Background: Ifosfamide displays clinical activity against germ cell tumors as well as soft-tissue and bone sarcomas. It is used in different oncology regimens and commonly administered inpatient due to patient monitoring and side effect management. Transitioning certain chemotherapy regimens to the outpatient setting provides a novel approach to treating patients while maximizing patient satisfaction and decreasing total patient care costs¹. There is limited data and protocol development to transition ifosfamide regimens to the ambulatory setting. This study’s purpose is to characterize a pharmacy managed ambulatory oncology workflow for transitioning ifosfamide based-regimens to the outpatient setting. Methods: A retrospective cohort chart review was conducted at a single center and included patients 18 years and older receiving at least one cycle of ifosfamide therapy between September 1, 2013 and July 31, 2019. The primary outcome was to evaluate the side effect profile and cost of treatment of ifosfamide. The secondary endpoint included number of hospitalizations. The adverse event grading system was defined using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) Version 5.0. The highest grade observed for adverse effects was documented for every cycle of each patient. The cost was evaluated by labs ordered, drug used, length of stay in the hospital for chemotherapy or adverse reactions. Results: Ifosfamide therapy of 86 patients (57 OP, 29 IP) was reviewed. The predominant OP regimens were adriamycin-ifosfamide-mesna (AIM) with 43.9% and ifosfamide-etoposide (IE) with 29.8%. Grade 4 anemia, thrombocytopenia, and neutropenia were most frequent in IP vs OP therapies (22.9% IP vs 4.3% OP, 21.6% IP vs 9.2% OP, and 22.8% IP vs 19.6% OP respectively). Neutropenic fever (NF) occurred in 20 OP patients which were predominantly treated with AIM or IE, and led to average hospital stay of 6 days. Neurotoxicity, treated with methylene blue (MB), occurred in 4 OP patients. OP therapy saved a total of 783 hospital days, leading to a cost savings of $2,103,921. Conclusions: Transitioning to outpatient therapy is feasible for academic and community infusion centers. Administration of chemotherapy in the outpatient setting has shown to be safe, well-tolerated, and associated with decreased total cost of care, thereby lowering costs under the oncology care model when compared with inpatient chemotherapy costs.