Survival curves demonstrating NY-ESO-1 to be a poor prognostic factor (A) and a predictive marker for benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy (B).

<p>Survival curves demonstrating NY-ESO-1 to be a poor prognostic factor (A) and a predictive marker for benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy (B).</p

Association of MAGE-A1, MAGE-A4 and MAGE-C1 expression and survival in the BR.10 study.

<p>Association of MAGE-A1, MAGE-A4 and MAGE-C1 expression and survival in the BR.10 study.</p

Clinicopathological features associated with CTA expression in two cohorts of patients.

<p>Clinicopathological features associated with CTA expression in two cohorts of patients.</p

Expression of N-ESO-1 and response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (A).

<p>CR = Complete Response, PR = Partial Response, SD = Stable Disease, PD = Progressive Disease, NA = Not Assessable. Forest plot detailing factors associated with survival in patients who were treated in the post-operative cohort. Sq = Squamous Cell, ADC = Adenocarcinoma, ACT = Adjuvant Chemotherapy (B).</p

Multivariate analysis of factors associated with survival in patients treated with surgery initially.

<p>HR = hazard ratio, ACT = adjuvant chemotherapy, SQ = squamous cell, ADC = adenocarcinoma histology.</p

Consort diagram describing patient tumors used in this study, including those evaluated for global mRNA abundance, the expression of molecular markers through immunohistochemistry (IHC), and chemosensitivity as patient-derived xenografts.

<p>Consort diagram describing patient tumors used in this study, including those evaluated for global mRNA abundance, the expression of molecular markers through immunohistochemistry (IHC), and chemosensitivity as patient-derived xenografts.</p

Multivariate analysis of Clinicopathological and Immunohistochemical Characteristics of Patient Tumors.

<p>The final multivariate models are shown. Factors assessed included age, gender, stage, differentiation, location, neo-adjuvant chemo-radiation, heartburn, Barrett’s esophagus and expression of p16, p53, Her-2/<i>neu</i>, EGFR and Ki-67.</p><p>*Age was modeled as a continuous variable in the logistic regression analysis; the odds ratio is reported for every increase in 10 years. For example, this is the odds ratio comparing someone aged 70 vs 60 years old; or 65 vs 55 years old.</p><p>Multivariate analysis of Clinicopathological and Immunohistochemical Characteristics of Patient Tumors.</p

Selected molecular marker expression by immunohistochemistry (IHC).

<p>P53 in Line A and Ki-67 in Line H are examples of similar expression between patient, early passage (P1) and latest passage (P_{<i>latest</i>}) xenografts. P16 in Line H was selected to demonstrate the heterogeneity detected in the same tissue (P_<i>early</i> showing both positive and negative expression). EGFR expression in Line E exhibited an increase in intensity from patient to xenografts while Her-2/<i>neu</i> expression in Line A showed a decrease in intensity. These examples were included to demonstrate that the differences exhibited between patient tissue, early passage and latest passage xenografts were due to intrinsic heterogeneity and not to any specific patterns of expression.</p

Scatterplot showing mRNA abundance comparisons for each established adenocarcinoma line.

<p>Comparisons were made between P1 xenograft <i>vs</i> patient tumor (left column), P_latest<i>vs</i> P_early xenograft (middle column) and Large <i>vs</i> Small xenograft tumors (right column). Normalized expression levels for individual genes were used to plot the comparison. R² values are included for each comparison. mRNA for lines F and I could not be extracted for all comparisons since mRNA degradation in the frozen tissue had occurred. Both samples had intact mRNA for the patient tumor but Line I did not have a matching later passage xenograft while Line F did not have a matching first passage xenograft. Both lines were included in statistical comparisons where the data was present.</p