Assessment of the surface contamination of the primary packaging of oral antineoplastic drugs and secondary packaging of chemotherapy preparations at a Swiss hospital
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online June, 2025
Assessment of the surface contamination of the primary packaging of oral antineoplastic drugs and secondary packaging of chemotherapy preparations at a Swiss hospital
Due to the high toxicity of antineoplastic drugs, handling their packaging could lead to the chemical contamination of hospital environments and exposure risks to healthcare professionals and patients. This study aimed to assess the contamination of two main surfaces: the outer primary packaging of oral antineoplastic drug formulations (n = 36) available on the Swiss market and the surface of secondary packaging of injectable antineoplastic drug preparations (n = 60) produced by the pharmacy of a Swiss hospital and carriers used for transport (n = 5).
Methods
Samples were collected using a validated wipe sampling method. The simultaneous analysis of 24 antineoplastic drugs: 5-fluorouracil, busulfan, carboplatin, cyclophosphamide, cytarabine, dacarbazine, daunorubicin, docetaxel, doxorubicin, epirubicin, etoposide, gemcitabine, idarubicin, ifosfamide, irinotecan, methotrexate, oxaliplatin, paclitaxel, pemetrexed, raltitrexed, topotecan, treosulfan, vinblastine, vincristine) and 1 antiviral compound (ganciclovir) was performed by UHPLC–MS/MS.
Results
A total of 58% and 90% positive results were obtained for the primary packaging of oral chemotherapies and for the secondary packaging of injectable preparations, respectively. The highest quantities found on the primary packaging for oral chemotherapies and on the surface of closed leak-proof bags were 111 ng of methotrexate and 19 ng of gemcitabine, respectively. Gemcitabine (69%) and cyclophosphamide (38%) were the two most common contaminants found on the packaging of injectable preparations and carriers, regardless of the chemotherapy preparations.
Conclusion
Trace levels (ng) of antineoplastic drugs can be found on most surfaces of all evaluated pharmaceutical products. Thus, suitable personal protective equipment is mandatory for healthcare professional handling antineoplastic drugs.
MathiasPIMacKenzieBAToennisCA,et al.Survey of guidelines and current practices for safe handling of antineoplastic and other hazardous drugs used in 24 countries. J Oncol Pharm Pract2019; 25: 148–162.
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). Preventing occupational exposures to antineoplastic and other hazardous drugs in health care settings. [Internet]. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health; 2004 September [cité 22 mai 2023]. Available on: https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2004-165/
4.
HedmerMGeorgiadiABrembergER,et al.Surface contamination of cyclophosphamide packaging and surface contamination with antineoplastic drugs in a hospital pharmacy in Sweden. Ann Occup Hyg2005; 49: 629–637.
5.
RobertsSKhammoNMcDonnellG,et al.Studies on the decontamination of surfaces exposed to cytotoxic drugs in chemotherapy workstations. J Oncol Pharm Pract2006; 12: 95–104.
6.
SchulzHBigelowSDobishR,et al.Antineoplastic agent workplace contamination study: the Alberta Cancer Board Pharmacy perspective. J Oncol Pharm Pract2005; 11: 101–109.
7.
Fleury-SouverainSMaurinJGuillarmeD,et al.Development and application of a liquid chromatography coupled to mass spectrometry method for the simultaneous determination of 23 antineoplastic drugs at trace levels. J Pharm Biomed Anal2022; 221: 115034.
8.
DugheriSMucciNBucalettiE, et al.Monitoring surface contamination for thirty antineoplastic drugs: a new proposal for surface exposure levels (SELs). Med Pr2022; 73: 383–396.
9.
SottaniCPorroBComelliM,et al.An analysis to study trends in occupational exposure to antineoplastic drugs among health care workers. J Chromatogr B2010; 878: 2593–2605.
10.
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.
11.
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.
12.
HilliquinDTanguayCBussièresJF. External contamination of commercial containers by antineoplastic agents: a literature review. Eur J Hosp Pharm.2020; 27: 313–314.
13.
HilliquinDBussièresJF. External contamination of antineoplastic drug containers from a Canadian wholesaler. J Oncol Pharm Pract2020; 26: 423–427.
14.
NomuraHKatakuraNMoritaT, et al.Surface contamination of the outer and blister packages of oral anticancer drugs: a multicenter study. J Oncol Pharm Pract2020; 26: 141–145.
15.
DelporteJChenoixPHubertP. Chemical contamination of the primary packaging of 5-fluorouracil RTU solutions commercially available on the Belgian market. Eur Hosp Pharm1999; 5: 119–121.
16.
Fleury-SouverainSNussbaumerSMattiuzzoM,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 Pract2014; 20: 100–111.
17.
OsawaTNaitoTSuzukiN,et al.Validated method using liquid chromatography-electrospray ionization tandem mass spectrometry for the determination of contamination of the exterior surface of vials containing platinum anticancer drugs. Talanta2011; 85: 1614–1620.
18.
SchierlRHerwigAPfallerA,et al.Surface contamination of antineoplastic drug vials: comparison of unprotected and protected vials. Am J Health-Syst Pharm2010; 67: 428–429.
19.
TouzinKBussièresJFLangloisÉ,et al.Cyclophosphamide contamination observed on the external surfaces of drug vials and the efficacy of cleaning on vial contamination. Ann Occup Hyg2008; 52: 765–771.
20.
ConnorTHSessinkPJMHarrisonBR, et al.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.
21.
MasonHJMortonJGarfittSJ,et al.Cytotoxic drug contamination on the outside of vials delivered to a hospital pharmacy. Ann Occup Hyg2003; 47: 681–685.
22.
FavierBGillesLArdietC,et al.External contamination of vials containing cytotoxic agents supplied by pharmaceutical manufacturers. J Oncol Pharm Pract2003; 9: 15–20.
23.
NygrenOGustavssonBStrömL,et al.Cisplatin contamination observed on the outside of drug vials. Ann Occup Hyg2002; 46: 555–557.
24.
GuichardNBoccardJRudazS,et al.Wipe-sampling procedure optimisation for the determination of 23 antineoplastic drugs used in the hospital pharmacy. Eur J Hosp Pharm2021; 28: 94–99.
25.
Cytoxlab [Internet]. [cité 31 janv 2024]. Cytoxlab—Laboratoire d’analyse de médicaments anticancéreux. Available on: https://cytoxlab.ch/
26.
Bernabeu-MartínezMARamos MerinoMSantos GagoJM,et al.Guidelines for safe handling of hazardous drugs: a systematic review. PLoS One2018; 13: e0197172.
27.
RandolphSA. Hazardous drugs: handling in health care settings. Workplace Health Saf2018; 66: 264–264.
28.
CapronADestreeJJacobsP,et al.Permeability of gloves to selected chemotherapeutic agents after treatment with alcohol or isopropyl alcohol. Am J Health-Syst Pharm2012; 69: 1665–1670.
29.
HarrisonBRKloosMD. Penetration and splash protection of six disposable gown materials against fifteen antineoplastic drugs. J Oncol Pharm Pract1999; 5: 61–66.
ButayeP. Disinfection and decontamination. In: Working in biosafety level 3 and 4 laboratories: a practical introduction. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 2013, pp. 59–74.
32.
AcramelAFouqueJBlondeel-GomesS, et al.Application of an environmental monitoring to assess the practices and control the risk of occupational exposure to cyclophosphamide in two sites of a French comprehensive cancer center. Ann Work Exp Health2022; 66: 1215–1223.
33.
Werumeus BuningAGeersingTHCrulM. The assessment of environmental and external cross-contamination in preparing ready-to-administer cytotoxic drugs: a comparison between a robotic system and conventional manual production. Int J Pharm Pract2020; 28: 66–74.
34.
HaoMWangTZhuZ, et al.Evaluation of external contamination on the vial surfaces of some hazardous drugs that commonly used in Chinese hospitals and comparison between environmental contamination generated during robotic compounding by IV: dispensing robot vs. manual compounding in biological safety cabinet. J Oncol Pharm Pract2022; 28: 1487–1498.
35.
JanesATanguayCCaronNJ,et al.Environmental contamination with cyclophosphamide, ifosfamide, and methotrexate: a study of 51 Canadian centres. Can J Hosp Pharm2015; 68: 279–289.
36.
SchierlRMasiniCGroeneveldS, et al.Environmental contamination by cyclophosphamide preparation: comparison of conventional manual production in biological safety cabinet and robot-assisted production by APOTECAchemo. J Oncol Pharm Pract2016; 22: 37–45.
37.
VyasNTurnerAClarkJ,et al.Evaluation of a closed-system cytotoxic transfer device in a pharmaceutical isolator. J Oncol Pharm Pract2016; 22: 10–19.
38.
Crauste-MancietSSessinkPJMFerrariS,et al.Environmental contamination with cytotoxic drugs in healthcare using positive air pressure isolators. Ann Occup Hyg2005; 49: 619–628.
