There seems to be quite a variability in terms of stability on ARQ197. The question is whether some of the longest stability patients were stable in the first place - and ARQ did nothing to improve stability. We tend to believe there was some effect, but may have had more effect on inhibiting new metastases than inhibiting the growth of tumors that were well-established. It looks as if at least 1/2 of Goldberg's patients left the study in the first 3 months.
In our case, our daughter was off protocol because of her age. When she entered, she was actively progressing with new lesions - after ARQ197, we saw no new mets, but definite growth in at least some mets on ARQ197. We left the protocol to go for thoracotomy. When 2 nodules showed definite tumor death (40 and 80%), we went back on ARQ197. We interrupted again after a few months later (total time on ARQ197 I think was 9 months) - had another thoracotomy...this thoracotomy again showed 2 nodules with central necrosis, but it was a minority (like 2 out of 15 or something like that-- the cell death did occur in mets that had the fastest dividing rate, so may have been the most aggressive).
ARQ197 is a super-selective drug - and so it may be most effective when combined with other drugs.