Skip to main content
. 2021 May 3;4(6):e1404. doi: 10.1002/cnr2.1404

TABLE 2.

Rationale for novel drug and oncologist prescribing patterns for the 133 novel drugs prescribed in this study

Novel drug rationale (N = 133) N (%)
Genomic result 44 (33.1)
Unclear 23 (17.3)
Conventional treatment failure 18 (13.5)
External opinion 10 (7.5)
Acute deterioration 7 (5.3)
Evidence cited 7 (5.3)
Pharmacological therapy preferred 4 (3.0)
Ineligible for clinical trial 4 (3.0)
Parental choice 3 (2.3)
Prior clinical use 3 (2.3)
Combination to prevent resistance 2 (1.5)
Steroid sparing therapy 2 (1.5)
CAR‐T Cell Anergy 1 (0.8)
Treatment continuation 1 (0.8)
Required treatment intensification 1 (0.8)
Loss of major molecular response post transplant 1 (0.8)
Radiation necrosis 1 (0.8)
Recommended for Bleeding Syrinx 1 (0.8)
Prescribing oncologist (Employment status, Specialization) N (% per oncologist)
Oncologist 1 (Full‐time, brain and solid tumors) 38 (28.6)
Oncologist 2 (Full‐time, brain and solid tumors) 18 (13.5)
Oncologist 3 (Full‐time, brain and solid tumors) 15 (11.3)
Oncologist 4 (Full‐time, brain and solid tumors) 14 (10.5)
Oncologist 5 (Full‐time, hematological malignancies) 9 (6.8)
Oncologist 6 (Part‐time, solid tumors) 6 (4.5)
Oncologist 7 (Full‐time, hematological malignancies) 6 (4.5)
Oncologist 8 – 17 b <5 a (<3.8)
a

Twenty seven drugs prescribed in total.

b

Oncologists 8‐17 included five full‐time and five part‐time oncologists; seven who specialize in brain and solid tumors and three who specialize in hematological malignancies.