
Most Patients Prefer SC Over IV Pembrolizumab, Phase 2 Data Show
Key Takeaways
- A global 147-patient crossover design compared three cycles of SC vs IV pembrolizumab, then switched routes, enabling within-participant assessment of preference across multiple tumor types.
- Patient-reported preference favored SC administration in 65% of evaluable participants, most commonly due to less time spent in clinic (64%).
Patients favor subcutaneous pembrolizumab for faster visits and comparable safety, signaling a convenient new option across solid tumors.
Nearly two-thirds of patients preferred subcutaneous (SC) pembrolizumab with berahyaluronidase alfa (Keytruda Qlex) over the intravenous (IV) formulation (Keytruda) after experiencing both administration routes, according to results of a randomized, open-label phase 2 crossover study (NCT06099782) published in JCO Oncology Practice.1
Between 2023 and 2024, 147 adult patients with resected melanoma, resected renal cell carcinoma (RCC), and metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) across global sites were randomly assigned to receive pembrolizumab subcutaneously (n = 71) or intravenously (n = 76) for 3 cycles before crossing over to the other route for 3 cycles.2
Among 118 evaluable patients, the preference rate for pembrolizumab administered subcutaneously was 65% (95% CI, 56%-74%), as assessed by a patient preference questionnaire. The most common reason cited for the preference was less time spent in clinic, reported by 64% of patients.
Satisfaction data followed a similar pattern. Altogether, 64% and 25% of patients reported being very satisfied or satisfied, respectively, with SC pembrolizumab compared with 54% and 31% who reported being very satisfied or satisfied with the IV formulation. This preference also translated into treatment decisions beyond the questionnaire: more patients chose to continue treatment after cycle 6 with SC pembrolizumab than with IV (68% vs 32%).
Safety findings were consistent with the established profile of pembrolizumab, with a lower rate of grade 3 and 4 treatment-related adverse events (AEs) reported during the first 3 cycles in the arm that started with the SC formulation. Grade 3 and 4 treatment-related AEs during cycles 1 to 3 occurred in 1 patient (1%) in arm A and 5 participants (7%) in arm B. Injection-site reactions were reported during the SC administration cycles regardless of sequence: these events occurred in 9 patients (13%) in arm A and 11 patients (16%) in arm B and were mostly grade 1 in severity.
“The results of the study…support pembrolizumab SC as a cancer treatment that uses a more convenient, less time-consuming route of administration without compromising efficacy and safety relative to pembrolizumab IV,” study authors Casarini et al concluded.
Clinical Context
The FDA granted approval to SC pembrolizumab across all previously approved solid tumor indications for IV pembrolizumab in
The time savings identified in the present study as the leading driver of patient preference may also carry operational implications for practices, including reduced chair time in infusion centers and potentially greater scheduling flexibility, although those considerations were not directly assessed in either trial. Taken together, the 2 trials support SC pembrolizumab as a potential alternative route of administration across tumor types.






































