Esta página foi traduzida automaticamente e a precisão da tradução não é garantida. Por favor, consulte o versão em inglês para um texto fonte.

Benchmarking Large Language Models Against Tumour Boards for Oncology Treatment Recommendations (BEACON)

28 de julho de 2026 atualizado por: Assistance Publique - Hôpitaux de Paris

Benchmarking AI for Clinical Oncology decisioNmaking (BEACON): A Prospective, Multicentre, Blinded Evaluation of Frontier Large Language Models Against Multidisciplinary Tumour Board Recommendations in Oncology Treatment Planning

BEACON (Benchmarking AI for Clinical Oncology decisioNmaking) is a prospective, multicentre, comparative, blinded, non-interventional benchmark evaluating the treatment recommendations of five frontier large language models (LLMs) against the recommendations of multidisciplinary tumour boards (RCP) in oncology treatment planning. One hundred standardised synthetic cases (20 per localisation, across breast, lung, urological, digestive and gynaecological cancers) are submitted as identical structured input to two independent tumour boards per localisation and to five frontier LLMs. Each recommendation - human or model - is decomposed into five predefined decision domains (intent, surgery, radiotherapy, systemic therapy, work-up and biomarkers) and scored 0/1/2 for concordance against a two-tier reference: the consensus of the two tumour boards, complemented by an a priori locked guideline matrix (ESMO, NCCN). The primary endpoint is domain-level concordance between LLM and RCP consensus, expressed as a linearly weighted Cohen's kappa. A co-primary safety endpoint captures the proportion of recommendations carrying serious harm potential, because concordance alone can conceal dangerous errors. Because expert boards may disagree with one another on identical cases, model performance is always interpreted against the human consensus. BEACON is designed as reusable, openly licensed, pre-registered infrastructure: all synthetic cases, evaluation rubrics, the locked guideline matrix, scoring algorithms and verbatim prompts are released for full reproducibility.

Visão geral do estudo

Descrição detalhada

BEACON is a prospective, multicentre, blinded benchmark using automated, criteria-based scoring. It is built on three design decisions that distinguish it from the existing literature: (i) synthetic, standardised cases remove the record-completeness variability that confounds retrospective comparisons and allow the identical input to be given to every board and every model; (ii) two independent tumour boards per localisation let human-human agreement be measured rather than assumed; and (iii) a guideline matrix, locked a priori, provides an objective anchor applied identically to human and model recommendations.

Reference standard. For each case-domain, a guideline matrix (guideline-recommended / acceptable / unsupported options per case-domain; ESMO, NCCN), locked and time-stamped before data collection, is applied identically to boards and models.

Five decision domains. Every recommendation is decomposed into D1 Intent, D2 Surgery, D3 Radiotherapy, D4 Systemic therapy (class + line), and D5 Work-up & biomarkers before any comparison.

Tipo de estudo

Observacional

Inscrição (Estimado)

100

Contactos e Locais

Esta seção fornece os detalhes de contato para aqueles que conduzem o estudo e informações sobre onde este estudo está sendo realizado.

Contato de estudo

Estude backup de contato

Locais de estudo

      • Paris, França
        • Recrutamento
        • Hôpital Europeén Georges Pompidou
        • Contato:

Critérios de participação

Os pesquisadores procuram pessoas que se encaixem em uma determinada descrição, chamada de critérios de elegibilidade. Alguns exemplos desses critérios são a condição geral de saúde de uma pessoa ou tratamentos anteriores.

Critérios de elegibilidade

Idades elegíveis para estudo

  • Adulto
  • Adulto mais velho

Aceita Voluntários Saudáveis

Não

Método de amostragem

Amostra Não Probabilística

População do estudo

100 synthetic oncology treatment-planning cases (20 per localisation) across five localisations: breast, lung, urological (prostate, bladder / upper-tract urothelial, kidney), digestive and gynaecological. Each case is a structured JSON input specifying UICC 8th-edition stage, biomarkers, ECOG performance status, comorbidities and a standardised clinical question. No human participants, no patient data and no identifiable individuals. Recommendations are produced by two independent tumour boards per localisation and by five frontier LLMs (queried May 2026).

Descrição

Inclusion Criteria:

  • Synthetic oncology case within one of the five predefined localisations (breast, lung, urological, digestive, gynaecological).
  • Complete structured schema: UICC 8th-edition stage, biomarkers, ECOG performance status, comorbidities and a standardised clinical question.
  • A clinically answerable treatment-planning question that is mappable to the locked guideline matrix.

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Case outside the five predefined localisations.
  • Incomplete, internally inconsistent or ambiguous schema.
  • Duplicate or near-duplicate of an existing case in the set.
  • Question not resolvable by current guidelines.

Plano de estudo

Esta seção fornece detalhes do plano de estudo, incluindo como o estudo é projetado e o que o estudo está medindo.

Como o estudo é projetado?

Detalhes do projeto

Coortes e Intervenções

Grupo / Coorte
Intervenção / Tratamento
Breast cancers
Two independent tumour boards per localisation (10 boards in total) issue a categorical recommendation for every synthetic case. Where both boards agree, their consensus defines the reference standard; where they differ, the case-domain is classified as EQUIPOISE and analysed separately.
Five frontier LLMs (GPT-5.6, Claude Fable 5, Gemini 3.1 Pro, DeepSeek V4 Pro, Llama 4 Maverick) each receive the identical structured input for every case, three times in independent sessions, under locked prompts, versions and settings.
Lung cancers
Two independent tumour boards per localisation (10 boards in total) issue a categorical recommendation for every synthetic case. Where both boards agree, their consensus defines the reference standard; where they differ, the case-domain is classified as EQUIPOISE and analysed separately.
Five frontier LLMs (GPT-5.6, Claude Fable 5, Gemini 3.1 Pro, DeepSeek V4 Pro, Llama 4 Maverick) each receive the identical structured input for every case, three times in independent sessions, under locked prompts, versions and settings.
Urological cancers
Two independent tumour boards per localisation (10 boards in total) issue a categorical recommendation for every synthetic case. Where both boards agree, their consensus defines the reference standard; where they differ, the case-domain is classified as EQUIPOISE and analysed separately.
Five frontier LLMs (GPT-5.6, Claude Fable 5, Gemini 3.1 Pro, DeepSeek V4 Pro, Llama 4 Maverick) each receive the identical structured input for every case, three times in independent sessions, under locked prompts, versions and settings.
Digestive cancers
Two independent tumour boards per localisation (10 boards in total) issue a categorical recommendation for every synthetic case. Where both boards agree, their consensus defines the reference standard; where they differ, the case-domain is classified as EQUIPOISE and analysed separately.
Five frontier LLMs (GPT-5.6, Claude Fable 5, Gemini 3.1 Pro, DeepSeek V4 Pro, Llama 4 Maverick) each receive the identical structured input for every case, three times in independent sessions, under locked prompts, versions and settings.
Gynaecological cancers
Two independent tumour boards per localisation (10 boards in total) issue a categorical recommendation for every synthetic case. Where both boards agree, their consensus defines the reference standard; where they differ, the case-domain is classified as EQUIPOISE and analysed separately.
Five frontier LLMs (GPT-5.6, Claude Fable 5, Gemini 3.1 Pro, DeepSeek V4 Pro, Llama 4 Maverick) each receive the identical structured input for every case, three times in independent sessions, under locked prompts, versions and settings.

O que o estudo está medindo?

Medidas de resultados primários

Medida de resultado
Descrição da medida
Prazo
Domain-level performance between LLM recommendations and the locked guidelines.
Prazo: Assessed once at central scoring, after data collection (~October 2026)
For each recommendation domain and each LLM, proportion of LLM recommendation concordant with locked guidelines
Assessed once at central scoring, after data collection (~October 2026)

Medidas de resultados secundários

Medida de resultado
Descrição da medida
Prazo
Proportion of recommendations carrying serious harm potential ( LLM and tumour boards)
Prazo: Up to October 2026
Up to October 2026
Domain-level recommendation concordance between LLM and tumour-boards
Prazo: Up to October 2026
Each recommendation domain, decomposed into the five decision domains and scored per domain on an ordinal scale (2 = complete concordance; 1 = partial concordance; 0 = discordance).
Up to October 2026
Inter-tumour board domain-level recommendation concordance
Prazo: Up to October 2026
Agreement between the two independent tumour boards scored per recommendation domain
Up to October 2026
Equipoise rate
Prazo: Up to October 2026
Proportion of case-domains where the two tumour boards give different categorical recommendations
Up to October 2026
Completeness
Prazo: Up to October 2026
Proportion of required domains addressed (LLM and tumour boards)
Up to October 2026
Missingness
Prazo: Up to October 2026
Proportion of critical omissions (LLM and tumour boards)
Up to October 2026
Intensity bias
Prazo: Up to October 2026
Proportion of recommendation corresponding to over- or under-treatment
Up to October 2026

Colaboradores e Investigadores

É aqui que você encontrará pessoas e organizações envolvidas com este estudo.

Datas de registro do estudo

Essas datas acompanham o progresso do registro do estudo e os envios de resumo dos resultados para ClinicalTrials.gov. Os registros do estudo e os resultados relatados são revisados ​​pela National Library of Medicine (NLM) para garantir que atendam aos padrões específicos de controle de qualidade antes de serem publicados no site público.

Datas Principais do Estudo

Início do estudo (Real)

1 de maio de 2026

Conclusão Primária (Estimado)

1 de outubro de 2026

Conclusão do estudo (Estimado)

1 de outubro de 2026

Datas de inscrição no estudo

Enviado pela primeira vez

28 de julho de 2026

Enviado pela primeira vez que atendeu aos critérios de CQ

28 de julho de 2026

Primeira postagem (Real)

31 de julho de 2026

Atualizações de registro de estudo

Última Atualização Postada (Real)

31 de julho de 2026

Última atualização enviada que atendeu aos critérios de controle de qualidade

28 de julho de 2026

Última verificação

1 de julho de 2026

Mais Informações

Termos relacionados a este estudo

Plano para dados de participantes individuais (IPD)

Planeja compartilhar dados de participantes individuais (IPD)?

INDECISO

Informações sobre medicamentos e dispositivos, documentos de estudo

Estuda um medicamento regulamentado pela FDA dos EUA

Não

Estuda um produto de dispositivo regulamentado pela FDA dos EUA

Não

Essas informações foram obtidas diretamente do site clinicaltrials.gov sem nenhuma alteração. Se você tiver alguma solicitação para alterar, remover ou atualizar os detalhes do seu estudo, entre em contato com register@clinicaltrials.gov. Assim que uma alteração for implementada em clinicaltrials.gov, ela também será atualizada automaticamente em nosso site .

Se inscrever