Field evaluation of onsite near real-time monitors for surface contamination by 5-fluorouracil

Abstract

Objectives

In order to produce near real-time onsite results to detect surface contamination by antineoplastic drugs, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health developed monitors for 5-fluorouracil, which use surface wiping and lateral flow immunoassay for measurement. The monitors were tested in the laboratory to assess the sensitivity of detection on laboratory-produced contaminated surfaces. A field evaluation to assess the capability of the monitors to make measurements in healthcare workplaces was carried out in collaboration with a medical device company and the results are presented in this report.

Methods

The 5-fluorouracil monitor was evaluated in areas where oncology drugs were prepared and administered to patients at five different hospitals. The levels of contamination measured with the monitors were compared to levels measured with liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry.

Results

The 5-fluorouracil values measured with the liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry ranged from 0 to over 200,000 ng/100 cm². Measurements by the 5-fluorouracil monitors in the range 10–100 ng/100 cm² correlated with the liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. Receiver operating characteristic curves developed for the data indicated that a positive limit of 22 ng/100 cm² would give an acceptable level of false-positives while retaining most true-positive samples. If the liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry measured greater than 100 ng/100 cm², then the monitors also measured levels greater than 100 ng/100 cm² for the majority of samples.

Conclusion

The data indicate that there are many areas in hospitals that are contaminated with 5-fluorouracil and the monitors will be useful in identifying this contamination.

Keywords

5-fluorouracil direct reading surface contamination

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bureau of Labor Statistics. May 2011 employment and wage estimates. Occupational employment statistics homepage, www.bls.gov/oes/home.htm (accessed 6 June 2018).

NIOSH. NIOSH alert: preventing occupational exposure to antineoplastic and other hazardous drugs in healthcare settings. Cincinnati, OH: US Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, 2004. [DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 2004–165.].

IARC. Overall evaluations of carcinogenicity: an updating of IARC monographs (Vols. 1–42). IARC monographs on the evaluation of the carcinogenic risk of chemicals to humans. Lyons, France: World Health Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer, 1987, p. 210.

Connor

Anderson

Sessink

et al.

Surface contamination with antineoplastic agents in six cancer treatment centers in Canada and the United States. Am J Health Syst Pharm 1999; 56: 1427–1432.

Fransman

Vermeulen

Kromhout

. Occupational dermal exposure to cyclophosphamide in Dutch hospitals: a pilot study. Ann Occup Hyg 2004; 48: 237–244.

Touzin

Bussières

Langlois

. Evaluation of surface contamination in a hospital hematology-oncology pharmacy. J Oncol Pharm Pract 2009; 15: 53–61.

Bigelow

Schulz

Dobish

et al.

Antineoplastic agent workplace contamination study: the Alberta Cancer Board Pharmacy perspective phase III. J Oncol Pharm Pract 2009; 15: 157–160.

Connor

DeBord

Pretty

et al.

Evaluation of antineoplastic drug exposure of health care workers at three university-based US cancer centers. J Occup Environ Med 2010; 52: 1019–1027.

Sessink

PJM

Connor

Jorgenson

et al.

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 Pract 2011; 17: 39–48.

10.

Turci

Minola

Sottani

et al.

Occupational exposure to antineoplastic drugs in seven Italian hospitals: the effect of quality assurance and adherence to guidelines. J Oncol Pharm Pract 2011; 17: 320–332.

11.

Bussières

Tanguay

Touzin

et al.

Environmental contamination with hazardous drugs in Quebec hospitals. Can J Hosp Pharm 2012; 65: 428–435.

12.

Kiffmeyer

Tuerk

Hahn

et al.

Application and assessment of a regular environmental monitoring of the antineoplastic drug contamination level in pharmacies – the MEWIP project. Ann Occup Hyg 2013; 57: 444–455.

13.

Hon

C-Y

Teschke

Chu

et al.

Antineoplastic drug contamination of surfaces throughout the hospital medication system in Canadian hospitals. J Occup Environ Hyg 2013; 10: 374–383.

14.

Fleury-Souverain

Nussbaumer

Mattiuzzo

et al.

Determination of the external contamination and cross-contamination by cytotoxic drugs on the surfaces of vials available on the Swiss market. J Oncol Pharm Pract 2014; 20: 100–111.

15.

Viegas

Padua

Veiga

et al.

Antineoplastic drugs contamination of workplace surfaces in two Portuguese hospitals. Environ Monit Assess 2014; 186: 7807–7818.

16.

Fleury-Souverain

Mattiuzzo

Mehl

et al.

Evaluation of chemical contamination of surfaces during the preparation of chemotherapies in 24 hospital pharmacies. Eur J Hosp Pharm 2015; 22: 333–341.

17.

Berruyer

Tanguay

Caron

et al.

Multicenter study of environmental contamination with antineoplastic drugs in 36 Canadian hospitals: a 2013 follow-up study. J Occup Environ Hyg 2015; 12: 87–94.

18.

Poupeau

Roland

Bussières

. J Surveillance urinaire des professionnels de la santé exposés aux antinéoplasiques dans le cadre de leur travail: revue de la littérature de 2010 à 2015. J Can Pharm Hosp 2016; 69: 376–387.

19.

Müller-Ramírez

Squibb

McDiarmid

. Measuring extent of surface contamination produced by the handling of antineoplastic drugs in low to middle-income country oncology health care settings. Arch Environ Occup Health 2017; 72: 289–298.

20.

Connor

Zock

Snow

. Surface wipe sampling for antineoplastic (chemotherapy) and other hazardous drug residue in healthcare settings: methodology and recommendations. J Occup Environ Hyg 2016; 13: 658–667.

21.

Kibby

. A review of surface wipe sampling compared to biologic monitoring for occupational exposure to antineoplastic drugs. J Occup Environ Hyg 2017; 14: 159–174.

22.

Pretty

Connor

Spasojevic

et al.

Sampling and mass spectrometric analytical methods for five antineoplastic drugs in the healthcare environment. J Oncol Pharm Pract 2012; 18: 23–36.

23.

Jeronimo

Colombo

Astrakianakis

et al.

A surface wipe sampling and LC-MS/MS method for the simultaneous detection of six antineoplastic drugs commonly handled by healthcare workers. Anal Bioanal Chem 2015; 407: 7083–7092.

24.

Bobin-Dubigeon

Amiand

Percheron

et al.

A new, validated wipe-sampling procedure coupled to LC–MS analysis for the simultaneous determination of 5-fluorouracil, doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide in surface contamination. J Anal Toxicol 2013; 37: 433–439.

25.

B’Hymer

Connor

Stinson

et al.

Validation of an HPLC-MS/MS and wipe procedure for mitomycin C contamination. J Chromatogr Sci 2015; 53: 619–624.

26.

Smith

Sammons

Pretty

et al.

Detection of 5–fluorouracil surface contamination in near real time. J Oncol Pharm Pract 2016; 22: 396–408.

27.

Connor

Smith

. New approaches to wipe sampling methods for antineoplastic and other hazardous drugs in healthcare settings. Pharm Technol Hosp Pharm 2016; 1: 107–114.

28.

Pandey

Jain

. ROC curve: making way for correct diagnosis SP-11, Denver, Colorado, USA: PharmaSUG, 2016.