Table 2.

Tumor growth characteristics

	KB tumors				MIA Paca-2 tumors
	Saline	Stable std. lipos	Stable std.+ empty HPPH lipos +laser	Leaky HPPH lipos +laser	Saline	Leaky HPPH lipos -laser	Stable std. + empty HPPH lipos +laser	Leaky HPPH lipos+laser
Growth days	6.6(0.9)	18.9(5.3)a	39.6(9.3)b	cured	15.2(1.6)	18.0(3.0)	cured	cured
Growth delay		12.3	33	cured		2.8	cured	cured
Cure rate (%)	0	0	71.4	100.0	0	0	80.0	100.0
Days to regress			17.4(4.3)	15.3(6.5)			21(6.9)	10.2(2)c
AUC			33.9(20.9)	16.4(3.5)d			22.6(11.4)	7.8(0.8)e

Growth days is defined as the days to reach endpoint (five times of initial tumor volume). Growth delay was defined as (growth days)-(growth time for saline control).Cure was defined as no tumor present at 45 days (KB tumors) or 33 days (MIA Paca-2 tumors) after treatment. Days to regress was defined as the time required to tumor volume reduces to less than 20 mm³. AUC was defined as the area of the relative tumor volume of stable std.+empty HPPH liposomes+laser and leaky HPPH liposomes+laser when all the mice in the former group were alive.

^aStable std. liposomes alone significantly delayed the growth of KB tumors. (**p<0.01, Tukey's multiple comparison test, one-way ANOVA)

^bStable std. liposomes+empty HPPH liposomes+laser group is significantly better than stable std. liposomes alone. (*** p< 0.001, Tukey's multiple comparison test, one-way ANOVA)

^cThere is significant difference between stable std.+empty HPPH liposomes+laser and leaky HPPH liposomes+laser (**p=0.0048, unpaired t test).

^dThere is significant difference between stable std.+empty HPPH liposomes+laser and leaky HPPH liposomes+laser (*p=0.0496, unpaired t test).

^eThere is significant difference between stable std.+empty HPPH liposomes+laser and leaky HPPH liposomes+laser (*p=0.0104, unpaired t test).