Cited by 38Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationEthics and Social Impacts of AIDigitalization, Law, and Regulation

Artificial Intelligence and Decision-Making in Oncology: A Review of Ethical, Legal, and Informed Consent Challenges

Open access
Froicu, Eliza-Maria, Creangă-Murariu, Ioana, Afrăsânie, Vlad-Adrian, Gafton, Bogdan, Alexa-Stratulat, Teodora, Miron, Lucian, Pușcașu, Diana Maria, Poroch, Vladimir +3 more·2025·Current Oncology Reports

Abstract

Purpose of Review: Artificial Intelligence (AI) integration in oncology is transforming therapeutic decision-making by providing clinical decision support. AI may improve treatment precision, but it raises ethical, legal, and informed consent issues. This review examines these paramount AI implementation issues in cancer care. This systematic review followed the PRISMA 2020 guidelines and was prospectively registered in the PROSPERO (CRD420251046482) database. A comprehensive literature search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane CENTRAL Library to identify studies published between January 2015 and May 2025. AI-supported oncology therapeutic decision-making studies with ethical, legal, or informed consent implications were eligible. Recent Findings: Fifteen studies met the inclusion criteria. AI applications were found to support treatment recommendations, personalize drug dosing, and improve adherence and patient management. Despite these benefits, the review highlighted key concerns, including algorithmic transparency, unclear accountability in AI-guided decisions, data privacy, and gaps in patient understanding of AI’s role in their care. Summary: AI has the potential to enhance oncological care, but ethical and legal issues must be addressed for safe and equitable implementation. Emphasis should be placed on developing robust informed consent models, mitigating algorithmic bias, and establishing clear legal accountability. Future research must establish ethical frameworks and regulatory mechanisms to protect patient autonomy and responsibly integrate AI into oncology.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s11912-025-01698-8

Cites

35 of 35 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • AI tools may enhance risk stratification by integrating clinical, molecular, and imaging data to generate individualized estimates of recurrence, treatment response, and survival.

    “AI tools may enhance risk stratification by integrating clinical, molecular, and imaging data to generate individualized estimates of recurrence, treatment response, and survival.14”

    From Artificial Intelligence in Oncology: Practical Applications Across Clinical Care, Scholarship, and Translation. (2026) · cites this paper as [14]

    The Discussion (page unavailable) says AI may analyze genomic, imaging, and clinical data to personalize oncology decisions. The Results describe cancer-risk classification, and the Methods table reports mortality prediction. Our copy does not establish that combining those data produces individualized estimates of recurrence, treatment response, and survival as claimed. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Froicu, E.-M., Creangă-Murariu, I., Afrăsânie, V.-A., Gafton, B., Alexa-Stratulat, T., Miron, L., Pușcașu, D. M., Poroch, V., Bacoanu, G., Radu, I., & Marinca, M.-V.
Affiliations
  • Grigore T. Popa University of Medicine and Pharmacy (RO)
  • Semmelweis University (HU)
Corresponding author
Creangă-Murariu, Ioana
Venue
Current Oncology Reports
Published
2025-06-17
Volume
27
Issue
8
Pages
1002-1012
ISSN
  • 1523-3790 (ISSN-L)
  • 1534-6269
OpenAlex
W4411392123
Cited by
38
References
35
Citations by year
2026: 31 · 2025: 7
FWCI
2.25
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Current Oncology Reports (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Social Sciences › Law › Digitalization, Law, and Regulation
Keywords
artificial intelligence in oncology, clinical decision support, treatment decision-making, informed consent, algorithmic transparency, legal accountability, data privacy, algorithmic bias, individualized dosing, medication adherence, patient autonomy, AI ethics, regulatory framework
MeSH terms
Artificial Intelligence, Decision Making, Humans, Informed Consent, Medical Oncology, Neoplasms

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