Background The field of oncology is at the forefront of advances in artificial intelligence (AI) in health care, providing an opportunity to examine the early integration of these technologies in clinical research and patient care. Hope that AI will revolutionize health care delivery and improve clinical outcomes has been accompanied by concerns about the impact of these technologies on health equity. Objective We aimed to conduct a scoping review of the literature to address the question, “What are the current and potential impacts of AI technologies on health equity in oncology?” Methods Following PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) guidelines for scoping reviews, we systematically searched MEDLINE and Embase electronic databases from January 2000 to August 2021 for records engaging with key concepts of AI, health equity, and oncology. We included all English-language articles that engaged with the 3 key concepts. Articles were analyzed qualitatively for themes pertaining to the influence of AI on health equity in oncology. Results Of the 14,011 records, 133 (0.95%) identified from our review were included. We identified 3 general themes in the literature: the use of AI to reduce health care disparities (58/133, 43.6%), concerns surrounding AI technologies and bias (16/133, 12.1%), and the use of AI to examine biological and social determinants of health (55/133, 41.4%). A total of 3% (4/133) of articles focused on many of these themes. Conclusions Our scoping review revealed 3 main themes on the impact of AI on health equity in oncology, which relate to AI’s ability to help address health disparities, its potential to mitigate or exacerbate bias, and its capability to help elucidate determinants of health. Gaps in the literature included a lack of discussion of ethical challenges with the application of AI technologies in low- and middle-income countries, lack of discussion of problems of bias in AI algorithms, and a lack of justification for the use of AI technologies over traditional statistical methods to address specific research questions in oncology. Our review highlights a need to address these gaps to ensure a more equitable integration of AI in cancer research and clinical practice. The limitations of our study include its exploratory nature, its focus on oncology as opposed to all health care sectors, and its analysis of solely English-language articles.

Introduction: The expanding use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in hematology and oncology research and practice creates an urgent need to consider the potential impact of these technologies on health equity at both local and global levels. Fairness and equity are issues of growing concern in AI ethics, raising problems ranging from bias in datasets and algorithms to disparities in access to technology. The impact of AI on health equity in oncology, however, remains underexplored. We conducted a scoping review to characterize, evaluate, and identify gaps in the existing literature on AI applications in oncology and their implications for health equity in cancer care. Methodology: We performed a systematic literature search of MEDLINE (Ovid) and EMBASE from January 1, 2000 to March 28, 2021 using key terms for AI, health equity, and cancer. Our search was restricted to English language abstracts with no restrictions by publication type. Two reviewers screened a total of 9519 abstracts, and 321 met inclusion criteria for full-text review. 247 were included in the final analysis after assessment by three reviewers. Studies were analysed descriptively, by location, type of cancer and AI application, as well as thematically, based on issues pertaining to health equity in oncology. Results: Of the 247 studies included in our analysis, 150 (60.7%) were based in North America, 57 (23.0%) in Asia, 29 (11.7%) in Europe, 5 (2.1%) in Central/South America, 4 (1.6%) in Oceania, and 2 (0.9%) in Africa. 71 (28.6%) were reviews and commentaries, and 176 were (71.3%) clinical studies. 25 (10.1%) focused on AI applications in screening, 42 (17.0%) in diagnostics, 46 (18.6%) in prognostication, and 7 (2.9%) in treatment. 40 (16.3%) used AI as a tool for clinical/epidemiological research and 87 (35.2%) discussed multiple applications of AI. A diverse range of cancers were represented in the studies, including hematologic malignancies. Our scoping review identified three overarching themes in the literature, which largely focused on how AI might improve health equity in oncology. These included: (1) the potential for AI reduce disparities by improving access to health services in resource-limited settings through applications such as low-cost cancer screening technologies and decision support systems; (2) the ability of AI to mitigate bias in clinical decision-making through algorithms that alert clinicians to potential sources of bias thereby allowing for more equitable and individualized care; (3) the use of AI as a research tool to identify disparities in cancer outcomes based on factors such as race, gender and socioeconomic status, and thus inform health policy. While most of the literature emphasized the positive impact of AI in oncology, there was only limited discussion of AI's potential adverse effects on health equity . Despite engaging with the use of AI in resource-limited settings, ethical issues surrounding data extraction and AI trials in low-resource settings were infrequently raised. Similarly, AI's potential to reinforce bias and widen disparities in cancer care was under-examined despite engagement with related topics of bias in clinical decision-making. Conclusion: The overwhelming majority of the literature identified by our scoping review highlights the benefits of AI applications in oncology, including its potential to improve access to care in low-resource settings, mitigate bias in clinical decision-making, and identify disparities in cancer outcomes. However, AI's potential negative impacts on health equity in oncology remain underexplored: ethical issues arising from deploying AI technologies in low-resources settings, and issues of bias in datasets and algorithms were infrequently discussed in articles dealing with related themes. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.