The occupational risk associated with handling of cytotoxic anticancer drugs is well documented and, in many countries, pharmaceutical isolators are used to contain cytotoxic residues during preparation of cytotoxic infusions. Isolators are difficult to clean leading to concerns that cytotoxic contamination from the work area could be transferred to surfaces of products leaving the isolator. This study investigated the surface contamination arising from the preparation of five anticancer drug infusions (Epirubicin, Fluorouracil, Cisplatin, Oxaliplatin and Carboplatin) in a pharmaceutical isolator and compared use of a conventional syringe and needle technique with a closed-system drug transfer device (CSDTD).
Methods
Wipe samples were taken over 1 week from pre-defined areas in the isolator, gloves, preparation mats, and also from the surfaces of prepared cytotoxic infusion bags and pre-filled syringes to obtain baseline surface contamination data. Following operator familiarisation, the CSDTD was then introduced and sampling repeated for a further week (intervention period). The samples obtained were analysed using validated HPLC-UV, HPLC-FL and ICP-MS techniques, as appropriate.
Results
All surfaces sampled during baseline, including external surfaces of infusions and syringes, were contaminated with each marker drug. During the intervention phase, isolator surfaces were free from detectable contamination and the contamination measured on gloves, preparation mats and surface of infusions was markedly reduced. The frequency of contamination on syringe and infusion surfaces was also lower.
Conclusion
Surface contamination from cytotoxic infusion preparation in a pharmaceutical isolator was significant and could transmit cytotoxic residues to patient and public areas via infusion surfaces. The frequency and amount of contamination were reduced by the CSDTD.
ClappRWHoweGKJacobsMM. Environmental and occupational causes of cancer: A call to act on what we know. Biomed Pharmacother2007; 61: 631–639.
2.
ConnorTH. Hazardous anticancer drugs in health care. Ann N Y Acad Sci2006; 1076: 615–623.
3.
DabrowskiTDabrowskaEA. Cytostatic drugs and their carcinogenicity - occupational risk problem for healthcare workers. Contemp Oncol2007; 11: 101–105.
4.
IARC. IARC monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risks to humans, vol. 50, 1990. Pharmaceutical Drugs, International Agency for Research on Cancer.
5.
NIOSH. Preventing occupational exposures to antineoplastic and other hazardous drugs in health care settings. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, 2004.
6.
FalckKGröhnPSorsaM. Mutagenicity in urine of nurses handling cytostatic drugs. Lancet1979; 313: 1250–1251.
7.
HarrisPEConnorTHStevensKR. Cytogenetic assessment of occupational exposure of nurses to antineoplastic agents. J Clean Technol Environ Sci1993; 3: 127–138.
8.
TurciRSottaniCRonchiA. Biological monitoring of hospital personnel occupationally exposed to antineoplastic agents. Toxicol Lett2002; 134: 57–64.
9.
CornettaTPaduaLTestaA. Molecular biomonitoring of a population of nurses handling antineoplastic drugs. Mutat Res2008; 638: 75–82.
10.
BakerESConnorTH. Monitoring occupational exposure to cancer chemotherapy drugs. Am J Health Syst Pharm1996; 53: 13–23.
11.
FloridiaLPietropaoloAMTavazzaniaM. Measurement of surface contamination from nucleoside analogue antineoplastic drugs by high-performance liquid chromatography in occupational hygiene studies of oncologic hospital departments. J Chromatogr B Biomed Sci Appl1999; 724: 325–334.
12.
FransmanWHilhorstSRoeleveldN. A pooled analysis to study trends in exposure to antineoplastic drugs among nurses. Ann Occup Hyg2007; 51: 231–239.
13.
SasakiMDakeishiMHoshiS. Assessment of DNA damage in Japanese nurses handling antineoplastic drugs by comet assay. J Occup Health2008; 50: 7–12.
14.
Figa-TalamancaI. Occupational risk factors and reproductive health of women. Occup Med2006; 56: 521–531.
15.
MartinS. The adverse health effects of occupational exposure to hazardous drugs. Commun Oncol2005; 2: 397–400.
16.
ASHP. ASHP guidelines on handling hazardous drugs. American Journal of Health System Pharmacy, 2006.
17.
ISOPP. ISOPP standards of practice. Safe handling of cytotoxics. International Society of Oncology Pharmacy Practitioners. J Oncol Pharm Pract2007; 13(suppl): 1–81.
18.
SewellGJ. The use of isolators for cytotoxic drug handling in hospital pharmacies. Eur J Parent Sci1999; 4: 55–59.
19.
AllwoodMStanleyAPatriciaW. The cytotoxic handbook, Abingdon, UK: Radcliffe Medical Press, 2002.
20.
ZeedijkMGreijdanusBSteenstraFB. Monitoring exposure of cytostatics on the hospital ward: Measuring surface contamination of four different cytostatic drugs from one wipe sample. Eur J Hosp Pharm Sci2005; 11: 18–22.
21.
SchulzHBigelowSDobishR. Antineoplastic agent workplace contamination study: The Alberta Cancer Board Pharmacy perspective. J Oncol Pharm Pract2005; 11: 101–109.
22.
SchmauGSchierlRFunckS. Monitoring surface contamination by antineoplastic drugs using gas chromatography–mass spectrometry and voltammetry. Am J Health Syst Pharm2002; 59(10): 956–961.
23.
Crauste-MancietSSessinkPJFerrariS. Environmental contamination with cytotoxic drugs in healthcare using positive air pressure isolators. Ann Occup Hyg2005; 49: 619–628.
24.
Weir PJ, Rigge DC, Holmes A, et al. Monitoring working areas for cytotoxic contamination. Hosp Pharm Eur Suppl 2012; 12–14.
25.
ConnorTHSessinkPJMHarrisonBR. Surface contamination of chemotherapy drug vials and evaluation of new vial-cleaning techniques: Results of three studies. Am J Health-Syst Pharm2005; 62: 475–484.
26.
MasonHJMortonJGarfittSJ. Cytotoxic drug contamination on the outside of vials delivered to a hospital pharmacy. Ann Occup Hyg2003; 47: 681–685.
27.
NygrenOGustavssonBStromL. Cisplatin contamination observed on the outside of drug vials. Ann Occup Hyg2002; 46: 555–557.
28.
Crauste-Manciet S. Safe handling of cytotoxic drugs. Hosp Pharm Eur 2007; 39–42.
29.
HarrisonBRPetersBGBingM. Comparison of surface contamination with cyclophosphamide and fluorouracil using a closed-system drug transfer device versus standard preparation techniques. Am J Health Syst Pharm2006; 63: 1736–1744.
30.
SessinkPJConnorTHJorgensonJA. Reduction in surface contamination with antineoplastic drugs in 22 hospital pharmacies in the US following implementation of a closed-system drug transfer device. J Oncol Pharm Pract2010; 17: 39–48.
31.
ConnorTHAndersonRWSessinkPJ. Effectiveness of a closed-system device in containing surface contamination with cyclophosphamide and ifosfamide in an i.v. admixture area. Am J Health-Syst Pharm2002; 59: 68–72.
32.
NygrenOOlofssonEJohanssonL. Spill and leakage using a drug preparation system based on double-filter technology. Ann Occup Hyg2008; 52: 95–98.
33.
SiderovJKirsaSMcLauchlanR. Reducing workplace cytotoxic surface contamination using a closed-system drug transfer device. J Oncol Pharm Pract2010; 16: 19–25.
34.
RobertsSKhammoNMcDonnellG. Studies on the decontamination of surfaces exposed to cytotoxic drugs in chemotherapy workstations. J Oncol Pharm Pract2006; 12: 95–104.
35.
ReinhoudNJTjadenURIrthH. Bioanalysis of some anthracyclines in human plasma by capillary electrophoresis with laser-induced fluorescence detection. J Chromatogr B: Biomed Sci Appl1992; 574: 327–334.
36.
RudolphiAVielhauerSBoosK-S. Coupled-column liquid chromatographic analysis of epirubicin and metabolites in biological material and its application to optimization of liver cancer therapy. J Pharmaceut Biomed Anal1995; 13: 615–623.
37.
CompagnonPThibervilleLMooreN. Simple high-performance liquid chromatographic method for the quantitation of 5-fluorouracil in human plasma. J Chromatogr B: Biomed Sci Appl1996; 677: 380–383.
38.
CiccoliniJMercierCBlachonM-F. A simple and rapid high-performance liquid chromatographic (HPLC) method for 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) assay in plasma and possible detection of patients with impaired dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD) activity. J Clin Pharm Ther2004; 29: 307–315.
39.
BrouwersEEMHuitemaADRBakkerEN. Monitoring of platinum surface contamination in seven Dutch hospital pharmacies using inductively coupled mass spectrometry. Int Arch Occup Environ Health2007; 80: 689–699.
40.
Minoia C and Turci R. Monitoring working areas for cytotoxic contamination. Hosp Pharm Eur Suppl 2012; 15–16.
41.
SessinkPJWittenhorstBCAnzionRB. Exposure of pharmacy technicians to antineoplastic agents: Reevaluation after additional protective measures. Arch Environ Health1997; 52: 240–244.
42.
ConnorTHAndersonRWSessinkPJM. Surface contamination with antineoplastic agents in six cancer treatment centers in Canada and the United States. Am J Health-Syst Pharm1999; 56: 1427–1432.
43.
MasonHJBlairSSamsC. Exposure to antineoplastic drugs in two UK hospital pharmacy units. Ann Occup Hyg2005; 49: 603–610.
44.
GrossERGroceDF. An evaluation of nitrile gloves as an alternative to natural rubber latex for handling chemotherapeutic agents. J Oncol Pharm Pract1998; 4: 165–168.
45.
WallemacqPECapronAVanbinstR. Permeability of 13 different gloves to 13 cytotoxic agents under controlled dynamic conditions. Am J Health-Syst Pharm2006; 63(6): 547–556.
46.
JorgensonJASpiveySCannanD. Contamination comparison of transfer devices intended for handling hazardous drugs. Hosp Pharm2008; 43: 723–727.
47.
WickCSlawsonMHJorgensonJA. Using a closed-system protective device to reduce personnel exposure to antineoplastic agents. Am J Health-Syst Pharm2003; 60: 2314–2320.
48.
YoshidaJTeiGMochizukiC. Use of a closed system device to reduce occupational contamination and exposure to antineoplastic drugs in the hospital work environment. Ann Occup Hyg2009; 53: 153–160.
