The Daily Dose: Workflow-Integrated Large Language Model Automation for Clinical Summarization and Trial Identification in Radiation Oncology

Accurately communicating the side effects of cancer treatments to cancer survivors is critical, particularly in settings such as informed consent, where clinicians must clearly and comprehensively convey potential treatment toxicities. However, this task remains challenging due to clinical knowledge deficits about adverse treatment effects and fragmentation across electronic health record (EHR) systems. Large language models (LLMs) have the potential to assist in this task, though their reliability in oncology survivorship contexts remains poorly understood. We present a deployment-oriented stress-testing framework for evaluating LLM-generated radiation side effect lists in breast cancer treatment and survivorship care. Using 21 breast cancer patient profiles, we construct paired patient clinical scenarios that differ only in radiotherapy regimens to evaluate seven instruction-tuned LLMs under multiple prompting regimes. We then compare LLM outputs to a clinician-curated reference derived from informed consent documents at two major academic medical centers and developed by a team including more than seven breast radiation oncologists. The reference maps radiation dose-fractionation, fields, and locations to associated toxicities, broken down by frequency and temporal onset. Across models, we reveal sensitivity to minor documentation changes, trade-offs between precision and recall, and systematic under-recall of rare and long-term side effects. When used alone, constraints on the number of side effects generated reduce precision, and grounding outputs in clinician-curated side effect lists substantially improves reliability and robustness. These findings highlight important limitations of LLM use in oncology and suggest practical design choices for safer and more informative survivorship-focused applications.

Large language models are increasingly used to summarize clinical trial results for healthcare providers, patients, and payers, but their tendency to hallucinate poses significant risks in this high-stakes context. This study introduces a benchmark evaluation framework for measuring the faithfulness of LLM-generated clinical trial summaries across three stakeholder audiences. The framework consists of 200 stratified trials drawn from the Aggregate Analysis of ClinicalTrials.gov database, evaluated using audience-specific prompt templates and a six-dimension faithfulness annotation schema. Baseline measurements were established for GPT-4o, Claude Sonnet 4.6, and Gemini 2.5 Flash across 1,800 generated summaries scored using a cross-encoder natural language inference (NLI) model. Unsupported Claims was identified as the dominant failure mode across all three models, with a mean annotation score of 1.55 out of three. A knowledge-graph-augmented retrieval system was developed and evaluated against the baseline, producing statistically significant improvements in NLI-based faithfulness scores (entailment +0.0125, faithfulness +0.0130, p < 0.0001). Improvement pathways were model-dependent, with GPT-4o improving primarily through contradiction reduction while Claude Sonnet 4.6 and Gemini 2.5 Flash improved through increased entailment.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly being explored for clinical decision support, but their reliability in complex oncology treatment planning remains unclear. We evaluated agentic LLM systems for breast cancer treatment recommendation generation using 72 real clinical cases across stages I to IV and 1,147 case-specific rubrics generated through Asymmetric Information Rubric Generation (AIRG), in which the rubric generator had access to real clinical decisions unavailable to the evaluated models. Seven pipelines were compared, including single-LLM baselines, tool-augmented systems, and multi-agent architectures with fact checking and autonomous subagent spawning. The best-performing configuration, Claude Opus 4.8 with the D&C+SA pipeline, achieved a global score of 0.594 $\pm$ 0.025. Tool use and increased agent autonomy had mixed effects, improving performance in some settings but degrading it in others. Performance varied by clinical domain and disease stage, and oncologist-led error analysis revealed persistent clinically relevant failures, including incorrect or missing recommendations, flawed justifications, citation errors, outdated claims, and overconfidence. These findings suggest that agentic LLM systems can generate clinically relevant breast cancer recommendations, but remain insufficient for unsupervised clinical use.