Occupational Exposure Reducing Remedies in Oncology Units
Objectives: The aim of our study is reducing the healthcare workers’ duration of exposure to the cytotoxic agents without increasing the unused dose wasting during preparation by making changes in vial sizes of cytotoxic drugs. Methods: Wasted doses and preparation time (potential exposure time) of the selected antineoplastic drugs were measured for six months. The usage of small dose vials which causes prolongation in preparation time has been avoided and larger dosage forms were preferred in last trimester. Wasted drug dose amounts and preparation periods were recorded. Subsequently, the data compared between the trimesters. Results: The total preparation period in the first trimester was 1407 minutes while it was 1058 minutes in the second trimester. There was no significant changes between the first and the last trimester of the study in terms of patients numbers that receiving chemotherapy and the rate of unused drug doses extermination (p>0.05). On the other hand, drug preparation time, in other words the health employee's exposure period to cytotoxic drugs was reduced 24.81%. Conclusion: In the study, it has been shown that by making rational choices about drug usage can reduce the healthcare workers duration of exposure to the cytotoxic agents.
Giuliani CM, Dass CR. Autophagy and cancer: taking the 'toxic' out of cytotoxics. J Pharm Pharmacol 2013;65:777–89.
2. Martin PL. Safety Pharmacology of Anticancer Agents. Handb Exp Pharmacol 2015;229:405–31. [CrossRef]
3. Meade E. Avoiding accidental exposure to intravenous cytotoxic drugs. Br J Nurs 2014;23:S34,S36–9. [CrossRef]
4. Kopp B, Schierl R, Nowak D. Evaluation of working practices and surface contamination with antineoplastic drugs in outpatient oncology health care settings. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 2013;86:47–55. [CrossRef]
5. Queruau Lamerie T, Nussbaumer S, Décaudin B, Fleury-Sou- verain S, Goossens JF, Bonnabry P, et al. Evaluation of decontamination efficacy of cleaning solutions on stainless steel and glass surfaces contaminated by 10 antineoplastic agents. Ann Occup Hyg 2013;57:456–69.
6. Ramphal R, Bains T, Vaillancourt R, Osmond MH, Barrowman N. Occupational exposure to cyclophosphamide in nurses at a single center. J Occup Environ Med 2014;56:304–12. [CrossRef]
7. Villarini M, Dominici L, Piccinini R, Fatigoni C, Ambrogi M, Curti G, et al. Assessment of primary, oxidative and excision repaired DNA damage in hospital personnel handling antineoplastic drugs. Mutagenesis 2011;26:359–69. [CrossRef]
8. Sottani C, Porro B, Imbriani M, Minoia C. Occupational exposure to antineoplastic drugs in four Italian health care settings. Toxicol Lett 2012;213:107–15. [CrossRef]
9. Sugiura S, Nakanishi H, Asano M, Hashida T, Tanimura M, Hama T, et al. Multicenter study for environmental and biological monitoring of occupational exposure to cyclophosphamide in Japan. J Oncol Pharm Pract 2011;17:20–8. [CrossRef]
10. El-Ebiary AA, Abuelfadl AA, Sarhan NI. Evaluation of genotoxicity induced by exposure to antineoplastic drugs in lymphocytes of oncology nurses and pharmacists. J Appl Toxicol 2013;33:196–201. [CrossRef]
11. Mahmoodi M, Soleyman-Jahi S, Zendehdel K, Mozdarani H, Azimi C, Farzanfar F, et al. Chromosomal aberrations, sister chromatid exchanges, and micronuclei in lymphocytes of oncology department personnel handling anti-neoplastic drugs. Drug Chem Toxicol 2017;40:235–240. [CrossRef]
12. Villarini M, Gianfredi V, Levorato S, Vannini S, Salvatori T, Moretti M. Occupational exposure to cytostatic/ antineo-plastic drugs and cytogenetic damage measured using the lymphocyte cytokinesis-block micronucleus assay: A sys-tematic review of the literature and metaanalysis. Mutat Res 2016;770(Pt A):35–45. [CrossRef]
13. Biró A, Fodor Z, Major J, Tompa A. Immunotoxicity monitoring of hospital staff occupationally exposed to cytostatic drugs. Pathol Oncol Res 2011;17:301–8. [CrossRef]
14. Vyas N, Yiannakis D, Turner A, Sewell GJ. Occupational exposure to anti-cancer drugs: A review of effects of new technology. J Oncol Pharm Pract 2014;20:278–87. [CrossRef]
15. Martín Lancharro P, De Castro-Acuña Iglesias N, González-Barcala FJ, Moure González JD. Evidence of exposure to cytostatic drugs in healthcare staff: a review of recentliterature. Farm Hosp 2016;40:604–21.
16. Ferlay J, Colombet M, Soerjomataram I, Dyba T, Randi G, Bettio M, et al. Cancer incidence and mortality patterns in Europe: Estimates for 40 countries and 25 major cancers in 2018. Eur J Cancer 2018;103:356–87. [CrossRef]
17. Yang YT, Nagai S, Chen BK, Qureshi ZP, Lebby AA, Kessler S, et al. Generic oncology drugs: are they all safe? Lancet Oncol 2016;17:e493-e501. [CrossRef]
18. Suspiro A, Prista J. Biomarkers of occupational exposure do anticancer agents: a minireview. Toxicol Lett 2011;207:42–52.
19. Easty AC, Coakley N, Cheng R, Cividino M, Savage P, Tozer R, et al. Safe handling of cytotoxics: guideline recommendations. Curr Oncol 2015;22:e27–37. [CrossRef]
20. Mathias PI, MacKenzie BA, Toennis CA, Connor TH. Survey of guidelines and current practices for safe handling of antineoplastic and other hazardous drugs used in 24 countries. J Oncol Pharm Pract 2019;25:148–62. [CrossRef]
21. Kibby T. A review of surface wipe sampling compared to biologic monitoring for occupational exposure to antineoplastic drugs. J Occup Environ Hyg 2017;14:159–74. [CrossRef]
22. Marie P, Christophe C, Manon R, Marc M, Charleric B, Patrice V. Environmental monitoring by surface sampling for cytotoxics: a review. Environ Monit Assess 2017;189:52. [CrossRef]