Quantification of healthcare workers’ exposure to cyclophosphamide,ifosfamide,methotrexate,and 5-fluorouracil by 24-h urine assay: A descriptive pilot study
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online December, 2020
Quantification of healthcare workers’ exposure to cyclophosphamide,ifosfamide,methotrexate,and 5-fluorouracil by 24-h urine assay: A descriptive pilot study
The objective of this pilot study was to determine the frequency of urination and the concentration of four hazardous drugs (cyclophosphamide, ifosfamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil) in workers’ 24-h urine samples in relation to exposure to traces with hazardous drugs.
Methods
The study was conducted in three healthcare centers in the region of Montréal, Quebec, Canada. We recruited healthcare workers (nurses and pharmacy technicians) assigned to the hematology-oncology department. Each participant was asked to collect all urine voided during a 24-h period, to fill out an activity journal documenting tasks performed and to document the use of personal protective equipment. Samples were analyzed for cyclophosphamide, ifosfamide, methotrexate, and alpha-fluoro-beta-alanine (FBAL, the main urinary metabolite of 5-fluorouracil). Drugs were quantified by ultra-performance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (positive electrospray MRM mode).
Results
Eighteen healthcare workers (10 nurses and 8 technicians) were recruited and provided consent to participate. Urine samples were obtained between 1 September and 30 September 2019. The number of urinations over the 24-h collection period ranged from 3 to 11 per participant. A total of 128 urine samples were analyzed for the 18 workers. All urine samples were negative for the four antineoplastics tested.
Conclusion
No traces of cyclophosphamide, ifosfamide, methotrexate, or FBAL were found in the 24-h urine samples of 18 healthcare workers practicing in three healthcare facilities in Quebec. Although it was feasible to collect 24-h urine samples in this research project, it appears unrealistic to do so recurrently as part of a large-scale surveillance program.
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. NIOSH alert – preventing occupational exposures to antineoplastic and other hazardous drugs in health care settings, www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2004-165/pdfs/2004-165.pdf (accessed 12 November 2019).
GurusamyKSBestLMTanguayC, et al.
Closed-system drug-transfer devices plus safe handling of hazardous drugs versus safe handling alone for reducing exposure to infusional hazardous drugs in healthcare staff.Cochrane Database Syst Rev2018, Issue 3. Art. No.: CD012860. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD012860.pub2 (accessed 12 November 2019).
4.
HilliquinDBussièresJ.External contamination of antineoplastic drug containers from a Canadian wholesaler. J Oncol Pharm Pract2019, Epub ahead of print. https://doi.org/10.1177/1078155219868525.
5.
SchierlRHerwigAPfallerA, et al.
Surface contamination of antineoplastic drug vials: comparison of unprotected and protected vials.Am J Health Syst Pharm2010;
67: 428–429.
6.
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. Environmental sampling, decontamination, protective equipment, closed system transfer devices, and work practice: hazardous drug exposures in healthcare, www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/hazdrug/sampling.html (accessed 12 November 2019).
7.
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. Occupational monitoring: hazardous drug exposures in healthcare, www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/hazdrug/monitoring.html (accessed 12 November 2019).
8.
BerruyerMTanguayCMergerD, et al.
Dosage urinaire de médicaments dangereux : état des lieux, enjeux et perspectives. Bull D’information Toxicol2013;
29: 37–55.
9.
PoupeauCRolandCBussièresJ-F.Surveillance urinaire des professionnels de la santé exposés aux antinéoplasiques dans le cadre de leur travail : revue de la littérature de 2010 à 2015. Can J Hosp Pharm2016;
69: 376–387.
10.
Poupeau C, Tanguay C, Plante C, et al. Pilot study of biological monitoring of four antineoplastic drugs among Canadian healthcare workers. J Oncol Pharm Pract 2017; 23: 323--332.
11.
Chauchat L, Tanguay C, Therrien R, et al. Biological Monitoring of 4 Antineoplastic Drugs in Health Care Workers from 2 Adult Hospitals: A Pilot Study. Can J Hosp Pharm 2019; 72: 56--59.
12.
Sessink P. Biomonitoring great, but do it the right way! J Oncol Pharm Pract 2019; 25: 246--247.
13.
Tanguay C and Bussières J. A response to the letter to the editor on Biomonitoring great, but do it the right way! Re: Poupeau et al. Pilot study of biological monitoring of four antineoplastic drugs among Canadian healthcare workers. J Oncol Pharm Pract 2019; 25: 252--253.
EllisonSLRWilliamsA (eds) Eurachem/CITAC Guide CG4: Eurachem/CITAC, quantifying uncertainty in analytical measurement, 3 éd. Eurachem, www.eurachem.org (2012, accessed 5 February 2020).
16.
BienvenuJ-FProvencherGBélangerP, et al.
A standardized procedure for the simultaneous determination of the matrix effect, recovery, process efficiency and internal standard association. Anal Chem2017;
89: 750–7568.
17.
SessinkPJLeclercqGMWoutersD-M, et al.
Environmental contamination, product contamination and workers exposure using a robotic system for antineoplastic drug preparation.J Oncol Pharm Pract2015;
21: 118–127.
18.
CaneparoAMassuccoPVairaM, et al.
Contamination risk for operators performing semi-closed HIPEC procedure using cisplatin.Eur J Surg Oncol2014;
40: 925–929.
19.
SottaniCPorroBImbrianiM, et al.
Occupational exposure to antineoplastic drugs in four Italian health care settings.Toxicol Lett2012;
213: 107–115.
20.
TurciRMinoiaCSottaniC, et al.
Occupational exposure to antineoplastic drugs in seven Italian hospitals: the effect of quality assurance and adherence to guidelines.J Oncol Pharm Pract2011;
17: 320–332.
21.
MaedaSMiyawakiKMatsumotoS, et al.
Evaluation of environmental contaminations and occupational exposures involved in preparation of chemotherapeutic drugs.Yakugaku Zasshi2010;
130: 903–910.
22.
Näslund AndréassonSAnundiHThorénS-B, et al.
Is platinum present in blood and urine from treatment givers during hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy?J Oncol2010;
2010: 1–4.
23.
KollerMBöhlandtAHaberlC, et al.
Environmental and biological monitoring on an oncology ward during a complete working week.Toxicol Lett2018;
298: 158–163.
24.
DugheriSBonariAPompilioI, et al.
Analytical strategies for assessing occupational exposure to antineoplastic drugs in healthcare workplaces. Med Pr2018;
69: 589–604.
25.
FrieseCRMcArdleCZhaoT, et al.
Antineoplastic drug exposure in an ambulatory setting: a pilot study.Cancer Nurs2015;
38: 111–117.
26.
HonC-YTeschkeKShenH, et al.
Antineoplastic drug contamination in the urine of Canadian healthcare workers.Int Arch Occup Environ Health2015;
88: 933–941.
27.
RamphalRBainsTGouletG, et al.
Occupational exposure to chemotherapy of pharmacy personnel at a single centre. Can J Hosp Pharm2015;
68: 104–112.
28.
VillaAFEl BalkhiSAbouraR, et al.
Evaluation of oxaliplatin exposure of healthcare workers during heated intraperitoneal perioperative chemotherapy (HIPEC).Ind Health2015;
53: 28–37.
29.
RamphalRBainsTVaillancourtR, et al.
Occupational exposure to cyclophosphamide in nurses at a single center. J Occup Environ Med2014;
56: 304–312.
30.
MiyakeTIwamotoTTanimuraM, et al.
Impact of closed-system drug transfer device on exposure of environment and healthcare provider to cyclophosphamide in Japanese hospital.SpringerPlus2013;
2: 273.
31.
YoshidaJKodaSNishidaS, et al.
Association between occupational exposure and control measures for antineoplastic drugs in a pharmacy of a hospital. Ann Occup Hyg2013;
57: 251–260.
32.
SugiuraSAsanoMKinoshitaK, et al.
Risks to health professionals from hazardous drugs in Japan: a pilot study of environmental and biological monitoring of occupational exposure to cyclophosphamide.J Oncol Pharm Pract2011;
17: 14–19.
33.
VillariniMDominiciLPiccininiR, et al.
Assessment of primary, oxidative and excision repaired DNA damage in hospital personnel handling antineoplastic drugs.Mutagenesis2011;
26: 359–369.
34.
KonateAPouponJVillaA, et al.
Evaluation of environmental contamination by platinum and exposure risks for healthcare workers during a heated intraperitoneal perioperative chemotherapy (HIPEC) procedure.J Surg Oncol2011;
103: 6–9.
35.
SugiuraSNakanishiHAsanoM, et al.
Multicenter study for environmental and biological monitoring of occupational exposure to cyclophosphamide in Japan.J Oncol Pharm Pract2011;
17: 20–28.
36.
YoshidaJKodaSNishidaS, et al.
Association between occupational exposure levels of antineoplastic drugs and work environment in five hospitals in Japan.J Oncol Pharm Pract2011;
17: 29–38.
37.
ConnorTHDeBordDGPrettyJR, et al.
Evaluation of antineoplastic drug exposure of health care workers at three university-based US cancer centers. J Occup Environ Med2010;
52: 1019–1027.
38.
NdawSDenisFMarsanP, et al.
Biological monitoring of occupational exposure to 5-fluorouracil: urinary α-fluoro-β-alanine assay by high performance liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry in health care personnel.J Chromatogr B2010;
878: 2630–2634.
39.
PieriMCastigliaLBasilicataP, et al.
Biological monitoring of nurses exposed to doxorubicin and epirubicin by a validated liquid chromatography/fluorescence detection method. Ann Occup Hyg2010;
54: 368–376.
40.
KoppBSchierlRNowakD.Evaluation of working practices and surface contamination with antineoplastic drugs in outpatient oncology health care settings.Int Arch Occup Environ Health2013;
86: 47–55.
41.
HamaKFukushimaKHirabatakeM, et al.
Verification of surface contamination of Japanese cyclophosphamide vials and an example of exposure by handling.J Oncol Pharm Pract2012;
18: 201–206.
42.
SabatiniLBarbieriALodiV, et al.
Biological monitoring of occupational exposure to antineoplastic drugs in hospital settings.Med Lav2012;
103: 394–401.
43.
BaniasadiSAlehashemMYunesianM, et al.
Biological monitoring of healthcare workers exposed to antineoplastic drugs: urinary assessment of cyclophosphamide and ifosfamide. Iran J Pharm Res 2018; 17: 1458--1464.
44.
NdawSHanserOKenepekianV, et al.
Occupational exposure to platinum drugs during intraperitoneal chemotherapy. Biomonitoring and surface contamination.Toxicol Lett2018;
298: 171–176.
