Patient Selection and Counseling

EP: 1.The Shifting to Subcutaneous Oncology: Recent FDA Approvals

EP: 2.Subcutaneous Value: Efficiency and Access

EP: 3.Workflow Wins: Scheduling and Pharmacy Impact

EP: 4.IV vs Subcutaneous: Clinical Considerations

EP: 5.Reimbursement Realities: Billing for Subcutaneous

EP: 6.Implementing Subcutaneous Without Disruption

EP: 7.Operational Shifts: IV to Subcutaneous

EP: 8.Staffing and Scheduling for Subcutaneous

Now Viewing

EP: 9.Patient Selection and Counseling

EP: 10.Protocols for Subcutaneous Transitions

When patients arrive at the clinic already aware of new therapies through social media or advertising, providers must be prepared to engage in informed, empathetic discussions grounded in clinical reality. The key is patient-centered education. Rather than dismissing online information, providers can use it as a conversation starter to explain treatment options in a way that aligns with each patient’s specific diagnosis, health status, and lifestyle. For example, clarifying the differences between intravenous (IV) and SubQ delivery—including how each method works in the body, what the risks are, and what support devices such as ports entail—helps patients make more informed choices. Addressing common misconceptions, such as concerns over body weight impacting fixed-dose efficacy, also reassures patients with evidence-based facts.

Beyond basic education, real shared decision-making considers each patient’s context. Time constraints, caregiving responsibilities, and personal preferences all influence the suitability of SubQ options. For a busy parent managing multiple obligations, SubQ therapy may offer more flexibility and convenience, especially if the efficacy and safety profile are equivalent to IV. However, the decision also hinges on the type of cancer, urgency of treatment response, and the risk of infusion reactions. Clinical appropriateness must always guide the conversation, with cost and insurance coverage acting as additional layers to consider.

System readiness plays a crucial role in supporting these decisions. Integration of SubQ options into the electronic medical record (EMR) must be seamless to avoid errors in prescribing. If EMRs default to IV formulations, providers may unintentionally bypass newer SubQ options. Institutional workflows, committee evaluations, and clear visibility in order sets can help ensure that emerging therapies are considered appropriately. Ultimately, successful implementation requires alignment across education, system integration, and individualized patient conversations—starting with trust and transparency in every clinical encounter.