Table 3.

Effects of changes in liposome size, C_medium, and D_i: Comparison of simulated data with experimental data.

	C10-1				C20-1				C30-1				C20-20*
		Orig	Cmed	Di	Cmed+Di	Orig	Cmed	Di	Cmed+Di	Orig	Cmed	Di	Cmed+Di	Orig	Cmed	Di	Cmed+Di
	% Agreement, average & range
95% CI	97	97	100	100	85	85	95	94	85	82	68	67	48	48	20	20
	92-100	92-100			55-100	55-100	86-100	82-100	81-88	72-88	34-85	31-85	17-98	17-98	0-54	0-54
97.5% CI	99	99	100	100	94	95	100	100	97	97	97	97	61	61	28	28
	96-100	96-100			82-100	86-100			92-100	92-100	92-100	92-100	38-100	38-100	0-70	0-70
	% Deviation
Relative Cmax,spheroid	2	3	2	3	6	7	6	7	10	9	20	9	32	32	32	32
W1/2, μm	19	19	11	11	10	10	11	11	17	18	24	24	31	31	68	68
Relative AUC	10	10	8	8	13	13	9	9	17	18	22	23	30	33	70	70

Data, experimental results. CI: confidence intervals of experimental results. Simulated results of C_{total,spheroid}-depth profiles using the original model (Orig), dynamic C_medium(C_med), dynamic D_i(D_i), and combined dynamic C_med+D_i models. The average number of simulated data points for each profile was 20. % Deviation, difference between simulated and experimental results (absolute values). C_max,spheroid and AUC are expressed as relative values normalized to the values at 6 hr. Results represent averages of data at 3 time points (2, 6 and 12 hr). For C10-1, C20-1, C30-1, and C20-20, the respective average 95% and 97.5% CI values were 0.18 (range, 0.14-0.21) and 0.24 (range, 0.19-0.27), 0.19 (range, 0.13-0.27) and 0.26 (0.17-0.36), 0.19 (range 0.14-0.22) and 0.35 (range, 0.16-0.44), and 0.23 (range, 0.06-0.38) and 0.30 (range, 0.08-0.50); the respective average relative C_max,spheroid values were 1.1, 1.1, 1.1, and 1.0; the respective W_1/2(μm) were 7, 7, 6 and 9; the relative AUC were 1.2, 1.1, 1.1 and 0.8.

^*The C20-20 data and the analysis using the Original Model were obtained from our earlier study [1].