Oncologist Perspectives on the Ethical Implications of Using AI for Cancer Care

Andrew Hantel,Thomas P. Walsh,Jonathan M. Marron,Kenneth L. Kehl,Richard Sharp,Eliezer Van Allen,Gregory A. Abel

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.4077

2024-03-29

JAMA Network Open

Abstract:Importance Artificial intelligence (AI) tools are rapidly integrating into cancer care. Understanding stakeholder views on ethical issues associated with the implementation of AI in oncology is critical to optimal deployment. Objective To evaluate oncologists' views on the ethical domains of the use of AI in clinical care, including familiarity, predictions, explainability (the ability to explain how a result was determined), bias, deference, and responsibilities. Design, Setting, and Participants This cross-sectional, population-based survey study was conducted from November 15, 2022, to July 31, 2023, among 204 US-based oncologists identified using the National Plan & Provider Enumeration System. Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcome was response to a question asking whether participants agreed or disagreed that patients need to provide informed consent for AI model use during cancer treatment decisions. Results Of 387 surveys, 204 were completed (response rate, 52.7%). Participants represented 37 states, 120 (63.7%) identified as male, 128 (62.7%) as non-Hispanic White, and 60 (29.4%) were from academic practices; 95 (46.6%) had received some education on AI use in health care, and 45.3% (92 of 203) reported familiarity with clinical decision models. Most participants (84.8% [173 of 204]) reported that AI-based clinical decision models needed to be explainable by oncologists to be used in the clinic; 23.0% (47 of 204) stated they also needed to be explainable by patients. Patient consent for AI model use during treatment decisions was supported by 81.4% of participants (166 of 204). When presented with a scenario in which an AI decision model selected a different treatment regimen than the oncologist planned to recommend, the most common response was to present both options and let the patient decide (36.8% [75 of 204]); respondents from academic settings were more likely than those from other settings to let the patient decide (OR, 2.56; 95% CI, 1.19-5.51). Most respondents (90.7% [185 of 204]) reported that AI developers were responsible for the medico-legal problems associated with AI use. Some agreed that this responsibility was shared by physicians (47.1% [96 of 204]) or hospitals (43.1% [88 of 204]). Finally, most respondents (76.5% [156 of 204]) agreed that oncologists should protect patients from biased AI tools, but only 27.9% (57 of 204) were confident in their ability to identify poorly representative AI models. Conclusions and Relevance In this cross-sectional survey study, few oncologists reported that patients needed to understand AI models, but most agreed that patients should consent to their use, and many tasked patients with choosing between physician- and AI-recommended treatment regimens. These findings suggest that the implementation of AI in oncology must include rigorous assessments of its effect on care decisions as well as decisional responsibility when problems related to AI use arise.

medicine, general & internal

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

### Problems the paper attempts to solve

This paper aims to evaluate oncologists' views on ethical issues regarding the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in cancer care. Specifically, the research focuses on the following aspects:

1. **Familiarity**: To understand oncologists' familiarity with AI technology.
2. **Prediction**: Oncologists' predictions of the potential impact of AI in clinical decision - making.
3. **Explanatory ability**: The explanatory ability of AI models, that is, whether oncologists and patients can understand how AI arrives at results.
4. **Bias**: Whether AI models are biased and how oncologists deal with these biases.
5. **Compliance**: The degree of acceptance of AI recommendations by oncologists.
6. **Responsibility**: The attribution of responsibility when problems occur in the clinical application of AI.

### Research background

With the rapid development of AI technology in the medical field, especially in cancer care, ethical issues have gradually become the focus of attention. These issues include the interpretability of AI, patients' informed consent, responsibility allocation, etc. To ensure the rational and ethical use of AI technology, it is crucial to understand oncologists' views.

### Research methods

The study employed a cross - sectional, population - based survey of 204 American oncologists identified from the United States National Plan and Provider Enumeration System. The survey content covered the above six aspects of ethical issues.

### Main findings

1. **Explanatory ability**:
- 84.8% of the respondents believed that AI models need to be interpreted by oncologists before being used clinically.
- 23.0% of the respondents believed that patients also need to be able to understand AI models.

2. **Informed consent**:
- 81.4% of the respondents supported patients providing informed consent when using AI models for treatment decisions.

3. **Responsibility**:
- 90.7% of the respondents believed that AI developers should be responsible for legal issues related to AI use.
- 47.1% of the respondents believed that the responsibility should be shared by doctors, and 43.1% of the respondents believed that hospitals should also bear the responsibility.

4. **Bias**:
- 76.5% of the respondents agreed that oncologists should protect patients from biased AI tools, but only 27.9% of the respondents were confident in their own abilities.

5. **Decision - making**:
- When the treatment plan selected by the AI decision - making model was different from the oncologist's initial recommendation, the most common response was to present both options to the patient and let the patient decide (36.8%).

### Conclusion

This study reveals oncologists' views on AI ethical issues, especially regarding interpretability, informed consent, and responsibility allocation. These findings indicate that the implementation of AI in cancer care requires strict evaluation to ensure its impact on care decisions and the clear allocation of decision - making responsibilities. This helps to overcome ethical barriers and promote the rational and ethical application of AI technology.