Abstract PS3-04-06: Benchmarking Large Language Models for Clinical Decision Support in Breast Cancer Care: A Multi-Institutional Expert Evaluation

Abstract Background: Artificial intelligence (AI) and large language models (LLMs) are increasingly explored as tools to support clinical decision-making in oncology. However, evidence validating their performance in complex breast cancer clinical scenarios (BCCS) remains limited. Given breast cancer’s diverse subtypes, evolving standards of care, and the need for nuanced, personalized treatment, we compared three LLMs for treatment decision-making to assess their capabilities and determine their readiness for integration into real-world breast oncology clinics. Methods: Ten breast cancer cases mimicking real-world scenarios were posed to three LLMs: ChatGPT-4o (GPT), DeepSeek-R1 (DS), and OpenEvidence (OE). 16 breast medical oncologists (BMOs; assistant to full professors) from 9 academic centers graded responses using a 5-point Likert scale (1 = poor, 5 = excellent) for clinical accuracy, clarity, relevance, and usability. Questions(Q) 1-9 assessed treatment decision-making cases; Q10 tested multimodal image interpretation (MMI) skills. Repeated measures ANOVA evaluated model differences, followed by Tukey’s post hoc comparisons. Results: On BCCS Q1-9 spanning all major breast cancer subtypes and treatment settings, including early-stage, metastatic, neoadjuvant, and adjuvant, OE achieved the highest mean score (3.91 ± 0.48; 2.57-4.43), significantly outperforming both GPT (3.19 ± 0.67; 2.36-3.93) and DS (2.93 ± 0.54; 1.50-3.86) in overall performance (p < 0.0001), with large effect sizes (Cohen’s d = 1.12 vs. GPT; d = 2.84 vs. DS). Repeated measures ANOVA identified significant differences among models in 5/9 (56%) Q (p < 0.05), as shown in the Table. Pairwise comparisons showed OE outperformed GPT in 4/5 (80%) and DS in 5/5 (100%) significant BCCS. GPT modestly outperformed DS in 2/5 (40%) (Cohen’s d = 0.41). GPT showed the highest inter-reviewer variability (SD = 0.67 vs. 0.48-0.54), indicating less agreement among BMOs on its responses. OE provided well-supported treatment recommendations and recurrence risk assessments with citations, though it lacked MMI. DS relied on optical character recognition in Q10 (inflammatory breast cancer image; 2.93 ± 1.33), limiting its utility in image-based BCCS. GPT, the only vision-enabled model, scored highest (4.29 ± 1.14), highlighting its strong potential for MMI integration in breast cancer diagnostic workflows. Conclusions: This is the first comparison of GPT, DS, and OE in BCCS. OE generated the most guideline-concordant treatment choices across BCCS, showing strong potential as a clinical decision support tool, though its verbosity may require streamlining. GPT showed moderate performance, while DS lagged in clinical relevance and accuracy. These findings highlight the promise of LLMs in breast oncology and the need for further refinement to ensure reliability and real-world applicability. Citation Format: Z. Shah, S. S. Afridi, M. Ombada, A. M. Roy, A. LeVee, S. Premji, V. Gupta, N. M. Lopetegui, D. M. Quiroga, R. L. Sacks, S. Shaikh, Y. Abdou, H. Yu, A. Madabhushi, R. Parikh, L. N. Chaudhary, E. Levine, M. Lambertini, K. Kalinsky, S. Kabraji, S. Gandhi.. Benchmarking Large Language Models for Clinical Decision Support in Breast Cancer Care: A Multi-Institutional Expert Evaluation [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium 2025; 2025 Dec 9-12; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Clin Cancer Res 2026;32(4 Suppl):Abstract nr PS3-04-06.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Clinical Cancer Research
Published
2026-02-17
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1158/1557-3265.sabcs25-ps3-04-06
Primary Topic
Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Abstract PS3-04-06: Benchmarking Large Language Models for Clinical Decision Support in Breast Cancer Care: A Multi-Institutional Expert Evaluation

Sheheryar Kabraji, Ravi B. Parikh, Kevin Kalinsky, Shipra Gandhi et al.
Clinical Cancer Research
Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
article

Abstract PS3-04-06: Benchmarking Large Language Models for Clinical Decision Support in Breast Cancer Care: A Multi-Institutional Expert Evaluation

Sheheryar Kabraji, Ravi B. Parikh, Kevin Kalinsky, Shipra Gandhi, Mulham Ombada, YG Abdou, D. M. Quiroga, S. Shaikh, S. S. Afridi, E. Levine, M. Lambertini, L. N. Chaudhary, V. Gupta, Z. Shah, S. Premji, A. M. Roy, A. Madabhushi, N. M. Lopetegui, A. LeVee, H. Yu, R. L. Sacks
article en

Abstract

Abstract Background: Artificial intelligence (AI) and large language models (LLMs) are increasingly explored as tools to support clinical decision-making in oncology. However, evidence validating their performance in complex breast cancer clinical scenarios (BCCS) remains limited. Given breast cancer’s diverse subtypes, evolving standards of care, and the need for nuanced, personalized treatment, we compared three LLMs for treatment decision-making to assess their capabilities and determine their readiness for integration into real-world breast oncology clinics. Methods: Ten breast cancer cases mimicking real-world scenarios were posed to three LLMs: ChatGPT-4o (GPT), DeepSeek-R1 (DS), and OpenEvidence (OE). 16 breast medical oncologists (BMOs; assistant to full professors) from 9 academic centers graded responses using a 5-point Likert scale (1 = poor, 5 = excellent) for clinical accuracy, clarity, relevance, and usability. Questions(Q) 1-9 assessed treatment decision-making cases; Q10 tested multimodal image interpretation (MMI) skills. Repeated measures ANOVA evaluated model differences, followed by Tukey’s post hoc comparisons. Results: On BCCS Q1-9 spanning all major breast cancer subtypes and treatment settings, including early-stage, metastatic, neoadjuvant, and adjuvant, OE achieved the highest mean score (3.91 ± 0.48; 2.57-4.43), significantly outperforming both GPT (3.19 ± 0.67; 2.36-3.93) and DS (2.93 ± 0.54; 1.50-3.86) in overall performance (p < 0.0001), with large effect sizes (Cohen’s d = 1.12 vs. GPT; d = 2.84 vs. DS). Repeated measures ANOVA identified significant differences among models in 5/9 (56%) Q (p < 0.05), as shown in the Table. Pairwise comparisons showed OE outperformed GPT in 4/5 (80%) and DS in 5/5 (100%) significant BCCS. GPT modestly outperformed DS in 2/5 (40%) (Cohen’s d = 0.41). GPT showed the highest inter-reviewer variability (SD = 0.67 vs. 0.48-0.54), indicating less agreement among BMOs on its responses. OE provided well-supported treatment recommendations and recurrence risk assessments with citations, though it lacked MMI. DS relied on optical character recognition in Q10 (inflammatory breast cancer image; 2.93 ± 1.33), limiting its utility in image-based BCCS. GPT, the only vision-enabled model, scored highest (4.29 ± 1.14), highlighting its strong potential for MMI integration in breast cancer diagnostic workflows. Conclusions: This is the first comparison of GPT, DS, and OE in BCCS. OE generated the most guideline-concordant treatment choices across BCCS, showing strong potential as a clinical decision support tool, though its verbosity may require streamlining. GPT showed moderate performance, while DS lagged in clinical relevance and accuracy. These findings highlight the promise of LLMs in breast oncology and the need for further refinement to ensure reliability and real-world applicability. Citation Format: Z. Shah, S. S. Afridi, M. Ombada, A. M. Roy, A. LeVee, S. Premji, V. Gupta, N. M. Lopetegui, D. M. Quiroga, R. L. Sacks, S. Shaikh, Y. Abdou, H. Yu, A. Madabhushi, R. Parikh, L. N. Chaudhary, E. Levine, M. Lambertini, K. Kalinsky, S. Kabraji, S. Gandhi.. Benchmarking Large Language Models for Clinical Decision Support in Breast Cancer Care: A Multi-Institutional Expert Evaluation [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium 2025; 2025 Dec 9-12; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Clin Cancer Res 2026;32(4 Suppl):Abstract nr PS3-04-06.

Clinical Cancer ResearchVol. 32(4_Supplement)
Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center (US), Emory Healthcare (US), University of North Carolina Health Care (US), Emory University (US), The University of Texas at San Antonio Health Science Center (US), SUNY Upstate Medical University (US), Medical College of Wisconsin (US), Emory University Hospital (US), Centinela Hospital Medical Center (US), Comprehensive Cancer Center Vienna (AT), Piedmont Cancer Institute (US), Sarah Cannon (US), University of Genoa (IT)
Openalex Percentile: Top 50%
Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
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.