Evaluation of Artificial Intelligence as a Decision-Support Tool in Urological Tumor Boards: A Study in Real Clinical Practice
Open accessAbstract
Background/Objectives: Artificial intelligence (AI) tools, particularly large language models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT-4o, are gaining prominence in medicine. While their diagnostic capabilities have been explored across various oncologic domains, their role in clinical decision-making within multidisciplinary tumor boards (MTBs) remains largely unexamined in urologic oncology. This study evaluates the performance of ChatGPT-4o as a decision-support tool in a real-world MTB setting by comparing its recommendations with those of expert clinicians. Materials and Methods: A retrospective study was conducted using 98 anonymized clinical cases discussed by a urologic MTB between June 2024 and February 2025. An independent urologist entered the same cases into ChatGPT-4o using a standardized prompt replicating real-world presentation. Two certified urologists independently assessed the model’s responses. Agreement was analyzed overall and by tumor type, disease stage, clinical context, and treatment strategy. Results: ChatGPT-4o fully agreed with the MTB in 56.1% of cases, was correct but incomplete in 23.5%, and provided partially accurate but flawed recommendations in 18.4%. Overall concordance between ChatGPT-4o and the MTB yielded a Cohen’s kappa of 0.61, indicating moderate-to-good agreement. Discrepancies were most common in metastatic prostate cancer, often due to misclassification of tumor burden or errors in treatment sequencing. Highest agreement rates were observed in bladder and renal tumors, and in standardized therapeutic scenarios such as radiotherapy. Conclusions: ChatGPT-4o demonstrated moderate alignment with expert MTB decisions and performed best in well-defined clinical contexts. While it cannot replace multidisciplinary expertise, it may serve as a supportive tool to enhance access to standardized oncologic care.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
De la Torre-Trillo et al. reported a kappa of 0.61 in urologic oncology.
“In urologic oncology, De la Torre-Trillo et al. reported a kappa of 0.61 [22]”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Survey of Hallucination in Natural Language Generation
Ji, Z., Lee, N., Frieske, R., Yu, T., Su, D., Xu, Y., Ishii, E., Bang, Y. J., Madotto, A., & Fung, P. (2023) · ACM Computing Surveys · doi:10.1145/3571730 · Cited by 5,025 · cited 1× · see citing works
“These concerns underscore the necessity of systematic, case-based validation studies before considering integration into real-world clinical workflows [5,6].”
Benefits, Limits, and Risks of GPT-4 as an AI Chatbot for Medicine
Lee, P., Bubeck, S., & Petro, J. (2023) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmsr2214184 · Cited by 1,738 · see citing works
A framework to assess clinical safety and hallucination rates of LLMs for medical text summarisation
Asgari, E., Montaña-Brown, N., Dubois, M., Khalil, S., Balloch, J., Yeung, J. A., & Pimenta, D. (2025) · npj Digital Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41746-025-01670-7 · Cited by 423 · see citing works
The clinicians’ guide to large language models: a general perspective with a focus on hallucinations
Roustan, D., & Bastardot, F. (2025) · Interactive Journal of Medical Research · doi:10.2196/59823 · Cited by 191 · see citing works
Lukac, S., Dayan, D., Fink, V., Leinert, E., Hartkopf, A., Veselinovic, K., Janni, W., Rack, B., Pfister, K., Heitmeir, B., et al. (2023) · Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics · doi:10.1007/s00404-023-07130-5 · Cited by 130 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Lukac et al. found total agreement rates of 61.4% in primary breast cancer, decreasing to 48% in advanced cases [25], figures very similar to our localized and metastatic prostate subgroups.”
Influential
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 27
- [2]Cascella M. Montomoli J. Bellini V. Bignami E. Evaluating the Feasibility of ChatGPT in Healthcare: An Analysis of Multiple Clinical and Research Scenarios J. Med. Syst. 2023 47 33 10.1007/s10916-023-01925-4 36869927 PMC9985086 · DOI · Paper page
- [3]LeCun Y. Bengio Y. Hinton G. Deep Learning Nature 2015 521 436 444 10.1038/nature14539 26017442 · DOI · Paper page
- [4]Xu L. Sanders L. Li K. Chow J.C.L. Chatbot for Health Care and Oncology Applications Using Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning: Systematic Review JMIR Cancer 2021 7 e27850 10.2196/27850 34847056 PMC8669585 · DOI · Paper page
- [6]Rudin C. Stop Explaining Black Box Machine Learning Models for High Stakes Decisions and Use Interpretable Models Instead Nat. Mach. Intell. 2019 1 206 215 10.1038/s42256-019-0048-x 35603010 PMC9122117 · DOI · Paper page
- [7]Berardi R. Morgese F. Rinaldi S. Torniai M. Mentrasti G. Scortichini L. Giampieri R. Benefits and Limitations of a Multidisciplinary Approach in Cancer Patient Management Cancer Manag. Res. 2020 12 9363 9374 10.2147/CMAR.S220976 33061625 PMC7533227 · DOI
- [8]Brandão M. Guisseve A. Bata G. Firmino-Machado J. Alberto M. Ferro J. Garcia C. Zaqueu C. Jamisse A. Lorenzoni C. Survival Impact and Cost-Effectiveness of a Multidisciplinary Tumor Board for Breast Cancer in Mozambique, Sub-Saharan Africa Oncologist 2021 26 e996 e1008 10.1002/onco.13643 33325595 PMC8176970 · DOI
- [9]Ammo T. Guillaume V.G.J. Hofmann U.K. Ulmer N.M. Buenting N. Laenger F. Beier J.P. Leypold T. Evaluating ChatGPT-4o as a Decision Support Tool in Multidisciplinary Sarcoma Tumor Boards: Heterogeneous Performance across Various Specialties Front. Oncol. 2024 14 1526288 10.3389/fonc.2024.1526288 39896191 PMC11782276 · DOI
- [10]Aghamaliyev U. Karimbayli J. Giessen-Jung C. Ilmer M. Unger K. Andrade D. Hofmann F.O. Weniger M. Angele M.K. Benedikt Westphalen C. ChatGPT’s Gastrointestinal Tumor Board Tango: A Limping Dance Partner? Eur. J. Cancer 2024 205 114100 10.1016/j.ejca.2024.114100 38729055 · DOI
- [11]Schmidl B. Hütten T. Pigorsch S. Stögbauer F. Hoch C.C. Hussain T. Wollenberg B. Wirth M. Assessing the Use of the Novel Tool Claude 3 in Comparison to ChatGPT 4.0 as an Artificial Intelligence Tool in the Diagnosis and Therapy of Primary Head and Neck Cancer Cases Eur. Arch. Otorhinolaryngol. 2024 281 6099 6109 10.1007/s00405-024-08828-1 39112556 PMC11512878 · DOI
- [12]Hamamoto R. Koyama T. Kouno N. Yasuda T. Yui S. Sudo K. Hirata M. Sunami K. Kubo T. Takasawa K. Introducing AI to the Molecular Tumor Board: One Direction toward the Establishment of Precision Medicine Using Large-Scale Cancer Clinical and Biological Information Exp. Hematol. Oncol. 2022 11 82 10.1186/s40164-022-00333-7 36316731 PMC9620610 · DOI
- [13]Sorin V. Klang E. Sklair-Levy M. Cohen I. Zippel D.B. Balint Lahat N. Konen E. Barash Y. Large Language Model (ChatGPT) as a Support Tool for Breast Tumor Board npj Breast Cancer 2023 9 44 10.1038/s41523-023-00557-8 37253791 PMC10229606 · DOI
- [14]Park Y.-E. Chae H. The Fidelity of Artificial Intelligence to Multidisciplinary Tumor Board Recommendations for Patients with Gastric Cancer: A Retrospective Study J. Gastrointest. Cancer 2024 55 365 372 10.1007/s12029-023-00967-8 37702851 PMC11096204 · DOI
- [15]Sweeney C.J. Chen Y.-H. Carducci M. Liu G. Jarrard D.F. Eisenberger M. Wong Y.-N. Hahn N. Kohli M. Cooney M.M. Chemohormonal Therapy in Metastatic Hormone-Sensitive Prostate Cancer N. Engl. J. Med. 2015 373 737 746 10.1056/NEJMoa1503747 26244877 PMC4562797 · DOI
- [16]Eskandar K. Artificial Intelligence in Urology: Revolutionizing Diagnostics and Treatment Planning Arab J. Urol. 2024 23 341 347 10.1080/20905998.2024.2443334 41050390 PMC12493613 · DOI
- [17]Talyshinskii A. Naik N. Hameed B.M.Z. Juliebø-Jones P. Somani B.K. Potential of AI-Driven Chatbots in Urology: Revolutionizing Patient Care Through Artificial Intelligence Curr. Urol. Rep. 2024 25 9 18 10.1007/s11934-023-01184-3 37723300 PMC10787686 · DOI
- [18]Karabuğa B. Karaçin C. Büyükkör M. Bayram D. Aydemir E. Kaya O.B. Yılmaz M.E. Çamöz E.S. Ergün Y. The Role of Artificial Intelligence (ChatGPT-4o) in Supporting Tumor Board Decisions J. Clin. Med. 2025 14 3535 10.3390/jcm14103535 40429531 PMC12112035 · DOI · Paper page
- [19]Erdat E.C. Yalçıner M. Örüncü M.B. Ürün Y. Şenler F.Ç. Assessing the Accuracy of the GPT-4 Model in Multidisciplinary Tumor Board Decision Prediction Clin. Transl. Oncol. 2025 27 3793 3802 10.1007/s12094-025-03905-1 40133589 PMC12399707 · DOI
- [20]Dogan I. Bartin M.K. Sonmez E. Seyran E. Bozkurt H.A. Yuksek M. Serbes E.D. Zalova G. Celik S. Chat GPT Performance in Multi-Disciplinary Boards—Should AI Be a Member of Cancer Boards? Healthcare 2025 13 2254 10.3390/healthcare13182254 41008386 PMC12469382 · DOI · Paper page
- [21]Alami K. Willemse E. Quiriny M. Lipski S. Laurent C. Donquier V. Digonnet A. Evaluation of ChatGPT-4’s Performance in Therapeutic Decision-Making During Multidisciplinary Oncology Meetings for Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma Cureus 2024 16 e68808 10.7759/cureus.68808 39376890 PMC11456411 · DOI
- [22]Zabaleta J. Aguinagalde B. Lopez I. Fernandez-Monge A. Lizarbe J.A. Mainer M. Ferrer-Bonsoms J.A. De Assas M. Utility of Artificial Intelligence for Decision Making in Thoracic Multidisciplinary Tumor Boards J. Clin. Med. 2025 14 399 10.3390/jcm14020399 39860405 PMC11765867 · DOI
- [26]Vela Ulloa J. King Valenzuela S. Riquoir Altamirano C. Urrejola Schmied G. Artificial Intelligence-Based Decision-Making: Can ChatGPT Replace a Multidisciplinary Tumour Board? Br. J. Surg. 2023 110 1543 1544 10.1093/bjs/znad264 37595064 · DOI
- [27]Schmidl B. Hütten T. Pigorsch S. Stögbauer F. Hoch C.C. Hussain T. Wollenberg B. Wirth M. Assessing the Role of Advanced Artificial Intelligence as a Tool in Multidisciplinary Tumor Board Decision-Making for Recurrent/Metastatic Head and Neck Cancer Cases—The First Study on ChatGPT 4o and a Comparison to ChatGPT 4.0 Front. Oncol. 2024 14 1455413 10.3389/fonc.2024.1455413 39301542 PMC11410764 · DOI
- [28]Griewing S. Gremke N. Wagner U. Lingenfelder M. Kuhn S. Boekhoff J. Challenging ChatGPT 3.5 in Senology-An Assessment of Concordance with Breast Cancer Tumor Board Decision Making J. Pers. Med. 2023 13 1502 10.3390/jpm13101502 37888113 PMC10608120 · DOI
- [29]Guidotti R. Monreale A. Ruggieri S. Turini F. Giannotti F. Pedreschi D. A Survey of Methods for Explaining Black Box Models ACM Comput. Surv. 2018 51 93 10.1145/3236009 · DOI · Paper page
- [30]Gallistl V. Banday M.U.L. Berridge C. Grigorovich A. Jarke J. Mannheim I. Marshall B. Martin W. Moreira T. Van Leersum C.M. Addressing the Black Box of AI—A Model and Research Agenda on the Co-Constitution of Aging and Artificial Intelligence Gerontologist 2024 64 gnae039 10.1093/geront/gnae039 38700416 PMC11134299 · DOI
- [31]Taylor C. Munro A.J. Glynne-Jones R. Griffith C. Trevatt P. Richards M. Ramirez A.J. Multidisciplinary Team Working in Cancer: What Is the Evidence? BMJ 2010 340 c951 10.1136/bmj.c951 20332315 · DOI · Paper page
- [32]Specchia M.L. Frisicale E.M. Carini E. Di Pilla A. Cappa D. Barbara A. Ricciardi W. Damiani G. The Impact of Tumor Board on Cancer Care: Evidence from an Umbrella Review BMC Health Serv. Res. 2020 20 73 10.1186/s12913-020-4930-3 32005232 PMC6995197 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Asoglu, H., Kose, S., Kayim, O., Abaci, A., Khatib, G., Vardar, M. A., Kilic Bagir, E., Gumurdulu, D., Kidi, M. M., Bayram, E., et al. (2026) · Journal of Clinical Medicine · doi:10.3390/jcm15124451 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
“In urologic oncology, De la Torre-Trillo et al. reported a kappa of 0.61 [22], and in sarcoma, Dehdab et al. found deficiencies in treatment sequencing and chemotherapy selection despite reasonable overall performance [23].”
Influential
- Authors
- De la Torre-Trillo, J., Yáñez Castillo, Y., Melgarejo Segura, M. T., Carmona Sánchez, E., Zambudio Munuera, A., Mora-Delgado, J., & López Luque, A.
- Affiliations
- Urology Department, Hospital Regional Santa Ana, Av. Enrique Martín Cuevas, s/n, 18600 Motril, Spain
- Grupo URO-MET, Instituto IBS Granada, Avda. de Madrid, 15, 18012 Granada, Spain
- Urology Department, Hospital Universitario San Cecilio, Av. de la Investigación, 18016 Granada, Spain
- Hospital Universitario de Jerez (ES)
- ORCID
- Venue
- Journal of Clinical Medicine
- Publisher
- MDPI AG
- Published
- 2026-03-11
- Volume
- 15
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 2130
- ISSN
- 2077-0383 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC13027246
- OpenAlex
- W7134937899
- Cited by
- 5
- References
- 5
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5
- FWCI
- 9.83
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Journal of Clinical Medicine (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI in cancer detection
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare
- Keywords
- artificial intelligence, large language models, GPT-4o, clinical decision support, multidisciplinary tumor board, urologic oncology, prostate cancer, bladder cancer, renal cell carcinoma, treatment guidelines, tumor burden assessment, treatment sequencing
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review