Tracking Cancer Through Text: Longitudinal Extraction From Radiology Reports Using Open-Source Large Language Models

Longitudinal information in radiology reports refers to the sequential tracking of findings across multiple examinations over time, which is crucial for monitoring disease progression and guiding clinical decisions. Many recent automated radiology report generation methods are designed to capture longitudinal information; however, validating their performance is challenging. There is no proper tool to consistently label temporal changes in both ground-truth and model-generated texts for meaningful comparisons. Large language models (LLMs) offer a promising annotation alternative, as they are capable of capturing nuanced linguistic patterns and semantic similarities without extensive manual intervention. They also adapt well to new contexts. In this study, we therefore propose an LLM-based pipeline to automatically annotate longitudinal information in radiology reports. The pipeline first identifies sentences containing relevant information and then extracts the progression of diseases. We evaluate and compare five mainstream LLMs on these two tasks using 500 manually annotated reports. Considering both efficiency and performance, Qwen2.5-32B was subsequently selected and used to annotate another 95,169 reports from the public MIMIC-CXR dataset. Our Qwen2.5-32B-annotated dataset provided us with a standardized benchmark for evaluating report generation models. Using this new benchmark, we assessed seven state-of-the-art report generation models. Our LLM-based annotation method outperforms existing annotation solutions, achieving 11.3% and 5.3% higher F1-scores for longitudinal information detection and disease tracking, respectively. The source code is available at https://github.com/wxinyi1996/Standardizing-Longitudinal-Chest-X-ray-Report-Evaluation-via-Large-Language-Model-Annotation.git.

Information extraction from pathology reports is essential for cancer staging, tumor registry population. Yet key data remains embedded in narrative reports, making manual extraction labor-intensive and error-prone. Traditional supervised Natural Language Processing pipelines address this through fully supervised Named Entity Recognition and Relation Extraction, but require expensive manual annotation and suffer cascading failures when upstream entities are missed. In this study, we developed a zero-shot, agentic workflow, and evaluated five open-source generative Large Language Models (LLMs) to populate 13 College of American Pathologists synoptic fields from lung resection pathology reports. We compared them against a state-of-the-art supervised GatorTron NER-RE baseline using a novel, registry-aligned evaluation framework. The baseline achieved Micro-F1of 0.960, while the best zero-shot model (GPT-OSS-20B) achieved Micro-F1 of 0.893 (recall: 0.949), accurately extracting complex relations like Pathologic Stage without task-specific training. These results suggest that open-source, zero-shot agentic LLMs show great potential as a low-cost solution for extracting lung pathology information.

Background: Large language models (LLMs) show promise for extracting information from clinical free-text documents, but their outputs are often unstructured and lack traceability, complicating validation and adoption in clinical workflows. In this work we introduce SIFTING, an LLM-based framework designed to address these shortcomings. Methods: SIFTING combines the language comprehension capabilities of LLMs with segment-level processing and structured prompts with strict output control, linking findings to the source text to enable both accurate and transparent information extraction. To demonstrate its capabilities, we applied the framework to the task of extracting tumor T-stage information from 130 lung cancer radiology reports (SIFTING-T-stage). A compact 4-bit quantized version of the open-source LLM Llama-3.3-70B (35 GB) was used in a fully self-hosted setup, providing full control over data and model. Performance was evaluated against a reference standard created by four clinical experts and compared with a range of LLMs as used in a conventional single-prompt approach, using bootstrap resampling to estimate confidence intervals. Results: SIFTING-T-stage achieved an accuracy of 90% (95% CI: 84-95) against the reference standard. We found its performance to be comparable to even the largest state-of-the-art LLMs with reasoning capabilities and to be interchangeable with clinical experts (p < 0.001), while at the same time offering full traceability through source text references. Conclusion: SIFTING enables accurate, structured, and traceable information extraction from clinical free-text documents. It ensures data control, reproducibility, and verifiable outputs that can support clinical validation and workflow integration.