Uptake of Cascade Genetic Testing for Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

This is a systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating the uptake of cascade genetic testing for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome. Among 30 studies included for meta-analysis, the uptake of cascade genetic testing was 33% (95% CI 25%-42%), with higher uptake rates among females compared with male relatives, and among first-degree compared with second-degree relatives. These findings indicate suboptimal uptake of cascade genetic testing among people at risk for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome, representing a missed opportunity for cancer prevention and early detection. There is a need for interventions to improve uptake rates.

Timely targeted testing for hereditary cancer syndromes - Importance of clinician-facilitated cascade testing in the first year post-diagnosis.

OBJECTIVE: Cascade testing for hereditary cancer syndromes allows relatives to estimate cancer risk and pursue prevention and early detection strategies. The current paradigm relies on patient coordinated care, resulting in only one-third of relatives successfully completing testing. Studies suggest that team-based approaches, where clinicians facilitate testing, can increase uptake. As institutions consider implementing such programs, understanding patient characteristics associated with interest is crucial for resource allocation. We aim to assess interest in clinician-facilitated testing and evaluate barriers. METHODS: Patients with cancer-associated pathogenic variants seen at a gynecologic oncology clinic were offered clinician-facilitated cascade testing. Patient interest and demographic variables were recorded and patients that declined were interviewed regarding the decision. RESULTS: From 11/2023-4/2024, 139 patients were offered clinician-facilitated cascade testing. Median patient age was 43 years (IQR 17), 97 (69.8 %) self-identified as White and 101 (72.7 %) as non-Hispanic. Fifty-six (40.3 %) patients harbored a BRCA1 pathogenic variant, 37 (26.6 %) BRCA2, and 46 (33.1 %) other cancer-associated genes. Fifty-seven (41.0 %) patients expressed interest in the intervention. Interested patients were more likely to have been diagnosed in the prior year vs. patients who were not interested on univariate (OR 4.6, 95 % CI 2.0-10.2, P = 0.0002) and multivariable analyses (adjusted OR 3.8, 95 % CI 1.622-9.009, P = 0.0022). CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrates that patients are almost five time more likely to be interested in cascade genetic testing within the first year of diagnosis of a pathogenic variant. Given the utility of such programs and their resource requirements, targeting this population could maximize effectiveness and uptake of cascade services.

Protocol for Health Risk Information Technology-Assisted Genetic Evaluation (HeRITAGE): a randomised controlled trial of digital genetic cancer risk assessment in a diverse underserved gynaecology clinic.

INTRODUCTION: In the USA, up to 95% of individuals harbouring cancer-predisposing germline pathogenic variants have not been identified despite recommendations for screening at the primary care level. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Our primary objective is to use a two-arm, single-institution randomised controlled trial to compare the proportion of eligible patients that are recommended genetic testing for hereditary cancer syndromes using a digital tool versus clinician interview for genetic cancer risk assessment in an urban academic gynaecology clinic. New gynaecology patients will be consented and randomised 1:1 to either the intervention arm, in which a digital tool is used for genetic cancer risk assessment, or usual care, in which the clinician performs genetic cancer risk assessment. Individuals will be considered eligible for hereditary cancer syndrome genetic testing if criteria set forth by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology are met. Eligible patients are 18 years or older, speak and read English, have not yet undergone hereditary cancer genetic testing and have access to a smartphone. The study aims to enrol 50 patients in each arm to allow for 80% power with two-tailed alpha of 5% to detect a 20% difference in proportion of eligible patients recommended for genetic testing. The primary outcome is the proportion of eligible individuals recommended genetic testing in the digital tool arm versus usual care arm, analysed using the χ2 or Fisher's exact test as appropriate for sample size. The secondary outcome is completion of genetic testing, as well as exploration of patient factors, particularly social determinants of health, which may affect the receipt, utilisation and experience with genetic services. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has been approved by the Weill Cornell Institutional Review Board (Protocol No. 21-11024123). Participants will be informed of the benefits and risks of participation prior to consent. Dissemination of data will be deidentified and conducted through academic conferences and journals. Patients identified to be eligible for genetic testing who did not receive counselling from their providers will be contacted; participants will not receive direct notification of trial results. REGISTRATION DETAILS: This trial is registered at clinicaltrials.gov (NCT05562778) in September 2022. PROTOCOL VERSION: This is protocol version 1, as of 22 May 2024. COUNTRIES OF RECRUITMENT AND RECRUITMENT STATUS: USA, currently recruiting. HEALTH CONDITIONS/PROBLEMS STUDIED: Genetic predisposition to cancers such as breast, ovarian, uterine and pancreatic. DEIDENTIFIED INDIVIDUAL CLINICAL TRIAL PARTICIPANT-LEVEL DATA IDP SHARING STATEMENT: IDP will not be shared. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05562778.

Identifying factors and causal chains associated with optimal implementation of Lynch syndrome tumor screening: An application of coincidence analysis.

PURPOSE: This study compared Lynch syndrome universal tumor screening (UTS) across multiple health systems (some of which had 2 or more distinct UTS programs) to understand multilevel factors that may affect the successful implementation of complex programs. METHODS: Data from 66 stakeholder interviews were used to conduct multivalue coincidence analysis and identify key factors that consistently make a difference in whether UTS programs were implemented and optimized at the system level. RESULTS: The selected coincidence analysis model revealed combinations of conditions that distinguish 4 optimized UTS programs, 10 nonoptimized programs, and 4 systems with no program. Fully optimized UTS programs had both a maintenance champion and a positive inner setting. Two independent paths were unique to nonoptimized programs: (1) positive attitudes and a mixed inner setting or (2) limited planning and engaging among stakeholders. Negative views about UTS evidence or lack of knowledge about UTS led to a lack of planning and engaging, which subsequently prevented program implementation. CONCLUSION: The model improved our understanding of program implementation in health care systems and informed the creation of a toolkit to guide UTS implementation, optimization, and changes. Our findings and toolkit may serve as a use case to increase the successful implementation of other complex precision health programs.

Population-Level Identification of Patients With Lynch Syndrome for Clinical Care, Quality Improvement, and Research.

PURPOSE: Identification of those at risk of hereditary cancer syndromes using electronic health record (EHR) data sources is important for clinical care, quality improvement, and research. We describe diagnostic processes, previously seldom reported, for a common hereditary cancer syndrome, Lynch syndrome (LS), using EHR data within a community-based, multicenter, demographically diverse health system. METHODS: Within a retrospective cohort enrolled between 2015 and 2020 at Kaiser Permanente Northern California, we assessed electronic diagnostic domains for LS including (1) family history of LS-associated cancer; (2) personal history of LS-associated cancer; (3) LS screening via mismatch repair deficiency (MMRD) testing of newly diagnosed malignancy; (4) germline genetic test results; and (5) clinician-entered diagnostic codes for LS. We calculated proportions and overlap for each diagnostic domain descriptively. RESULTS: Among 5.8 million individuals, (1) 28,492 (0.49%) had a family history of LS-associated cancer of whom 3,635 (13%) underwent genetic testing; (2) 100,046 (1.7%) had a personal history of a LS-associated cancer; and (3) 8,711 (0.1%) were diagnosed with colorectal cancer of whom 7,533 (86%) underwent MMRD screening and of the positive screens (486), 130 (27%) underwent germline testing. One thousand seven hundred and fifty-seven (0.03%) were diagnosed with endometrial cancer of whom 1,613 (92%) underwent MMRD screening and of the 195 who screened positive, 55 (28%) underwent genetic testing. (4) 30,790 (0.05%) had LS germline genetic testing with 707 (0.01%) testing positive; and (5) 1,273 (0.02%) had a clinician-entered diagnosis of LS. CONCLUSION: It is feasible to electronically characterize the diagnostic processes of LS. No single data source comprehensively identifies all LS carriers. There is underutilization of LS genetic testing for those eligible and underdiagnosis of LS. Our work informs similar efforts in other settings for hereditary cancer syndromes.

Benchmarking multi-ancestry prostate cancer polygenic risk scores in a real-world cohort.

Prostate cancer is a heritable disease with ancestry-biased incidence and mortality. Polygenic risk scores (PRSs) offer promising advancements in predicting disease risk, including prostate cancer. While their accuracy continues to improve, research aimed at enhancing their effectiveness within African and Asian populations remains key for equitable use. Recent algorithmic developments for PRS derivation have resulted in improved pan-ancestral risk prediction for several diseases. In this study, we benchmark the predictive power of six widely used PRS derivation algorithms, including four of which adjust for ancestry, against prostate cancer cases and controls from the UK Biobank and All of Us cohorts. We find modest improvement in discriminatory ability when compared with a simple method that prioritizes variants, clumping, and published polygenic risk scores. Our findings underscore the importance of improving upon risk prediction algorithms and the sampling of diverse cohorts.

Cost-effectiveness of BRCA1 testing at time of obstetrical prenatal carrier screening for cancer prevention.

BACKGROUND: Improved technologies paired with an increase in access to genetic testing have led to the availability of expanded carrier screening evaluating hundreds of disorders. Currently, most autosomal dominant mutations, such as BRCA1, are not included in expanded carrier assays. Screening pregnant or preconception reproductive-aged women for BRCA1 may present a unique opportunity to perform population-based screening for patients at a time when precancer screening, chemoprevention, and/or risk-reducing surgery may be beneficial. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to inform clinical decision-making as to whether the universal incorporation of BRCA1 testing at the time of obstetrical prenatal carrier screening is cost-effective. STUDY DESIGN: A decision analysis and Markov model was created. The initial decision point in the model was BRCA1 testing at the time of expanded carrier screening. Model probabilities, cost, and utility values were derived from published literature. For BRCA1-positive patients, the model simulated breast cancer screening and risk-reducing surgical interventions. A cycle length of 1 year and a time horizon of 47 years were used to simulate the lifespan of patients. The setting was obstetrical clinics in the United States, and the participants were a theoretical cohort of 1,429,074 pregnant patients who annually underwent expanded carrier screening. RESULTS: Among our cohort, BRCA1 testing resulted in the identification of an additional 3716 BRCA1-positive patients, the prevention of 1394 breast and ovarian cancer cases, and 1084 fewer deaths. BRCA1 testing was a cost-effective strategy compared with no BRCA1 testing with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $86,001 per quality-adjusted life years. In a 1-way sensitivity analysis, we varied the prevalence of BRCA1 in the population from 0.00% to 20.00% and found that BRCA1 testing continued to be the cost-effective strategy until the prevalence rate was reduced to 0.16%. Multiple additional sensitivity analyses did not substantially affect the cost-effectiveness. CONCLUSION: The addition of BRCA1 testing to obstetrical prenatal carrier screening is a cost-effective management strategy to identify at-risk women at a time when cancer screening and preventive strategies can be effective. Despite the burden of additional genetic counseling, prenatal care represents a unique opportunity to implement population-based genetic testing.

Integration and usability of a digital cancer risk stratification tool to optimize identification of patients at risk for hereditary cancers: A pilot study.

BACKGROUND: Patients with a personal or family history of cancer may have elevated risk of developing future cancers, which often remains unrecognized due to lapses in screening. This pilot study assessed the usability and clinical outcomes of a cancer risk stratification tool in a gynecologic oncology clinic. METHODS: New gynecologic oncology patients were prompted to complete a commercially developed personal and family history-based risk stratification tool to assess eligibility for genetic testing using National Comprehensive Cancer Network criteria and estimated lifetime breast cancer risk using the Tyrer-Cuzick model. After use of the risk stratification tool, usability was assessed via completion rate and the System Usability Scale, and health literacy was assessed using the BRIEF Health Literacy Screening Tool. RESULTS: 130 patients were prompted to complete the risk stratification tool; 93 (72%) completed the tool. Race and ethnicity and insurance type were not associated with tool completion. The median System Usability Scale score was 83 out of 100 (interquartile range, 60-95). Health literacy positively correlated with perceived usability. Public insurance and race or ethnicity other than non-Hispanic White was associated with lower perceived usability. Sixty (65%) patients met eligibility criteria for genetic testing, and 21 (38% of 56 eligible patients) were candidates for enhanced breast cancer screening based on an estimated lifetime breast cancer risk of ≥20%. CONCLUSIONS: A majority of patients completed the digital cancer risk stratification tool. Older age, lower health literacy, public insurance, and race or ethnicity other than non-Hispanic White were associated with lower perceived tool usability.

Personalized survivorship care: Routine breast cancer risk assessment in the gynecologic oncology clinic.

INTRODUCTION: Gynecologic and breast cancers share several risk factors. Breast cancer risk assessment tools can identify those at elevated risk and allow for enhanced breast surveillance and chemoprevention, however such tools are underutilized. We aim to evaluate the use of routine breast cancer risk assessment in a gynecologic oncology clinic. METHODS: A patient-facing web-based tool was used to collect personal and family history and run four validated breast cancer risk assessment models (Tyrer-Cuzick (TC), Gail, BRCAPRO, and Claus) in a gynecologic oncology clinic. We evaluated completion of the tools and identification of patients at elevated risk for breast cancer using the four validated models. RESULTS: A total of 99 patients were included in this analysis. The BRCAPRO model had the highest completion rate (84.8%), followed by the TC model (74.7%), Gail model (74.7%), and the Claus model (52.1%). The TC model identified 21.6% of patients completing the model as having ≥20% lifetime risk of breast cancer, compared to 6.8% by the Gail model, and 0% for both the BRCAPRO and Claus models. The Gail model identified 52.5% of patients as having ≥1.67% 5-year risk of breast cancer. Among patients identified as high-risk for breast cancer and eligible for screening, 9/9 (100%) were referred to a high-risk breast clinic. CONCLUSION: Among patients that completed the TC breast cancer risk assessment in a gynecologic oncology clinic, approximately 1 in 5 were identified to be at significantly elevated lifetime risk for breast cancer. The gynecologic oncologist's office might offer a convenient and feasible setting to incorporate this risk assessment into routine patient care, as gynecologic oncologists often have long-term patient relationships and participate in survivorship care.

Systematic evidence review and meta-analysis of outcomes associated with cancer genetic counseling.

PURPOSE: Genetic counseling (GC) is standard of care in genetic cancer risk assessment (GCRA). A rigorous assessment of the data reported from published studies is crucial to ensure the evidence-based implementation of GC. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of 17 patient-reported and health-services-related outcomes associated with pre- and post-test GC in GCRA in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. RESULTS: Twenty-five of 5393 screened articles met inclusion criteria. No articles reporting post-test GC outcomes met inclusion criteria. For patient-reported outcomes, pre-test GC significantly decreased worry, increased knowledge, and decreased perceived risk but did not significantly affect patient anxiety, depression, decisional conflict, satisfaction, or intent to pursue genetic testing. For health-services outcomes, pre-test GC increased correct genetic test ordering, reduced inappropriate services, increased spousal support for genetic testing, and expedited care delivery but did not consistently improve cancer prevention behaviors nor lead to accurate risk assessment. The GRADE certainty in the evidence was very low or low. No included studies elucidated GC effect on mortality, cascade testing, cost-effectiveness, care coordination, shared decision making, or patient time burden. CONCLUSION: The true impact of GC on relevant outcomes is not known low quality or absent evidence. Although a meta-analysis found that pre-test GC had beneficial effects on knowledge, worry, and risk perception, the certainty of this evidence was low according to GRADE methodology. Further studies are needed to support the evidence-based application of GC in GCRA.

Chatbot Artificial Intelligence for Genetic Cancer Risk Assessment and Counseling: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

PURPOSE: Most individuals with a hereditary cancer syndrome are unaware of their genetic status to underutilization of hereditary cancer risk assessment. Chatbots, or programs that use artificial intelligence to simulate conversation, have emerged as a promising tool in health care and, more recently, as a potential tool for genetic cancer risk assessment and counseling. Here, we evaluated the existing literature on the use of chatbots in genetic cancer risk assessment and counseling. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted using key electronic databases to identify studies which use chatbots for genetic cancer risk assessment and counseling. Eligible studies were further subjected to meta-analysis. RESULTS: Seven studies met inclusion criteria, evaluating five distinct chatbots. Three studies evaluated a chatbot that could perform genetic cancer risk assessment, one study evaluated a chatbot that offered patient counseling, and three studies included both functions. The pooled estimated completion rate for the genetic cancer risk assessment was 36.7% (95% CI, 14.8 to 65.9). Two studies included comprehensive patient characteristics, and none involved a comparison group. Chatbots varied as to the involvement of a health care provider in the process of risk assessment and counseling. CONCLUSION: Chatbots have been used to streamline genetic cancer risk assessment and counseling and hold promise for reducing barriers to genetic services. Data regarding user and nonuser characteristics are lacking, as are data regarding comparative effectiveness to usual care. Future research may consider the impact of chatbots on equitable access to genetic services.

"Go ahead and screen" - advice to healthcare systems for routine lynch syndrome screening from interviews with newly diagnosed colorectal cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: Lynch syndrome (LS) is the most common cause of inherited colorectal cancer (CRC). Universal tumor screening (UTS) of newly diagnosed CRC cases is recommended to aid in diagnosis of LS and reduce cancer-related morbidity and mortality. However, not all health systems have adopted UTS processes and implementation may be inconsistent due to system and patient-level complexities. METHODS: To identify barriers, facilitators, and suggestions for improvements of the UTS process from the patient perspective, we conducted in-depth, semi-structured interviews with patients recently diagnosed with CRC, but not screened for or aware of LS. Patients were recruited from eight regionally diverse US health systems. Interviews were conducted by telephone, 60-minutes, audio-recorded, and transcribed. An inductive, constant comparative analysis approach was employed.  RESULTS: We completed 75 interviews across the eight systems. Most participants were white (79%), about half (52%) were men, and the mean age was 60 years. Most self-reported either no (60%) or minimal (40%) prior awareness of LS. Overall, 96% of patients stated UTS should be a routine standard of care for CRC tumors, consistently citing four primary motivations for wanting to know their LS status and engage in the process for LS identification: "knowledge is power"; "family knowledge"; "prevention and detection"; and "treatment and surveillance." Common concerns pertaining to the process of screening for and identifying LS included: creating anticipatory worry for patients, the potential cost and the accuracy of the genetic test, and possibly having one's health insurance coverage impacted by the LS diagnosis. Patients suggested health systems communicate LS results in-person or by phone from a trained expert in LS; offer proactive verbal and written education about LS, the screening steps, and any follow-up surveillance recommendations; and support patients in communicating their LS screening to any of their blood relatives. CONCLUSION: Our qualitative findings demonstrate patients with CRC have a strong desire for healthcare systems to regularly implement and offer UTS. Patients offer key insights for health systems to guide future implementation and optimization of UTS and other LS screening programs and maximize diagnosis of individuals with LS and improve cancer-related surveillance and outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Not available: not a clinical trial.

Partner and localizer of BRCA2 (PALB2) pathogenic variants and ovarian cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Approximately 20% of ovarian cancers are due to an underlying germline pathogenic variant. While pathogenic variants in several genes have been well-established in the development of hereditary ovarian cancer (e.g. BRCA1/2, RAD51C, RAD51D, BRIP1, mismatch repair genes), the role of partner and localizer of BRCA2 (PALB2) remains uncertain. We sought to utilize meta-analysis to evaluate the association between PALB2 germline pathogenic variants and ovarian cancer. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis. We searched key electronic databases to identify studies evaluating multigene panel testing in people with ovarian cancer. Eligible trials were subjected to meta-analysis. RESULTS: Fifty-five studies met inclusion criteria, including 48,194 people with ovarian cancer and information available on germline PALB2 pathogenic variant status. Among people with ovarian cancer and available PALB2 sequencing data, 0.4% [95% CI 0.3-0.4] harbored a germline pathogenic variant in the PALB2 gene. The pooled odds ratio (OR) for carrying a PALB2 pathogenic variant among the ovarian cancer population of 20,474 individuals who underwent germline testing was 2.48 [95% CI 1.57-3.90] relative to 123,883 controls. CONCLUSIONS: Our meta-analysis demonstrates that the pooled OR for harboring a PALB2 germline pathogenic variant among people with ovarian cancer compared to the general population is 2.48 [95% CI 1.57-3.90]. Prospective studies evaluating the role of germline PALB2 pathogenic variants in the development of ovarian cancer are warranted.

Do people with hereditary cancer syndromes inform their at-risk relatives? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Purpose: To evaluate rates of familial disclosure of hereditary cancer syndrome information. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines (PROSPERO no.: CRD42020134276). Key electronic databases were searched to identify studies evaluating hereditary cancer syndrome cascade relative disclosure. Eligible studies were subjected to meta-analysis. Results: Thirty-four studies met inclusion criteria. Among 11,711 included relatives, 70% (95% CI 60 - 78%) were informed of their risk of carrying a cancer-associated pathogenic variant; of 2,875 relatives informed of their risk who were evaluated for uptake of cascade testing, 43% (95% CI 27 - 61%) completed testing. Rates of disclosure were higher among female vs male relatives (79% [95% CI 73% - 84%] vs 67% [95% CI 57% - 75%]) and first-degree vs second-degree relatives (83% [95% CI 77% - 88%] vs 58% [95% CI 45 - 69%]). Conclusion: Nearly one-third of at-risk relatives remain uninformed of their risk of carrying a cancer-associated pathogenic variant. Even among those informed, fewer than half subsequently complete genetic testing, representing a critical missed opportunity for precision cancer prevention. Innovation: Five studies evaluating interventions to improve disclosure rates were generally ineffective. Urgent work is needed to elucidate barriers to relative disclosure by probands to develop targeted interventions that can optimize proband-mediated cascade genetic testing rates.

A picture is worth a thousand words: advancing the use of visualization tools in implementation science through process mapping and matrix heat mapping.

BACKGROUND: Identifying key determinants is crucial for improving program implementation and achieving long-term sustainment within healthcare organizations. Organizational-level complexity and heterogeneity across multiple stakeholders can complicate our understanding of program implementation. We describe two data visualization methods used to operationalize implementation success and to consolidate and select implementation factors for further analysis. METHODS: We used a combination of process mapping and matrix heat mapping to systematically synthesize and visualize qualitative data from 66 stakeholder interviews across nine healthcare organizations, to characterize universal tumor screening programs of all newly diagnosed colorectal and endometrial cancers and understand the influence of contextual factors on implementation. We constructed visual representations of protocols to compare processes and score process optimization components. We also used color-coded matrices to systematically code, summarize, and consolidate contextual data using factors from the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Combined scores were visualized in a final data matrix heat map. RESULTS: Nineteen process maps were created to visually represent each protocol. Process maps identified the following gaps and inefficiencies: inconsistent execution of the protocol, no routine reflex testing, inconsistent referrals after a positive screen, no evidence of data tracking, and a lack of quality assurance measures. These barriers in patient care helped us define five process optimization components and used these to quantify program optimization on a scale from 0 (no program) to 5 (optimized), representing the degree to which a program is implemented and optimally maintained. Combined scores within the final data matrix heat map revealed patterns of contextual factors across optimized programs, non-optimized programs, and organizations with no program. CONCLUSIONS: Process mapping provided an efficient method to visually compare processes including patient flow, provider interactions, and process gaps and inefficiencies across sites, thereby measuring implementation success via optimization scores. Matrix heat mapping proved useful for data visualization and consolidation, resulting in a summary matrix for cross-site comparisons and selection of relevant CFIR factors. Combining these tools enabled a systematic and transparent approach to understanding complex organizational heterogeneity prior to formal coincidence analysis, introducing a stepwise approach to data consolidation and factor selection.

Web-based tool for cancer family history collection: A prospective randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: Approximately 1% of individuals have a hereditary cancer predisposition syndrome, however, the majority are not aware. Collecting a cancer family history (CFH) can triage patients to receive genetic testing. To rigorously assess different methods of CFH collection, we compared a web-based tool (WBT) to usual care (clinician collects CFH) in a randomized controlled trial. METHODS: New gynecologic oncology patients (seen 9/2019-9/2021) were randomized to one of three arms in a 2:2:1 allocation ratio: 1) usual care clinician CFH collection, 2) WBT completed at home, or 3) WBT completed in office. The WBT generated a cancer-focused pedigree and scores on eight validated cancer risk models. The primary outcome was collection of an adequate CFH (based on established guidelines) with usual care versus the WBT. RESULTS: We enrolled 250 participants (usual care - 110; WBT home - 105; WBT office - 35 [closed early due to COVID-19]). Within WBT arms, 109 (78%) participants completed the tool, with higher completion for office versus home (33 [94%] vs. 76 [72%], P = 0.008). Among participants completing the WBT, 63 (58%) had an adequate CFH versus 5 (5%) for usual care (P < 0.001). Participants completing the WBT were significantly more likely to complete genetic counseling (34 [31%] vs. 15 [14%], P = 0.002) and genetic testing (20 [18%] vs. 9 [8%], P = 0.029). Participant and provider WBT experience was favorable. CONCLUSIONS: WBTs for CFH collection are a promising application of health information technology, resulting in more comprehensive CFH and a significantly greater percentage of participants completing genetic counseling and testing.