OBJECTIVES:  Biosimilars are highly similar drugs to innovator biologics and are uniquely regulated by the FDA, different from their reference biologic, small molecules, or generics. In light of these regulatory differences, data are needed to understand prescribers’ perceptions and barriers to use. The purpose of this study was to gather and elucidate these perceptions from practicing clinicians. METHODS:  This descriptive study identified biosimilars-related attitudes among 61 community-based US oncologists of various geography and practice types. Data were collected at a live meeting with audience response technology. RESULTS:  One quarter of respondents stated lack of familiarity with biosimilars. 46% indicated that additional evidence is needed before prescribing them. 23% admitted no knowledge of regulatory processes while 19% stated that regulatory approval is similar to other anti-neoplastics. 78% believed that efficacy of biosimilars will be comparable to the reference product. 90% did not associate lower costs of biosimilars with lesser efficacy. 51% endorsed reference drug mirror labeling. 45% considered familiarity with the manufacturer as essential. Concerns about potential litigation was raised by less than 20%. 33% would treat biosimilars like generics with automatic substitution while 33% expect internal review. 3% were unwilling to prescribe biosimilars unless mandated by a payer. 57% identified cost reduction by prescribing biosimilars as important. 76% believed an 11-30% discount on reference drug necessary to prescribe biosimilars. Likelihood of prescribing a biosimilar to the following reference drugs was: trastuzumab in breast cancer - adjuvant (39%), metastatic (69%); bevacizumab in metastatic colon cancer (75%); rituximab - chronic lymphocytic leukemia (75%), non-Hodgkin lymphoma (60%) versus their reference biologics. CONCLUSIONS: While community oncologists appear receptive to biosimilars and are willing to incorporate them into their daily practice, significant educational gaps exist regarding efficacy and toxicity data, cost, reimbursement, and regulatory processes.