  Despite internal complexity, tumor growth kinetics follow relatively simple
macroscopic laws that have been quantified by mathematical models. To resolve
this further, quantitative and discriminant analyses were performed for the
purpose of comparing alternative models for their abilities to describe and
predict tumor growth. For this we used two in vivo experimental systems, an
ectopic syngeneic tumor (Lewis lung carcinoma) and an orthotopically
xenografted human breast carcinoma. The goals were threefold: to 1) determine a
statistical model for description of the volume measurement error, 2) establish
the descriptive power of each model, using several goodness-of-fit metrics and
a study of parametric identifiability, and 3) assess the models ability to
forecast future tumor growth.
  Nine models were compared that included the exponential, power law, Gompertz
and (generalized) logistic formalisms. The Gompertz and power law provided the
most parsimonious and parametrically identifiable description of the lung data,
whereas the breast data were best captured by the Gompertz and
exponential-linear models. The latter also exhibited the highest predictive
power for the breast tumor growth curves, with excellent prediction scores
(greater than 80$\%$) extending out as far as 12 days. In contrast, for the
lung data, none of the models were able to achieve substantial prediction rates
(greater than 70$\%$) further than the next day data point. In this context,
adjunction of a priori information on the parameter distribution led to
considerable improvement of predictions.
  These results not only have important implications for biological theories of
tumor growth and the use of mathematical modeling in preclinical anti-cancer
drug investigations, but also may assist in defining how mathematical models
could serve as potential prognostic tools in the clinical setting.
