## 3 Results
### Effect of Gefitinib and Caneritinib on PCNA, Caspase-3, pERK and pAKT
The decrease in pAKT (Ser 473) was less prominent, but canertinib still reduced pAKT (Ser 473) in four patient cell samples (patient numbers 7, 9, 11, 13; \(p<0.05\)), which was greater than gefitinib, which reduced pAKT (Ser 473) in only one patient cell sample (patient number 13; \(p<0.05\)). We next pooled all the effects caused by gefitinib and canertinib on the decrease in PCNA, EGFR, pEGFR, pAKT and pERK, the increase of cleaved caspase-3 in EGFR positive ascitic cells and the inclusion of HER-2 and pHER-2 in EGFR and HER-2 positive ascitic cells (Table 7). We then questioned whether gefitinib or canertinib was more effective in EGFR positive ascitic cells. As shown in the Table 7A, both inhibitors equally affected the EGFR positive cells. We also analysed these effects on EGFR and HER-2 positive ascitic cells (Table 7B). Interestingly, canertinib showed greater inhibition than gefitinib in EGFR and HER-2 positive cells (\(p=0.0006\), [PERSON]'s exact test). \begin{table} \begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**(A) EGFR/HER-2 positive cells**} \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Patient ID**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Control**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**PCNA**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Cleaved Caspase-3 (\% Relative**} \\  & & **(\% Relative Expression to Control)** & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Expression to Control)**} \\ \cline{3-6}  & & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**5 \(\upmu\)M Gef**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**5 \(\upmu\)M Can**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**5 \(\upmu\)M Gef**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**5 \(\upmu\)[PERSON]**} \\ \hline
7 & 100 & \(117.7\pm 5\) & 187.9 \(\pm\) 20.2 & 346.9 \(\pm\) 37.4 * & 426.3 \(\pm\) 17.8 * \\
9 & 100 & \(63.2\pm 4.2\) * & 77.6 \(\pm\) 11.6 & 98.5 \(\pm\) 16.7 & 121.5 \(\pm\) 17.8 * \\
11 & 100 & \(84.2\pm 8.4\) & 87.1 \(\pm\) 4.8 & 86 \(\pm\) 8.4 & 75.1 \(\pm\) 3.6 \\
12 & 100 & \(116.3\pm 4.37\) & 123.7 \(\pm\) 6.23 & 89.1 \(\pm\) 2.67 & 79.7 \(\pm\) 2.66 \\
13 & 100 & \(137\pm 5.2\) & 101 \(\pm\) 4.1 & 113.3 \(\pm\) 3.2 * & 117.6 \(\pm\) 9.4 \\
15 & 100 & \(92.8\pm 2.7\) & 120.6 \(\pm\) 6.6 & 97.6 \(\pm\) 5.2 & 92.6 \(\pm\) 2.8 \\
16 & 100 & \(83.7\pm 6.9\) & 87.9 \(\pm\) 4.5 & 76.8 \(\pm\) 3.2 & 92.3 \(\pm\) 2.9 \\
18 & 100 & \(113.2\pm 10.4\) & 99.5 \(\pm\) 4.9 & 94.3 \(\pm\) 4.9 & 93 \(\pm\) 4.4 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} 
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline  & & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**(B)**} \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Patient ID**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Control**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**pErk**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**pAkt**} \\  & & **(\% Relative Expression to Control)** & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**(\% Relative Expression to Control)**} \\ \cline{3-6}  & & **5 \(\upmu\)[PERSON]** & **5 \(\upmu\)[PERSON]** & **5 \(\upmu\)[PERSON]** & **5 \(\upmu\)[PERSON]** \\ \hline
7 & 100 & \(99.4\pm 3.6\) & 70.5 \(\pm\) 4.9 * & 104 \(\pm\) 4.1 & 75.3 \(\pm\) 4.8 * \\
9 & 100 & \(138.5\pm 10.9\) & 65.43 \(\pm\) 3.4 * & 120.4 \(\pm\) 12.95 & 69.5 \(\pm\) 4.3 * \\
11 & 100 & \(93.2\pm 3.9\) & 84.3 \(\pm\) 2.9 * & 96.4 \(\pm\) 7.1 & 83.6 \(\pm\) 3.1 * \\
12 & 100 & \(95.1\pm 5.3\) & 88.9 \(\pm\) 5.4 & 119.3 \(\pm\) 12.8 & 87.8 \(\pm\) 4 \\
1 In addition, we evaluated clinical data to compare overall survival between women whose cells expressed EGFR, and who expressed both EGFR and HER-2. As shown in Figure 5, there is no statistical difference in the survival of patients with EGFR and EGFR/HER-2 positive cells.