Streamlining the Route of Administration of Monoclonal Antibody Therapies for Better Patient Outcomes in the NSCLC Population

EP: 1.Overcoming Challenges in NSCLC Management From a Pharmacist’s Perspective

EP: 2.First-Line Focus: Molecular Testing and Guideline-Directed Therapy in EGFR-Positive NSCLC

EP: 3.Recent Clinical Trial Highlights for NSCLC Treatment

EP: 4.Integrating Clinical Trial Findings Into Everyday Pharmacy Practice

EP: 5.Barriers to Bridging Clinical Trial Data to Routine Pharmacy Practice

EP: 6.Enhancing Patient Care Through Multidisciplinary Team Collaboration in Management of NSCLC

EP: 7.Breaking New Ground: Emerging Therapies for Treatment of EGFR-Positive NSCLC

EP: 8.Balancing Treatment and Quality of Life: Adverse Events of First-Line Agents in NSCLC

EP: 9.Strategies to Minimize Toxicities, and the Pharmacist’s Role in Educating and Supporting Patients With NSCLC

EP: 10.Infusion-Related Reactions: Clinical Trials and Guideline-Driven Prophylaxis and Management Strategies for Patients Undergoing NSCLC Treatment

EP: 11.Infusion Hesitancy and the Impact of Route of Administration of NSCLC Treatment Options in Patients’ Quality of Life

Now Viewing

EP: 12.Streamlining the Route of Administration of Monoclonal Antibody Therapies for Better Patient Outcomes in the NSCLC Population

EP: 13.Personalized Care: How Do NSCLC Treatment Modifications and Patient-Specific Factors Impact Health Outcomes?

EP: 14.Addressing Critical Gaps in the Management of NSCLC and the Importance of the Next Wave of Treatment Advances

Subcutaneous vs IV Amivantamab

• PALOMA-3 study findings:
• Similar efficacy: 30% response rate (subcutaneous) vs 33% (IV)

• Improved PFS: 6.1 months (subcutaneous) vs 4.3 months (IV) in heavily pretreated population

• Significantly reduced IRRs: 13% (subcutaneous) vs 66% (IV)

• Fewer venous thromboembolism events with subcutaneous administration
• Operational advantages:
• Dramatically reduced administration time: 5 minutes (subcutaneous) vs 5 hours (IV)

• Improved infusion chair turnover

• No split dosing required (unlike IV which requires day 1/day 2 split)

• Patient preference: 85% rated subcutaneous as convenient vs 35% for IV

• Not yet FDA approved outside clinical trials