Background: Targeted therapies for somatostatin receptor-positive NETs have seen significant developments in recent years. Approved and investigational somatostatin analogs for GEP-NETs are changing the treatment landscape for these cancers allowing for better management of difficult-to-treat heterogeneous tumors. To improve competence in applying these advances and to consider patient perspectives in treatment selection, an educational initiative was designed in collaboration with the Healing NET Foundation. Methods: A 1-hour CME activity was broadcast live-online in October 2021 and remains on-demand through October 2022 at OMedLive.com. The first module of the CME activity focused on real-world and quality-of-life data, and consensus guidelines related to somatostatin analogs (SSA) and peptide receptor radiotherapies (PRRT). The second module of the CME activity highlighted patient perspectives based on interviews of real patient with SSA and PRRT experience. This second section was distributed via social media through the Healing NET Foundation. Knowledge and competence questions were administered pre-, immediate post-, and 2 mos. post-activity. McNemar tests compared paired responses (pre/post & pre/2 mos) with Cohen’s d for effect size. Results: As of 01/28/22, 238 clinicians have participated in the activity, 80% of whom are physicians, advanced practitioners (NP/PA), and nurses. Through social distribution, the patient perspectives were viewed by 300 patients/caregivers. Across the four CME test questions low baseline knowledge/competence was observed when selecting treatment with SSA based on reported progression-free survival and time to deterioration of quality of life from clinical trial data. Clinical considerations based on patient perspectives and prophylactic regimens with PRRT also revealed low baseline knowledge/competence. Statistically significant improvements were seen for pre/post paired responses across all four CME questions with gains ranging from 25% to 53%. The greatest challenge managing a patient with GEP-NET, was identified as adherence to treatment schedules. At 2-mos. follow-up, 90% and 95% reported improved behavioral impact on both clinical practice and patient experience/outcomes, respectively. Qualitative data including clinician write-in examples of behavioral impact and patient perspectives from the interviews will be shared. Conclusions: Assessments reveal a positive impact of live-online education on clinical practice when sharing patient perspectives in context of clinical updates. Open-ended responses to behavioral impact questions illustrated clear improvements in clinician-reported patient experience and outcomes, clinical practice management, and knowledge of SSA and PRRT for patients with GEP-NETs.