Walsh, Thomas

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.

Introduction Artificial Intelligence (AI) is an emerging technology that promises advancements across blood cancer discovery and care delivery. There are already FDA-approved uses of AI in hematology and oncology but few data available about its use or utility. Concerns have been raised over AI's potential biases, “explainability,” and who is responsible for its use. Oncologists' familiarity with AI and perspectives on these issues are not well known and are critical to understanding the ethical deployment of AI in blood cancer care. Methods From January to July 2023, we performed a national cross-sectional survey of practicing oncologists. A draft survey instrument was developed by a team with content and methodological expertise. Iterative refinement occurred through cognitive debriefing with 5 practicing hematologist/oncologists. The final instrument included 24 questions covering domains of AI familiarity, predictions, explainability, and responsibilities. A random sample of US oncologists was identified using the National Plan & Provider Enumeration System. Paper surveys were mailed with $25 incentivizing gift cards. Reminder letters and phone calls were used for non-responders with an electronic survey option provided. Responses were analyzed descriptively. X2 testing assessed bivariate associations between responses and participant practice setting, with odds ratios (OR) reported. Results Of 399 mailed surveys, 12 were undeliverable and 201 were completed for a response rate of 51.9%. Question missingness was <1%. Participants were 63.2% White, 16.9% Indian Asian, 10.0% Eastern Asian or Pacific Islander, and 4.5% Black; 6.0% were Hispanic. They represented 37 states. The majority were male (63.7%), 40-59 years old (54.2%), and had no specific training in AI (52.2%); 68.2% had at least 11 years in practice and 29.9% practiced at a primary academic hospital. Questions assessing overall familiarity with and predictions related to AI are shown in Table 1. Those at primary academic hospitals were more likely to be familiar with radiology models (OR 2.82, p<0.001) but not pathology, prognostic, or clinical decision models (all p>0.05). They were more likely to predict that AI would improve side effect management (OR 2.01, p=0.03) and end-of-life decision making (OR 2.07, p=0.02). High proportions of respondents thought that AI prognostic (67.1%) and clinical decision models (62.1%) needed to be explainable by clinicians and researchers to be used in clinic. When posed with a scenario where an FDA-approved AI model selects a different regimen than the oncologist planned to propose (Figure 1), the largest proportion reported they would present both options and let the patient decide (37.3%). Of those recommending a regimen, respondents from primary academic hospitals more frequently recommend the AI-generated regimen (56.1%), while respondents from elsewhere recommended their original regimen (69.0%; OR 2.85, p=0.007). Acceptability of some direct-to-patient AI model applications is shown in Table 1. A majority of respondents (90.5%) thought that AI developers should be responsible for medico-legal problems caused by AI use; 47.8% thought that physicians using the tool should be responsible. Though most (76.1%) agreed that it was oncologists' responsibility to protect patients from biased AI tools, few (27.3%) were confident in their ability to identify how representative the data used in an AI model was relative to the population with that cancer (including 66.7% of those who agreed it was oncologists' responsibility). More respondents thought that patients should need to consent to the use of AI tools in cancer treatment decisions (81.1%) than cancer diagnosis (55.7%); those from primary academic hospitals were less likely to respond that patients should consent for treatment or diagnosis (OR 0.43, p=0.02 and OR 0.44, p=0.009). Conclusions In this national survey of oncologists' views on AI, there was optimism about its impact on care with notable caveats related to end-of-life care, patient trust, and care disparities. Despite many approving use of AI models too complex for patients to explain, a substantial proportion deferred to patient choice when AI and physician recommendations differed. There was also dissonance between accepting responsibility to protect patients from bias and respondents' self-perceived ability to do so.

Objectives: To assess the feasibility and efficacy of implementing “Family Care Rituals” as a means of engaging family members in the care of patients admitted to the ICU with a high risk of ICU mortality on outcomes including stress-related symptoms in family members. Design: Prospective, before-and-after intervention evaluation. Setting: Two U.S. academic medical ICU’s, and one Italian academic medical/surgical ICU. Subjects: Family members of patients who had an attending predicted ICU mortality of greater than 30% within the first 24 hours of admission. Interventions: A novel intervention titled “Family Care Rituals” during which, following a baseline observation period, family members enrolled in the intervention phase were given an informational booklet outlining opportunities for engagement in care of the patient during their ICU stay. Measurements and Main Results: Primary outcome was symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder in family members 90 days after patient death or ICU discharge. Secondary outcomes included symptoms of depression, anxiety, and family satisfaction. At 90-day follow-up, 131 of 226 family members (58.0%) responded preintervention and 129 of 226 family members (57.1%) responded postintervention. Symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder were significantly higher preintervention than postintervention (39.2% vs 27.1%; unadjusted odds ratio, 0.58; p = 0.046). There was no significant difference in symptoms of depression (26.5% vs 25.2%; unadjusted odds ratio, 0.93; p = 0.818), anxiety (41.0% vs 45.5%; unadjusted odds ratio, 1.20; p = 0.234), or mean satisfaction scores (85.1 vs 89.0; unadjusted odds ratio, 3.85; p = 0.052) preintervention versus postintervention 90 days after patient death or ICU discharge. Conclusions: Offering opportunities such as family care rituals for family members to be involved with providing care for family members in the ICU was associated with reduced symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder. This intervention may lessen the burden of stress-related symptoms in family members of ICU patients.