Occupational exposure to anti-cancer drugs: A review of effects of new technology

Journal of Oncology Pharmacy Practice

Volumn 20, Issue 4, 2014, Pages 278-287

  Vyas, Nitin ^a,b   Yiannakis, Dennis ^a   Turner, Andrew ^b   Sewell, Graham J ^b  

^a DERRIFORD HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF PLYMOUTH   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Anti cancer drugs; Biological monitoring; Closed system drug transfer device; Environmental monitoring; Pharmaceutical isolator

Indexed keywords

ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENT;

ANALYSIS; ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING; HOSPITAL PHARMACY; HUMAN; OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE; PHARMACIST; PHARMACY; PROCEDURES; PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT; WORKPLACE;

ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENTS; ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING; HUMANS; OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE; PHARMACISTS; PHARMACY; PHARMACY SERVICE, HOSPITAL; PROTECTIVE DEVICES; WORKPLACE;

EID: 84905651278     PISSN: 10781552     EISSN: 1477092X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1078155213498630     Document Type: Review

References (54)

1. IARC. IARC monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risks to humans, vol. 50. IARC, 1990. http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monographs/vol50/index.php.
2. Connor TH. Hazardous Anticancer Drugs in Health Care. Ann N Y Acad Sci 2006; 1076: 615-623.
3. Clapp RW, Howe GK and Jacobs MM. Environmental and occupational causes of cancer: A call to act on what we know. Biomed Pharmacother 2007; 61: 631-639.
4. Dabrowski T and Dabrowska EA. Cytostatic drugs and their carcinogenicity - occupational risk problem for healthcare workers. Wspotczesna Onkologia-Contemp Oncol 2007; 11: 101-105.
5. Falck K, Gröhn P, Sorsa M, et al. Mutagenicity in urine of nurses handling cytostatic drugs. Lancet 1979; 313: 1250-1251.
6. Cavallo D, Ursini CL, Perniconi B, et al. Evaluation of genotoxic effects induced by exposure to antineoplastic drugs in lymphocytes and exfoliated buccal cells of oncology nurses and pharmacy employees. Mutat Res/Genet Toxicol Environ Mutagen 2005; 587: 45-51.
7. Martin S. The adverse health effects of occupational exposure to hazardous drugs. Community Oncol 2005; 2: 397-400.
8. Sasaki M, Dakeishi M, Hoshi S, et al. Assessment of DNA damage in Japanese nurses handling antineoplastic drugs by comet assay. J Occup Health 2008; 50: 7-12.
9. NIOSH. Preventing occupational exposures to antineoplastic and other hazardous drugs in health care settings. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, 2004. http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2004-165/pdfs/2004-165. pdf.
10. ASHP. ASHP guidelines on handling hazardous drugs. Am J Health Syst Pharm 2006; 63: 1172-1193.
11. ISOPP. ISOPP standards of practice. Safe handling of cytotoxics. International Society of Oncology Pharmacy Practitioners. J Oncol Pharm Pract 2007; 13(Suppl): 1-81.
12. Mortelmans K and Zeiger E. The Ames Salmonella/ microsome mutagenicity assay. Mutat Res/Fundam Mol Mech Mutagen 2000; 455: 29-60.
13. Sorsa M and Anderson D. Monitoring of occupational exposure agents to cytostatic anticancer. Mutat Res 1996; 355: 253-261.
14. Benhamou S, Callais F, Sancho-Garnier Hln, et al. Mutagenicity in urine from nurses handling cytostatic agents. Eur J Cancer Clin Oncol 1986; 22: 1489-1493.
15. Friederich U, Molko F, Hofmann V, et al. Limitations of the salmonella/mammalian microsome assay (AMES test) to determine occupational exposure to cytostatic drugs. Eur J Cancer Clin Oncol 1986; 22: 567-575.
16. Suspiro A and Prista J. Biomarkers of occupational exposure do anticancer agents: a minireview. Toxicol Lett 2011; 201: 42-52.
17. Fairbairn DW, Olive PL and O'Neill KL. The comet assay: a comprehensive review. Mutat Res/Rev Genet Toxicol 1995; 339: 37-59.
18. Cornetta T, Padua L, Testa A, et al. Molecular biomonitoring of a population of nurses handling antineoplastic drugs. Mutat Res 2008; 638: 75-82.
19. Tompa A, Jakab M, Biro A, et al. Chemical safety and health conditions among Hungarian hospital nurses. Ann N Y Acad Sci 2006; 1076: 634-648.
20. Turci R, Sottani C, Ronchi A, et al. Biological monitoring of hospital personnel occupationally exposed to antineoplastic agents. Toxicol Lett 2002; 134: 57-64.
21. Turci R, Sottani C, Spagnoli G, et al. Biological and environmental monitoring of hospital personnel exposed to antineoplastic agents: a review of analytical methods. J Chromatogr B 2003; 789: 169-209.
22. Bagley Jr CM, Bostick FW and DeVita Jr VT. Clinical pharmacology of cyclophosphamide. Cancer Res 1973; 33: 226-33.
23. Weir PJ, Rigge DC, Holmes A, et al. Monitoring working areas for cytotoxic contamination. Hosp Pharm Eur Suppl "Cytotoxics" 2012; 12-14.
24. Zeedijk M, Greijdanus B, Steenstra FB, et al. Monitoring exposure of cytostatics on the hospital ward: Measuring surface contamination of four different cytostatic drugs from one wipe sample. Eur J Hosp Pharm Sci 2005; 11: 18-22.
25. Mason HJ, Blair S, Sams C, et al. Exposure to antineoplastic drugs in two UK hospital pharmacy units. Ann Occup Hyg 2005; 49: 603-610.
26. Schulz H, Bigelow S and Dobish R. Antineoplastic agent workplace contamination study: The Alberta Cancer Board pharmacy perspective. J Oncol Pharm Pract 2005; 11: 101-109.
27. Larson RR, Khazaeu MB and Dillon HK. Monitoring method for surface contamination caused by selected antineoplastic agents. Am J Health Syst Pharm 2002; 59: 270-277.
28. Schmau G, Schierl R and Funck S. Monitoring surface contamination by antineoplastic drugs using gas chromatography- mass spectrometry and voltammetry. Am J Health Syst Pharm 2002; 2002: 956-961.
29. Acampora A, Castiglia L, Miraglia N, et al. A case study: Surface contamination of cyclophosphamide due to working practices and cleaning procedures in two Italian hospitals. Ann Occup Hyg 2005; 49: 611-618.
30. Crauste-Manciet S. Safe handling of cytotoxic drugs. Hosp Pharm Eur 2007; 39-42.
31. Gross ER and Groce DF. An evaluation of nitrile gloves as an alternative to natural rubber latex for handling chemotherapeutic agents. J Oncol Pharm Pract 1998; 4: 165-168.
32. Wallemacq PE, Capron A, Vanbinst R, et al. Permeability of 13 different gloves to 13 cytotoxic agents under controlled dynamic conditions. Am J Health Syst Pharm 2006; 63: 547-556.
33. Harrison BR and Kloos MD. Penetration and splash protection of six disposable gown materials against fifteen antineoplastic drugs. J Oncol Pharm Pract 1999; 5: 61-66.
34. Sessink PJ, Wittenhorst BC, Anzion RB, et al. Exposure of pharmacy technicians to antineoplastic agents: reevaluation after additional protective measures. Arch Environ Health 1997; 52: 240-244.
35. PIC/S. Isolators used for aseptic processing and sterility testing. Pharmaceutical Inspection Cooperation Scheme, 2007. http://www.picscheme.org/ publication.php
36. Midcalf B, Phillips WM, Neiger JS, et al. (eds). Pharmaceutical isolators. London: Pharmaceutical Press, 2004.
37. Sewell GJ. The use of isolators for cytotoxic drug handling in hospital pharmacies. Eur J Parent Sci 1999; 4: 55-59.
38. Crauste-Manciet S, Sessink PJ, Ferrari S, et al. Environmental contamination with cytotoxic drugs in healthcare using positive air pressure isolators. Ann Occup Hyg 2005; 49: 619-628.
39. Roberts S, Khammo N, McDonnell G, et al. Studies on the decontamination of surfaces exposed to cytotoxic drugs in chemotherapy workstations. J Oncol Pharm Pract 2006; 12: 95-104.
40. Connor TH, Anderson RW, Sessink PJ, et al. Effectiveness of a closed-system device in containing surface contamination with cyclophosphamide and ifosfamide in an i.v. admixture area. Am J Health Syst Pharm 2002; 59: 68-72.
41. Wick C, Slawson MH, Jorgenson JA, et al. Using a closed-system protective device to reduce personnel exposure to antineoplastic agents. Am J Health Syst Pharm 2003; 60: 2314-2320.
42. Harrison BR, Peters BG and Bing M. Comparison of surface contamination with cyclophosphamide and fluorouracil using a closed-system drug transfer device versus standard preparation techniques. Am J Health Syst Pharm 2006; 63: 1736-1744.
43. Spivey S and Connor TH. Determining sources of workplace contamination with antineoplastic drugs and comparing conventional IV drug preparation with a closed system. Hosp Pharm 2003; 38: 135-139.
44. Yoshida J, Tei G, Mochizuki C, et al. Use of a closed system device to reduce occupational contamination and exposure to antineoplastic drugs in the hospital work environment. Ann Occup Hyg 2009; 53: 153-160.
45. Siderov J, Kirsa S and McLauchlan R. Reducing workplace cytotoxic surface contamination using a closedsystem drug transfer device. J Oncol Pharm Pract 2010; 16: 19-25.
46. Sessink PJ, Connor TH, Jorgenson JA, et al. Reduction in surface contamination with antineoplastic drugs in 22 hospital pharmacies in the US following implementation of a closed-system drug transfer device. J Oncol Pharm Pract 2010; 17: 39-48.
47. De Prijck K, D'Haese E, Vandenbroucke J, et al. Microbiological challenge of four protective devices for the reconstitution of cytotoxic agents. Lett Appl Microbiol 2008; 47: 543-548.
48. McMichael D, Jefferson D, Carey E, et al. Utility of the phaseal closed system drug transfer device. Am J Pharm Benefit 2011; 3: 9-16.
49. Thomas C, Forrey R, Haughs D, et al. Second look at utilization of a closed-system transfer device (PhaSeal). Am J Pharm Benefit 2011; 3: 311-318.
50. Dranitsaris G, Johnston M, Poirier S, et al. Are health care providers who work with cancer drugs at an increased risk for toxic events? A systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature. J Oncol Pharm Pract 2005; 11: 69-78.
51. Goodin S, Griffith N, Chen B, et al. Safe handling of oral chemotherapeutic agents in clinical practice: recommendations from an international pharmacy panel. J Oncol Pract 2011; 7: 7-12.
52. Data available from Cancer Research website, http://www.cancerresearchuk. org/cancer-info/cancerstats/incidence (accessed 29 March 2012).
53. Mistry M, Parkin DM, Ahmad AS, et al. Cancer incidence in the United Kingdom: projections to the year 2030. Br J Cancer 2011; 105: 1795-1803.
54. NCAG. Chemotherapy services in England: ensuring quality and safety. National chemotherapy advisory group 2009; 1-70. http://ncat.nhs.uk/sites/ default/files/ NCAG%20Report.pdf