Joanne M McKinley

Publications (3)24.48 Total impact

• Article: Predictors of breast cancer screening behavior in women with a strong family history of the disease.

  Melanie A Price, Phyllis N Butow, Margaret Charles, Tracey Bullen, Bettina Meiser, Joanne M McKinley, Sue-Anne McLachlan, Kelly-Anne Phillips
  [show abstract] [hide abstract]
  ABSTRACT: This study applied the self-regulation model to examine cognitive and emotional predictors of screening in unaffected women with a strong family history of breast cancer. 748 unaffected female members of an Australian registry of multiple-case breast cancer families formed the sample. Participants completed a baseline psychosocial questionnaire and a screening questionnaire 3 years later. Multinomial logistic regression was employed to determine predictors of under- and over-screening according to national guidelines. At follow-up 16% of women under-screened and 10% over-screened with mammography; 55% under-screened with clinical breast examination (CBE); and 9% over-screened with breast self-examination (BSE). Of the women found screening according to guidelines for mammography 72% reported ever having received specific recommendations for mammography screening from a health professional. Compared to appropriate screeners, under-screeners on mammography were less likely to have received a screening recommendation (as were under-screeners on CBE), were younger and reported lower perceived breast cancer risk, but were at higher relative risk (RR) of breast cancer and were more likely to report elevated depression. Over-screeners on mammography were more likely to be younger and have a lower RR of breast cancer. Over-screeners on BSE reported elevated cancer-specific anxiety, were less likely to be university educated and more likely to have received a recommendation for BSE. Under- and over-screening is common in women with a strong family history of breast cancer. Evaluation of interventions targeting perceived risk of breast cancer, anxiety and depression are needed to ensure women obtain accurate advice from relevant specialists and enact screening recommendations.
  Breast Cancer Research and Treatment 04/2010; 124(2):509-19. · 4.43 Impact Factor
• Article: Cancer risk management practices of noncarriers within BRCA1/2 mutation positive families in the Kathleen Cuningham Foundation Consortium for Research into Familial Breast Cancer.

  Sarah-Jane Dawson, Melanie A Price, Mark A Jenkins, Joanne M McKinley, Phyllis N Butow, Sue-Anne McLachlan, Geoffrey J Lindeman, Prue Weideman, Michael L Friedlander, John L Hopper, Kelly-Anne Phillips
  [show abstract] [hide abstract]
  ABSTRACT: Women from BRCA mutation-positive families who do not carry the family-specific mutation are generally at average cancer risk and therefore do not require intensive risk management. Participants were female noncarriers from BRCA mutation-positive families who had responded to 3 yearly follow-up questionnaires and had chosen to either receive or not receive their genetic test result. In the former group, undertaking mammography younger than age 40 years or more than once every 2 years, clinical breast examination (CBE) more than yearly, breast self-examination (BSE) more than monthly, or any transvaginal ultrasound (TVU) or CA-125 was considered overscreening. Screening behaviors of women who did and did not know their genetic test result were compared. Logistic regression and nonparametric analyses were performed to identify demographic and psychosocial factors (respectively) associated with overscreening. Of 325 eligible women, 116 knew their mutation status and 209 did not. For the first group, proportions overscreening were mammography, 53%; CBE, 10%; BSE, 11%; TVU, 7%; and CA-125, 10%. There were no significant differences in screening behaviors between the groups. In those aware of their mutation status, parous women were more likely to overuse mammography (odds ratio [OR] = 4.4; 95% CI, 1.1 to 17; P = .03) and women with one or more first-degree relative with ovarian cancer (OC) were more likely to overuse OC screening (TVU: OR = 6.00; 95% CI, 1.0 to 35.1; P = .047, and CA-125: OR = 6.50; 95% CI, 1.49 to 28.4; P = .013). The reasons for overuse of screening (particularly mammography) by mutation noncarriers require additional elucidation given the potential for harm.
  Journal of Clinical Oncology 02/2008; 26(2):225-32. · 18.37 Impact Factor
• Source

  Available from: PubMed Central

  Article: Prostate screening uptake in Australian BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers.

  Joanne M McKinley, Prue C Weideman, Mark A Jenkins, Michael L Friedlander, John L Hopper, Sue-Anne McLachlan, Geoffrey J Lindeman, Kelly-Anne Phillips
  [show abstract] [hide abstract]
  ABSTRACT: Men who carry mutations in BRCA1 or BRCA2 are at increased risk for prostate cancer. However the efficacy of prostate screening in this setting is uncertain and limited data exists on the uptake of prostate screening by mutation carriers. This study prospectively evaluated uptake of prostate cancer screening in a multi-institutional cohort of mutation carriers. Subjects were unaffected male BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers, aged 40-69 years, enrolled in the Kathleen Cuningham Consortium for Research into Familial Breast Cancer (kConFab) and who had completed a mailed, self-report follow-up questionnaire 3 yearly after study entry. Of the 75 male carriers in this study, only 26 (35%) had elected to receive their mutation result. Overall, 51 (68%) did not recall having received a recommendation to have prostate screening because of their family history, but 41 (55%) had undergone a prostate specific antigen (PSA) test and 32 (43%) a digital rectal examination (DRE) in the previous 3 years. Those who were aware of their mutation result were more likely to have received a recommendation for prostate screening (43 vs. 6%, p = 0.0001), and to have had a PSA test (77 vs. 43%, p = 0.005) and a DRE (69 vs. 29%, p = 0.001) in the previous 3 years. The majority of unaffected males enrolled in kConFab with a BRCA1/2 mutation have not sought out their mutation result. However, of those aware of their positive mutation status, most have undergone at least one round of prostate screening in the previous 3 years.
  Hereditary Cancer in Clinical Practice 02/2007; 5(3):161-3. · 1.68 Impact Factor