Figures & data
Figure 1. Imaging of drug efficacy on a leiomyosarcoma iPDOX. The PDOX model treated with GEM combined with DOC (GEM/DOC) demonstrated tumor regression. Scale bar: 5 mm.
![Figure 1. Imaging of drug efficacy on a leiomyosarcoma iPDOX. The PDOX model treated with GEM combined with DOC (GEM/DOC) demonstrated tumor regression. Scale bar: 5 mm.](/cms/asset/09f82e14-30e3-4830-849a-12d190bb42cf/kccy_a_1314406_f0001_c.gif)
Figure 2. Efficacy of treatment on leiomyosarcoma iPDOX. Bar graph shows relative tumor volume at a post-treatment point relative to the initial pre-treatment tumor volume. All treatments except for PAZ significantly inhibited tumor growth compared with untreated control (CTR). GEM/DOC was the strongest and significantly more effective than other therapies (DOX: p < 0.01, CPA: p < 0.01, TEM: p < 0.01, YON: p < 0.01, PAZ: p < 0.01). **p < 0.01. Error bars: ± SD.
![Figure 2. Efficacy of treatment on leiomyosarcoma iPDOX. Bar graph shows relative tumor volume at a post-treatment point relative to the initial pre-treatment tumor volume. All treatments except for PAZ significantly inhibited tumor growth compared with untreated control (CTR). GEM/DOC was the strongest and significantly more effective than other therapies (DOX: p < 0.01, CPA: p < 0.01, TEM: p < 0.01, YON: p < 0.01, PAZ: p < 0.01). **p < 0.01. Error bars: ± SD.](/cms/asset/44f42c36-bb95-4489-b52b-7c73e60f1728/kccy_a_1314406_f0002_c.gif)
Figure 3. Treatment efficacy for leiomyosarcoma iPDOX. Bar graphs show the tumor fluorescent area (mm2) (A) and fluorescence intensity (B). All treatments significantly inhibited the leiomyosarcoma iPDOX compared with untreated control. **p < 0.01, *p < 0.05. Error bars: ± SD.
![Figure 3. Treatment efficacy for leiomyosarcoma iPDOX. Bar graphs show the tumor fluorescent area (mm2) (A) and fluorescence intensity (B). All treatments significantly inhibited the leiomyosarcoma iPDOX compared with untreated control. **p < 0.01, *p < 0.05. Error bars: ± SD.](/cms/asset/b66106a1-2745-4c2b-bc91-8bb03c26fa81/kccy_a_1314406_f0003_c.gif)
Figure 4. Correlation of tumor fluorescent area and tumor fluorescence intensity. Tumor area significantly correlated with fluorescence intensity (R2 = 0.9105, p < 0.0001). Please see Materials and methods for details.
![Figure 4. Correlation of tumor fluorescent area and tumor fluorescence intensity. Tumor area significantly correlated with fluorescence intensity (R2 = 0.9105, p < 0.0001). Please see Materials and methods for details.](/cms/asset/e7c995cc-c90e-4f6f-a271-22ae3406899d/kccy_a_1314406_f0004_c.gif)
Figure 5. Correlation of fluorescence intensity and fluorescent area with tumor volume. Both relative tumor fluorescent area (A) and relative fluorescence intensity (B) demonstrated a strong positive correlation with relative tumor volume (R2 = 0.8927, p < 0.0001; R2 = 0.8967, p < 0.0001; respectively).
![Figure 5. Correlation of fluorescence intensity and fluorescent area with tumor volume. Both relative tumor fluorescent area (A) and relative fluorescence intensity (B) demonstrated a strong positive correlation with relative tumor volume (R2 = 0.8927, p < 0.0001; R2 = 0.8967, p < 0.0001; respectively).](/cms/asset/5f901de0-d65d-4bf8-80bc-59c1af7b94a8/kccy_a_1314406_f0005_c.gif)