbfc3.
RamiPorta R, Bolejack V, Giroux DJ, Chansky K, Crowley J, Asamura H, et al., The IASLC lung cancer staging project: the new database to inform the eighth edition of the TNM classification of lung cancer. J Thorac Oncol. 2014;9(11):1618â€“1624.
Chansky K, Detterbeck FC, Nicholson AG, Rusch VW, ValliÃ¨res E, Groome P, et al. The IASLC Lung Cancer Staging Project: External Validation of the Revision of the TNM Stage Groupings in the Eighth Edition of the TNM Classification of Lung Cancer. J Thorac Oncol. 2017;12(7):1109â€“21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtho.2017.04.011.
Wahbah M, Boroumand N, Castro C, ElZeky F, Eltorky M. Changing trends in the distribution of the histologic types of lung cancer: a review of 4,439 cases. Ann Diagn Pathol. 2007;11(2):89â€“96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anndiagpath.2006.04.006.
DomagalaKulawik J, Raniszewska A. How to evaluate the immune status of lung cancer patients before immunotherapy. Breathe (Sheff). 2017;13(4):291â€“6. https://doi.org/10.1183/20734735.001917.
Saab S, Zalzale H, Rahal Z, Khalifeh Y, Sinjab A, Kadara H. Insights into lung cancer immunebased biology prevention, and treatment. Front Immunol. 2020;11:159. https://doi.org/10.3389/fimmu.2020.00159.
Domagalakulawik J. The role of the immune system in nonsmall cell lung carcinoma and potential for therapeutic intervention. Transl Lung Cancer Res. 2015;4(2):177â€“90. https://doi.org/10.3978/2Fj.issn.22186751.2015.01.11.
Aldarouish M. C, Wang, Trends and advances in tumor immunology and lung cancer immunotherapy. J Exp Clin Cancer Res. 2016;35:157. https://doi.org/10.1186/s1304601604393.
Abdelaziz MH, Abdelwahab SF. J Wan J, et al, Alternatively activated macrophages; a doubleedged sword in allergic asthma. J Transl Med. 2020;18:58. https://doi.org/10.1186/s1296702002251w.
Ã–zkÃ¶se F, YÄ±lmaz S, Yavuz M, Ã–ztÃ¼rk I, Åženel MT, et al. A fractional modeling of tumorimmune system interaction related to lung cancer with real data. Eur Phys J Plus. 2022;137:40.
Hu X, Jang SRJ. Dynamics of tumorCD4^{+}cytokineshost cells interactions with treatments. Appl Math Comput. 2018;321:700â€“20.
Kumar S, Chauhan RP, AbdelAty AH, Abdelwahab SF. A study on fractional tumourimmunevitamins model for intervention of vitamins. Results Phys. 2022;33:104963. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rinp.2021.104963.
Cherraf A, Li M, MoulaiKhatir A. Interaction tumorimmune model with timedelay and immunochemotherapy protocol. Rend Circ Mat Palermo II Ser. 2022;72:869â€“87. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12215021006159.
Ahmad S, Ullah A, AkgÃ¼l A, Baleanu D. Theoretical and numerical analysis of fractal fractional model of tumorimmune interaction with two different kernels. Alex Eng J. 2022;61(7):5735â€“52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aej.2021.10.065.
Kumar S, Kumar A, Samet B, GÃ³mezAguilar JF, Osman MS. A chaos study of tumor and effector cells in fractional tumorimmune model for cancer treatment. Chaos, Solitons Fractals. 2020;141:110321.
Yu JL, Jang SRJ. A mathematical model of tumorimmune interactions with an immune checkpoint inhibitor. Appl Math Comput. 2019;362:124523.
Dai F, Liu B. Optimal control problem for a general reactiondiffusion tumorimmune system with chemotherapy. J Franklin Inst. 2021;358(1):448â€“73.
Ogunmiloro OM. Mathematical analysis and approximate solution of a fractional order caputo fascioliasis disease model. Chaos Solitons Fractals. 2021;146:110851.
Podlubny I. Geometric and physical interpretation of fractional integration and fractional differentiation. Fract Calc Appl Anal. 2002;5(4):367â€“86. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.math/0110241.
Aguilar JFG, GarcÃa JR, Alvarado JB, GuÃa M. Mathematical modelling of the massspringdamper system A fractional calculus approach. Acta Universitaria. 2012;22(5):5â€“11.
Diethelm K. A fractional calculus based model for the simulation of an outbreak of dengue fever. Nonlinear Dynam. 2013;71:613â€“9.
Rihan FA, Arafa AA, Rakkiyappan R, Rajivganthi C, Xu Y. Fractionalorder delay differential equations for the dynamics of hepatitis C virus infection with IFNÎ± treatment. Alex Eng J. 2021;60:4761â€“74.
Hassani H, Tenreiro Machado JA, Avazzadeh Z. An effective numerical method for solving nonlinear variableorder fractional functional boundary value problems through optimization technique. Nonlinear Dynam. 2019;97:2041â€“54.
Hassani H, Avazzadeh Z, TenreiroMachodo JA. Numerical approach for solving variableorder spacetime fractional telegraph equation using transcendental Bernstein series. Eng Comput. 2020;36:867â€“78.
Veeresha P, Baskonus HM, Prakasha DG, Gao W, Yel G. Regarding new numerical solution of fractional Schistosomiasis disease arising in biological phenomena. Chaos, Solitons Fractals. 2020;133:109661.
Khan AA, Amin R, Ullah S, Sumelka W, Altanji M. Numerical simulation of a Caputo fractional epidemic model for the novel coronavirus with the impact of environmental transmission. Alex Eng J. 2022;61(7):5083â€“95.
Zafar ZUA, Ali N, Baleanu D. Dynamics and numerical investigations of a fractionalorder model of toxoplasmosis in the population of human and cats. Chaos, Solitons Fractals. 2021;151:111261.
Cui X, Xue D, Li T. Fractionalorder delayed RossMacdonald model for malaria transmission. Nonlinear Dynam. 2022;107:3155â€“73.
Abdullah FA, Liu F, Burrage P, Burrage K, Li T. Novel analytical and numerical techniques for fractional temporal SEIR measles model. Numerical Algorithms. 2018;79:19â€“40.
Hassani H, Mehrabi S, Naraghirad E, Naghmachi M, YÃ¼zbaÅŸi S. An Optimization Method Based on the Generalized Polynomials for a Model of HIV Infection of CD4 + T Cells. Iran J Sci Technol A. 2020;44:407â€“16.
Ghita M, Copot D, Ionescu CM. Lung cancer dynamics using fractional order impedance modeling on a mimicked lung tumor setup. J Adv Res. 2021;32:61â€“71.
Ullah MS, Higazy M, ArifulKabir KM. Dynamic analysis of meanfield and fractionalorder epidemic vaccination strategies by evolutionary game approach. Chaos, Solitons Fractals. 2022;162:112431.
Ullah MS, Higazy M, ArifulKabir KM. Modeling the epidemic control measures in overcoming COVID19 outbreaks: A fractionalorder derivative approach. Chaos, Solitons Fractals. 2022;155:111636.
Din A, ZainulAbidin M. Analysis of fractionalorder vaccinated HepatitisB epidemic model with MittagLeffler kernels. Math Model Numerical Simulation Appl. 2022;2(2):59â€“72. https://doi.org/10.53391/mmnsa.2022.006.
Din A, Li Y, Khan FM, Khan ZU. On Analysis of fractional order mathematical model of Hepatitis B using AtanganaBaleanu Caputo (ABC) derivative. Fractals. 2022;30(01):2240017. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0218348X22400175.
Peijiang L, Din A, Rahat Z. Numerical dynamics and fractional modeling of hepatitis B virus model with nonsingular and nonlocal kernels. Results Phys. 2022;39:105757.
Ain QT, Anjum N, Din A, Zeb A, Djilali S, Khan ZA. On the analysis of Caputo fractional order dynamics of Middle East Lungs Coronavirus (MERSCoV) model. Alex Eng J. 2022;61(7):5123â€“31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aej.2021.10.016.
Kashyap AJ, Bhattacharjee D, Sarmah HK. A fractional model in exploring the role of fear in mass mortality of pelicans in the Salton Sea. Int J Optim Control Theories Appl. 2021;11(3):28â€“51. https://doi.org/10.11121/ijocta.2021.1123.
UÃ§ar E, Ozdemir N. New fractional cancer mathematical model via IL10 cytokine and antiPDL1 inhibitor. Fractal Fract. 2023;7(2):151.
Ucar E, Ozdemir N, Altun E. Qualitative analysis and numerical simulations of new model describing cancer. J Comput Appl Math. 2023;422:114899. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cam.2022.114899.
UÃ§ar E, UÃ§ar S, Evirgen F, Ozdemir N. A Fractional SAIDR Model in the Frame of AtanganaBaleanu Derivative. Fractal Fract. 2021;5(2):32. https://doi.org/10.3390/fractalfract5020032.
Ucar S. Analysis of hepatitis B disease with fractalâ€“fractional Caputo derivative using real data from Turkey. J Comput Appl Math. 2023;419:114692.
UÃ§ar S. Existence and uniqueness results for a smoking model with determination and education in the frame of nonsingular derivatives. Discrete Contin Dyn Syst S. 2021;14(7):2571â€“89. https://doi.org/10.3934/dcdss.2020178.
Zafar ZUA, Saeed ST, Qureshi MR, Tunc C. Numerical analysis of BazykinBerezovskaya model. J Taibah Univ Sci. 2023;17(1):2190020. https://doi.org/10.1080/16583655.2023.2190020.
Zafar ZUA, Inc M, Tchier F, Akinyemi L. Stochastic suicide substrate reaction model. Physica A. 2023;610:128384. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physa.2022.128384.
Zafar ZUA, Yusuf A, Musa SS, Qureshi S, Alshomrani AS, Baleanu D. Impact of Public Health Awareness Programs on COVID19 Dynamics: A Fractional Approach. Fractals. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0218348X23400054.
Zafar ZUA, Hussain MT, Inc M, Baleanu D, Almohsen B, Oke AS, Javeed Sh. Fractional order dynamics of human papillomavirus. Results Phys. 2022;34:105281.
Zafar ZUA, Zaib S, Hussain MT, Tunc C, Javeed Sh. Analysis and numerical simulation of tuberculosis model using different fractional derivatives. Chaos, Solitons Fractals. 2022;160:112202.
Farman M, Sarwar R, Askar S, Ahmad H, Sultan M, Akram MM. Fractional order model to study the impact of planting genetically modified trees on the regulation of atmospheric carbon dioxide by analysis and modeling. Results Phys. 2023;48:106409. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rinp.2023.106409.
Hasan A, Akgul A, Farman M, Chaudhry F, Sultan M, Sen MDI. Epidemiological analysis of symmetry in transmission of Ebola virus with power law kernel. Symmetry. 2023;15(3):665.
Farman M, Shehzad A, AkgÃ¼l A, Baleanu D, Sen MDI. Modelling and Analysis of a Measles Epidemic Model with the Constant Proportional Caputo Operator. Symmetry. 2023;15(2):533.
Farman M, Besbes H, Nisar KS, Omri M. Analysis and Dynamical Transmission of Covid19 Model using CaputoFabrizio Derivative. Alex Eng J. 2023;66(3):597â€“606.
Tang TQ, Rooman M, Shah Z, Khan S, Vrinceanu N, Alshehri A, Racheriu M. Numerical study of magnetized PowellEyring hybrid nanomaterial flow with variable heat transfer in the presence of artificial bacteria: Applications for tumor removal and cancer cell destruction. Front Mater. 2023;10:1144854. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmats.2023.1144854.
Tang TQ, Shah Z, Jan R, Alzahrani E. Modeling the dynamics of tumorâ€“immune cells interactions via fractional calculus. Eur Phys J Plus. 2022;137:367. https://doi.org/10.1140/epjp/s13360022025910.
Fioranelli M, Ahmad H, Roccia MG, Beesham A, Shah Z. A mathematical model for inducing Tcells around tumor cells by using exchanged waves between graphene sheets interior and exterior of body. AIMS Biophysics. 2022;9(4):388â€“401. https://doi.org/10.3934/biophy.2022030.
Xu C, Zhang W, Aouiti C, Liu Z, Yao L. Bifurcation insight for a fractionalorder stagestructured predatorâ€“prey system incorporating mixed time delays. Math Methods Applied Sci. 2023;46:9103â€“18.
Xu C, Mu D, Liu Z, Pang Y, Liao M, Aouiti Ch. New insight into bifurcation of fractionalorder 4D neural networks incorporating two different time delays. Commun Nonlinear Sci Numer Simul. 2023;118:107043.
Xu C, Liu Z, Li P, Yan J, Yao L. bifurcation mechanism for fractionalorder threetriangle multidelayed neural networks. Neural Process Lett. 2022;19:1â€“27.
Xu C, Liao M, Li P, Guo Y, Liu Z. Bifurcation Properties for Fractional Order Delayed BAM Neural Networks. Cogn Comput. 2021;13:322â€“56.
Ahmad Sh, Ullah A, AkgÃ¼l A, Baleanu D. Analysis of the fractional tumourimmunevitamins model with MittagLeffler kernel. Results Phys. 2020;19:103559.
Ahmad Sh, Ullah A, Abdeljawad T, AkgÃ¼l A, Mlaiki N. Analysis of fractalfractional model of tumorimmune interaction. Results Phys. 2021;25:104178.
Yuttanan B, Razzaghi M, Vo TN. A numerical method based on fractionalorder generalized Taylor wavelets for solving distributedorder fractional partial differential equations. Appl Numer Math. 2021;160:349â€“67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apnum.2020.10.018.
Syam MI, Sharadga M, Hashim I. A numerical method for solving fractional delay differential equations based on the operational matrix method. Chaos Solit Fractals. 2021;147:110977. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chaos.2021.110977.
Rawani MK, Verma AK, Cattani C. A novel hybrid approach for computing numerical solution of the timefractional nonlinear one and twodimensional partial integrodifferential equation. Commun Nonlinear Sci Numer Simul. 2023;118.
Khirsariya SR, Rao SB, Chauhan JP. A novel hybrid technique to obtain the solution of generalized fractionalorder differential equations. Math Comput Simul. 2023;205:272â€“90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matcom.2022.10.013.
Lorenzo CF, Hartley TT. Initialized fractional calculus. Int J Appl Math. 2000;3(3):249â€“65.
Sun H, Chen W, Wei H, Chen Y. A comparative study of constantorder and variableorder fractional models in characterizing memory property of systems. Eur Phys J Spec Top. 2011;193:185â€“92. https://doi.org/10.1140/epjst/e2011013906.
Aizenshtadt VS, Krylov VI, Metelâ€™skii AS. Tables of Laguerre Polynomials and Functions. OxfordNew York: Mathematical Tables Series. Pergamon Press; 1966.
Hassani H, Tenreiro Machado JA, Mehrabi S. An optimization technique for solving a class of nonlinear fractional optimal control problems: Application in cancer treatment. Appl Math Model. 2021;93:868â€“84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apm.2021.01.004.
Avazzadeh Z, Hassani H, Agarwal P, Mehrabi S, EbadiMJ and Sh Dahaghin M. An optimization method for studying fractionalorder tuberculosis disease model via generalized Laguerre polynomials. Soft Computing. 2023:1â€“13.
Fan K, Zhang Y, Gao S, Chen S. A delayed vaccinated epidemic model with nonlinear incidence rate and Levy jumps. Phys A. 2020;544:12379.
Jayatilaka H, Umanzor FG, Shah V, Meirson T, Russo G, Starich B, et al. Tumor cell density regulates matrix metalloproteinases for enhanced migration. Oncotarget. 2018;99(6):32556â€“69. https://doi.org/10.18632/2Foncotarget.25863.
Deng Z, Wu S, Wang Y, Shi D. Circulating tumor cell isolation for cancer diagnosis and prognosis. eBioMedicine. 2022;83:104237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ebiom.2022.104237.
Cendrowicz E, Sas Z, Bremer E, Rygiel TP. The Role of Macrophages in Cancer Development and Therapy. Cancers (Basel). 2021;13(8):1946.
Zheng X, Weigert A, Reu S, Guenther S, Mansouri S, Bassaly B, et al. Spatial density and distribution of tumorassociated macrophages predict survival in nonsmall cell lung carcinoma. Cancer Res. 2020;80(20):4414â€“25.
Zhou J, Tang Z, Gao S, Li C, Feng Y, Zhou X. Tumorassociated macrophages: recent insights and therapies. Front Oncol. 2020;10:188.
Xu F, Wei Y, Tang Z, Liu B, Dong J. Tumorassociated macrophages in lung cancer: Friend or foe? Mol Med Rep. 2020;22(5):4107â€“15.
Conway EM, Pikor LA, Kung SHY, Hamilton MJ, Lam S, Lam WL, Bennewith KL. Macrophages, Inflammation, and Lung Cancer. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2016;193(2):116â€“30. https://doi.org/10.1164/rccm.2015081545CI.
Bremnes RM, DÃ¸nnem T, AlSaad S, AlShibli K, Andersen S, Sirera R, Camps C, Marinez I, Busund LT. The role of tumor stroma in cancer progression and prognosis: emphasis on carcinomaassociated fibroblasts and nonsmall cell lung cancer. J Thorac Oncol. 2011;6(1):209â€“17. https://doi.org/10.1097/JTO.0b013e3181f8a1bd.
Acknowledgements
Not applicable.
Funding
No funding to declare.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
â€œH.H and S.M contributed to the conception and design of the study; H.H, Z.A, P.A, M.J.E, M.S.D, and E.N performed the computations; all authors discussed the results and commented on the manuscript; H.H and S.M wrote the initial draft of the manuscript; all authors and approved the final version of the manuscript.â€œ
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Ethics approval and consent to participate
Not applicable.
Consent for publication
Not applicable.
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisherâ€™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/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
About this article
Cite this article
Hassani, H., Avazzadeh, Z., Agarwal, P. et al. A study on fractional tumorimmune interaction model related to lung cancer via generalized Laguerre polynomials. BMC Med Res Methodol 23, 189 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874023020063
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874023020063
Keywords
 Fractional TumorImmune Interaction Model
 Tumor Cells
 Lung Cancer
 Generalized Laguerre Polynomials
 Macrophages Cells