Transforming oncology clinical trial matching through multi-agent AI and an oncology-specific knowledge graph: A prospective evaluation in 3,800 patients.

1554 Background: Clinical trial enrollment in oncology is often hampered by the manual, time-intensive process of matching patients to trials with highly specific eligibility criteria. Advances in artificial intelligence (AI)—particularly multi-agent large language models (LLMs) and oncology-specific knowledge networks—hold promise for streamlining this workflow and minimizing human labor. This abstract presents a prospective evaluation of an AI platform that automates medical data extraction, leverages an oncology-specific knowledge graph, and provides real-time trial recommendations, demonstrating a significant reduction in staff effort while maintaining high clinical accuracy. Methods: Multi-Agent AI & Oncology Knowledge Graph 1. OncoAgents: Specialized LLMs (data extraction, eligibility, trial matching), collaborating to outperform generic or zero-shot AI. 2. OncoGraph: Domain-specific knowledge graph uniting patient data, molecular profiles, and clinical guidelines for context-aware matching. 3. OncoRecommend: Real-time engine processing new data, trials, and guidelines, delivering rapid, relevant suggestions. 4. OncoSet: Expert-curated dataset (>2,000 patient records, 14,000+ trials, 50+ tumor subtypes) ensuring robust AI performance. Prospective Analysis (Jan–Dec 2024): Cohort: 3,804 patients (ECOG 0–2) with metastatic/progressing malignancies seeking trial options. Data Extraction: 157,367 pages (~86.5M tokens) processed for tumor type, stage, treatment lines, and biomarkers. Trial Matching: Automated application of inclusion/exclusion criteria; oncologists validated AI-generated matches. Efficiency: Manual matching for large cohorts can require thousands of hours; this AI approach condensed it to ~1 hour of expert review. Results: 1. Screening & Identification: 3,804 patients screened; 23,912 trials identified; 17,912 confirmed after expert review. 2. Time-to-Recommendation: Under one week from screening to final recommendations via real-time AI prioritization. 3. Performance Metrics: Sensitivity (Recall): 0.8375, Specificity: 0.8359, Precision: 0.8121, F1 Score: 0.8246. Demonstrates advantages over zero-shot or frontier GPT-based models. 4. GPT Comparison: Extraction Accuracy: 80.29% vs up to 63.15% (GPT-4o); Trial Matching Accuracy: 82.06% vs 47.00% (GPT-4o). Conclusions: This multi-agent AI platform, underpinned by an oncology-specific knowledge graph, significantly boosts efficiency and accuracy in oncological trial matching. By cutting manual workloads from thousands of hours to near-automated speeds, recommendations allow for just-in-time, decentralized and patient-centric trial activation. Ongoing enhancements—such as deeper biomarker integration, expanded knowledge graph coverage, and seamless EHR interoperability—promise further gains in personalized oncology care.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Published
2025-05-28
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2025.43.16_suppl.1554
Citations
1
Primary Topic
Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
2.63
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Transforming oncology clinical trial matching through multi-agent AI and an oncology-specific knowledge graph: A prospective evaluation in 3,800 patients.

Selin Kurnaz, Arturo Loaiza‐Bonilla, Dersu Giritlioğlu, Oz Huner et al.
1 citations
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
2.63
article

Transforming oncology clinical trial matching through multi-agent AI and an oncology-specific knowledge graph: A prospective evaluation in 3,800 patients.

Selin Kurnaz, Arturo Loaiza‐Bonilla, Dersu Giritlioğlu, Oz Huner, Jane L. Meza, Ertugrul Tuysuz
article en
1 citations

Abstract

1554 Background: Clinical trial enrollment in oncology is often hampered by the manual, time-intensive process of matching patients to trials with highly specific eligibility criteria. Advances in artificial intelligence (AI)—particularly multi-agent large language models (LLMs) and oncology-specific knowledge networks—hold promise for streamlining this workflow and minimizing human labor. This abstract presents a prospective evaluation of an AI platform that automates medical data extraction, leverages an oncology-specific knowledge graph, and provides real-time trial recommendations, demonstrating a significant reduction in staff effort while maintaining high clinical accuracy. Methods: Multi-Agent AI & Oncology Knowledge Graph 1. OncoAgents: Specialized LLMs (data extraction, eligibility, trial matching), collaborating to outperform generic or zero-shot AI. 2. OncoGraph: Domain-specific knowledge graph uniting patient data, molecular profiles, and clinical guidelines for context-aware matching. 3. OncoRecommend: Real-time engine processing new data, trials, and guidelines, delivering rapid, relevant suggestions. 4. OncoSet: Expert-curated dataset (>2,000 patient records, 14,000+ trials, 50+ tumor subtypes) ensuring robust AI performance. Prospective Analysis (Jan–Dec 2024): Cohort: 3,804 patients (ECOG 0–2) with metastatic/progressing malignancies seeking trial options. Data Extraction: 157,367 pages (~86.5M tokens) processed for tumor type, stage, treatment lines, and biomarkers. Trial Matching: Automated application of inclusion/exclusion criteria; oncologists validated AI-generated matches. Efficiency: Manual matching for large cohorts can require thousands of hours; this AI approach condensed it to ~1 hour of expert review. Results: 1. Screening & Identification: 3,804 patients screened; 23,912 trials identified; 17,912 confirmed after expert review. 2. Time-to-Recommendation: Under one week from screening to final recommendations via real-time AI prioritization. 3. Performance Metrics: Sensitivity (Recall): 0.8375, Specificity: 0.8359, Precision: 0.8121, F1 Score: 0.8246. Demonstrates advantages over zero-shot or frontier GPT-based models. 4. GPT Comparison: Extraction Accuracy: 80.29% vs up to 63.15% (GPT-4o); Trial Matching Accuracy: 82.06% vs 47.00% (GPT-4o). Conclusions: This multi-agent AI platform, underpinned by an oncology-specific knowledge graph, significantly boosts efficiency and accuracy in oncological trial matching. By cutting manual workloads from thousands of hours to near-automated speeds, recommendations allow for just-in-time, decentralized and patient-centric trial activation. Ongoing enhancements—such as deeper biomarker integration, expanded knowledge graph coverage, and seamless EHR interoperability—promise further gains in personalized oncology care.

Journal of Clinical OncologyVol. 43(16_suppl)
St. Luke's University Health Network (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 11%
Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
2.63
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.