?Background
Effective communication is a core component of oncology care, as it shapes patients’ understanding of diagnosis, treatment options, risks, and expected outcomes. In recent years, cancer care has increasingly been affected by pseudoscientific narratives, including the promotion of unproven alternative therapies and misleading claims about “natural” or non-conventional cancer cures. The widespread circulation of such content, amplified by digital media and social networks, poses ethical challenges for clinicians, researchers, and public institutions, particularly when vulnerable patients are exposed to information that may undermine trust in evidence-based oncology and delay or discourage appropriate treatment.

Objectives
These abstract aims to explore the ethical dimensions of communicating cancer treatments in contexts characterized by misinformation and pseudoscience. Specifically, it seeks to: (i) identify key ethical challenges arising from pseudoscientific narratives in oncology; (ii) examine their potential impact on patients’ trust and treatment-related decision-making; and (iii) outline core principles for ethically sound communication of cancer treatments that support informed and shared decision-making in oncology care.

Methods
The contribution is based on a qualitative analysis of selected scientific literature on health misinformation, ethics of medical communication, and oncology, complemented by illustrative examples of pseudoscientific treatment narratives observed in public and digital discourse. The analysis adopts an ethical and public health perspective, focusing on communication practices and institutional responsibilities rather than on the clinical evaluation of specific therapies.

Results
The analysis suggests that pseudoscientific communication in oncology often exploits patients’ emotional vulnerability, oversimplifies scientific uncertainty, and frames evidence-based treatments as ineffective, harmful, or driven by commercial interests. These narratives may contribute to confusion, delayed initiation of appropriate therapies, or refusal of standard treatments. At the same time, shortcomings in institutional and clinical communication, such as lack of clarity, limited transparency, or insufficient engagement with patients’ values and concerns, can unintentionally increase the appeal of pseudoscience and weaken trust in oncology care.

Conclusions
Addressing pseudoscience in oncology requires communication strategies grounded in ethical principles, combining scientific accuracy with transparency, empathy, and respect for patient autonomy. Clear and responsible communication of cancer treatments is essential to counter misinformation, strengthen public trust, and support evidence-based cancer prevention and control. Integrating ethical communication into oncology practice and policy represents a key step in translating cancer research into meaningful and trustworthy public health action.