Table of Contents
Fetching ...

On a relaxed Cahn-Hilliard tumour growth model with single-well potential and degenerate mobility

Cecilia Cavaterra, Matteo Fornoni, Maurizio Grasselli, Benoît Perthame

TL;DR

The paper addresses a degenerate Cahn–Hilliard tumour-growth model with a singular single-well potential, degenerate mobility, nutrient diffusion, and chemotaxis. It introduces a relaxed, δ-regularized formulation by adding an elliptic term to the chemical potential, and proves existence of weak solutions for δ>0 using a Faedo–Galerkin approximation with regularized data. It then passes to the limit δ→0, establishing convergence to a weak solution of the original nonlocal-to-local system, preserving an energy–entropy structure that yields uniform bounds. The work combines nonlocal–to–local analysis for the chemical potential and compactness arguments to handle degeneracies, providing a rigorous foundation for the relaxation approach and potential numerical schemes. Overall, the results validate the δ-relaxation as a consistent approximation for modelling tumour growth with nutrient interaction and chemotaxis within a phase-field framework.

Abstract

We consider a phase-field system modelling solid tumour growth. This system consists of a Cahn-Hilliard equation coupled with a nutrient equation. The former is characterised by a degenerate mobility and a singular potential. Both equations are subject to suitable reaction terms which model proliferation and nutrient consumption. Chemotactic effects are also taken into account. Adding an elliptic regularisation, depending on a relaxation parameter $δ>0$, in the equation for the chemical potential, we prove the existence of a weak solution to an initial and boundary value problem for the relaxed system. Then, we let $δ$ go to zero, and we recover the existence of a weak solution to the original system.

On a relaxed Cahn-Hilliard tumour growth model with single-well potential and degenerate mobility

TL;DR

The paper addresses a degenerate Cahn–Hilliard tumour-growth model with a singular single-well potential, degenerate mobility, nutrient diffusion, and chemotaxis. It introduces a relaxed, δ-regularized formulation by adding an elliptic term to the chemical potential, and proves existence of weak solutions for δ>0 using a Faedo–Galerkin approximation with regularized data. It then passes to the limit δ→0, establishing convergence to a weak solution of the original nonlocal-to-local system, preserving an energy–entropy structure that yields uniform bounds. The work combines nonlocal–to–local analysis for the chemical potential and compactness arguments to handle degeneracies, providing a rigorous foundation for the relaxation approach and potential numerical schemes. Overall, the results validate the δ-relaxation as a consistent approximation for modelling tumour growth with nutrient interaction and chemotaxis within a phase-field framework.

Abstract

We consider a phase-field system modelling solid tumour growth. This system consists of a Cahn-Hilliard equation coupled with a nutrient equation. The former is characterised by a degenerate mobility and a singular potential. Both equations are subject to suitable reaction terms which model proliferation and nutrient consumption. Chemotactic effects are also taken into account. Adding an elliptic regularisation, depending on a relaxation parameter , in the equation for the chemical potential, we prove the existence of a weak solution to an initial and boundary value problem for the relaxed system. Then, we let go to zero, and we recover the existence of a weak solution to the original system.

Paper Structure

This paper contains 6 sections, 4 theorems, 205 equations.

Key Result

Theorem 2.3

Let ass:omega--ass:entropy hold. Then, problem eq:phi--eq:ic admits a weak solution $(\varphi_\delta, \mu_\delta, \sigma_\delta)$, such that and that, for any $v \in V$ and almost everywhere in $(0,T)$, with initial conditions $\varphi_\delta(0) = \varphi_0$ and $\sigma_\delta(0) = \sigma_0$.

Theorems & Definitions (14)

  • Remark 2.1
  • Remark 2.2
  • Theorem 2.3
  • Remark 2.4
  • Remark 2.5
  • Remark 2.6
  • Definition 2.7
  • Theorem 2.8
  • Remark 2.9
  • Remark 2.10
  • ...and 4 more