Papers for
oncology clinical teams
Papers whose findings have a practical use for this group, as judged from the abstract. Open a paper to read what it means in practice.
Reinforcement learning improves colon cancer treatment planning accuracy
Reinforcement Learning In Partially Verifiable Environments for Colon Cancer Treatment Planning
Abstract: Clinical decision-making is a sequential process of information collection, clinical inference, and forecasting under partial observability, often without a uniquely correct treatment decision. Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated strong medical question-answering capabilities but extending these advances to clinical reasoning remains challenging because many clinical tasks are only partially verifiable. Recent clinical reinforcement learning (RL) work has therefore largely focused on diagnostic endpoints, where correctness can be more directly verified. Oncology treatment decision making is a particularly challenging instance of this problem that extends beyond medical question-answering in which multiple decision trajectories can be clinically defensible for the same partially observed patient state. We formulate oncology treatment planning as an interactive RL problem under partial observability and construct patient-specific, process-aware rewards from decision processes observed in real world clinical records. The agent must learn to sequentially acquire information from a structured patient representation before committing to a first-line treatment recommendation, and is evaluated on information gathering, treatment selection, and reasoning alignment. Using GRPO and GDPO to optimize Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct within this environment, RL substantially improves the base policy beyond frontier model capabilities. The GDPO-trained policy increases Mean@3 scalar clinical reward by $79.60\%$ over base Llama and exceeds GPT-5.2 by $18.82\%$ under the same interactive environment, while reducing query count during training. Overall, our results show that patient-specific, partially verifiable rewards can provide an effective learning signal for interactive clinical RL when both the patient state and the underlying clinical decision process are only partially observed.
Llms improve molecular tumor board safety by reducing over-refusal errors
OpenMTB-Audit: Exposing Over-Refusal and Clinical Expert Perspectives in LLM-Based Molecular Tumor Board Safety Evaluation
Abstract: Molecular tumor boards integrate genomic findings, clinical context, and therapeutic evidence to support precision oncology. As AI enters this workflow, a key safety challenge is distinguishing truly unsupported recommendations from evidence-supported options that still require oncologist review because of incomplete information, poor ECOG performance status, or other clinical caveats. We introduce OpenMTB-Audit, an open-source benchmark of 500 synthetic non-small cell lung cancer cases spanning five adversarial error categories and four safety labels: Supported, Partially Supported, Unsupported, and Insufficient Information. Across eight large language model configurations, we identify pervasive over-refusal: all LLM configurations failed to retain the Partially Supported label in 83.3-100% of true Partially Supported cases, achieving high aggregate safety scores through label collapse rather than clinically calibrated reasoning. To address this limitation, we developed MTB-AuditAgent, a deterministic seven-module framework separating evidence verification, missing-information detection, safety classification, and abstention. It reduces over-refusal to 6.7% and achieves 91.2% accuracy (95% CI: 88.6-93.6%). A two-oncologist annotation study found disagreement concentrated at the boundary between information sufficiency and treatment optimization, underscoring the need to preserve clinically meaningful distinctions.