Source Paper
M. Zahidunnabi Dewan, Ashley E. Galloway, Noriko Kawashima, J. Keith Dewyngaert, James S. Babb et al.
Clinical Cancer Research • 2009
Abstract Purpose: This study tested the hypothesis that the type of dose fractionation regimen determines the ability of radiotherapy to synergize with anti–CTLA-4 antibody. Experimental Design: TSA mouse breast carcinoma cells were injected s.c. into syngeneic mice at two separate sites, defined as a “primary” site that was irradiated and a “secondary” site outside the radiotherapy field. When both tumors were palpable, mice were randomly assigned to eight groups receiving no radiotherapy or three distinct regimens of radiotherapy (20 Gy × 1, 8 Gy × 3, or 6 Gy × 5 fractions in consecutive days) in combination or not with 9H10 monoclonal antibody against CTLA-4. Mice were followed for tumor growth/regression. Similar experiments were conducted in the MCA38 mouse colon carcinoma model. Results: In either of the two models tested, treatment with 9H10 alone had no detectable effect. Each of the radiotherapy regimens caused comparable growth delay of the primary tumors but had no effect on the secondary tumors outside the radiation field. Conversely, the combination of 9H10 and either fractionated radiotherapy regimens achieved enhanced tumor response at the primary site (P < 0.0001). Moreover, an abscopal effect, defined as a significant growth inhibition of the tumor outside the field, occurred only in mice treated with the combination of 9H10 and fractionated radiotherapy (P < 0.01). The frequency of CD8+ T cells showing tumor-specific IFN-γ production was proportional to the inhibition of the secondary tumor. Conclusions: Fractionated but not single-dose radiotherapy induces an abscopal effect when in combination with anti–CTLA-4 antibody in two preclinical carcinoma models. (Clin Cancer Res 2009;15(17):5379–88)
Objective: Test whether fractionated radiotherapy regimens synergize with anti-CTLA-4 antibody to induce tumor growth delay and abscopal effects in syngeneic mouse carcinoma models
This is a TSA Mouse Breast Carcinoma Tumor Growth Study protocol using mouse as the model organism. The procedure involves 9 procedural steps, 1 equipment items, 3 materials. Extracted from a 2009 paper published in Clinical Cancer Research.
Model and subjects
mouse • syngeneic mice (TSA model and MCA38 model) • unknown • Not specified • Not specified
Study window
Estimated timing pending
Core workflow
Tumor cell injection • Tumor palpation and randomization • Treatment group assignment
Primary readouts
Key equipment and reagents
Verified items
0
Direct vendor links
0
Use this page as an execution guide, then fall back to the source paper whenever you need exact exclusions, dosing details, or assay-specific caveats.
Confirm first
Use the page like this
Start here. The step list is optimized for running the experiment, with direct vendor links available inline when you need to source a cited item.
TSA mouse breast carcinoma cells were injected subcutaneously into syngeneic mice at two separate sites
Note: One site designated as primary (to be irradiated), one as secondary (outside radiation field)
“TSA mouse breast carcinoma cells were injected s.c. into syngeneic mice at two separate sites, defined as a primary site that was irradiated, and a secondary site outside the radiotherapy field”
When both tumors became palpable, mice were randomly assigned to 8 treatment groups
Note: Randomization occurred when both primary and secondary tumors were palpable
“When both tumors were palpable mice were randomly assigned to 8 groups”
Mice were assigned to 8 groups: control (no radiotherapy), three radiotherapy-only regimens, anti-CTLA-4 antibody alone, or combinations of radiotherapy with anti-CTLA-4 antibody
Note: 8 total groups tested different treatment combinations
“receiving no radiotherapy or 3 distinct regimens of radiotherapy (20 Gy × 1, 8 Gy × 3 or 6 Gy × 5 fractions in consecutive days) in combination or not with 9H10 mAb against CTLA-4”
Primary tumors received single dose radiotherapy of 20 Gy in one fraction
Note: Single dose regimen tested as comparison to fractionated approaches
“20 Gy × 1”
Primary tumors received fractionated radiotherapy of 8 Gy per fraction for 3 fractions on consecutive days
Note: Fractionated regimen expected to synergize with anti-CTLA-4
“8 Gy × 3 or 6 Gy × 5 fractions in consecutive days”
Primary tumors received fractionated radiotherapy of 6 Gy per fraction for 5 fractions on consecutive days
Note: Fractionated regimen expected to synergize with anti-CTLA-4
“6 Gy × 5 fractions in consecutive days”
9H10 monoclonal antibody against CTLA-4 administered to designated treatment groups
Note: Administered alone or in combination with radiotherapy regimens
“9H10 mAb against CTLA-4”
Mice were followed for tumor growth and regression at both primary and secondary sites
Note: Primary tumors were in radiation field; secondary tumors were outside radiation field to assess abscopal effects
“Mice were followed for tumors growth/regression”
Frequency of CD8+ T cells showing tumor-specific IFN-γ production was measured and correlated with secondary tumor inhibition
Note: Immune response measured to understand mechanism of abscopal effect
“Frequency of CD8+ T cells showing tumor-specific IFN-γ production was proportional to the inhibition of the secondary tumor”
This section explains what the experiment is doing, which readouts matter, what the data artifacts usually look like, and how the analysis should flow from raw capture to reported result.
Test whether fractionated radiotherapy regimens synergize with anti-CTLA-4 antibody to induce tumor growth delay and abscopal effects in syngeneic mouse carcinoma models
Objective
Test whether fractionated radiotherapy regimens synergize with anti-CTLA-4 antibody to induce tumor growth delay and abscopal effects in syngeneic mouse carcinoma models
Subjects
From papermouse • syngeneic mice (TSA model and MCA38 model) • unknown • Not specified • Not specified
Cohort notes
From paperMice with TSA breast carcinoma or MCA38 colon carcinoma tumors at primary and secondary sites
Tumor cell injection (Not specified)
Tumor palpation and randomization (Not specified)
Treatment group assignment (Not specified)
Radiotherapy administration - single dose regimen (Single fraction)
Primary tumor growth delay
From paperStatistical significance determined with p-values reported (p<0.0001 for primary tumor response, p<0.01 for abscopal effect)
Artifact type
Endpoint measurements summarized by group or timepoint
Comparison focus
Compare endpoint magnitude between groups, timepoints, or both
Secondary tumor growth inhibition (abscopal effect)
From paperStatistical significance determined with p-values reported (p<0.0001 for primary tumor response, p<0.01 for abscopal effect)
Artifact type
Endpoint measurements summarized by group or timepoint
Comparison focus
Compare endpoint magnitude between groups, timepoints, or both
Tumor regression
From paperStatistical significance determined with p-values reported (p<0.0001 for primary tumor response, p<0.01 for abscopal effect)
Artifact type
Endpoint measurements summarized by group or timepoint
Comparison focus
Compare endpoint magnitude between groups, timepoints, or both
CD8+ T cell frequency with tumor-specific IFN-γ production
From paperStatistical significance determined with p-values reported (p<0.0001 for primary tumor response, p<0.01 for abscopal effect)
Artifact type
Endpoint measurements summarized by group or timepoint
Comparison focus
Compare endpoint magnitude between groups, timepoints, or both
Primary tumor growth delay
From paperRaw artifact
Per-sample or per-animal endpoint measurements collected during the experiment
Processed artifact
Structured table with cleaned measurements ready for comparison
Final reported form
Summary statistics and between-group or across-timepoint comparisons
Secondary tumor growth inhibition (abscopal effect)
From paperRaw artifact
Per-sample or per-animal endpoint measurements collected during the experiment
Processed artifact
Structured table with cleaned measurements ready for comparison
Final reported form
Summary statistics and between-group or across-timepoint comparisons
Tumor regression
From paperRaw artifact
Per-sample or per-animal endpoint measurements collected during the experiment
Processed artifact
Structured table with cleaned measurements ready for comparison
Final reported form
Summary statistics and between-group or across-timepoint comparisons
CD8+ T cell frequency with tumor-specific IFN-γ production
From paperRaw artifact
Per-sample or per-animal endpoint measurements collected during the experiment
Processed artifact
Structured table with cleaned measurements ready for comparison
Final reported form
Summary statistics and between-group or across-timepoint comparisons
Acquisition
Collect raw experimental outputs with enough metadata to preserve sample identity, condition, and timing.
Preprocessing / cleaning
Statistical significance determined with p-values reported (p<0.0001 for primary tumor response, p<0.01 for abscopal effect)
Scoring or quantification
Quantify the primary readouts for this experiment: Primary tumor growth delay; Secondary tumor growth inhibition (abscopal effect); Tumor regression; CD8+ T cell frequency with tumor-specific IFN-γ production.
Statistical comparison
Statistical method not yet structured for this page.
Reporting output
Report representative outputs alongside summary comparisons for Primary tumor growth delay, Secondary tumor growth inhibition (abscopal effect), Tumor regression, CD8+ T cell frequency with tumor-specific IFN-γ production.
Source links and direct wording from the methods section for validation and deeper review.
Citation
M. Zahidunnabi Dewan et al. (2009). Fractionated but Not Single-Dose Radiotherapy Induces an Immune-Mediated Abscopal Effect when Combined with Anti–CTLA-4 Antibody. Clinical Cancer Research
“”
“”
“”
“”
Direct vendor pages are linked from the protocol above. This section stays focused on the full comparison view and the prep checklist.
Gather these items before starting the experiment. Check off items as you prepare.
Not specified • Not mentioned • Not mentioned • Not mentioned
Not specified • Not applicable • Not mentioned • Not mentioned
Not specified • Not applicable • Not mentioned • Not mentioned
Not specified • Not applicable • Not mentioned • Not mentioned
Use this section as the page quality checkpoint. It keeps section navigation, evidence access, readiness, and verification meaning in one place.
Current status surfaces were computed from experiment data updated Feb 28, 2026.
Source access
Jump back into the original paper or the methods evidence section when you need exact wording, exclusions, or method-specific caveats.
This protocol has structured steps plus evidence quotes, and is ready for canonical sync.
Steps
9
Evidence Quotes
13
Protocol Items
4
Linked Products
0
Canonical Sync
Pending
What this means
The completeness score reflects how much structured protocol data is present: steps, methods evidence, listed materials, linked products, and paper provenance.
Computed from the current experiment record updated Feb 28, 2026.
Canonical Sync shows whether a ConductGraph-backed protocol is available for this experiment route right now. It is a sync-status signal, not a claim that every downstream vendor link or step detail is perfect.
Steps
9
Evidence
13
Specific Products
0/0
Canonical Sync
Pending
What this score means
The verification score reflects evidence coverage, subject detail, paper provenance, step depth, and whether linked products resolve to specific item pages instead of generic searches.
Computed from the current experiment record updated Feb 28, 2026.
A page can have structured steps and still need review when evidence is thin, product links are generic, or canonical protocol coverage is still pending.
What still needs work