Table 3.
Model | Treatment | Sample size (n) |
Health status |
Foxp3+ cells in lymph node |
Foxp3+ cells in tumor periphery |
Foxp3+ cells within tumor |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
FVB HER2/neu | - | 8 | Hh-free | 68.3 ± 6.8 cells | 17.8 ± 3.45 cells | 0.2 ± 0.13 cells |
HER2/neu sham | Sham IgG | 6 | Hh-free | nd | 16.5 ± 2.75 | 0 |
HER2/neu +anti-TNF | Anti-TNF | 6 | Hh-free | 46.4 ± 3.27 | 16.6 ± 4.47 | 5.4 ± 1.34 |
HER2/neu + sonicate | Hh sonicate (sterile) | 10 | Hh-free | 39.5 ± 3.51 | 5.4 ± 1.18 | 1.10 ± 0.48 |
Cell counts between groups were compared using Mann–Whitney U analyses.
Foxp3+ lymph node (LN): p < 0.01; untreated (68.3 ± 6.8 cells) vs. anti-TNF-α (46.4 ± 3.27).
Foxp3+ in LN: p < 0.001; untreated (68.3 ± 6.8) vs. sterile Hh sonicate (39.5 ± 3.51).
Foxp3+ in tumor periphery: p < 0.001; untreated (17.8 ± 3.45) vs. Hh sonicate (5.4 ± 1.18).
Foxp3+ within tumor: p < 0.001; sham IgG (0 cells) vs. anti-TNF (5.4 ± 1.34).