Abstract PS3-04-10: Development and Validation of a Living Decision Support Tool (Living-DST) in Oncology Using Agentic AI-Augmented Systematic Literature Review (SLR)

Abstract Background: Oncologists face growing difficulty in staying current with rapidly evolving data from congresses, journals, guidelines, and regulatory updates. Creating a well-organized, annotated clinical trial (CT) data library in an easily digestible format is time- and labor-intensive. To address this, we developed and validated a living-DST for breast cancer (BC), powered by an agentic AI system that supports daily human conducted / AI augmented SLR integrated with guidelines, regulatory approvals and ongoing CT results. Methods: An agentic AI system using GPT-4.1 & o3 (OpenAI), and Claude Sonnet-4 (Anthropic) was designed to emulate expert-led Cochrane-compliant SLR processes. The system follows an annotation manual, decomposes tasks into subtasks, and self-debugs and validates. The annotation manual was constructed by human scientists manually annotating 29,236 clinical trial abstracts across BC, lung, and prostate cancer from 2019-current. Each study was annotated with 4 review variables (population, intervention/comparator, reported outcomes, study design) and 32 extraction variables: i.e. TNM staging, histology, biomarkers, risk factors, treatment line, intervention, study design, size, follow-up, outcomes (overall and progression/disease-free survival, response, QoL), subgroup data, and toxicity. Structured data were integrated with national guideline-based treatment pathways, including new evidence beyond guidelines, forming a real-time, evidence-linked DST. Accuracy was assessed vs. 1,997 human annotations as validation set. DST evidence precision was evaluated against the AI chatbots: ChatGPT, Perplexity, and Consensus using 6 criteria for 8 cases on treatment options in BC with different treatment path, subpopulation, and biomarker variables. Accuracy for each criterion was defined as the percentage of questions evaluated as positive over all eight questions. Results: Accuracy across review variables ranged from 95.1-97.2%. For extraction variables, accuracy exceeded 90% for all variables (91.5%-99.1%) with 50% of variables above 95%. Agentic AI annotated 1,997 publications in 7.25 hours vs. an estimated 727.4 hours required by human experts—yielding 99% of time savings. When compared to other AI tools, our DST outperformed by providing more complete and accurate evidence, retrieving recently published, potentially practice-changing pivotal trials (23% of all evidence), reporting all available clinical evidence, and linking to original citations and FDA labels where available (Table). Conclusion: By integrating human-conducted, AI-augmented daily SLR integrated with guidelines and regulatory approvals, our Living-DST delivers real-time, clinically actionable decision support. This system offers oncologists precise, patient-specific insights and may improve cancer treatment outcomes. Citation Format: L. Schwartzberg, H. S. Rugo, A. Forsythe, D. Flora, S. Glück, S. Grieve, R. Campden, R. Liu, J. M. Rege, P. A. Kaufman. Development and Validation of a Living Decision Support Tool (Living-DST) in Oncology Using Agentic AI-Augmented Systematic Literature Review (SLR) [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 PS3-04-10.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Clinical Cancer Research
Published
2026-02-17
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1158/1557-3265.sabcs25-ps3-04-10
Primary Topic
Radiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Abstract PS3-04-10: Development and Validation of a Living Decision Support Tool (Living-DST) in Oncology Using Agentic AI-Augmented Systematic Literature Review (SLR)

Lee S. Schwartzberg, H. S. Rugo, D. Flora, S. Grieve et al.
Clinical Cancer Research
Radiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging
article

Abstract PS3-04-10: Development and Validation of a Living Decision Support Tool (Living-DST) in Oncology Using Agentic AI-Augmented Systematic Literature Review (SLR)

Lee S. Schwartzberg, H. S. Rugo, D. Flora, S. Grieve, S. Glück, P. A. Kaufman, R. Liu, A. Forsythe, R. Campden, J. M. Rege
article en

Abstract

Abstract Background: Oncologists face growing difficulty in staying current with rapidly evolving data from congresses, journals, guidelines, and regulatory updates. Creating a well-organized, annotated clinical trial (CT) data library in an easily digestible format is time- and labor-intensive. To address this, we developed and validated a living-DST for breast cancer (BC), powered by an agentic AI system that supports daily human conducted / AI augmented SLR integrated with guidelines, regulatory approvals and ongoing CT results. Methods: An agentic AI system using GPT-4.1 & o3 (OpenAI), and Claude Sonnet-4 (Anthropic) was designed to emulate expert-led Cochrane-compliant SLR processes. The system follows an annotation manual, decomposes tasks into subtasks, and self-debugs and validates. The annotation manual was constructed by human scientists manually annotating 29,236 clinical trial abstracts across BC, lung, and prostate cancer from 2019-current. Each study was annotated with 4 review variables (population, intervention/comparator, reported outcomes, study design) and 32 extraction variables: i.e. TNM staging, histology, biomarkers, risk factors, treatment line, intervention, study design, size, follow-up, outcomes (overall and progression/disease-free survival, response, QoL), subgroup data, and toxicity. Structured data were integrated with national guideline-based treatment pathways, including new evidence beyond guidelines, forming a real-time, evidence-linked DST. Accuracy was assessed vs. 1,997 human annotations as validation set. DST evidence precision was evaluated against the AI chatbots: ChatGPT, Perplexity, and Consensus using 6 criteria for 8 cases on treatment options in BC with different treatment path, subpopulation, and biomarker variables. Accuracy for each criterion was defined as the percentage of questions evaluated as positive over all eight questions. Results: Accuracy across review variables ranged from 95.1-97.2%. For extraction variables, accuracy exceeded 90% for all variables (91.5%-99.1%) with 50% of variables above 95%. Agentic AI annotated 1,997 publications in 7.25 hours vs. an estimated 727.4 hours required by human experts—yielding 99% of time savings. When compared to other AI tools, our DST outperformed by providing more complete and accurate evidence, retrieving recently published, potentially practice-changing pivotal trials (23% of all evidence), reporting all available clinical evidence, and linking to original citations and FDA labels where available (Table). Conclusion: By integrating human-conducted, AI-augmented daily SLR integrated with guidelines and regulatory approvals, our Living-DST delivers real-time, clinically actionable decision support. This system offers oncologists precise, patient-specific insights and may improve cancer treatment outcomes. Citation Format: L. Schwartzberg, H. S. Rugo, A. Forsythe, D. Flora, S. Glück, S. Grieve, R. Campden, R. Liu, J. M. Rege, P. A. Kaufman. Development and Validation of a Living Decision Support Tool (Living-DST) in Oncology Using Agentic AI-Augmented Systematic Literature Review (SLR) [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 PS3-04-10.

Clinical Cancer ResearchVol. 32(4_Supplement)
University of Vermont Medical Center (US), Renown Health (US), St. Elizabeth Healthcare (US), Biotech Park (IN), City of Hope (US), Genoscope (FR), Acsenda School of Management (CA)
Openalex Percentile: Top 48%
Radiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging
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.