Sulindac induces apoptosis and protects against colon carcinoma in mice

Table 1 Number of mice with tumor and incidence of the tumors at the 24^th and 32^nd wk in model-agent and control group.

Wk	n	≤5 mm	≤10 mm	≤15 mm	>15 mm	Incidence
24th	9	1	1	0	0	22.2
32nd	15	2	6	3	2	86.7
Control	12	0	0	0	0	0

n = number of mice.

Table 2 The average diameter (mm) of tumors at the 24^th and 32^nd wk in the tumor-induced groups.

Wk	n	0	≤1	≤2	≤3	≤4	≤5	>5
24th	9	7	0	1	1	0	0	0
32nd	15	2	0	5	2	1	3	2

n = number of mice.

Table 3 The pathological changes of large intestinal mucosa at different tumor-inducing stages.

Week	n	Normal	Dysplasia			Adenocarcinoma
			Mild	Moderate	Severe	Intramucouscarcinoma	Infiltrative carcinoma
12th	10	2	3	4	1	0	0
18th	10	0	2	4	4	0	0
24th	9	0	0	1	2	5	1
32nd	15	0	0	0	1	2	12

Outcome of rank test: H = 33.35; n = number of mice.

Table 4 Comparison of the density of proliferation and apoptosis with mild dysplasia in the model-agent group, sulindac-preventative group and sulindac-curative group (number/mm²).

Group	n	Proliferative cell density(mean±SD)	Apoptotic cell density(mean±SD)	Ratio (apoptosis/proliferation)
Model-agent	5	88.8±25.7	46.6±19.1a	0.52
Preventtive	13	88.2±20.7	65.9±16.3	0.78
Curative	3	92.3±9.02	54.7±11.6a	0.78

n = number of mice. Results with analysis of variance: the difference between groups of proliferative and apoptotic cells density had no statistically significant difference.

^aP<0.05 vs preventive group.

Table 5 The density comparison of proliferation and apoptosis with moderate dysplasia in model-agent group, sulindac-preventative group and sulindac-curative group (number/mm²).

Group	n	Proliferative cell density (mean±SD)	Apoptotic cell density (mean±SD)	Ratio (apoptosis/roliferation)
Model-agent	9	114.7±31.7	57.1±17.3a	0.50
Preventive	7	118.9±21.4	107.8±35.0	0.91
Curative	3	133.0±27.5	62.7±20.3a	0.47

n = number of mice.

^aP<0.05 vs preventive group the cell density of proliferation and apoptosis in the model-agent group and sulindac-curative group were higher than in the sulindac-preventative group resulting in a statistically significant difference.

Table 6 Comparison of the density of proliferation and apoptosis with severe dysplasia in the model-agent group, sulindac-preventative group and sulindac-curative group (number/mm²).

Group	n	Proliferative cell density (mean±SD)	Apoptotic cell density (mean±SD)	Ratio (apoptosis/proliferation)
Model	8	159.0±45.9	61.0±24.6	0.38
Preventive	3	155.8±31.9	88.5±14.6	0.57
Curative	5	159.8±22.7	64.2±19.1	0.4

n = number of mice. ^aP<0.05 vs preventive group results with analysis of variance: the difference of proliferation and apoptotic cells density between groups was not statistically significant.

Table 7 Comparison of the density of proliferation and apoptosis in a cancerous stage in the model-agent group, sulindac-preventative group and sulindac-curative group (number/mm²).

Group	n	Proliferative cell density (mean±SD)	Apoptotic cell density (mean±SD)	Ratio (apoptosis/proliferation)
Model	20	214.7±24.1	30.7±17.0a	0.14
Preventive	3	211.3±33.7	110.0±16.5	0.52
Curative	12	190.8±35.5	72.1±38.5a	0.38

n = number of mice.

^aP<0.05 vs preventive the cell density of proliferation and apoptosis in the model-agent group and sulindac-curative group was higher than in the sulindac-preventative group result in a statistically significant difference.