Caregivers in healthcare settings are exposed to a risk of antineoplastic drug contamination which can lead to adverse health effects. Biological monitoring is necessary to estimate the actual level of exposure of these workers. This study was conducted with the aim of assessing blood contamination levels by irinotecan and its metabolites of pharmaceutical staff operating inside and outside a compounding unit.
Methods
The study took place within the pharmaceutical unit of a French comprehensive cancer centre. Blood samples were collected from the pharmacy workers operating inside and outside the compounding unit, and analysed by UHPLC-MS/MS. Plasma and red blood cell irinotecan and its metabolites (SN-38; APC) were determined with a validated analytical method detection test.
Results
A total of 17/78 (21.8%) plasma and red blood cell-based assays were found to be contaminated among staff. Overall, the total number of positive assays was significantly higher for staff members working outside the compounding unit than for workers working inside it (P = 0.022), with respectively 5/42 (11.9%) and 12/36 (33.3%) positive assays. For plasma dosages, the “outside” group had a significantly higher number of positive assays (P = 0.014). For red blood cell-based assays, no significant difference was found (P = 0.309).
Conclusions
This study reveals that pharmaceutical staff serving in health care settings are exposed to a risk of antineoplastic drug contamination, not only inside the compounding room but also in adjacent rooms. The results would help to raise awareness and potentially establish protective measures for caregivers working in areas close to the compounding room as well.
FalckKGröhnPSorsaM, et al.
Mutagenicity in urine of nurses handling cytostatic drugs. Lancet1979;
1: 1250–1251.
2.
McDiarmidMAOliverMSRothTS, et al.
Chromosome 5 and 7 abnormalities in oncology personnel handling anticancer drugs. J Occup Environ Med2010;
52: 1028–1034.
3.
ConnorTHLawsonCCPolovichM, et al.
Reproductive health risks associated with occupational exposures to antineoplastic drugs in health care settings: a review of the evidence. J Occup Environ Med2014;
56: 901–910.
4.
RousselCWittKLShawPB, et al.
Meta-analysis of chromosomal aberrations as a biomarker of exposure in healthcare workers occupationally exposed to antineoplastic drugs. Mutat Res2019;
781: 207–217.
5.
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. Preventing occupational exposure to antineoplastic and other hazardous drugs in health care settings. Publication Number 2004-165 (2004, accessed 2 December 2020).
6.
HonCYTeschkeKDemersPA, et al.
Antineoplastic drug contamination on the hands of employees working throughout the hospital medication system. Ann Occup Hyg2014;
58: 761–770.
7.
SalchSAZamboniWCZamboniBA, et al.
Patterns and characteristics associated with surface contamination of hazardous drugs in hospital pharmacies. Am J Health Syst Pharm2019;
76: 591–598.
8.
PalaminiMGagnéSCaronN, et al.
Cross-sectional evaluation of surface contamination with 9 antineoplastic drugs in 93 Canadian healthcare centers: 2019 results. J Oncol Pharm Pract2020;
26: 1921–1930.
9.
CrulMHilhorstSBreukelsO, et al.
Occupational exposure of pharmacy technicians and cleaning staff to cytotoxic drugs in Dutch hospitals. J Occup Environ Hyg2020;
17: 343–352.
10.
VerscheureECretaMVanoirbeekJ, et al.
Environmental contamination and occupational exposure of Algerian hospital workers. Front Public Health2020;
8: 374.
11.
American Society of Health-System Pharmacists.ASHP guidelines on handling hazardous drugs. Am J Health-Syst Pharm2006;
63: 1172–1193.
12.
SessinkPJVan de KerkhofMCAnzionRB, et al.
Environmental contamination and assessment of exposure to antineoplastic agents by determination of cyclophosphamide in urine of exposed pharmacy technicians: is skin absorption an important exposure route?Arch Environ Health1994;
49: 165–169.
13.
PethranASchierlRHauffK, et al.
Uptake of antineoplastic agents in pharmacy and hospital personnel. Part I: monitoring of urinary concentrations. Int Arch Occup Environ Health2003;
76: 5–10.
14.
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.
15.
SugiuraSNakanishiHAsanoM, et al.
Multicenter study for environmental and biological monitoring of occupational exposure to cyclophosphamide in Japan. J Oncol Pharm Pract2011;
17: 20–28.
16.
HonCYTeschkeKShenH, et al.
Antineoplastic drug contamination in the urine of Canadian healthcare workers. Int Arch Occup Environ Health2015;
88: 933–941.
17.
ChauchatLTanguayCTherrienR, et al.
Biological monitoring of 4 antineoplastic drugs in health care workers from 2 adult hospitals: a pilot study. Can J Hosp Pharm2019;
72: 56–59.
18.
TurciRSottaniCSpagnoliG, et al.
Biological and environmental monitoring of hospital personnel exposed to antineoplastic agents: a review of analytical methods. J Chromatogr B Analyt Technol Biomed Life Sci2003;
789: 169–209.
19.
SessinkP.Biomonitoring great, but do it the right way!.J Oncol Pharm Pract2019;
25: 246–247.
20.
NygrenOLundgrenC.Determination of platinum in workroom air and in blood and urine from nursing staff attending patients receiving cisplatin chemotherapy. Int Arch Occup Environ Health1997;
70: 209–214.
21.
IzzoVCharlierBBloiseE, et al.
A UHPLC-MS/MS-based method for the simultaneous monitoring of eight antiblastic drugs in plasma and urine of exposed healthcare workers. J Pharm Biomed Anal2018;
154: 245–251.
22.
ShuPZhaoTWenB, et al.
Application of an innovative high-throughput liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry method for simultaneous analysis of 18 hazardous drugs to rule out accidental acute chemotherapy exposures in health care workers. J Oncol Pharm Pract2020;
26: 794–802.
23.
GholampourANabizadehRHassanvandMS, et al.
Characterization and source identification of trace elements in airborne particulates at urban and suburban atmospheres of tabriz, Iran. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int2016;
23: 1703–1713.
24.
DiasioRBHarrisBE.Clinical pharmacology of 5-fluorouracil. Clin Pharmacokinet1989;
16: 215–237.
25.
RivoryLPHaazMCCanalP, et al.
Pharmacokinetic interrelationships of irinotecan (CPT-11) and its three major plasma metabolites in patients enrolled in phase I/II trials. Clin Cancer Res1997;
3: 1261–1266.
26.
KawatoYAonumaMHirotaY, et al.
Intracellular roles of SN-38, a metabolite of the camptothecin derivative CPT-11, in the antitumor effect of CPT-11. Cancer Res1991;
51: 4187–4191.
HonCYTeschkeKChuaP, et al.
Occupational exposure to antineoplastic drugs: Identification of job categories potentially exposed throughout the hospital medication system. Saf Health Work2011;
2: 273–281.
29.
RamphalRBainsTGouletG, et al.
Occupational exposure to chemotherapy of pharmacy personnel at a single centre. Can J Hosp Pharm2015;
68: 104–112.
30.
ConnorTHAndersonRWSessinkPJ, et al.
Surface contamination with antineoplastic agents in six cancer treatment centers in the United States and Canada. Am J Health Syst Pharm1999;
56: 1427–1432.
Food and Drug Administration. FDA guidance for industry: bioanalytical method validation.
Silver Spring:
US Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, https://www.fda.gov/media/70858/download (2018, accessed 2 December 2020).
33.
DubrayQDialloTLoeuilletR, et al.
Occupational risks evaluation in a centralized antineoplastic agent preparation unit. SAGE Open Med2019;
7: 2050312119866970.
34.
CrulMSimons-SandersK.Carry-over of antineoplastic drug contamination in dutch hospital pharmacies. J Oncol Pharm Pract2018;
24: 483–489.
35.
BenoistHBreuilCLe NeindreB, et al.
Does equipment change impact blood contamination with irinotecan and its two major metabolites in a centralized cytotoxic pharmacy unit?J Oncol Pharm Pract2020;
26: 1823–1828.
36.
Queruau LamerieTNussbaumerSDécaudinB, et al.
Evaluation of decontamination efficacy of cleaning solutions on stainless steel and glass surfaces contaminated by 10 antineoplastic agents. Ann Occup Hyg2013;
57: 456–469.
37.
GuillemetteALangloisHVoisineM, et al.
Impact and appreciation of two methods aiming at reducing hazardous drug environmental contamination: the centralization of the priming of IV tubing in the pharmacy and use of a closed-system transfer device. J Oncol Pharm Pract2014;
20: 426–432.
38.
Fleury-SouverainSMattiuzzoMMehlF, et al.
Evaluation of chemical contamination of surfaces during the preparation of chemotherapies in 24 hospital pharmacies. Eur J Hosp Pharm2015;
22: 333–341.
39.
Martín LancharroPCastro-Acuña Iglesias NDGonzález-BarcalaFJ, et al.
Evidence of exposure to cytostatic drugs in healthcare staff: a review of recent literature. Farm Hosp2016;
40: 604–621.
40.
SimonNOdouPDecaudinB, et al.
Efficiency of degradation or desorption methods in antineoplastic drug decontamination: a critical review. J Oncol Pharm Pract2019;
25: 929–946.
