Ep. 2: Subcutaneous Amivantamab Reshapes Frontline EGFR-Mutant NSCLC Care
Key Points
-
Subcutaneous amivantamab substantially reduces infusion-related reactions compared with intravenous administration, lowering rates from approximately 66% to 11%.
-
Monthly subcutaneous dosing improves patient convenience and reduces cumulative treatment burden for individuals receiving long-term therapy.
-
Shorter administration times decrease infusion center strain and may support broader adoption of amivantamab-based regimens in community oncology practice.
Chinmay Jani, MD, of the University of Miami, and Luis Raez, MD, FACP, FCCP, FASCO, of Memorial Healthcare System, reviewed the clinical implications of the approval of subcutaneous amivantamab in an interview conducted at an event coinciding with the 2026 Targeted Therapies of Lung Cancer Meeting.
Amivantamab “is not life-threatening,” Dr. Raez noted, highlighting that infusion reactions with IV amivantamab are manageable and fundamentally different from CRS. The introduction of the subcutaneous formulation significantly lowers this barrier. Infusion reaction rates drop from approximately 66% to 11%, a nearly 5-fold reduction. According to Dr. Raez, this change creates an opportunity for broader adoption in community oncology settings that have limited familiarity with managing bispecific antibodies.
Improving Quality of Life and Infusion Efficiency
Beyond safety, the shift to subcutaneous administration meaningfully alters the patient experience. Dr. Raez described transitioning 5 patients from IV to subcutaneous therapy in a single week, describing those who had received biweekly infusions for more than a year as “very happy” with the change. With subcutaneous delivery now approved for dosing every 4 weeks, patients move from extended chair time and postinfusion monitoring to brief clinic visits. “It takes longer to do the valet parking than to get the subcutaneous injection,” he remarked.
Dr. Raez emphasized that patients often receive amivantamab for years, making cumulative infusion time clinically meaningful. He also noted that busy infusion centers, already strained by rising cancer incidence and improved survival, benefit operationally from reduced chair time.