_version_ 1866913056304398336
author Spiess, Philippe E.
Zitu, Md Muntasir
Walker, Alison
Anaya, Daniel A.
Wenham, Robert M.
Vogelbaum, Michael
Grass, Daniel
Jaffer, Ali-Musa
Sarnaik, Amod
McMullen, Caitlin
Sam, Christine
Kiluk, John V.
Liu, Tianshi
Biachi, Tiago
Powsang, Julio
Chern, Jing-Yi
Li, Roger
Felder, Seth
Reynolds, Samuel
Shafique, Michael
Sheehan, Alison
Layman, Ashley
Warfield, Cydney A.
Legoas, Derrick
Parrinello, Jaclyn
Schmitz, Jena
Eaton, Kevin
Honor, Mark
Felipe, Luis
ElNaqa, Issam
Delgado, Elier
Berler, Talia
Phillips, Rachael V.
Francisque, Frantz
Fernandez, Carlos Garcia
Valdes, Gilmer
author_facet Spiess, Philippe E.
Zitu, Md Muntasir
Walker, Alison
Anaya, Daniel A.
Wenham, Robert M.
Vogelbaum, Michael
Grass, Daniel
Jaffer, Ali-Musa
Sarnaik, Amod
McMullen, Caitlin
Sam, Christine
Kiluk, John V.
Liu, Tianshi
Biachi, Tiago
Powsang, Julio
Chern, Jing-Yi
Li, Roger
Felder, Seth
Reynolds, Samuel
Shafique, Michael
Sheehan, Alison
Layman, Ashley
Warfield, Cydney A.
Legoas, Derrick
Parrinello, Jaclyn
Schmitz, Jena
Eaton, Kevin
Honor, Mark
Felipe, Luis
ElNaqa, Issam
Delgado, Elier
Berler, Talia
Phillips, Rachael V.
Francisque, Frantz
Fernandez, Carlos Garcia
Valdes, Gilmer
contents Background: More than 80% of U.S. cancer care is delivered in community settings, where survival remains worse than at academic centers. Clinicians must integrate genomics, staging, radiology, pathology, and changing guidelines, creating cognitive burden. We evaluated OncoBrain, an AI clinical reasoning platform for oncology treatment-plan generation, as an early step toward OGI. Methods: OncoBrain combines general-purpose LLMs with a cancer-specific graph retrieval-augmented generation layer, a gold-standard treatment-plan corpus as long-term memory, and a model-agnostic safety layer (CHECK) for hallucination detection and suppression. We evaluated clinician-enriched case summaries across gynecologic, genitourinary, neuro-oncology, gastrointestinal/hepatobiliary, and hematologic malignancies. Three clinician groups completed structured evaluations of 173 cases using a common 16-item instrument: subspecialist oncologists reviewed 50 cases, physician reviewers 78, and advanced practice providers 45. Results: Ratings were highest for scientific accuracy, evidence support, and safety, with lower but favorable scores for workflow integration and time savings. On a 5-point scale, mean alignment with evidence and guidelines was 4.60, 4.56, and 4.70 across subspecialists, physician reviewers, and advanced practice providers. Mean scores for absence of safety or misinformation concerns were 4.80, 4.40, and 4.60. Workflow integration averaged 4.50, 3.94, and 4.00; perceived time savings averaged 5.00, 3.89, and 3.60. Conclusions: In this multi-specialty vignette-based evaluation, OncoBrain generated oncology treatment plans judged guideline-concordant, clinically acceptable, and easy to supervise. These findings support the potential of a carefully engineered AI reasoning platform to assist oncology treatment planning and justify prospective real-world evaluation in community settings.
format Preprint
id arxiv_https___arxiv_org_abs_2604_20869
institution arXiv
publishDate 2026
record_format arxiv
spellingShingle Clinical Reasoning AI for Oncology Treatment Planning: A Multi-Specialty Case-Based Evaluation
Spiess, Philippe E.
Zitu, Md Muntasir
Walker, Alison
Anaya, Daniel A.
Wenham, Robert M.
Vogelbaum, Michael
Grass, Daniel
Jaffer, Ali-Musa
Sarnaik, Amod
McMullen, Caitlin
Sam, Christine
Kiluk, John V.
Liu, Tianshi
Biachi, Tiago
Powsang, Julio
Chern, Jing-Yi
Li, Roger
Felder, Seth
Reynolds, Samuel
Shafique, Michael
Sheehan, Alison
Layman, Ashley
Warfield, Cydney A.
Legoas, Derrick
Parrinello, Jaclyn
Schmitz, Jena
Eaton, Kevin
Honor, Mark
Felipe, Luis
ElNaqa, Issam
Delgado, Elier
Berler, Talia
Phillips, Rachael V.
Francisque, Frantz
Fernandez, Carlos Garcia
Valdes, Gilmer
Computers and Society
Artificial Intelligence
Human-Computer Interaction
Information Retrieval
Machine Learning
Background: More than 80% of U.S. cancer care is delivered in community settings, where survival remains worse than at academic centers. Clinicians must integrate genomics, staging, radiology, pathology, and changing guidelines, creating cognitive burden. We evaluated OncoBrain, an AI clinical reasoning platform for oncology treatment-plan generation, as an early step toward OGI. Methods: OncoBrain combines general-purpose LLMs with a cancer-specific graph retrieval-augmented generation layer, a gold-standard treatment-plan corpus as long-term memory, and a model-agnostic safety layer (CHECK) for hallucination detection and suppression. We evaluated clinician-enriched case summaries across gynecologic, genitourinary, neuro-oncology, gastrointestinal/hepatobiliary, and hematologic malignancies. Three clinician groups completed structured evaluations of 173 cases using a common 16-item instrument: subspecialist oncologists reviewed 50 cases, physician reviewers 78, and advanced practice providers 45. Results: Ratings were highest for scientific accuracy, evidence support, and safety, with lower but favorable scores for workflow integration and time savings. On a 5-point scale, mean alignment with evidence and guidelines was 4.60, 4.56, and 4.70 across subspecialists, physician reviewers, and advanced practice providers. Mean scores for absence of safety or misinformation concerns were 4.80, 4.40, and 4.60. Workflow integration averaged 4.50, 3.94, and 4.00; perceived time savings averaged 5.00, 3.89, and 3.60. Conclusions: In this multi-specialty vignette-based evaluation, OncoBrain generated oncology treatment plans judged guideline-concordant, clinically acceptable, and easy to supervise. These findings support the potential of a carefully engineered AI reasoning platform to assist oncology treatment planning and justify prospective real-world evaluation in community settings.
title Clinical Reasoning AI for Oncology Treatment Planning: A Multi-Specialty Case-Based Evaluation
topic Computers and Society
Artificial Intelligence
Human-Computer Interaction
Information Retrieval
Machine Learning
url https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.20869