# Enhancing Pancreatic Cancer Staging with Large Language Models: The Role of Retrieval-Augmented Generation

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.15664 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.15664/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Medical and biomedical RAG, one of 15 directions in Retrieval-augmented generation.
- Builds on 5 of its 27 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 19 Mar 2025.

## Placed in

- Retrieval-augmented generation / [Medical and biomedical RAG](https://mlsanity.com/rag/medical-and-biomedical-rag/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 5 of 5)

- [Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Knowledge-Intensive NLP Tasks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2005.11401/) (2020)
- [A Survey on Hallucination in Large Language Models: Principles, Taxonomy, Challenges, and Open Questions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.05232/) (2023)
- [Retrieval Augmentation Reduces Hallucination in Conversation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2104.07567/) (2021)
- [Ragas: Automated Evaluation of Retrieval Augmented Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.15217/) (2023)
- [Application of NotebookLM, a Large Language Model with Retrieval-Augmented Generation, for Lung Cancer Staging](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.10869/) (2024)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Purpose: Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) is a technology to enhance the functionality and reliability of large language models (LLMs) by retrieving relevant information from reliable external knowledge (REK). RAG has gained interest in radiology, and we previously reported the utility of NotebookLM, an LLM with RAG (RAG-LLM), for lung cancer staging. However, since the comparator LLM differed from NotebookLM's internal model, it remained unclear whether its advantage stemmed from RAG or inherent model differences. To better isolate RAG's impact and assess its utility across different cancers, we compared NotebookLM with its internal LLM, Gemini 2.0 Flash, in a pancreatic cancer staging experiment. Materials and Methods: A summary of Japan's pancreatic cancer staging guidelines was used as REK. We compared three groups - REK+/RAG+ (NotebookLM with REK), REK+/RAG- (Gemini 2.0 Flash with REK), and REK-/RAG- (Gemini 2.0 Flash without REK) - in staging 100 fictional pancreatic cancer cases based on CT findings. Staging criteria included TNM classification, local invasion factors, and resectability classification. In REK+/RAG+, retrieval accuracy was quantified based on the sufficiency of retrieved REK excerpts. Results: REK+/RAG+ achieved a staging accuracy of 70%, outperforming REK+/RAG- (38%) and REK-/RAG- (35%). For TNM classification, REK+/RAG+ attained 80% accuracy, exceeding REK+/RAG- (55%) and REK-/RAG- (50%). Additionally, REK+/RAG+ explicitly presented retrieved REK excerpts, achieving a retrieval accuracy of 92%. Conclusion: NotebookLM, a RAG-LLM, outperformed its internal LLM, Gemini 2.0 Flash, in a pancreatic cancer staging experiment, suggesting that RAG may improve LLM's staging accuracy. Furthermore, its ability to retrieve and present REK excerpts provides transparency for physicians, highlighting its applicability for clinical diagnosis and classification.