The Intersection of Technology and Psycho-Oncology Care

The intersection of mental health and oncology remains a critical frontier in providing comprehensive patient support, particularly for those currently navigating the complexities of active treatment. At the 2026 American Psychosocial Oncology Society (APOS) Annual Meeting, Jesse Fann, MD, MPH, discussed the findings of the SCOPE (Supporting Collaborative Care to Optimize Psychosocial Engagement in the Cancer Setting) trial. This National Cancer Institute-funded study addressed a vital gap in care: while up to 25% of patients with cancer develop clinical depression, a significant majority do not receive adequate intervention.

The SCOPE trial utilized a pragmatic hybrid effectiveness-implementation design to compare 2 models of Collaborative Care Management (CoCM):

• Usual CoCM (u-CoCM): A population-based, cost-effective system for delivering evidence-based depression care.
• Technology-enhanced CoCM (t-CoCM): This arm integrated a web-based patient app and a clinical registry designed to improve engagement, track patient-reported outcomes (PROs) like the PHQ-9 and GAD-7, and support treatment adherence.

The study enrolled 297 participants receiving active treatment for malignancies, including breast, leukemia, and colorectal cancers, ensuring the data reflected the needs of those currently undergoing chemotherapy, radiation, or other intensive therapies rather than long-term survivors. As Fann prepares for his incoming APOS presidency, these findings highlight the ongoing need for multidisciplinary, evidence-based models that can be successfully integrated into diverse cancer care settings.

Fann is Mark N. Tabbutt Endowed Professor for Education in Brain Health at UW Medicine; professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences and adjunct professor of Rehabilitation Medicine and Epidemiology in the University of Washington School of Medicine; and medical director of Psychiatry and Psychology at Fred Hutch.

CancerNetwork: What was the rationale of the SCOPE study?

Fann: The SCOPE study was an NCI-funded study. The goal was to look at patients with depression and cancer [to see] if there was a way that we could improve their outcomes. We tested the 2 treatment arms. One was usual collaborative care, which is a system of delivering evidence-based care, and the other arm was a technology-enhanced version of collaborative care, where we developed a web-based patient-facing app, as well as a web-based registry that our clinical social workers and psychiatrists could work with to communicate more regularly with our patients, to help deliver evidence-based care through the help of the web-based technology. The unique aspect of the study is that the population was all patients who were receiving active cancer treatment, so these were not long-term survivors. These were all patients who were recently diagnosed and receiving active treatment—chemotherapy, radiation, hormone therapy, targeted therapy, stem cell transplants, et cetera—and over 40% had metastatic cancer as well.

What were the results of the study?

Our findings so far, which we’re still analyzing, are that we have found that people with depression in this population, on average, all got better in terms of their treatment for depression, anxiety, and their quality-of-life outcomes. That’s the good news: that collaborative care was very effective for [patients] in this population with active cancer treatment. We also didn’t find any significant difference in terms of the technology arm vs the usual care arm. Some patients felt like the technology did help them, but overall, the depression, anxiety, and quality-of-life scores did not differ between the groups. We're still looking at whether certain subgroups in our population did benefit more than others. That analysis is still yet to be done. We did survey our patients, and many of them did say that they felt like the technology did help them. Our next goal is to look at the subgroups to see if, for example, [patients] with more advanced cancers or [patients] with less social support, for example, might have benefited more from the technology. More to come on that.

You’ve done extensive work on the intersection of traumatic brain injury, cognition, and oncology. How should an integrated program bridge the gap between psychiatry and neurology, particularly when managing "chemobrain" alongside clinical depression?

The other area that I do research in is traumatic brain injury (TBI), and that population has a significant amount of cognitive impairment, particularly in the more moderate-to-severe population. There are similarities to [patients] with cancer who are getting a high dose of chemotherapy, for example, who have cognitive impairment. What we found, certainly in the TBI population, is that a real multidisciplinary approach is the best approach that involves treating underlying conditions, like depression or anxiety, which are common in both populations, but also taking a behavioral approach and a cognitive rehab approach often helps. Those are just some examples of the need for multidisciplinary care for both populations. A lot of people don’t realize the overlap between these different patient populations and what we can learn from each of them.

What are the key elements needed to successfully integrate psycho-oncology services into a cancer care program?

There are a lot of elements that need to come together. One of the first elements is that cancer centers need to understand the scope of the psychosocial needs that patients have and understand the fact that [patients] who are diagnosed with cancer have needs that often go unmet. These needs—psychological issues, the emotional challenges, the social and spiritual challenges—not only affect their quality of life and their ability to enjoy life on a day-to-day basis, but can significantly affect their ability to get through their cancer treatment. Many [patients] who are suffering from depression or anxiety drop out of treatment.

Number one, the leadership in cancer centers needs to understand the importance of psychosocial care. People are starting to understand the importance of mental health more. There’s still work to be done. We need more providers who are trained and passionate about helping [patients] with cancer and their psychosocial needs. APOS is going to be significant in helping with that. We need to promote cost-effective models of care. We’re never going to have enough providers in every single corner of the US. There are some places that have more providers and some that have no mental health providers or very few. We need models that can be cost-effective. Thank goodness that we have telehealth that can reach more communities, but the care has to be evidence-based. It has to be shown to be effective for [patients] to be able to access. Those are all the things that need to come together. Cancer centers need to be able to implement these strategies. There’s still work to be done.

As you prepare to step into the role of APOS president, what is one thing you are looking to accomplish?

There’s a lot of work yet to be done. The focus of APOS is to help [patients] with cancer who have needs related to their psychological adaptation to the cancer—their emotional state, social issues, and spiritual needs. APOS is focused on helping [patients] get their needs met. APOS is unique in that it’s multidisciplinary. My focus will be to help APOS advance the field of psychosocial oncology by ensuring that [patients] who need psychosocial help get the help that they need. Unfortunately, many [patients] still aren’t getting the help that they need for a number of reasons. There’s still a lot of stigma around mental health. It's getting better, but there’s still a lot of work to be done in that area.

A lot of [patients] who are getting treated for cancer don’t have access to the psychosocial care that they need. There just simply aren’t enough providers around to help. APOS is growing. It’s nearly 1000 members now, which is wonderful, but if you think about all the [patients] who have psychosocial needs, it’s a drop in the bucket. We need to find better ways to make sure that people have access to psychosocial care, and that means that we need to continue to do research. APOS needs to help advocate and promote research in this area, ranging from health services research all the way to more basic research, to look at ways that we can help [patients] with their needs. Then we need to be involved with educating mental health providers who are interested in helping this population but didn’t get the training to understand all the needs that the [patients] have.

APOS is positioned to be at the forefront of education in this field. That’s going to be a primary focus of my presidency. As a researcher, I’m going to do everything that I can to help promote and help develop our early career [by] training trainees who are coming up to get interested in this field to get the education that they need and the opportunities to [conduct] research in this area. It’s just so important. I’m very excited about the prospects coming up. As you can see from this meeting, it keeps growing, and it's a wonderful organization to be part of.

Reference

Fann J, Lostutter T, Bates N, et al. Using technology to optimize collaborative care management of depression in urban and rural cancer centers: the Scope study. Presented at the 2026 American Psychosocial Oncology Society Annual Meeting; New Orleans, LA; March 18-20, 2026. Poster 39.