What question did this study set out to answer?

This trial aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of a multilingual digital genetic cancer risk assessment (GCRA) tool in identifying patients at high risk for hereditary cancer.

May 29, 2026Journal of Clinical Oncology

A randomized controlled trial of a multilingual digital genetic cancer risk assessment tool in a diverse patient population.

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

This trial aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of a multilingual digital genetic cancer risk assessment (GCRA) tool in identifying patients at high risk for hereditary cancer.
Randomized controlled trial (NCT05562778) conducted in four urban academic gynecology clinics with patients aged ≥18.
Participants randomized to a digital GCRA tool or usual clinician assessment with a focus on family history.
The outcome measured was clinician identification of high-risk patients and recommendations for genetic testing (GT).
36 (17%) patients met NCCN criteria for high hereditary cancer risk, with 14 from the intervention and 22 from control.
Use of the digital GCRA tool led to significantly higher identification of high-risk patients recommended for GT (93% vs. 14%; P < 0.001).
Digital tool completion and high-risk identification rates showed no differences based on race, ethnicity, or language.

Discussion

No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.

Implication

Randomized trial shows improved genetic testing recommendations in diverse patients, suggesting enhanced risk identification.

Cite This Study

Karimaghaie et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a192d2efab5b468c44160b4 https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2026.44.16_suppl.10619

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

A randomized controlled trial of a multilingual digital genetic cancer risk assessment tool in a diverse patient population.

Key Points

Discussion

Implication

Cite This Study

A randomized controlled trial of a multilingual digital genetic cancer risk assessment tool in a diverse patient population.

Key Points

Discussion

Implication

Cite This Study

Also Consider

Also Consider