Nicholas Bouchard, PharmD

Panelists discuss how subcutaneous (SubQ) and intravenous (IV) oncology therapies will continue to coexist, with patient-specific factors guiding delivery method choices, while ongoing innovation and collaboration drive the growing integration of SubQ formulations as a convenient and adaptable option in cancer care.

Panelists discuss how challenges such as extended nursing workflow, patient hesitancy, limited formulation indications, reimbursement complexities, and insufficient economic incentives slow the broader adoption of subcutaneous (SubQ) oncology therapies, underscoring the need for coordinated stakeholder collaboration and education to drive integration.

Panelists discuss how the rapid adoption of subcutaneous (SubQ) oncology therapies creates challenges around clinical autonomy, infusion center sustainability, patient experience, and reimbursement models, highlighting the need for collaborative education and flexible care strategies to ensure patient-centered, financially viable implementation.

Panelists discuss how switching from intravenous (IV) to subcutaneous (SubQ) therapies requires proactive management of reimbursement, authorizations, and clinical workflows—emphasizing early payer coordination, billing oversight, and nurse retraining to ensure both financial sustainability and safe, efficient patient care.

Panelists discuss how transitioning patients from intravenous (IV) to subcutaneous (SubQ) therapies demands a coordinated, multidisciplinary approach—integrating clinical judgment, electronic medical record (EMR) readiness, workflow adaptation, and patient-centered communication to ensure safe, efficient, and individualized care.

Panelists discuss how the rise of patient awareness around subcutaneous (SubQ) therapies calls for empathetic, evidence-based education, shared decision-making, and seamless system integration to ensure that treatment choices align with clinical appropriateness, patient preferences, and operational readiness.

Panelists discuss how integrating both intravenous (IV) and subcutaneous (SubQ) therapies in oncology centers requires adaptable staffing, data-driven workflow planning, and thoughtful pilot strategies—combined with strong leadership and patient education—to enhance efficiency, staff engagement, and the overall care experience.

Panelists discuss how integrating subcutaneous (SubQ) therapies into oncology practice involves thorough economic evaluation, coordinated team education, patient engagement, and workflow adjustments to ensure financial viability, clinical effectiveness, and enhanced patient satisfaction.

Panelists discuss how successfully integrating subcutaneous (SubQ) therapies into oncology practice depends on comprehensive education, optimized workflows, transparent patient communication, and ongoing evaluation to ensure improved care quality and operational efficiency.

Panelists discuss how incorporating subcutaneous (SubQ) formulations into clinical formularies requires careful evaluation of clinical equivalence, workflow fit, and reimbursement logistics, with pharmacy and therapeutics committees balancing patient benefit, operational feasibility, and financial risk to guide adoption.

Panelists discuss how subcutaneous (SubQ) oncology treatments are reshaping clinic operations by improving infusion chair utilization, enabling flexible scheduling, streamlining pharmacy workflows, and prompting new care delivery models that enhance both efficiency and patient experience.

Panelists discuss how subcutaneous (SubQ) drug formulations offer practical value by significantly reducing treatment times, easing staffing pressures, and enhancing efficiency in oncology practices, ultimately supporting a more scalable and sustainable care model.

Panelists discuss how the shift from intravenous (IV) to subcutaneous (SubQ) drug administration is transforming oncology care delivery, highlighting its lasting impact on patient experience, health care efficiency, and clinical workflows in light of recent FDA approvals and evolving pharmaceutical strategies.

Experts discuss proactive steps health care teams, including pharmacists, can take to minimize delays and overcome payer-related barriers when prescribing third-line therapies for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) and how collaboration between health care teams, payers, and manufacturers can be improved to reduce care delays.

Experts discuss effective strategies for navigating the prior authorization process to ensure timely access to third-line therapies for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) and share any success stories.

Experts discuss key payer-related challenges, such as step edits and prior authorizations, that impact access to third-line therapies for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). They also discuss how payer requirements influence treatment sequencing and decision-making in the third-line setting and how the costs associated with adverse events across different third-line treatments affect treatment selection.

Experts discuss how pharmacists contribute to managing adverse events and toxicity for patients undergoing metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) treatment. They explore the factors influencing patient adherence to third-line therapies and ways pharmacists can improve patient education to enhance adherence to treatment regimens.

Experts discuss how the role of oncology pharmacists in managing metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) has evolved, particularly in enabling medication adjustments, refills, and prescribing supportive care medications, and explore the impact of this expanded role on patient outcomes and how pharmacists can leverage medication knowledge to optimize treatment and patient care further.

Experts discuss the typical patient journey for an individual with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), highlighting where pharmacists participate in the process. They also explore how pharmacists collaborate with oncologists and other multidisciplinary team members to provide comprehensive care for patients with mCRC.

Experts discuss additional factors considered when determining the most effective sequence of therapies for metastatic colorectal cancer, including fruquintinib, regorafenib, and trifluridine + tipiracil ± bevacizumab, and explore the further research needed to understand optimal sequencing of these treatments better.

Experts discuss practical strategies used by their institutions to manage treatment-related toxicities with third-line therapies for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) and share their experiences on how third-line therapy options have impacted patients’ quality of life.

Experts discuss how they balance safety, efficacy, and overall patient prognosis when selecting third-line treatments for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) and explore how the toxicity profiles of fruquintinib, regorafenib, and trifluridine + tipiracil ± bevacizumab differ, informing treatment decisions.

Experts provide an overview of third-line treatment options for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) in patients with disease progression through all available regimens, focusing on fruquintinib, regorafenib, and trifluridine + tipiracil ± bevacizumab.