Anecdotal evidence suggests the use of bolus tube feeding is increasing in the long-term home enteral tube feed (HETF) patients. A cross-sectional survey to assess the prevalence of bolus tube feeding and to characterise these patients was undertaken. Dietitians from ten centres across the UK collected data on all adult HETF patients on the dietetic caseload receiving bolus tube feeding (n 604, 60 % male, age 58 years). Demographic data, reasons for tube and bolus feeding, tube and equipment types, feeding method and patients’ complete tube feeding regimens were recorded. Over a third of patients receiving HETF used bolus feeding (37 %). Patients were long-term tube fed (4·1 years tube feeding, 3·5 years bolus tube feeding), living at home (71 %) and sedentary (70 %). The majority were head and neck cancer patients (22 %) who were significantly more active (79 %) and lived at home (97 %), while those with cerebral palsy (12 %) were typically younger (age 31 years) but sedentary (94 %). Most patients used bolus feeding as their sole feeding method (46 %), because it was quick and easy to use, as a top-up to oral diet or to mimic mealtimes. Importantly, oral nutritional supplements (ONS) were used for bolus feeding in 85 % of patients, with 51 % of these being compact-style ONS (2·4 kcal (10·0 kJ)/ml, 125 ml). This survey shows that bolus tube feeding is common among UK HETF patients, is used by a wide variety of patient groups and can be adapted to meet the needs of a variety of patients, clinical conditions, nutritional requirements and lifestyles.

Objective: An algorithm was designed aiming to provide consistency of pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy (PERT) dosing/titration across healthcare professionals in pancreaticobiliary cancers (PBCs). This prospective observational study aimed to validate this algorithm. Methods: Consecutive patients with inoperable or postoperative PBC with pancreatic exocrine insufficiency (PEI) symptoms, not taking PERT, or taking below the algorithm “starting dose,” were eligible. A dietitian or clinical nurse specialist reviewed patients for up to 3 weeks, titrating PERT as per the algorithm. Feasibility of algorithm deliverability was assessed by the percentage of patients with successful completion (primary objective). Results: Twenty-five patients were eligible (N = 25): at baseline, 22 took PERT (100% on suboptimal doses, 54.5% taking incorrectly) and 3 initiated PERT because of PEI symptoms. Algorithm completion (20 of 25, 80%) confirming deliverability by dietitians (11 of 12, 92%) and clinical nurse specialists (9 of 13, 69%). Symptom resolution occurred in 8 of 19 (42%), 3 of 7 (43%), and 1 of 3 (33%) patients at first, second, and third reviews, respectively; advice compliance was between 63% and 86%. Conclusions: This algorithm provides a structured method to titrate PERT. At diagnosis, all patients with PBC should be assessed for PEI and adequate PERT initiated. Regular reviews are required for timely symptom resolution and adequate escalation, facilitating differential diagnosis if refractory symptoms exist.

Introduction Pancreatic exocrine insufficiency (PEI) in patients with pancreatic malignancy is well documented in the literature and is known to negatively impact on overall survival and quality of life. A lack of consensus opinion remains on the optimal diagnostic test that can be adapted for use in a clinical setting for this cohort of patients. This study aims to better understand the prevalence of PEI and the most suitable diagnostic techniques in patients with advanced pancreatic malignancy. Methods and analysis This prospective observational study will be carried out in patients with pancreatic malignancy (including adenocarcinoma and neuroendocrine neoplasms). Consecutive patients with inoperable pancreatic malignancy referred for consideration of first-line chemotherapy will be considered for eligibility. The study comprises three cohorts: demographic cohort (primary objective to prospectively investigate the prevalence of PEI in patients with inoperable pancreatic malignancy); sample size 50, diagnostic cohort (primary objective to design and evaluate an optimal diagnostic panel to detect PEI in patients with inoperable pancreatic malignancy); sample size 25 and follow-up cohort (primary objective to prospectively evaluate the proposed PEI diagnostic panel in a cohort of patients with inoperable pancreatic malignancy); sample size 50. The following is a summary of the protocol and methodology. Ethics and dissemination Full ethical approval has been granted by the North West Greater Manchester East Research and Ethics Committee, reference: 17/NW/0597. This manuscript reflects the latest protocol V.8 approved 21 April 2020. Findings will be disseminated by presentation at national/international conferences, publication in peer-review journals and distribution via patient advocate groups. Trial registration number 194255, NCT0361643.

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.