Abstract PS3-04-14: Artificial intelligence (AI) as a decision support tool for practicing oncologists: breast cancer cases

Abstract Background: Second opinions and multidisciplinary review (MDR) can inform and impact the management of cancer patients, yet these resources are not universally accessible. We previously presented over 400 anonymized complex cancer scenarios (cases) via video conference to MDR panel experts—including specialists in medical oncology, surgical oncology, radiation oncology, radiology, and a moderator—across 5 major tumor types and tracked their treatment recommendations. In this study, we focus on breast cancer cases to compare how recommendations from 3 leading AI models compare to those of MDR panel experts. Methods: We selected 50 complex breast cancer scenarios previously adjudicated by MDR panels from a larger database of over 400 anonymized cancer cases collected between 2020 and 2021. These cases were analyzed by 3 different foundational AI models (OpenAI’s ChatGPT 4.5, Anthropic’s Claude Opus 4 and Google’s Gemini Ultra) using PrecisCa’s proprietary method for prompts. The AI recommendations from each system were scored on a scale of 1-5 (5 being the highest) for completeness, reasoning, clarity, menu of options, recency, and relevance as compared to the MDR panel recommendations. The maximum possible competence score was 30 points per scenario and an aggregate score of 1500. Final AI recommendations were also compared with current National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines for serious omissions. Comparison in reverse (additional AI options that the experts missed) was not performed due to interval changes in treatment recommendations over the past 4 years. Results: Patient characteristics and aggregate concordance and competence scores are listed in Table 1 below. While there was some variation in the concordance and competence rates of the 3 AI models, there was excellent concordance with the expert opinion for all of them. Discordant cases were reviewed and primarily involved minor differences that would not have altered the patients’ management significantly. Relatively speaking within the 6 categories listed above, AI systems excelled in clarity and reasoning and less so in relevance and menu of options. Conclusions: This study demonstrates a high degree of concordance between 3 leading AI models and expert MDR panels for common yet complex breast cancer clinical scenarios. These findings suggest that AI tools have matured sufficiently to serve as valuable decision support aids in oncology practice, particularly where expert review may be limited or unavailable. Careful human oversight remains essential to ensure safe and personalized cancer care. Citation Format: M. Jahanzeb, K. Haines, T. Buchholz, R. Butler, W. J. Gradishar, S. A. Hurvitz, T. A. King, R. L. Mahtani, T. Mamounas, H. McArthur, M. Morrow, A. P. O'Dea, J. O'Shaughnessy, M. D. Pegram, H. S. Rugo, C. Shah, F. Vicini, N. Wolmark. Artificial intelligence (AI) as a decision support tool for practicing oncologists: breast cancer cases [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 PS3-04-14.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Clinical Cancer Research
Published
2026-02-17
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1158/1557-3265.sabcs25-ps3-04-14
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 PS3-04-14: Artificial intelligence (AI) as a decision support tool for practicing oncologists: breast cancer cases

Heather L. McArthur, Reni Butler, Mohammad Jahanzeb, Chintan Shah et al.
Clinical Cancer Research
Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
article

Abstract PS3-04-14: Artificial intelligence (AI) as a decision support tool for practicing oncologists: breast cancer cases

Heather L. McArthur, Reni Butler, Mohammad Jahanzeb, Chintan Shah, Thomas A. Buchholz, Kayla Haines, Frank A. Vicini, R. L. Mahtani, N. Wolmark, A. P. O'Dea, M. D. Pegram, T. A. King, W. J. Gradishar, M. Morrow, T. Mamounas, S. A. Hurvitz, J. O'Shaughnessy, H. S. Rugo
article en

Abstract

Abstract Background: Second opinions and multidisciplinary review (MDR) can inform and impact the management of cancer patients, yet these resources are not universally accessible. We previously presented over 400 anonymized complex cancer scenarios (cases) via video conference to MDR panel experts—including specialists in medical oncology, surgical oncology, radiation oncology, radiology, and a moderator—across 5 major tumor types and tracked their treatment recommendations. In this study, we focus on breast cancer cases to compare how recommendations from 3 leading AI models compare to those of MDR panel experts. Methods: We selected 50 complex breast cancer scenarios previously adjudicated by MDR panels from a larger database of over 400 anonymized cancer cases collected between 2020 and 2021. These cases were analyzed by 3 different foundational AI models (OpenAI’s ChatGPT 4.5, Anthropic’s Claude Opus 4 and Google’s Gemini Ultra) using PrecisCa’s proprietary method for prompts. The AI recommendations from each system were scored on a scale of 1-5 (5 being the highest) for completeness, reasoning, clarity, menu of options, recency, and relevance as compared to the MDR panel recommendations. The maximum possible competence score was 30 points per scenario and an aggregate score of 1500. Final AI recommendations were also compared with current National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines for serious omissions. Comparison in reverse (additional AI options that the experts missed) was not performed due to interval changes in treatment recommendations over the past 4 years. Results: Patient characteristics and aggregate concordance and competence scores are listed in Table 1 below. While there was some variation in the concordance and competence rates of the 3 AI models, there was excellent concordance with the expert opinion for all of them. Discordant cases were reviewed and primarily involved minor differences that would not have altered the patients’ management significantly. Relatively speaking within the 6 categories listed above, AI systems excelled in clarity and reasoning and less so in relevance and menu of options. Conclusions: This study demonstrates a high degree of concordance between 3 leading AI models and expert MDR panels for common yet complex breast cancer clinical scenarios. These findings suggest that AI tools have matured sufficiently to serve as valuable decision support aids in oncology practice, particularly where expert review may be limited or unavailable. Careful human oversight remains essential to ensure safe and personalized cancer care. Citation Format: M. Jahanzeb, K. Haines, T. Buchholz, R. Butler, W. J. Gradishar, S. A. Hurvitz, T. A. King, R. L. Mahtani, T. Mamounas, H. McArthur, M. Morrow, A. P. O'Dea, J. O'Shaughnessy, M. D. Pegram, H. S. Rugo, C. Shah, F. Vicini, N. Wolmark. Artificial intelligence (AI) as a decision support tool for practicing oncologists: breast cancer cases [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 PS3-04-14.

Clinical Cancer ResearchVol. 32(4_Supplement)
Northwestern University (US), Baptist Hospital of Miami (US), Cape Town HVTN Immunology Laboratory / Hutchinson Centre Research Institute of South Africa (ZA), Emory Healthcare (US), Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (US), Emory University (US), Baylor University (US), Texas Oncology (US), Baylor University Medical Center (US), Yale University (US), Florida Hospital Cancer Institute (US), Fred Hutch Cancer Center (US), Southwestern Medical Center (US), The University of Kansas Cancer Center (US), Piedmont Cancer Institute (US), Radiation Oncology Institute (US), Delray Medical Center (US), UPMC Hillman Cancer Center (US), University of Kansas Medical Center (US), Stanford Medicine (US), Scripps MD Anderson Cancer Center (US), UCSF Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center (US), Florida Atlantic University (US), The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center (US), Stanford University (US)
Peace, Justice and strong institutions
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.