Artificial intelligence is becoming increasingly visible across oncology services, from diagnostics and treatment planning to administrative workflows. As these technologies move closer to routine clinical use, patient perspectives are gaining relevance for healthcare leaders responsible for implementation, governance and communication. Evidence from an Italian comprehensive cancer centre offers insight into how people living with cancer perceive artificial intelligence, data protection and clinical responsibility. The findings reflect a population that is broadly aware of artificial intelligence and its potential role in medicine, yet cautious about how it may alter human relationships and professional judgement. Understanding these views is essential for decision-makers seeking to align innovation with patient trust, regulatory expectations and ethical practice in cancer care.
Awareness of Artificial Intelligence and Willingness to Share Data
Most respondents reported familiarity with artificial intelligence, with a substantial proportion able to define it and recognising its use in medical contexts. Awareness was not uniform across the population. Younger participants and those with higher educational attainment or stronger English proficiency showed greater exposure to and use of artificial intelligence in everyday or professional settings. Despite this variation, overall awareness of artificial intelligence in healthcare was high.
Attitudes towards data protection revealed a pragmatic stance. Almost all participants were aware of European data protection regulation, although engagement with consent documentation varied. While some respondents admitted to signing or skimming information without detailed review, a majority considered institutional consent procedures to be adequately structured or felt unable to judge them. Importantly, most participants expressed willingness to allow their health data to be used for future research aimed at improving cancer care. Support for data sharing with other centres was also strong, particularly when linked to potential advances in oncology. Resistance to any form of data sharing was rare, indicating that perceived benefits for care often outweighed abstract privacy concerns.
Concerns About Human Contact and Clinical Judgement
Alongside openness to innovation, respondents articulated clear reservations. The most prominent concern related to the potential reduction in human interaction between patients and healthcare professionals. Many feared that increased reliance on artificial intelligence could diminish time spent with clinicians or weaken the therapeutic relationship. Concerns were also raised about the possibility that excessive dependence on automated systems might erode physicians’ clinical judgement.
Must Read: National Cervical Screening Programme Prevented 5,557 Cancers
Overall levels of anxiety about artificial intelligence varied. While a majority reported little or no concern, a notable minority expressed moderate to high levels of worry. Familiarity with artificial intelligence appeared to mitigate apprehension, with those who had prior experience reporting lower levels of concern. Differences also emerged across demographic groups, with older participants and those with lower educational levels or limited English proficiency more likely to report discomfort and scepticism. These patterns suggest that digital literacy and prior exposure shape not only knowledge but also emotional responses to technological change.
Acceptability of Artificial Intelligence Under Physician Oversight
Acceptance of artificial intelligence was strongly conditional. Most respondents supported its use when it contributed to better medical decisions, but only when physicians retained final authority. Retaining professional oversight emerged as a central requirement for reassurance, alongside preservation of direct doctor–patient interaction. Few participants endorsed models in which artificial intelligence would operate independently of clinicians.
Preferences regarding responsibility were equally clear. Most respondents believed that clinicians should remain fully responsible for decisions informed by artificial intelligence, while a smaller group supported shared responsibility. Support was strongest for applications perceived as supportive rather than substitutive, such as administrative management, optimisation of care pathways and diagnostic assistance. More complex or autonomous roles for artificial intelligence, including personalised treatment planning, attracted more cautious or uncertain responses. These views underline a desire to see artificial intelligence as an enabling tool rather than a replacement for professional expertise.
Cancer patients demonstrated a balanced view of artificial intelligence, combining awareness and openness with defined boundaries. Willingness to share data and support innovation was tempered by concern for human contact, clinical judgement and accountability. For healthcare professionals and decision-makers, these findings emphasise the importance of transparency, education and clear communication. Strategies that reinforce physician oversight, explain how artificial intelligence is used and address differences in digital literacy are likely to be central to sustainable adoption. Aligning technological progress with patient trust remains a critical task as artificial intelligence becomes more deeply embedded in oncology care.
Source: International Journal of Medical Informatics
Image Credit: iStock
