Hybrid, Outpatient, Network-Based: Bispecific Programs Take Shape Differently

Bispecific antibody programs are taking shape across community oncology in a wide variety of configurations, including fully outpatient independent practices and network-affiliated sites. Each model directly reflects the local resources, geography, and patient populations that practices serve, according to participants of a roundtable discussion hosted by The Bispecifics Network of The American Journal of Managed Care^®, Pharmacy Times^®, and CancerNetwork^®.

The panel was led by Ralph Boccia, MD, FACP, hematologist-oncologist, The Center for Cancer and Blood Disorders, an American Oncology Network (AON) practice, and Lekan Ajayi, PharmD, chief operating officer, Highlands Oncology Group.

How Programs Are Structuring Bispecific Delivery

Interactive chat feedback from the broader roundtable audience revealed that many community programs enforce strict protocol-driven limits, requiring patients to live within 30 miles or an hour of the emergency department to qualify for outpatient initiation.

Boccia's AON-affiliated practice operates a fully outpatient model, treating 2 to 3 bispecific patients per week internally across tumor types, with 12 providers on staff. The practice designates a dedicated T-cell–engaging team (2 physicians and 2 nurse practitioners) as the exclusive care providers for bispecific patients from initial referral through step-up dosing. Patients are admitted to the hospital only for grade 3 or 4 toxicity; lower-grade events are managed by bringing the patient back into the clinic for tocilizumab, intravenous fluids, and supportive care.

"Community is capable of doing these bispecifics in every practice in this country," Boccia said, emphasizing that the framework is replicable when practices invest in the right infrastructure.

The practice's affiliated hospital, a Johns Hopkins–owned community facility, provides inpatient and outpatient support, though the clinic itself does not operate on weekends.

Highlands Oncology built its program with a single provider leading a cohort of 16 medical oncologists, supported by a dedicated advanced practice provider who manages all new patient consults. Once patients reach maintenance dosing, they transition back to their primary oncology team. The practice sees 2 or 3 bispecific patients weekly and performs all step-up dosing in the outpatient setting, actively discouraging emergency department use. Saturday clinic availability has been a differentiating feature, helping the practice accommodate patients who might otherwise have limited access options, and a dedicated on-call nurse provides around-the-clock coverage.

Why Referral to Academic Centers Carries Retention Risk

A recurring theme during the roundtable was the strategic cost of referring patients out for step-up dosing. Boccia drew a direct comparison to early venetoclax adoption, when concerns about tumor lysis syndrome led many community practices to send patients to academic centers for treatment—a hesitancy that has since largely disappeared as comfort with the agent grew. He argued that bispecifics are on a similar trajectory and that practices that delay adoption risk permanently losing patients rather than temporarily.

Return rates after academic referral are "very variable depending on the relationship," Boccia noted, adding that many community oncologists trained at the same academic centers they might refer to, and already carry the clinical background needed to manage these therapies themselves.

Meeting patients where they are is essential for independent practices. Ajayi noted that Highlands Oncology serves a 50-mile radius across its 4 clinics. The nearest major academic alternative requires a 2.5-hour commute, making it crucial to establish an in-house bispecific program to ensure regional patients can receive advanced care without significant travel burdens.

Scaling Safely and Managing Toxicity

Presurvey results from the roundtable's participants confirmed the national picture: Practice models range from fully inpatient step-up to fully outpatient, with many sites operating on a case-by-case basis, depending on the patient and the drug. Volume varied from fewer than 5 patients per week to more than 50. The core panelists represent distinct points on this curve: Although KU treats approximately 30 hematologic patients weekly across its network, independent community practices such as Highlands Oncology and Boccia’s local clinic operate at a highly targeted scale, averaging 2 or 3 patients per week.

This practice heterogeneity is underscored by an active clinical debate regarding adverse event mitigation. Some institutions have a strict stance against routine prophylactic tocilizumab, but Boccia noted that his practice routinely utilizes prophylactic tocilizumab for patients with myeloma to mitigate cytokine release syndrome.

Ultimately, the panelists agreed that this operational variety is not a flaw but a feature. The right model depends heavily on patient acuity, the specific drug, staffing constraints, and a system's immediate ability to rescue a patient if severe toxicity develops. Practice norms in this space continue to shift as the field matures and clinical comfort grows and likely would have looked markedly different even a year.