Durvalumab or placebo plus gemcitabine and cisplatin in participants with advanced biliary tract cancer (TOPAZ-1): updated overall survival from a randomised phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: In the preplanned interim analysis of the TOPAZ-1 study, durvalumab plus gemcitabine-cisplatin significantly improved overall survival versus placebo plus gemcitabine-cisplatin in participants with advanced biliary tract cancer. We aimed to report updated overall survival and safety data from TOPAZ-1 with additional follow-up and data maturity beyond the interim analysis. METHODS: TOPAZ-1 was a phase 3, randomised, double-masked, placebo-controlled, global study done at 105 sites in 17 countries. Participants aged 18 years or older with unresectable, locally advanced, or metastatic biliary tract cancer were randomly assigned (1:1) to durvalumab plus gemcitabine-cisplatin or placebo plus gemcitabine-cisplatin using a computer-generated randomisation scheme, stratified by disease status and primary tumour location. Participants received durvalumab (1500 mg) or placebo on day 1 of each cycle every 3 weeks for up to eight cycles, plus gemcitabine (1000 mg/m2) and cisplatin (25 mg/m2) intravenously on days 1 and 8 of each cycle every 3 weeks for up to eight cycles, followed by durvalumab (1500 mg) or placebo monotherapy every 4 weeks until disease progression or other discontinuation criteria were met. Investigators and participants were masked to study treatment. The primary endpoint was overall survival. TOPAZ-1 met its primary endpoint at the preplanned interim analysis, and the study is active but no longer recruiting participants. Updated overall survival and safety data from TOPAZ-1, with additional follow-up (data cutoff Feb 25, 2022) and data maturity beyond the interim analysis, are reported here. Efficacy was assessed in the full analysis set (all randomly assigned participants). Safety was assessed in the safety analysis set (all participants who received at least one dose of study treatment). The TOPAZ-1 study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03875235. FINDINGS: From April 16, 2019, to Dec 11, 2020, 914 participants were enrolled, 685 of whom were randomly assigned (341 to the durvalumab plus gemcitabine-cisplatin group and 344 to the placebo plus gemcitabine-cisplatin group). 345 (50%) participants were male and 340 (50%) were female. Median follow-up at the updated data cutoff was 23·4 months (95% CI 20·6-25·2) in the durvalumab plus gemcitabine-cisplatin group and 22·4 months (21·4-23·8) in the placebo plus gemcitabine-cisplatin group. At the updated data cutoff, 248 (73%) participants in the durvalumab plus gemcitabine-cisplatin group and 279 (81%) participants in the placebo plus gemcitabine-cisplatin group had died (median overall survival 12·9 months [95% CI 11·6-14·1] vs 11·3 months [10·1-12·5]; hazard ratio 0·76 [95% CI 0·64-0·91]). Kaplan-Meier-estimated 24-month overall survival rates were 23·6% (95% CI 18·7-28·9) in the durvalumab plus gemcitabine-cisplatin group and 11·5% (7·6-16·2) in the placebo plus gemcitabine-cisplatin group. Maximum grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred in 250 (74%) of 338 participants in the durvalumab plus gemcitabine-cisplatin group and 257 (75%) of 342 in the placebo plus gemcitabine-cisplatin group. The most common maximum grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events were decreased neutrophil count (70 [21%] vs 86 [25%]), anaemia (64 [19%] vs 64 [19%]), and neutropenia (63 [19%] vs 68 [20%]). INTERPRETATION: Durvalumab plus gemcitabine-cisplatin showed robust and sustained overall survival benefit with no new safety signals. Findings continue to support the regimen as a standard of care for people with untreated, advanced biliary tract cancer. FUNDING: AstraZeneca.

Somatostatin Receptor Imaging with [18F]FET-ßAG-TOCA PET/CT and [68Ga]Ga-DOTA-Peptide PET/CT in Patients with Neuroendocrine Tumors: A Prospective, Phase 2 Comparative Study.

There is a clinical need for 18F-labeled somatostatin analogs for the imaging of neuroendocrine tumors (NET), given the limitations of using [68Ga]Ga-DOTA-peptides, particularly with regard to widespread accessibility. We have shown that [18F]fluoroethyl-triazole-[Tyr3]-octreotate ([18F]FET-ßAG-TOCA) has favorable dosimetry and biodistribution. As a step toward clinical implementation, we conducted a prospective, noninferiority study of [18F]FET-ßAG-TOCA PET/CT compared with [68Ga]Ga-DOTA- peptide PET/CT in patients with NET. Methods: Forty-five patients with histologically confirmed NET, grades 1 and 2, underwent PET/CT imaging with both [18F]FET-ßAG-TOCA and [68Ga]Ga-peptide performed within a 6-mo window (median, 77 d; range, 6-180 d). Whole-body PET/CT was conducted 50 min after injection of 165 MBq of [18F]FET-ßAG-TOCA. Tracer uptake was evaluated by comparing SUVmax and tumor-to-background ratios at both lesion and regional levels by 2 unblinded, experienced readers. A randomized, blinded reading of both scans was also then undertaken by 3 experienced readers, and consensus was assessed at a regional level. The ability of both tracers to visualize liver metastases was also assessed. Results: A total of 285 lesions were detected on both imaging modalities. An additional 13 tumor deposits were seen in 8 patients on [18F]FET-ßAG-TOCA PET/CT, and [68Ga]Ga-DOTA-peptide PET/CT detected an additional 7 lesions in 5 patients. Excellent correlation in SUVmax was observed between both tracers (r = 0.91; P < 0.001). No difference was observed between median SUVmax across regions, except in the liver, where the median tumor-to-background ratio of [18F]FET-ßAG-TOCA was significantly lower than that of [68Ga]Ga-DOTA-peptide (2.5 ± 1.9 vs. 3.5 ± 2.3; P < 0.001). Conclusion: [18F]FET-ßAG-TOCA was not inferior to [68Ga]Ga-DOTA-peptide in visualizing NET and may be considered in routine clinical practice given the longer half-life and availability of the cyclotron-produced fluorine radioisotope.

Chemotherapy with or without selective internal radiation therapy for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: Data from clinical trials.

BACKGOUND AND AIMS: In advanced, liver-only intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (iCCA), selective internal radiation therapy (SIRT) has been suggested as promising in nonrandomized studies. We aimed to compare data from patients with advanced, liver-only iCCA treated in the first line in clinical trials with either chemotherapy alone or the combination with SIRT. APPROACH AND RESULTS: We collected individual patients' data from the ABC-01, ABC-02, ABC-03, BINGO, AMEBICA, and MISPHEC prospective trials. Data from patients with liver-only iCCA treated in chemotherapy-only arms of the first 5 trials were compared with data from patients treated with SIRT and chemotherapy in MISPHEC. Emulated target trial paradigm and Inverse Probability of Treatment Weighting (IPTW methods) using the propensity score were used to minimize biases. We compared 41 patients treated with the combination with 73 patients treated with chemotherapy alone, the main analysis being in 43 patients treated with cisplatin-gemcitabine or gemcitabine-oxaliplatin. After weighting, overall survival was significantly higher in patients treated with SIRT: median 21.7 months (95% CI: 14.1; not reached) versus 15.9 months(95% CI: 9.8; 18.9), HR = 0.59 (95% CI: 0.34; 0.99), p = 0.049. Progression-free survival was significantly improved: median 14.3 months (95% CI: 7.8; not reached) versus 8.4 months (95% CI: 5.9; 12.1), HR = 0.52 (95% CI: 0.31; 0.89), p < 0.001. Results were confirmed in most sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis derived from prospective clinical trials suggests that SIRT combined with chemotherapy might improve outcomes over chemotherapy alone in patients with advanced, liver-only iCCA. Randomized controlled evidence is needed to confirm these findings.

Choosing the best systemic treatment sequence for control of tumour growth in gastro-enteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumours (GEP-NETs): What is the recent evidence?

Gastro-enteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumours (GEP-NETs) represent a rare and highly heterogeneous entity with increasing incidence. Based on the results obtained from several trials performed in the last decade, various therapeutic options have been established for the treatment of patients with GEP-NETs. The options include somatostatin analogues, targeted therapies (sunitinib and everolimus), chemotherapy (with temozolomide or streptozocin-based regimens), and peptide receptor radionuclide therapy. The treatment choice is influenced by various clinico-pathological factors including tumour grade and morphology, the primary mass location, hormone secretion, the volume of the disease and the rate of tumour growth, as well as patient comorbidities and performance status. In this review, the efficacy and safety of treatment options for patients with GEP-NETs is discussed and the evidence to inform the best sequence of available therapies to control tumour growth, prolong patient survival, and to lower potential toxicity, while maintaining patient quality of life is explored.

Resistance mechanism to fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR) inhibitors in cholangiocarcinoma.

Precision medicine is a major achievement that has impacted on management of patients diagnosed with advanced cholangiocarcinoma (CCA) over the last decade. Molecular profiling of CCA has identified targetable alterations, such as fibroblast growth factor receptor-2 (FGFR-2) fusions, and has thus led to the development of a wide spectrum of compounds. Despite favourable response rates, especially with the latest generation FGFRi, there are still a proportion of patients who will not achieve a radiological response to treatment, or who will have disease progression as the best response. In addition, for patients who do respond to treatment, secondary resistance frequently develops and mechanisms of such resistance are not fully understood. This review will summarise the current state of development of FGFR inhibitors in CCA, their mechanism of action, activity, and the hypothesised mechanisms of resistance.

Prognosis Discussion and Referral to Community Palliative Care Services in Patients with Advanced Pancreatic Cancer Treated in a Tertiary Cancer Centre.

Advanced pancreatic cancer is associated with a poor prognosis, often less than 1 year. Honest prognosis discussions guide early community palliative care services input, facilitating timely advance care planning and improving quality of life. The aims were to assess if patients were offered prognosis discussions and community palliative care services referral. A retrospective analysis of consecutive case-notes of new advanced pancreatic cancer patients was conducted. Chi-squared test assessed the association with prognosis discussion and community palliative care services referral. In total, 365 cases (60%) had a documented prognosis discussion at any time-point in the treatment pathway; 54.4% during the first appointment. The frequency of prognosis discussion was greater with nurse clinician review at first appointment (p < 0.001). In total, 171 patients (28.1%) were known to community palliative care services at the first appointment. Of those not known, 171 (39.1%) and 143 (32.7%) were referred at this initial time-point or later, respectively. There was a significant association between the referral to community palliative care services at first appointment and the reviewing professional (this was greatest for nurse clinicians (frequency 65.2%)) (p < 0.001), and also if reviewed by clinical nurse specialist at first visit or not (47.8% vs. 35.6%) (p < 0.01). Prognosis discussions were documented in approximately two-thirds of cases, highlighting missed opportunities. Prognosis discussion was associated with clinician review and was most frequent for nurse clinician, as was referral to community palliative care services. Clinical nurse specialist review increased referral to community palliative care services if seen at the initial visit. Multi-disciplinary review, specifically nursing, therefore, during the first consultation is imperative and additive. It should be considered best practice to offer and negotiate the content and timing of prognosis discussions with cancer patients, and revisit this offer throughout their treatment pathway. Greater attention to prognosis discussion documentation is recommended.

Selection of Chemotherapy in Advanced Poorly Differentiated Extra-Pulmonary Neuroendocrine Carcinoma.

Extra-pulmonary poorly differentiated neuroendocrine carcinoma is rare, and evidence for treatment has been limited. In this article, the evidence behind the cytotoxic chemotherapy choices used for metastatic or unresectable EP-PD-NEC is reviewed. In the first-line setting, etoposide and platinum chemotherapy or irinotecan and platinum have been demonstrated to be equivalent in a large phase III trial. Questions remain regarding the optimal number of cycles, mode of delivery, and the precise definition of platinum resistance in this setting. In the second-line setting, FOLFIRI has emerged as an option, with randomized phase 2 trials demonstrating modest, but significant, response rates. Beyond this, data are extremely limited, and several regimens have been used. Heterogeneity in biological behaviour is a major barrier to optimal EP-PD-NEC management. Available data support the potential role of the Ki-67 index as a predictive biomarker for chemotherapy response. A more personalised approach to management in future studies will be essential, and comprehensive multi-omic approaches are required to understand tumour somatic genetic changes in relation to their effects on the surrounding microenvironment.

European Neuroendocrine Tumour Society (ENETS) 2023 guidance paper for nonfunctioning pancreatic neuroendocrine tumours.

This ENETS guidance paper for well-differentiated nonfunctioning pancreatic neuroendocrine tumours (NF-Pan-NET) has been developed by a multidisciplinary working group, and provides up-to-date and practical advice on the management of these tumours. Using the extensive experience of centres treating patients with NF-Pan-NEN, the authors of this guidance paper discuss 10 troublesome questions in everyday clinical practice. Our many years of experience in this field are still being verified in the light of the results of new clinical, which set new ways of proceeding in NEN. The treatment of NF-Pan-NEN still requires a decision of a multidisciplinary team of specialists in the field of neuroendocrine neoplasms.

Influence of cirrhosis on outcomes of patients with advanced intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma receiving chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Cirrhosis is a risk factor for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (iCC). However, its exact prevalence is uncertain and its impact on the management of advanced disease is not established. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of patients treated with systemic chemotherapy for advanced iCC in the 1st-line setting at 2 tertiary cancer referral centres. Cirrhosis was diagnosed based on at least one element prior to any treatment: pathological diagnosis, baseline platelets <150 × 109/L, portal hypertension and/or dysmorphic liver on imaging. RESULTS: In the cohort of patients (n = 287), 82 (28.6%) had cirrhosis (45 based on pathological diagnosis). Patients with cirrhosis experienced more grade 3/4 haematologic toxicity (44% vs 22%, respectively, P = 0.001), and more grade 3/4 non-haematologic toxicity (34% vs 14%, respectively, P = 0.001) than those without. The overall survival (OS) was significantly shorter in patients with cirrhosis: median 9.1 vs 13.1 months for those without (HR = 1.56 [95% CI: 1.19-2.05]); P = 0.002), confirmed on multivariable analysis (HR = 1.48 [95% CI: 1.04-2.60]; P = 0.028). CONCLUSION: Cirrhosis was relatively common in patients with advanced iCC and was associated with increased chemotherapy-induced toxicity and shorter OS. Formal assessment and consideration of cirrhosis in therapeutic management is recommended.

Current Evidence for Immune Checkpoint Inhibition in Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

The treatment of advanced unresectable HCC (aHCC) remains a clinical challenge, with limited therapeutic options and poor prognosis. The results of IMbrave150 and HIMALAYA have changed the treatment paradigm for HCC and established immune checkpoint inhibition (ICI), either combined with anti-angiogenic therapy or dual ICI, as preferred first-line therapy for eligible patients with aHCC. Numerous other combination regimens involving ICI are under investigation with the aim of improving the tumour response and survival of patients with all stages of HCC. This review will explore the current evidence for ICI in patients with advanced HCC and discuss future directions, including the unmet clinical need for predictive biomarkers to facilitate patient selection, the effects of cirrhosis aetiology on response to ICI, and the safety of its use in patients with impaired liver function.

British Society of Gastroenterology guidelines for the diagnosis and management of cholangiocarcinoma.

These guidelines for the diagnosis and management of cholangiocarcinoma (CCA) were commissioned by the British Society of Gastroenterology liver section. The guideline writing committee included a multidisciplinary team of experts from various specialties involved in the management of CCA, as well as patient/public representatives from AMMF (the Cholangiocarcinoma Charity) and PSC Support. Quality of evidence is presented using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) format. The recommendations arising are to be used as guidance rather than as a strict protocol-based reference, as the management of patients with CCA is often complex and always requires individual patient-centred considerations.

Locoregional Treatment in Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma: Which Treatment for Which Patient?

For unresectable intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (iCC), different locoregional treatments (LRT) could be proposed to patients, including radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and microwave ablation (MWA), external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) or transarterial treatments, depending on patient and tumor characteristics and local expertise. These different techniques of LRT have not been compared in a randomized clinical trial; most of the relevant studies are retrospective and not comparative. The aim of this narrative review is to help clinicians in their everyday practice discuss the pros and cons of each LRT, depending on the individual characteristics of their patients.

Plain language summary of the TOPAZ-1 study: durvalumab and chemotherapy for advanced biliary tract cancer.

WHAT IS THIS SUMMARY ABOUT?: This is a summary describing the results of a Phase III study called TOPAZ-1. The study looked at treatment with durvalumab (a type of immunotherapy) and chemotherapy to treat participants with advanced biliary tract cancer (BTC). Advanced BTC is usually diagnosed at late stages of disease, when it cannot be cured by surgery. This study included participants with advanced BTC who had not received previous treatment, or had their cancer come back at least 6 months after receiving treatment or surgery that aimed to cure their disease. Participants received treatment with durvalumab and chemotherapy or placebo and chemotherapy. The aim of this study was to find out if treatment with durvalumab and chemotherapy could increase the length of time that participants with advanced BTC lived, compared with placebo and chemotherapy. WHAT WERE THE RESULTS OF THE STUDY?: Participants who took durvalumab and chemotherapy had a 20% lower chance of experiencing death at any point in the study compared with participants who received placebo and chemotherapy. The side effects experienced by participants were similar across treatment groups, and less than 12% of participants in either treatment group had to stop treatment due to treatment-related side effects. WHAT DO THE RESULTS OF THE STUDY MEAN?: Overall, these results support durvalumab and chemotherapy as a new treatment option for people with advanced BTCs. Based on the results of this study, durvalumab is now approved for the treatment of adults with advanced BTCs in combination with chemotherapy by government organizations in Europe, the United States and several other countries.

Patients Undergoing Systemic Anti-Cancer Therapy Who Require Surgical Intervention: What Surgeons Need to Know.

As part of routine cancer care, patients may undergo elective surgery with the aim of long-term cure. Some of these patients will receive systemic anti-cancer therapy (SACT) in the neoadjuvant and adjuvant settings. The majority of patients, usually with locally advanced or metastatic disease, will receive SACT with palliative intent. These treatment options are expanding beyond traditional chemotherapy to include targeted therapies, immunotherapy, hormone therapy, radionuclide therapy and gene therapy. During treatment, some patients will require surgical intervention on an urgent or emergency basis. This narrative review examined the evidence base for SACT-associated surgical risk and the precautions that a surgical team should consider in patients undergoing SACT.

Third-Line Palliative Systemic Therapy for Advanced Biliary Tract Cancer: Multicentre Review of Patterns of Care and Outcomes.

Phase 3 trials have established standard first-line (1L) and 2L systemic therapy options for patients with advanced biliary cancer (ABC). However, a standard 3L treatment remains undefined. Clinical practice and outcomes for 3L systemic therapy in patients with ABC were therefore evaluated from three academic centres. Included patients were identified using institutional registries; demographics, staging, treatment history, and clinical outcomes were collected. Kaplan-Meier methods were used to assess progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Ninety-seven patients, treated between 2006 and 2022, were included; 61.9% had intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. At the time of analysis, there had been 91 deaths. Median PFS from initiating 3L palliative systemic therapy (mPFS3) was 3.1 months (95%CI 2.0-4.1), while mOS3 was 6.4 months (95%CI 5.5-7.3); mOS1 was 26.9 months (95%CI 23.6-30.2). Among patients with a therapy-targeted molecular aberration (10.3%; n = 10; all received in 3L), mOS3 was significantly improved versus all other included patients (12.5 vs. 5.9 months; p = 0.02). No differences in OS1 were demonstrated between anatomical subtypes. Fourth-line systemic therapy was received by 19.6% of patients (n = 19). This international multicentre analysis documents systemic therapy use in this select patient group, and provides a benchmark of outcomes for future trial design.

NET-02: a randomised, non-comparative, phase II trial of nal-IRI/5-FU or docetaxel as second-line therapy in patients with progressive poorly differentiated extra-pulmonary neuroendocrine carcinoma.

Background: The prognosis for patients with poorly-differentiated extra-pulmonary neuroendocrine carcinoma (PD-EP-NEC) is poor. A recognised first-line (1L) treatment for advanced disease is etoposide/platinum-based chemotherapy with no standard second-line (2L) treatment. Methods: Patients with histologically-confirmed PD-EP-NEC (Ki-67 > 20%; Grade 3) received IV liposomal irinotecan (nal-IRI) (70 mg/m2 free base)/5-FU (2400 mg/m2)/folinic acid, Q14 days (ARM A), or IV docetaxel (75 mg/m2), Q21 days (ARM B), as 2L therapy. Primary endpoint was 6-month progression-free survival (PFS) rate (80% power to demonstrate one-sided 95% lower confidence interval excluded 15% (target level of efficacy: 30%)). Secondary endpoints: objective response rate (ORR), median PFS, overall survival (OS), toxicity and patient-reported quality-of-life (QoL) (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03837977). Findings: Of 58 patients (29 each arm); 57% male, 90% ECOG PS 0/1, 10% PS 2, 89.7% Ki-67 ≥ 55%, primary site: 70.7%-gastrointestinal, 18.9%-other, 10.3%-unknown, 91.4%/6.9%/1.7% were resistant/sensitive/intolerant to 1L platinum-based treatment, respectively. The primary end-point of 6-month PFS rate was met by ARM A: 29.6% (lower 95% Confidence-Limit (CL) 15.7), but not by ARM B: 13.8% (lower 95%CL:4.9). ORR, median PFS and OS were 11.1% (95%CI:2.4-29.2) and 10.3% (95%CI:2.2-27.4%); 3 months (95%CI:2-6) and 2 months (95%CI:2-2); and 6 months (95%CI:3-10) and 6 months (95%CI:3-9) in ARMS A and B, respectively. Adverse events ≥ grade 3 occurred in 51.7% and 55.2% (1 and 6 discontinuations due to toxicity in ARMS A and B), respectively. QoL was maintained in ARM A, but not ARM B. Interpretation: nal-IRI/5-FU/folinic acid, but not docetaxel, met the primary endpoint, with manageable toxicity and maintained QoL, with no difference in OS. ORR and median PFS were similar in both arms. This study provides prospective efficacy, toxicity and QoL data in the 2L setting in a disease group of unmet need, and represents some of the strongest evidence available to recommend systemic treatment to these patients. Funding: Servier.

Prospective Observational Study of Prevalence, Assessment and Treatment of Pancreatic Exocrine Insufficiency in Patients with Inoperable Pancreatic Malignancy (PANcreatic Cancer Dietary Assessment-PanDA).

INTRODUCTION: Pancreatic exocrine insufficiency (PEI) in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer (aPC) is well documented, but there is no consensus regarding optimal screening. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Patients diagnosed with aPC referred for palliative therapy were prospectively recruited. A full dietetic assessment (including Mid-Upper Arm Circumference (MUAC), handgrip and stair-climb test), nutritional blood panel, faecal elastase (FE-1) and 13C-mixed triglyceride breath tests were performed. PRIMARY OBJECTIVE: prevalence of dietitian-assessed PEI (demographic cohort (De-ch)); design (diagnostic cohort (Di-ch)) and validation (follow-up cohort (Fol-ch)) of a PEI screening tool. Logistic and Cox regressions were used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: Between 1 July 2018 and 30 October 2020, 112 patients were recruited (50 (De-ch), 25 (Di-ch) and 37 (Fol-ch)). Prevalence of PEI (De-ch) was 64.0% (flatus (84.0%), weight loss (84.0%), abdominal discomfort (50.0%) and steatorrhea (48.0%)). The derived PEI screening panel (Di-ch) included FE-1 (normal/missing (0 points); low (1 point)) and MUAC (normal/missing (>percentile 25) (0 points); low (2 points)) and identified patients at high-risk (2-3 total points) of PEI [vs. low-medium risk (0-1 total points)]. When patients from the De-ch and Di-ch were analysed together, those classified by the screening panel as "high-risk" had shorter overall survival (multivariable Hazard Ratio (mHR) 1.86 (95% CI 1.03-3.36); p-value 0.040). The screening panel was tested in the Fol-ch; 78.4% patients classified as "high-risk", of whom 89.6% had dietitian-confirmed PEI. The panel was feasible for use in clinical practice (64.8% patients completed all assessments), with high acceptability (87.5% would repeat it). Most patients (91.3%) recommended dietetic input for all patients with aPC. CONCLUSIONS: PEI is present in most patients with aPC; early dietetic input provides a holistic nutritional overview, including, but not limited to, PEI. This proposed screening panel may help to prioritise those at higher risk of PEI, requiring urgent dietitian input. Its prognostic role needs further validation.