This Article Abstract Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Kerr, L. R. Articles by Weinberg, J. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Kerr, L. R. Articles by Weinberg, J. Related Collections Cancer

Effects of Social Housing Condition on Chemotherapeutic Efficacy in a Shionogi Carcinoma (SC115) Mouse Tumor Model: Influences of Temporal Factors, Tumor Size, and Tumor Growth Rate

From the Department of Anatomy, Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.

View larger version (34K): [in a new window]   Fig. 1. Experimental design of experiments 1 (A) and 2 (B).

View larger version (15K): [in a new window]   Fig. 2. Tumor growth in drug vehicle–treated (TV) mice. Experimental housing conditions were formed (A) immediately after tumor cell injection (experiment 1) or (B) approximately 14 days after tumor cell injection (when tumors weighed approximately 1 g) (experiment 2); arrow represents formation of experimental housing conditions. Tumor weights (mean ± SE) at five measurement times for drug vehicle–treated mice in the three housing conditions of experiment 1 (N = 10 IG, 6 GG, and 8 GI) and the four housing conditions of experiment 2 (N = 12 II, 19 IG, 12 GG, and 14 GI). For experiment 1, tumor growth rates for both days 15 and 17 were significantly faster in both GI and GG mice compared with IG mice (p values < .001). For experiment 2, tumor growth rate by 19 days after tumor cell injection was significantly greater in II mice compared with GG (p < .01) and IG (p < .001) mice.

View larger version (27K): [in a new window]   Fig. 3. Survival probability in experiment 1 in (A) tumor cell–injected mice receiving chemotherapy (TC) or drug vehicle (TV) and (B) in tumor cell vehicle–injected mice receiving chemotherapy (NTC). Day 0 is the day of chemotherapy (adriamycin 4.0 mg/kg and cyclophosphamide 61.5 mg/kg) or drug vehicle initiation. The first symbol represents the time at which the first death occurred in each condition. (A) For TV mice, survival probability was significantly greater in IG mice than in both GI and GG mice (2 = 12.42 and 20.18, respectively, p values < .001). As expected, TC mice (N = 9 GG, 14 GI, and 20 IG) survived significantly longer than TV mice (N = 6 GG, 8 GI, and 10 IG; 2 = 38.371, p < .001). (B) For NTC mice (N = 11 GG, 15 GI, and 20 IG), survival probability was significantly greater in GI mice than in IG mice (2 = 4.588, p < .05).

View larger version (29K): [in a new window]   Fig. 4. Survival probability in experiment 2 in (A) tumor-bearing mice receiving either chemotherapy (TC) or drug vehicle (TV) and (B) tumor cell vehicle–injected mice receiving chemotherapy (NTC). Day 0 is the day of chemotherapy (adriamycin 4.0 mg/kg and cyclophosphamide 61.5 mg/kg) or drug vehicle initiation. The first symbol represents the time at which the first death occurred in each housing condition. (A) For TV mice, survival probability was marginally greater in IG than in II mice (2 = 3.243, p = .072). As expected, TC mice (N = 9 II, 23 IG, 13 GG, and 16 GI) had significantly greater overall survival probability than TV mice (N = 12 II, 19 IG, 12 GG, and 14 GI; 2 = 57.778, p < .001). (B) For NTC mice (N = 12 II, 20 IG, 15 GG, and 11 GI), survival probability was significantly greater in II and GG mice than in IG mice (2 = 7.626, p < .01 and 2 = 5.752, p < .05, respectively) and marginally greater in GI than in IG mice (2 = 2.812, p = .094). Survival probability was significantly higher in NTC than in TC mice (2 = 32.561, p < .001).