Many hospitals are now investing in robotic compounding system for the preparation of cytotoxic agents. The objective of the present study was to describe contamination by cytotoxics inside and outside the RIVATM robot (ARxIUM, Winnipeg, Canada).
Material & Methods
We applied a risk analysis to determine which locations inside and outside the compounding robot should be monitored. Samples were collected by swabbing with a wet swab (using 0.1 mL of sterile water) before the robots was cleaned. Ten cytotoxics compounded with the robot were screened for using LC-MS/MS. We determined the percentage contamination rates inside (CRin) and outside (CRout) the robot and the amounts of each contaminant (in ng/cm²). If a sample was found to be positive, a corrective action was implemented.
Results
Our risk analysis highlighted 10 locations inside the robot and 7 outside. Ten sampling campaigns (10 samples per campaign) were performed. The mean CRin (40%) was significantly higher than the mean CRout (2%; p < 10−4). Gemcitabine and cyclophosphamide were the main contaminants. After the implementation of corrective measures (such as daily cleaning with SDS/isopropyl alcohol), the CRin fell from 60% to 10%.
Discussion/conclusion
The frequency of contamination was lower for robotic compounding than for manual compounding in an isolator. However, robotic compounding tended to generated larger mean amounts of contaminant; this was related to incidents such as splashing when syringes were disposed of after the compounding. The implementation of corrective actions effectively reduced the CRs. Further longer-term studies are required to confirm these results.
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.
2.
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.
3.
SelevanSGLindbohmMLHornungRW,et al.A study of occupational exposure to antineoplastic drugs and fetal loss in nurses. N Engl J Med1985; 313: 1173–1178.
4.
El-EbiaryAAAbuelfadlAASarhanNI. Evaluation of genotoxicity induced by exposure to antineoplastic drugs in lymphocytes of oncology nurses and pharmacists. J Appl Toxicol2013; 33: 196–201.
5.
SessinkPJBosRP. Drugs hazardous to healthcare workers. Evaluation of methods for monitoring occupational exposure to cytostatic drugs. Drug Saf1999; 20: 347–359.
6.
VillaAGeshkovskaABellagambaG, et al.Factors associated with internal contamination of nurses by antineoplastic drugs based on biomonitoring data from a previous study. Int J Hyg Environ Health2023; 254: 114264.
7.
NdawSRemyA. Occupational exposure to antineoplastic drugs in twelve French health care setting: biological monitoring and surface contamination. Int J Environ Res Public Health2023; 20: 4952.
8.
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.
9.
HedmerMTinnerbergHAxmonA,et al.Environmental and biological monitoring of antineoplastic drugs in four workplaces in a Swedish hospital. Int Arch Occup Environ Health2008; 81: 899–911.
10.
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.
11.
ChuWCHonCYDanylukQ, et al.Pilot assessment of the antineoplastic drug contamination levels in British Columbian hospitals pre- and post-cleaning. J Oncol Pharm Pract2012; 18: 46–51.
Pharmaceutical inspection convention pharmaceutical inspection co-operation scheme. PIC/S guide to good practices for the preparation of medicinal products in healthcare establishments – PE 010-4, https://picscheme.org/en/publications (2014, accessed 26 October 2023).
14.
PowerLACoyneJW. ASHP guidelines on handling hazardous drugs. Am J Health-Syst Pharm2018; 75: 1996–2031.
International Society of Oncology Pharmacy Practice. ISOPP standards for the safe handling of cytotoxics. J Oncol Pharm Pract2022; 28: 1–126.
17.
US Pharmacopeia. USP General chapter <800> Hazardous drugs – handling in healthcare settings. www.usp.org (accessed 26 October 2023).
18.
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.
19.
SessinkPJMTrahanJCoyneJW. Reduction in surface contamination with cyclophosphamide in 30 US hospital pharmacies following implementation of a closed-system drug transfer device. Hosp Pharm2013; 48: 204–212.
20.
AnastasiMRudazSQueruau LamerieT, et al.Efficacy of two cleaning solutions for the decontamination of 10 antineoplastic agents in the biosafety cabinets of a hospital pharmacy. Ann Occup Hyg2015; 59: 895–908.
21.
DelafoyCRoussyCHudonAF, et al.Canadian Monitoring program of the surface contamination with 11 antineoplastic drugs in 122 centers. J Oncol Pharm Pract2023; 29: 338–347.
22.
Saint-LorantGVasseurMAllorgeD, et al.Four-year follow-up of surface contamination by antineoplastic drugs in a compounding unit. Occup Environ Med2023; 80: 146–153.
23.
BussièresJFTanguayCTouzinK, et al.Environmental contamination with hazardous drugs in Quebec hospitals. Can J Hosp Pharm2012; 65: 428–435.
24.
AcamporaACastigliaLMiragliaN, et al.A case study: surface contamination of cyclophosphamide due to working practices and cleaning procedures in two Italian hospitals. Ann Occup Hyg2005; 49: 611–618.
25.
Crauste-MancietSSessinkPJMFerrariS, et al.Environmental contamination with cytotoxic drugs in healthcare using positive air pressure isolators. Ann Occup Hyg2005; 49: 619–628.
26.
SimonNVasseurMPinturaudM, et al.Effectiveness of a closed-system transfer device in reducing surface contamination in a new antineoplastic drug-compounding unit: a prospective, controlled, parallel study. PLoS One2016; 11: e0159052.
27.
VasseurMSimonNPicherC, et al.A decontamination process adding a tensioactive agent and isopropanol to a closed-system drug transfer device for better control of isolator contamination. A prospective, parallel study. PloS One2018; 13: e0201335.
28.
SegerACChurchillWWKeohaneCA, et al.Impact of robotic antineoplastic preparation on safety, workflow, and costs. J Oncol Pract2012; 8: 344–349.
29.
SpiveySConnorTH. Determining sources of workplace contamination with antineoplastic drugs and comparing conventional IV drug preparation with a closed system. Hosp Pharm2003; 38: 135–139.
30.
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.
31.
KrämerIFedericiMSchierlR. Environmental and product contamination during the preparation of antineoplastic drugs with robotic systems. Pharm Technol Hosp Pharm2018; 3: 153–164.
32.
SessinkPJLeclercqGMWoutersDM, et al.Environmental contamination, product contamination and workers exposure using a robotic system for antineoplastic drug preparation. J Oncol Pharm Pract2015; 21: 118–127.
33.
CaronGVasseurMCourtinJ, et al.Evaluation of cancer drug infusion devices prior to the implementation of a compounding robot. J Oncol Pharm Pract2024; 30: 251–256.
34.
AllersmaDOdouPGarebP. Equipment. In: Le Brun P, Crauste-Manciet S, Krämer I, Smith J and Woerdenbag H (eds) Practical pharmaceutics. Cham: Springer.
35.
CarrezLMartinVVerreyAS, et al.Qualification and performance evaluation of an automated system for compounding injectable cytotoxic drugs. Pharm Technol Hosp Pharm2018; 3: 165–175.
36.
DeljehierTBouguéonGHelouryJ, et al.Simulation program of a cytotoxic compounding robot for monoclonal antibodies and anti-infectious sterile drug preparation. J Oncol Pharm Pract2019; 25: 1873–1890.
PowerLASessinkPJMGesyK,et al.Hazardous drug residue on exterior vial surfaces: evaluation of a commercial manufacturing process. Hosp Pharm2014; 49: 355–362.
39.
SchierlRHerwigAPfallerA, et al.Surface contamination of antineoplastic drug vials: comparison of unprotected and protected vials. Am J Health-Syst Pharm2010; 67: 428–429.
40.
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.
