Surface contamination from chemotherapy drugs poses occupational risks to healthcare workers, yet data from China are limited. This study assessed such contamination in healthcare facilities in Shaanxi Province.
Methods
A cross-sectional study was conducted in 16 institutions. Surface wipe samples were collected from Pharmacy Intravenous Admixture Services (PIVAS) and drug preparation rooms in wards (DPRWs) over three days, before and after cleaning. Concentrations of cyclophosphamide (CP) and gemcitabine (Gem) were measured using HPLC-MS/MS. Statistical analyses evaluated contamination differences across environments and cleaning effects.
Results
A total of 659 samples were analyzed. In PIVAS, median Gem and CP levels ranged from 0.00–1.44 ng/cm² and 0.0011–1.10 ng/cm², respectively. In DPRWs, levels ranged from 0.01–3.53 ng/cm² (Gem) and 0.47–36.61 ng/cm² (CP), with CP consistently higher. Contamination concentrated on biological safety cabinet (BSC) surfaces in PIVAS and cabinet windows or preparation tables in DPRWs. Cleaning significantly reduced contamination, which correlated with drug preparation volume. While DPRWs had higher median contamination, the overall difference with PIVAS was not significant. However, DPRWs equipped with BSC had notably lower contamination.
Conclusions
Hazardous drug contamination remains a concern, especially in DPRWs without BSC. Enhanced cleaning protocols and stricter safety regulations are needed to protect healthcare workers in Chinese medical settings.
BrayFLaversanneMSungH, et al.Global cancer statistics 2022: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin2024; 74: 229–263.
3.
BrydøyMFossåSDDahlO, et al.Gonadal dysfunction and fertility problems in cancer survivors. Acta Oncol2007; 46: 480–489.
4.
YuE. Occupational exposure in health care personnel to antineoplastic drugs and initiation of safe handling in Hong Kong: a literature review. J Infus Nurs2020; 43: 121–133.
5.
CotteretCSecretanPHGilles-AfchainL, et al.External contamination of antineoplastic drug vials: an occupational risk to consider. Eur J Hosp Pharm2022; 29: 284–286.
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.
REYBennettD. OSHA work-practice guidelines for personnel dealing with cytotoxic (antineoplastic) drugs. Occupational safety and health administration. Am J Hosp Pharm1986; 43: 1193–1204.
8.
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. Preventing occupational exposures to antineoplastic and other hazardous drugs in healthcare settings, https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2004-165/pdfs/2004-165.pdf (2004, accessed 10-01 2024).
9.
ConnorTHCelanoPFrameJN, et al.Summary of the workshop on the safe handling of hazardous drugs cohosted by the national institute for occupational safety and health and the American society of clinical oncology. J Oncol Pract2017; 13: 199–205.
10.
Pałaszewska-TkaczACzerczakSKonieczkoK, et al.Cytostatics as hazardous chemicals in healthcare workers’ environment. Int J Occup Med Environ Health2019; 32: 141–159.
11.
Health and Safety Excutive. The Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 2002 (as amended), https://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/priced/l5.pdf (2013, accessed 10-01 2024).
12.
WaltonALEisenbergSFrieseCR. Hazardous drugs: legislative and regulatory efforts to improve safe handling. Clin J Oncol Nurs2017; 21: 254–256.
13.
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.
14.
DiaoYYZhangWPYXDU. Analysis of antineoplastic drug utilization in hospitals from 2010 to 2011. China Pharm2012; 21: 60–61.
15.
FengRMZongYNCaoSM, et al.Current cancer situation in China: good or bad news from the 2018 global cancer statistics?Cancer Commun (Lond)2019; 39: 22.
16.
ZhouYYXvDXQiY, et al.Prescription status of antitumor drugs at Chinese hospitals. Chin J Hosp Pharm2021; 41: 1817–1822.
17.
The General Office of the National Health Commission of China. Notice of the General Office of the National Health Commission on Issuing the Guidelines for the Construction and Management of Intravenous Medication Dispensing Centers, https://www.gov.cn/zhengce/zhengceku/2021-12/21/content_5663666.htm (2021, accessed 10-01 2024).
18.
ZhangXZhengQLvY, et al.Evaluation of adverse health risks associated with antineoplastic drug exposure in nurses at two Chinese hospitals: the effects of implementing a pharmacy intravenous admixture service. Am J Ind Med2016; 59: 264–273.
19.
XvZTNiHFWangMM, et al.Current status and future trends of intelligent construction of pharmacy intravenous admixture service in China: visual analysis based upon CiteSpace. Chin J Hosp Pharm2024; 44: 1228–1234.
YinH. Study of occupational exposure risk in workers to anticancer drugs in pharmacy intravenous admixture service of a hospital. China Mod Med2020; 27: 179–182.
22.
HaoMLZhuYBQJ, et al.Investigation and analysis of exposure to antineoplastic drugs of medical staff in sichuan province. Chin Pharm2020; 31: 1009–1014.
23.
KorczowskaECrulMTuerkJ, et al.Environmental contamination with cytotoxic drugs in 15 hospitals from 11 European countries—results of the MASHA project. Eur J Hosp Pharm2020; 3: e24.
24.
BláhováLBláhaLDoležalováL, et al.Proposals of guidance values for surface contamination by antineoplastic drugs based on long term monitoring in Czech and Slovak hospitals and pharmacies. Front Public Health2023; 11: 1235496.
25.
SessinkPJTansBSprietI, et al.Longitudinal evaluation of environmental contamination with hazardous drugs by surface wipe sampling. J Oncol Pharm Pract2023; 30: 1181–1185.
26.
Müller-RamírezCAlmashatSGaitensJ, et al.Carcinogenic drug exposure among health-sector workers: the need for exposure assessment and surveillance. Rev Panam Salud Publica2023; 47: e11.
27.
QuartucciCRooneyJPKNowakD, et al.Evaluation of long-term data on surface contamination by antineoplastic drugs in pharmacies. Int Arch Occup Environ Health2023; 96: 675–683.
28.
HaoMlWangTZhuJq, 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.
29.
JeronimoMColomboMAstrakianakisG, 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 Chem2015; 407: 7083–7092.
30.
DelafoyCRoussyCHudonAF, et al.Canadian Monitoring program of the surface contamination with 11 antineoplastic drugs in 122 centers. J Oncol Pharm Pract2023; 29: 338–347.
31.
AdéAChauchatLFrèveJO, et al.Comparison of decontamination efficacy of cleaning solutions on a biological safety cabinet workbench contaminated by cyclophosphamide. Can J Hosp Pharm2017; 70: 407–414.
32.
OdraskaPDolezalovaLKutaJ, et al.Association of surface contamination by antineoplastic drugs with different working conditions in hospital pharmacies. Arch Environ Occup Health2014; 69: 148–158.
33.
BrouwersEEHuitemaADBakkerEN, et al.Monitoring of platinum surface contamination in seven Dutch hospital pharmacies using inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry. Int Arch Occup Environ Health2007; 80: 689–699.
34.
SchierlRBöhlandtANowakD. Guidance values for surface monitoring of antineoplastic drugs in German pharmacies. Ann Occup Hyg2009; 53: 703–711.
35.
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.
36.
SimonNOdouPDécaudinB, et al.Occupational exposure to conventional antineoplastic drugs: can it be further limited?Eur J Hosp Pharm2020; 27: 251–252.
37.
BláhováLKutaJDoležalováL, et al.The efficiency of antineoplastic drug contamination removal by widely used disinfectants-laboratory and hospital studies. Int Arch Occup Environ Health2021; 94: 1687–1702.
38.
PetitOSaint-LorantGVasseurM, et al.Fastidious chemical decontamination after cyclophosphamide vial breakage in a compounding unit. J Oncol Pharm Pract2020; 26: 2038–2041.
39.
SciubbaFSpagnoliMIavicoliS, et al.Efficacy of sodium hypochlorite in the degradation antineoplastic drugs by NMR spectroscopy. G Ital Med Lav Ergon2020; 42: 109–120.
40.
SottaniCGrignaniEOddoneE, et al.Monitoring surface contamination by antineoplastic drugs in Italian hospitals: performance-based hygienic guidance values (HGVs) project. Ann Work Expo Health2017; 61: 994–1002.
41.
HarrisonBRPetersBGBingMR. Comparison of surface contamination with cyclophosphamide and fluorouracil using a closed-system drug transfer device versus standard preparation techniques. Am J Health Syst Pharm2006; 63: 1736–1744.
