Table 1. PK Comparison of Doxil vs Generic Liposomal DXR^a.

	Co	Cmax	T1/2	Tmax	AUCall	AUCinf	Vd	CL	MRTinf	Vss
	ng/mL	ng/mL	h	h	ng·h/mL	ng·h/mL	mL/kg	mL/(h·kg)	h	mL/kg
Doxil Encapsulated
avg	164338	160923	29	-	5780633	6605784	31	0.77	40	62
SD	19799	12804	7		901285	1070015	4	0.13	9	9
Generic Liposomal DXR Encapsulated
avg	186841b	184708b	34	-	6717656	7911722	26b	0.67	47	61
SD	15480	12988	7		1173239	1780233	2	0.20	10	3
Doxil Unencapsulated
avg	-	186	88	36	12515	-	-	-	-	-
SD		46	30	31	1742
Generic Liposomal DXR Unencapsulated
avg	-	157	86	33	10129b	-	-	-	-	-
SD		52	67	12	2360
Doxil Unbound
avg	-	28	60	24	1804	-	-	-	-	-
SD		7	12	31	516
Generic Liposomal DXR Unbound
avg	-	24	64	36	1381	-	-	-	-	-
SD		13	16	13	429

^aDisplayed are the average animal pharmacokinetic parameters for the Doxil and generic liposomal DXR encapsulated, unencapsulated, and unbound drug profiles: concentration time zero (C₀); half-life (T_1/2); area under the time concentration curve to time infinity (AUC_inf); maximum concentration (C_max); area under the time concentration curve all time points (AUC_all); volume of distribution (V_d); clearance (CL); mean residence time (MRT_inf); volume of distribution steady state (V_ss); time of maximum concentration (T_max); half-life (T_1/2).

^b(N = 8) p ≤ 0.05, Student’s t test.