ArticleJCO clinical cancer informatics2026
Toward Automating the Summarization of Cancer Pathology Reports Using Large Language Models to Improve Clinical Usability.
Article in JCO clinical cancer informatics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeReviewing pathology reports requires physicians to integrate complex histopathologic, immunohistochemical, and molecular findings from multiple reports and institutions, often under time constraints that increase the risk of error and fatigue. Large language models (LLMs) offer a potential solution by generating concise, coherent summaries from complex pathology data.
methodsPatients who underwent initial consultation in a thoracic clinic between January 2019 and July 2023 were included. Original pathology reports and corresponding physician pathology summaries from consultation notes were extracted and anonymized. Six open-source LLMs (Llama 3.0, Llama 3.1, Llama 3.2, Mistral, Gemma, and DeepSeek-R1) generated pathology summaries directly from the original reports. Objective and subjective evaluations were performed using the original reports as the ground truth. LLM-generated summaries were compared with physician summaries for correctness, completeness, and conciseness. Additional subjective assessments with multiple evaluators were conducted for Llama 3.1.
resultsNinety-four cases met the eligibility criteria. Using the original pathology reports as the ground truth, the LLM-generated summaries achieved higher scores across all objective evaluation metrics compared with physician pathology summaries (
conclusionLLM-generated summaries demonstrated better performance in objective metrics and greater completeness in subjective evaluations compared with physician summaries. These results highlight the potential of LLMs as valuable tools for enhancing clinical documentation and workflow efficiency in oncology practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.