Table 4.
Influence of treatment with MTA and GEM on tumor cell load and liver weight
| Group no. | Treatment | Mean tumor cell number per livera ± SEb | O/E ratioc | Mean liver weight (g)d ± SEb | Increase in tumor cell numbere | aT1/2f | TCDg |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1A | Untreated | 4.1E+09±4.6E+08 | – | 34.2±2.7 | 1025 | 50.4 | 10.0 |
| 1B | Untreated | 2.1E+09±3.3E+08 | – | 28.4±2.7 | 525 | 55.8 | 9.0 |
| 2 | GEM 50 HACE | 5.5E+08±2.3E+08 | – | 11.1±1.0 | 136 | 71.1 | 7.1 |
| 3 | GEM 50 IV | 1.2E+09±3.3E08 | – | 15.9±2.0 | 306 | 61.0 | 8.3 |
| 4 | MTA 30 IV | 2.8E+09±7.5E+08 | – | 22.9±3.6 | 706 | 53.3 | 9.5 |
| 5 | MTA 60 IV | 2.5E+09±4.3E+08 | – | 17.1±2.8 | 614 | 54.4 | 9.3 |
| 6 | MTA 90 IV | 2.8E+09±3.7E+08 | – | 21.1±2.1 | 690 | 53.4 | 9.4 |
| 7 | MTA 30 (IV) + GEM 50 HACE | 8.3E+08±1.3E+08 | 2.19 | 12.7±0.8 | 206 | 65.6 | 7.7 |
| 8 | MTA 60 (IV) + GEM 50 (HACE) | 3.3E+08±1.6E+08 | 1.02 | 8.3±0.6 | 83 | 79.0 | 6.4 |
| 9 | MTA 90 (IV) + GEM 50 (HACE) | 4.2E+08±1.7E+08 | 1.14 | 9.6±1.0 | 105 | 75.1 | 6.7 |
| 10 | MTA 30 (PVCE) | 3.3E+09±6.6E+08 | – | 25.9±3.3 | 819 | 52.1 | 9.7 |
| 11 | MTA 60 (PVCE) | 3.6E+09±6.6E+08 | – | 29.1±4.0 | 907 | 51.3 | 9.8 |
| 12 | MTA 90 (PVCE) | 3.7E+09±5.7E+08 | – | 30.8±3.4 | 918 | 51.2 | 9.8 |
| 13 | MTA 30 (PVCE) + GEM 50 (HACE) | 1.4E+09±2.5E+08 | 2.38 | 15.7±2.0 | 260 | 62.8 | 8.0 |
| 14 | MTA 60 (PVCE) + GEM 50 (HACE) | 3.1E+08±2.0E+08 | 0.64 | 8.4±1.0 | 77 | 80.4 | 6.3 |
| 15 | MTA 90 (PVCE) + GEM 50 (HACE) | 1.2E+09±3.6E+08 | 2.45 | 14.6±2.1 | 300 | 61.3 | 8.2 |
aDetermined by ß-galactosidase assay
bStandard error of the mean
cO/E = ratio of observed versus expected treatment effect
dWet liver weight
eRatio of final and initial tumor cell numbers
fApparent tumor cell doubling time (h)
gNumber of tumor cell doublings