외래 종양학 주입 치료 : 시장 점유율 분석, 업계 동향 및 통계, 성장 예측(2026-2031년)

According to Mordor Intelligence, the outpatient oncology infusion market size is expected to grow from USD 10.81 billion in 2025 to USD 11.59 billion in 2026 and is forecast to reach USD 17.02 billion by 2031 at 7.99% CAGR over 2026-2031.

This report is Segmented by Care Setting (Hospital Outpatient Departments, Physician Office / Community Oncology, and More), Therapy Type (Cytotoxic Chemotherapy, and More), Tumor Type (Breast Cancer, Lung Cancer, Colorectal Cancer, and More), and Geography (North America, Europe, Asia-Pacific, Middle East and Africa, South America). Market Forecasts are Provided in Value (USD).

Global Outpatient Oncology Infusion Market Trends and Insights

Rapid Uptake of Infusion-Based Immunotherapies and Biologics

Regulatory momentum behind antibody-drug conjugates has reshaped infusion demand by adding indications that require scheduled intravenous cycles, bundled premedication, and post-infusion monitoring, which raises average chair-time per visit. The approval path for datopotamab deruxtecan in breast cancer and subsequent expansion into lung cancer reinforces this trend as providers operationalize ADC-specific protocols that differ from legacy cytotoxic regimens. In 2026, ifinatamab deruxtecan received Priority Review for extensive-stage small cell lung cancer, signaling additional high-intensity infusion volumes if approved, and adding complexity through monitoring of immune-related toxicities. Growth in the outpatient oncology infusion market is therefore being supported both by new agent approvals and by extended infusion administration and observation windows linked to immunotherapies. These dynamics reward centers that standardize premedication pathways and adverse event surveillance while sustaining patient experience. They also heighten the need for scalable scheduling models that accommodate longer chair occupancy without increasing cancellations or wait times.

Shift to Outpatient and Ambulatory Settings for Cost, Access, and Patient Experience

CMS finalized a site-neutral payment step that sets a significant share of the hospital outpatient rate for drug administration in excepted off-campus provider-based departments, which reduces reimbursement for services that had migrated to these locations after prior policy changes. This rule change increases incentives to deliver appropriate chemotherapy and biologic infusions in ambulatory or physician-aligned sites that offer lower total costs, shorter patient travel times, and streamlined scheduling. As the outpatient oncology infusion market adapts in 2026, providers that operate multiple sites are aligning service mix by acuity and resource intensity to protect margins and sustain access. Patients and referring clinicians favor locations that balance safety, timely starts, and consistent care teams, which has aided community-site growth for maintenance therapies and routine biologics. The result is a gradual redistribution of volume toward centers that offer predictable experience, transparent cost structures, and pathway-adherent regimens backed by payer alignment.

Reimbursement Pressure (site-neutral, 340B remedy) Compresses Margins

Site-neutral policies now pay significantly of the hospital outpatient rate for drug administration in excepted off-campus departments, which directly reduces reimbursement in locations that captured growing shares of infusion services in prior years. CMS has also implemented a multi-year 340B-related recoupment adjustment to the non-drug OPPS update, which further tightens hospital budgets and raises the bar for capital commitments to infusion chairs and pharmacies. Provider associations have flagged that uniform site-neutral rates do not fully account for the standby capacity and intensive staffing needed to support complex oncology infusions, especially for sicker populations served by academic and safety-net systems. The combined effect is more selective expansion, closer alignment of service mix by acuity, and faster adoption of scheduling and pharmacy workflows that minimize waste. In the outpatient oncology infusion market, these pressures reward centers with strong operational discipline and payer alignment that can sustain high on-time starts and predictable costs. Over the medium term, the policy environment is expected to drive more volume into cost-efficient sites and curb the growth of higher-cost locations.

Other drivers and restraints analyzed in the detailed report include:

1. Payer and Policy Incentives for Site-of-Care Optimization and Value-Based Oncology
2. Throughput Technologies (AI scheduling, pharmacy automation) Expand Capacity
3. Oncology Drug Shortages Disrupt Scheduling and Regimen Delivery

For complete list of drivers and restraints, kindly check the Table Of Contents.

Segment Analysis

Hospital outpatient departments accounted for 53.23% of the outpatient oncology infusion market in 2025, underpinned by integrated diagnostics, surgical coordination, and the governance required for complex biologics and cellular therapies, while standalone ambulatory infusion centers are projected to grow at a 9.01% CAGR through 2031 as payer site-neutral policies favor lower-cost settings. This volume split reflects the ability of hospital sites to manage higher acuity and clinical trial workflows, while ambulatory centers focus on maintenance regimens and pathway-adherent biologics that fit predictable scheduling blocks. The outpatient oncology infusion market is reorganizing around this mix as health systems align service lines by acuity and standardize case selection to sustain quality and margin. Payer policy has reinforced the trend by setting lower payment levels for drug administration in certain off-campus departments, which redirects volume to settings with lean overhead and strong throughput.

Patient experience preferences also matter, since community sites often offer shorter travel, faster starts, and consistent nursing teams. Hospital-based departments remain critical for rapid escalation of care, adverse event management, and access to multidisciplinary expertise within the same campus. In 2026, the balance is not a zero-sum shift but a targeted reallocation of appropriate cases toward centers that combine safety with lower all-in costs. Providers that operate across both settings are adopting centralized triage and scheduling models to place each regimen in the right site.

Over the forecast period, hospital outpatient departments are expected to retain complex protocols such as cellular therapies and infusions requiring frequent lab-based dose adjustments, where co-located pharmacy, emergency capability, and subspecialty consults are important. Ambulatory infusion centers are expected to outgrow the broader outpatient oncology infusion market on the strength of standardized regimens and efficient chair turnover that underpin payer-aligned cost advantages.

The outpatient oncology infusion market size will reflect this mix shift as centers refine premedication pathways, adopt predictive scheduling to level midday peaks, and closely manage infusion observation windows for biologics. Policy steps that lower payments for selected off-campus hospital-based services intensify the focus on cost per infusion start and on-time performance. Accreditation standards and quality programs remain important differentiators for hospital-affiliated centers that manage higher-risk therapy. Network players that combine hospital and community footprints are prioritizing data-driven scheduling, consistent staffing, and patient support services to protect their share in the outpatient oncology infusion market.

Geography Analysis

North America held 43.24% of the outpatient oncology infusion market in 2025, supported by mature oncology networks, broad availability of advanced biologics, and payer contracts that enable pathway-aligned operations at scale. The policy environment in 2026 reinforces cost discipline through site-neutral payment steps and ongoing quality reporting, which have encouraged service mix optimization and broader adoption of predictive scheduling. Providers that deploy multi-site models balance hospital-based oversight for complex regimens with community site access for maintenance therapies. Ongoing accreditation, compliance, and staff education remain table stakes for leaders serving higher-acuity patients. As payers press for value, providers that align pathway adherence with streamlined prior authorization benefit from more predictable starts and fewer re-reviews. The outpatient oncology infusion market in North America is therefore characterized by steady access combined with disciplined cost management and technology-enabled throughput.

Asia-Pacific is projected to grow at a 9.13% CAGR through 2031, reflecting investment in capacity expansion across large urban centers and regional hubs. Private and public providers continue to build oncology services that improve access to infusion care within expanding hospital systems. As payers and ministries of health invest in broader oncology infrastructure, infusion centers are focusing on standard operating procedures and pharmacist training to ensure safe, reliable administration of complex biologics. Over the forecast period, adoption of scheduling analytics and dose preparation standards is expected to rise, particularly in urban markets with growing biologic use. This creates opportunities for cross-center standardization that supports scale and clinical governance. The outpatient oncology infusion market will reflect these investments through more predictable patient flow and modernization of pharmacy compounding across major cities.

In other regions, providers are moving at different speeds depending on funding, workforce availability, and local disease burden. Europe continues to balance national payment frameworks with the need for specialty capacity that can manage complex regimens in a decentralized fashion. Middle East and Africa markets are gradually adding infusion sites within broader oncology programs, often anchored by tertiary hospitals that centralize advanced protocols. Latin America maintains demand for infusion services, shaped by local payer mix and variable access to recent biologic launches. Across regions, scalability of training, quality monitoring, and scheduling tools remains central to raising productivity and patient experience. The outpatient oncology infusion market continues to favor operators that pair clinical governance with accessible community footprints.

1. American Oncology Network (AON)
2. Apollo Cancer Centers
3. Aster DM Healthcare
4. City of Hope
5. Florida Cancer Specialists & Research Institute (FCS)
6. Fortis Healthcare
7. GenesisCare
8. HCA Healthcare / Sarah Cannon Cancer Institute
9. HCG (Healthcare Global Enterprises)
10. Manipal Hospitals (Day Care & Domiciliary Chemo)
11. Mediclinic Southern Africa
12. Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSK)
13. Netcare (South Africa)
14. OneOncology
15. Ramsay Health Care (Australia)
16. Subang Jaya Medical Centre (Ramsay Sime Darby)
17. The Oncology Institute (TOI)
18. The US Oncology Network (McKesson)
19. UT MD Anderson Cancer Center

Additional Benefits:

• The market estimate (ME) sheet in Excel format
• 3 months of analyst support

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 Introduction

• 1.1 Study Assumptions & Market Definition
• 1.2 Scope of the Study

2 Research Methodology

3 Executive Summary

4 Market Landscape

• 4.1 Market Overview
• 4.2 Market Drivers
  • 4.2.1 Rising cancer incidence and survivorship expand outpatient infusion volumes
  • 4.2.2 Shift to outpatient and ambulatory settings for cost, access and experience
  • 4.2.3 Rapid uptake of infusion-based immunotherapies and biologics
  • 4.2.4 Payer and policy incentives for site-of-care optimization and value-based oncology
  • 4.2.5 Throughput technologies (AI scheduling, pharmacy automation) expand capacity
  • 4.2.6 Biosimilar adoption lowers acquisition costs and broadens access
• 4.3 Market Restraints
  • 4.3.1 Oncology nurse and pharmacist shortages constrain throughput and expansion
  • 4.3.2 Reimbursement pressure (site-neutral, 340B remedy) compresses margins
  • 4.3.3 Oncology drug shortages disrupt scheduling and regimen delivery
  • 4.3.4 Shift to subcutaneous and at-home supportive care reduces chair time revenue
• 4.4 Value Chain Analysis
• 4.5 Regulatory Landscape
• 4.6 Technological Outlook
• 4.7 Porter's Five Forces
  • 4.7.1 Threat of New Entrants
  • 4.7.2 Bargaining Power of Suppliers
  • 4.7.3 Bargaining Power of Buyers
  • 4.7.4 Threat of Substitutes
  • 4.7.5 Industry Rivalry

5 Market Size & Growth Forecasts (Value, USD)

• 5.1 By Care Setting
  • 5.1.1 Hospital Outpatient Departments
  • 5.1.2 Physician Office / Community Oncology
  • 5.1.3 Ambulatory Infusion Centers
• 5.2 By Therapy Type
  • 5.2.1 Cytotoxic Chemotherapy
  • 5.2.2 Monoclonal Antibodies
  • 5.2.3 Checkpoint Inhibitors (PD-1/PD-L1, CTLA-4)
  • 5.2.4 Antibody-Drug Conjugates (ADCs)
  • 5.2.5 Supportive Care Biologics and Agents (e.g., G-CSF, IVIG, iron)
• 5.3 By Tumor Type
  • 5.3.1 Breast Cancer
  • 5.3.2 Lung Cancer
  • 5.3.3 Colorectal Cancer
  • 5.3.4 Prostate Cancer
  • 5.3.5 Hematologic Malignancies (e.g., lymphoma, leukemia, myeloma)
  • 5.3.6 Gynecologic Cancers
  • 5.3.7 Melanoma
  • 5.3.8 Head & Neck Cancers
  • 5.3.9 Gastric & Esophageal Cancers
  • 5.3.10 Liver & Pancreatobiliary Cancers
  • 5.3.11 Bladder Cancer
  • 5.3.12 Renal Cell Carcinoma
• 5.4 By Geography
  • 5.4.1 North America
    • 5.4.1.1 United States
    • 5.4.1.2 Canada
    • 5.4.1.3 Mexico
  • 5.4.2 Europe
    • 5.4.2.1 Germany
    • 5.4.2.2 United Kingdom
    • 5.4.2.3 France
    • 5.4.2.4 Italy
    • 5.4.2.5 Spain
    • 5.4.2.6 Rest of Europe
  • 5.4.3 Asia-Pacific
    • 5.4.3.1 China
    • 5.4.3.2 Japan
    • 5.4.3.3 India
    • 5.4.3.4 Australia
    • 5.4.3.5 South Korea
    • 5.4.3.6 Rest of Asia-Pacific
  • 5.4.4 Middle East and Africa
    • 5.4.4.1 GCC
    • 5.4.4.2 South Africa
    • 5.4.4.3 Rest of Middle East and Africa
  • 5.4.5 South America
    • 5.4.5.1 Brazil
    • 5.4.5.2 Argentina
    • 5.4.5.3 Rest of South America

6 Competitive Landscape

• 6.1 Market Concentration
• 6.2 Market Share Analysis
• 6.3 Company Profiles {(includes Global level Overview, Market level overview, Core Segments, Financials as available, Strategic Information, Market Rank/Share for key companies, Products & Services, and Recent Developments)}
  • 6.3.1 American Oncology Network (AON)
  • 6.3.2 Apollo Cancer Centers
  • 6.3.3 Aster DM Healthcare
  • 6.3.4 City of Hope
  • 6.3.5 Florida Cancer Specialists & Research Institute (FCS)
  • 6.3.6 Fortis Healthcare
  • 6.3.7 GenesisCare
  • 6.3.8 HCA Healthcare / Sarah Cannon Cancer Institute
  • 6.3.9 HCG (Healthcare Global Enterprises)
  • 6.3.10 Manipal Hospitals (Day Care & Domiciliary Chemo)
  • 6.3.11 Mediclinic Southern Africa
  • 6.3.12 Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSK)
  • 6.3.13 Netcare (South Africa)
  • 6.3.14 OneOncology
  • 6.3.15 Ramsay Health Care (Australia)
  • 6.3.16 Subang Jaya Medical Centre (Ramsay Sime Darby)
  • 6.3.17 The Oncology Institute (TOI)
  • 6.3.18 The US Oncology Network (McKesson)
  • 6.3.19 UT MD Anderson Cancer Center

7 Market Opportunities & Future Outlook

• 7.1 White-space & unmet-need assessment