Table 2. Best-fit models for single treatment with gemcitabine and E→G sequence.
| A | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BxPC–3 | Delay G1 | Delay S | Long termDelay S (>18 h) | G2M blockingprob. (>12 h) | Long termDelay S (>21 h) |
| generation 0 | generation 0/1 | generation 0 | generation 0 | generation 1 | |
| 20 nMgemcitabine | 0.75 (< 6 h) [0.56–0.93] |
0.88 [0.85–0.91] |
0 [0–0.07] |
0.10 [0.07–0.13] |
0 [0–0.03] |
| 1E→20G | 1 (< 6 h) [0.83–1] |
0.68 [0.58–0.77] |
0.54 [0.39–0.68] |
0.60 [0.41–0.78] |
0.23 [0.09–0.37] |
| 10E→20G | 1 (< 6 h) [0.74–1] |
0.95 [0.81–1] |
0.23 [0.11–0.33] |
0.26 [0.10–0.43] |
0.16 [0.01–0.48] |
| 40 nMgemcitabine | 0.87 (< 15 h) [0.75–0.98] |
1 [0.97–1] |
0.37 [0.33–0.40] |
0.15 [0.12–0.17] |
0.18 [0.13–0.22] |
| 1E→40G | 1 (< 15 h) [0.89–1] |
0.96 [0.88–1] |
0.96 [0.89–1] |
ND | 0.04 [0–0.23] |
| 10E→40G | 0.98 (< 15 h) [0.68–1] |
0.97 [0.90–1] |
0.52 [0.41–0.62] |
0.48 [0.24–0.71] |
0.07 [0–0.26] |
| B | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Capan–1 | Delay G1 | Delay S | Long termDelay S (> 18 h) | G2M blockingprob. (> 6 h) | Long termDelay S (> 21 h) |
| generation 0 | generation 0/1 | generation 0 | generation 0 | generation 1 | |
| 30 nMgemcitabine | 0 [0–0.08] |
0.23 [0.10–0.34] |
0 [0–0.71] |
0 [0–0.08] |
0 [0–0.32] |
| 1E→30G | 0 [0–0.07] |
0.39 [0.24–0.55] |
0 [0–0.33] |
0 [0–0.05] |
0 [0–0.55] |
| 10E→30G | 0 [0–0.26] |
0.59 [0.48–0.70] |
0 [0–0.09] |
0 [0–0.04] |
0 [0–0.25] |
| 100 nMgemcitabine | 0.57 (< 15 h) [0.40–0.70] |
0.95 [0.92–1] |
0.29 [0.24–0.34] |
0.20 [0.13–0.27] |
0.10 [0.01–0.20] |
| 1E→100G | 0.74 (< 15 h) [0.52–0.96] |
0.95 [0.84–0.99] |
0.82 [0.71–0.94] |
ND | 0 [0–0.12] |
| 10E→100G | 0.90 (< 15 h) [0.63–0.99] |
0.95 [0.84–99] |
0.64 [0.56–0.73] |
0.20 [0–0.40] |
ND |
Parameters of gemcitabine or the combination E→G were compared for BxPC-3 (panel A) and Capan-1 (panel B).