Figure 6 | Scientific Reports

Figure 6

From: Cytotoxic effects and tolerability of gemcitabine and axitinib in a xenograft model for c-myc amplified medulloblastoma

Figure 6

Treatment comparison in the intracranial medulloblastoma model. (a) Experimental strategy: Injection of 5 × 104 MB3W1 group 3 medulloblastoma cells into the right hemisphere of the cerebellum of NOD/SCID mice. Starting on day 11 after tumor inoculation, mice were treated with cytostatic drugs once weekly (gemcitabine, cisplatin, etoposide phosphate), and 5 times per week (axitinib), respectively, in 4 cycles. Tumor growth was monitored with non-invasive BLI. (b) Representative pictures of the BLI-signal at the beginning (d11) and during therapy (d32). (c) Quantitative analysis of in vivo BLI-signals in different treatment groups (n = 5); data displayed as mean ± SD, Two-way ANOVA for multiple comparisons were performed and significant p-values for d35 (box) were as follows; Cisplatin/Etoposide vs Vehicle: ****; Gemcitabine/Axitinib vs Vehicle: ****; Gemcitabine vs Vehicle: ****. (d) Survival curves for the respective treatments. Gemcitabine/Axitinib vs Vehicle: **; all other comparisons: n.s. (e): Mean of weight change to detect toxicity. Two-way ANOVA for multiple comparisons was done on two specific time points (boxes) and a significant difference was indicated as follows: day + 21: Cisplatin/Etoposide vs Vehicle: **; Cisplatin/Etoposide vs Gemcitabine: **; Cisplatin/Etoposide vs Gemcitabine/Axitinib: **; all other comparisons: n.s.; day + 35: Cisplatin/Etoposide vs Vehicle: ***; Cisplatin/Etoposide vs Gemcitabine: *; Cisplatin/Etoposide vs Gemcitabine/Axitinib: *; all other comparisons: n.s.

Back to article page