Benchmarking Large Language Models Against Tumour Boards for Oncology Treatment Recommendations

Trial statusRecruiting
Trial phaseNot listed
Trial typeObservational
Biological sexAll
Age18+
SponsorAssistance Publique - Hôpitaux de Paris

About this trial

BEACON (Benchmarking AI for Clinical Oncology decisioNmaking) is a prospective, multicentre, comparative, blinded, non-interventional benchmark comparing the treatment recommendations of six frontier large language models (LLMs) with those 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 six frontier LLMs. Every recommendation, human or model, is decomposed into five predefined decision domains (intent, surgery, radiotherapy, systemic therapy with its line, work-up and biomarkers). For each domain, concordance between two recommendations is scored 2 when the same options are selected, 1 when at least one option is shared, and 0 when none is shared; the score is computed automatically from the recommendation forms, without human scoring. The primary endpoint is the mean domain score between each LLM and each tumour board, read against the same score computed between the two tumour boards of the same case, so that humans and models are measured by an identical rule and no respondent contributes to its own reference. A co-primary safety endpoint captures the proportion of recommendations carrying serious harm potential, because concordance alone can conceal dangerous errors. Where the two boards select different options, the case-domain is classified EQUIPOISE and, like every discordance, is adjudicated by an independent panel blinded to the source of the recommendation. Tumour boards record their recommendations during the meeting itself, on a dedicated platform (https://etude-beacon.fr) that reveals a case only once it is presented and time-stamps that reveal, so that no board can read a case in advance. BEACON is designed as reusable, openly licensed, pre-registered infrastructure: all synthetic cases, evaluation rubrics, scoring algorithms, verbatim prompts and raw model outputs are released for full reproducibility.

Eligibility criteria

This trial does not accept healthy volunteers

Qualifiers

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.

Disqualifiers

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.

Trial population

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 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, eight distinct boards in total, and by six frontier LLMs queried in September and October 2026.

Trial design

Design model

Cohort

Time perspective

Prospective

Treatments tested in this trial

  • Multidisciplinary tumour boards

    Other intervention

    Two independent tumour boards per localisation, eight distinct boards in total, issue a categorical recommendation for every synthetic case during the board meeting itself, on a dedicated platform (https://etude-beacon.fr) that reveals a case only once it is presented and time-stamps that reveal. A case opened during a session must be completed before that session closes, and each board presents all of its cases within one month of its first session. Where both boards select the same options, their agreement defines the reference; where they differ, the case-domain is classified EQUIPOISE and analysed separately.

  • Frontier large language models

    Other intervention

    Six frontier LLMs receive the identical structured input for every case, under locked and hashed prompts, versions and settings: GPT-6 Astra (gpt-6-astra, OpenAI), Claude Fable 5.1 (claude-fable-5-1, Anthropic), Gemini 3.1 Pro (gemini-3.1-pro-preview, Google DeepMind), Muse Spark 1.3 (muse-spark-1.3, Meta), Mistral Large 3 (mistral-large-2512, Mistral AI, open weights) and Kimi K3 (kimi-k3, Moonshot AI, open weights). Each case is submitted five times per model in independent sessions at temperature 1.0, with one additional pass at temperature 0 as a sensitivity analysis, except for Kimi K3 whose provider fixes temperature at 1.0 and rejects the parameter. No tools, no web access, no retrieval, and no context carried from one call to the next.

Treatment groups

100 Participants
are divided into 5 treatment groups
Group A: Breast cancers2 interventions
Group B: Lung cancers2 interventions
Group C: Urological cancers2 interventions
Group D: Digestive cancers2 interventions
Group E: Gynaecological cancers2 interventions

Trial outcomes

Primary outcomes

1

Domain-level concordance between LLM recommendations and tumour board recommendations

For each of the five decision domains, concordance between a model recommendation and a tumour board recommendation is scored 2 when the same options are selected (shared deliberate silence included), 1 when at least one option is shared, and 0 when none is shared. The measure is the mean domain score, reported with the proportion of domains scored 2, and is read against the same measure computed between the two tumour boards of the same case.

Time frame
Assessed once at central scoring, after data collection (estimated January 2027)
2

Proportion of recommendations carrying serious harm potential (Tier 2)

Each recommendation, from a model or from a tumour board, is rated on a three-tier harm scale by an independent panel blinded to its source, two raters per form and a third in case of disagreement. The measure is the proportion of recommendations rated Tier 2, that is serious harm or loss of chance.

Time frame
Assessed once at central scoring, after data collection (estimated January 2027)

Secondary outcomes

1

Inter-tumour board domain-level concordance (human baseline)

The same 0/1/2 domain score computed between the two independent tumour boards of each case. It sets the human level against which the primary endpoint is read.

Time frame
Assessed once at central scoring, after data collection (estimated January 2027)
2

Equipoise rate

Proportion of case-domains where the two tumour boards select different options.

Time frame
Assessed once at central scoring, after data collection (estimated January 2027)
3

Chance-corrected agreement (Gwet's AC1)

Agreement on recommendation categories corrected for chance, computed between the two tumour boards and between each model and each board. AC1 is used in preference to Cohen's kappa because the distribution of recommendations is markedly unbalanced, a situation in which kappa collapses while observed agreement stays high.

Time frame
Assessed once at central scoring, after data collection (estimated January 2027)
4

Agreement with at least one tumour board

Proportion of case-domains where the model's selection matches the selection of at least one of the two boards, including case-domains classified EQUIPOISE.

Time frame
Assessed once at central scoring, after data collection (estimated January 2027)

Other outcomes

Sponsors and contacts

Click on the lead sponsor to view all of their trials.