Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
This prospective single-center observational study will evaluate the concordance between recommendations generated by a locally deployed large language model and standardized multidisciplinary team recommendations for patients with rectal cancer.
Consecutive adult patients with pathologically confirmed rectal adenocarcinoma who are scheduled for routine rectal cancer multidisciplinary team discussion will be enrolled. For each case, investigators will prepare a standardized de-identified clinical summary before the multidisciplinary team meeting. The same summary will be used for large language model generation and routine multidisciplinary team discussion.
The large language model recommendation will not be disclosed to the clinical team and will not influence actual patient management. Concordance between the large language model recommendation and the multidisciplinary team reference recommendation will be assessed using predefined structured rules and blinded expert review.
Management of rectal cancer often requires multidisciplinary decision-making based on tumor location, pelvic magnetic resonance imaging findings, clinical stage, mesorectal fascia or circumferential resection margin status, extramural vascular invasion, lateral lymph node status, metastatic status, previous treatment, surgical feasibility, organ preservation considerations, and patient preferences. Large language models have shown potential in medical information processing and clinical decision support, but their performance in complex oncologic decision-making has not been fully validated.
This study is designed as a prospective, single-center, observational concordance study. Consecutive patients with rectal adenocarcinoma who are scheduled for routine rectal cancer multidisciplinary team discussion at the study center will be screened. Before the multidisciplinary team meeting, investigators will prepare a standardized de-identified case summary using a predefined template. The summary will include relevant demographic information, clinical status, endoscopic findings, pathological and molecular information, key imaging findings, previous treatments, and patient preferences or practical constraints when available.
The same standardized case summary will be used as the input for a locally deployed large language model. A fixed prompt, fixed model version, and fixed inference parameters will be used throughout the study. Each case will be processed in an independent session, without additional interactive prompting or manual correction. The model will not use internet access, external knowledge retrieval, or retrieval-augmented generation during the study.
Routine multidisciplinary team discussion will proceed independently according to standard clinical workflow. The large language model output will not be provided to the multidisciplinary team and will not be used to guide patient treatment. Actual treatment decisions will be made by the treating physicians and multidisciplinary team according to routine clinical practice.
After both recommendations have been generated, the large language model recommendation and the multidisciplinary team recommendation will be transformed into a structured format. The structured recommendations will include the preferred treatment pathway, specific treatment plan, acceptable alternative options, key rationale, and need for additional examinations or information. De-identified and randomly ordered recommendations will then be evaluated using predefined concordance rules and blinded expert review.
The primary objective is to estimate the complete concordance rate between the large language model recommendation and the multidisciplinary team reference recommendation for the preferred treatment pathway. Secondary objectives include evaluation of concordance in specific treatment implementation, acceptable alternative options, identification of additional examinations or information needs, and the rate of major discordance. Exploratory analyses will assess patterns of major discordance and clinical features associated with concordant or discordant recommendations.
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Label | Type | Description | Intervention Names |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rectal Cancer MDT Cases | Adult patients with pathologically confirmed rectal adenocarcinoma who are scheduled for routine rectal cancer multidisciplinary team discussion at the study center. For each enrolled case, a standardized de-identified clinical summary will be prepared and used for both large language model recommendation generation and routine multidisciplinary team discussion. The large language model output will not be disclosed to the clinical team and will not influence actual patient management. |
|
| Name | Type | Description | Arm Group Labels | Other Names |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Large Language Model Recommendation Generation | Other | For each enrolled case, a standardized de-identified clinical summary will be entered into a locally deployed large language model using a fixed prompt and fixed inference parameters. The model will generate a structured treatment recommendation for concordance assessment. The large language model output will not be disclosed to the multidisciplinary team and will not influence actual patient management. |
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| Percentage of Cases With Complete Concordance in Preferred Treatment Pathway Assessed Using a Structured Concordance Adjudication Form | Percentage of enrolled cases in which the preferred treatment pathway recommended by the large language model is completely concordant with the multidisciplinary team reference recommendation, as assessed using a predefined structured concordance adjudication form. The unit of measure is percentage of cases. | From enrollment to completion of recommendation adjudication for each case, up to 12 months. |
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| Percentage of Cases With Concordant Specific Treatment Implementation Assessed Using a Structured Concordance Adjudication Form | Percentage of cases in which the large language model recommendation and the multidisciplinary team reference recommendation are rated as concordant for the specific treatment implementation plan using a predefined structured concordance adjudication form and blinded expert review. The unit of measure is percentage of cases. |
Not provided
Inclusion Criteria:
Exclusion Criteria:
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
The study population will consist of consecutive adult patients with pathologically confirmed rectal adenocarcinoma who are scheduled for routine rectal cancer multidisciplinary team discussion at Shandong Cancer Hospital and Institute. Eligible cases must have sufficient clinical, pathological, and imaging information to allow preparation of a standardized de-identified case summary for concordance assessment between large language model-generated recommendations and multidisciplinary team reference recommendations.
| Name | Role | Phone | Extension | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jinbo Yue, MD, PhD | Contact | 053167626929 | jbyue@sdfmu.edu.cn |
| Name | Affiliation | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Jinbo Yue, MD, PhD | Shandong Cancer Hospital and Institute | Principal Investigator |
| Facility | Status | City | State | ZIP | Country | Contacts |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Department of Radiation Oncology, Shandong Cancer Hospital and Institute | Jinan | Shandong | 0531 | China |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| ID | Term |
|---|---|
| D012004 | Rectal Neoplasms |
| ID | Term |
|---|---|
| D015179 | Colorectal Neoplasms |
| D007414 | Intestinal Neoplasms |
| D005770 | Gastrointestinal Neoplasms |
| D004067 | Digestive System Neoplasms |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
|
| From enrollment to completion of recommendation adjudication for each case, up to 12 months. |
| Percentage of Applicable Cases With Concordant Alternative Treatment Options Assessed Using a Structured Concordance Adjudication Form | Percentage of applicable cases in which the large language model recommendation and the multidisciplinary team reference recommendation are rated as concordant regarding acceptable alternative treatment options using a predefined structured concordance adjudication form and blinded expert review. The unit of measure is percentage of applicable cases. | From enrollment to completion of recommendation adjudication for each case, up to 12 months. |
| Percentage of Cases With Concordant Identification of Additional Examination or Information Needs Assessed Using a Structured Concordance Adjudication Form | Percentage of cases in which the large language model recommendation and the multidisciplinary team reference recommendation agree on whether additional examinations, restaging, or key information are needed before treatment decision-making, as assessed using a predefined structured concordance adjudication form. The unit of measure is percentage of cases. | From enrollment to completion of recommendation adjudication for each case, up to 12 months. |
| Percentage of Cases With Major Discordance Assessed by Blinded Expert Review | Percentage of enrolled cases in which differences between the large language model recommendation and the multidisciplinary team reference recommendation are classified as major discordance using a predefined structured adjudication form and blinded expert review. Major discordance is defined as a clinically substantial difference potentially associated with undertreatment, overtreatment, incorrect treatment sequencing, inappropriate organ preservation or local control judgment, or omission of necessary additional evaluation. The unit of measure is percentage of cases. | From enrollment to completion of recommendation adjudication for each case, up to 12 months. |
| Cohen's Kappa Coefficient for Inter-Rater Agreement in Blinded Expert Assessment | Inter-rater agreement between independent blinded reviewers for judgment-based endpoints will be assessed using Cohen's kappa coefficient. Judgment-based endpoints include specific treatment implementation concordance, alternative treatment option concordance, major discordance classification, and failure mode classification when applicable. The unit of measure is the kappa coefficient. | At completion of blinded expert review, up to 12 months. |
| D009371 | Neoplasms by Site |
| D009369 | Neoplasms |
| D004066 | Digestive System Diseases |
| D005767 | Gastrointestinal Diseases |
| D007410 | Intestinal Diseases |
| D012002 | Rectal Diseases |