Background: Germline genetic testing is important for prostate cancer management, clinical trial eligibility and hereditary cancer risk assessment. Despite this, genetic testing is underutilized and there is a shortage of genetic counselors. To address these gaps, we designed a webtool to provide patient-driven genetic education and conducted a randomized non-inferiority trial to compare it with traditional pre-test genetic counseling. Methods: TARGET is a multi-center randomized controlled trial comparing standard pre-test genetic counseling versus web-based genetic education (intervention) (NCT04447703). The study protocol was previously published (PMID 35710085). Briefly, patients with prostate cancer who met criteria for germline testing (based on tumor features, ancestry or family history) were randomized to pre-test genetic education through genetic counseling vs a 9-module webtool created by the study team and Prostate Cancer Foundation. The primary endpoint was non-inferiority in reducing decisional conflict between the webtool and genetic counseling by a margin of 4 (set in advance) on the validated Decision Conflict Scale. Analysis of covariance was used to compare decisional conflict between groups. All participants opting for testing received a 51-gene Invitae panel, with results delivered to the patient and their provider. Results: 346 patients with prostate cancer with a mean age of 63.7 years were randomized to genetic counseling (n=174) or web-based genetic education (n=172). Compared to baseline, there were reductions in decisional conflict in both arms following pre-test genetic education (Table). Adjusting for study site and baseline decisional conflict, the test of non-inferiority in reducing decisional conflict between arms was statistically significant (difference = -0.04, 95% CI: -∞ to 1.95, p<0.001). Overall 265 (76.6%) participants underwent genetic testing, including 146 (83.9%) in the genetic counseling and 119 (69.2%) in webtool arm, with the following results: negative (49.4%), variant of uncertain significance (35.5%) and pathogenic variant (15.1%). Conclusions: Delivery of pre-test genetic education through a webtool was non-inferior to genetic counseling in reducing decisional conflict. These results support a new standard of care for the use of patient-driven digital webtools for expanding access to pretest genetic education and informed decision-making for prostate cancer genetic testing. Clinical trial information: NCT04447703.