CA Cancer J Clin 2006; 56:354-365
doi: 10.3322/canjclin.56.6.354
© 2006 American Cancer Society
Preventing Occupational Exposures to Antineoplastic Drugs in Health Care Settings
Thomas H. Connor, PhD and
Melissa A. McDiarmid, MD, MPH
Dr. Connor is Research Biologist, Division of Applied Research and Technology, The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Cincinnati, OH.
Dr. McDiarmid is Professor of Medicine, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD.
This article is available online at http://CAonline.AmCancerSoc.org
 |
ABSTRACT
|
|---|
The toxicity of antineoplastic drugs has been well known since they were introduced in the 1940s. Because most antineoplastic drugs are nonselective in their mechanism of action, they affect noncancerous as well as cancerous cells, resulting in well-documented side effects. During the 1970s, evidence came to light indicating health care workers may be at risk of harmful effects from antineoplastic drugs as a result of occupational exposure. Since that time, reports from several countries have documented drug contamination of the workplace, identified drugs in the urine of health care workers, and measured genotoxic responses in workers. Evidence also exists of teratogenic and adverse reproductive outcomes and increased cancers in health care workers. During the past 30 years, professional organizations and government agencies have developed guidelines to protect health care workers from adverse effects from occupational exposure to antineoplastic drugs. Although many safety provisions were advanced to reduce worker exposure in the 1980s, recent studies have shown that workers continue to be exposed to these drugs despite safety policy improvements. In 2004, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) published an alert reviewing the most recent information available and promoting a program of safe handling during their use.
|
INTRODUCTION
|
|---|
The toxic effects of anticancer chemotherapy are well known to oncology specialists and to primary care clinicians. Awareness of these effects typically influences treatment plans for patients undergoing cancer therapy to prevent or mitigate adverse outcomes. However, beyond the patient safety concerns arising from the necessary therapeutic use of these drugs, occupational risks to health care workers handling these drugs in the course of their duties still need to be fully addressed.
Worldwide, more than 11 million new cases of cancer are diagnosed each year, and that number is expected to rise to 16 million by 2020.1 In the United States, the American Cancer Society (ACS) predicts that almost 1.4 million new cancer cases will be diagnosed in 2006.2 The National Cancer Institute predicts that this figure will double by the year 2050 because the US population is growing and aging.3 This increased patient load, along with the use of high-dose chemotherapy, combinations of several drugs, and the use of antineoplastic drugs for diseases other than cancer, will increase the potential for exposure of the health care worker to these drugs.
For the past 3 decades, treatment for many of these cancer cases has relied principally on anticancer chemotherapy.4 The first such agent, sulphur mustard gas, was observed to cause changes in bone marrow of World War I veterans who were hospitalized many years later. This led to its evaluation as an anticancer agent, and the related, but less toxic, nitrogen mustards were later demonstrated to produce tumor regression in lymphoma patients.5 With approximately 100 different antineoplastic drugs now in use6 and many more under development, drugs used to treat cancer have opened new avenues, from improving the quality of life of patients with cancer to a complete cure. Addressing these drugs' formidable toxicity profile, however, has been an ongoing campaign for clinicians and, more recently, for the occupational health community.
|
HEALTH HAZARDS OF ANTINEOPLASTIC DRUGS
|
|---|
The majority of antineoplastic drugs are nonselective in their action: they exhibit their effects in both cancerous and noncancerous cells in most organs and body tissues. Known effects in treated patients include hepatic and renal toxicity, cardiotoxicity, hematopoietic toxicity, pulmonary toxicity, immunotoxicity, ototoxicity, dermal toxicity, and particularly injury to tissues with a rapid turnover rate.7
In the 1970s, secondary malignancies were reported in patients who had previously received antineoplastic drugs for other, usually solid tumor malignancies. The most commonly seen secondary malignancies were leukemia and bladder cancer reported after a latency period of several years.8 Since that time, a number of the antineoplastic drugs, especially many of the alkylating agents, have been associated with secondary cancers in treated patients.9 In support of these findings, numerous laboratory studies have identified these agents as rodent carcinogens and as genotoxic in several test systems.9 Table 1 lists the known (Group 1) and probable (Group 2A) human carcinogens among antineoplastic drugs in clinical use. An additional 11 agents are considered to be possible (Group 2B) human carcinogens by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). Given the nature of these agents and the ability of many of them to actively bind to DNA, RNA, and proteins, it would be expected that many of them are both mutagenic and carcinogenic (Figure 1).
In addition to their mutagenic and carcinogenic properties, many of the antineoplastic drugs have been associated with adverse reproductive effects that have been observed in animals as well as treated male and female patients. Meirow and Schiff10 have reported teratogenic outcomes in laboratory animals and patients treated with antineoplastic drugs during their pregnancies. Currently, 45 antineoplastic drugs are listed as Pregnancy Category D and 5 are listed as Category X by the Food and Drug Administration (Table 2). Reproductive and developmental effects similar to those observed in patients have been reported in health care workers who are exposed to antineoplastic drugs at considerably lower doses than those administered to patients.11,12
|
EFFECTS OF OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE TO ANTINEOPLASTIC DRUGS
|
|---|
Workers may be exposed to a drug throughout its life cycle—from manufacture, to transport and distribution, to use in health care or home care settings, to waste disposal. The number of workers potentially exposed to all hazardous drugs exceeds 5.5 million.6 These workers include shipping and receiving personnel, pharmacists and pharmacy technicians, nursing personnel, physicians, operating room personnel, environmental services personnel, research laboratory personnel, and workers in veterinary practices where hazardous drugs are used. With the use of antineoplastic drugs expanding into other specialties, the number of workers who are not properly trained in their safe handling has increased over the past few years.6
The first evidence documenting occupational exposure in health care workers was provided by a study by Falck and colleagues.14 Nurses who prepared and administered antineoplastic drugs had higher indicators of mutagenic substances in their urine compared with nonexposed workers. A dose response was also observed in the urine mutagenicity frequency with additive exposure over the workweek that decreased over the weekend. Although the health consequences of this finding are unknown, this study suggested that nursing personnel were being occupationally exposed to mutagenic antineoplastic drugs. A 1982 study in the United States demonstrated that pharmacy personnel who prepared injectable antineoplastic agents had detectable concentrations of mutagenic substances in their urine when using a horizontal-flow cabinet (regardless of their use of gloves or masks), whereas no urine mutagenicity was detected after the same personnel wore gloves and used vertical-flow Class II biological safety cabinets (BSC).15 These findings were supported by numerous studies examining urine mutagenicity, chromosomal aberrations, sister chromatid exchanges, and other endpoints in studies of pharmacists and nurses who handle antineoplastic drugs.17–19
Surveys have associated workplace exposures to antineoplastic drugs with acute health effects, primarily in nurses. These included hair loss, headaches, acute irritation, and/or hypersensitivity,12 as well as adverse reproductive outcomes (including infertility, spontaneous abortions, and congenital malformations).
A meta-analysis of 14 studies performed from 1966 to 2004 in the United States and Europe described an association between exposure to antineoplastic drugs and adverse reproductive effects in female health care workers.20 The most common reproductive effects found in these studies were increased fetal loss,21,22 congenital malformations,23 low birth weight and congenital abnormalities,24 and infertility.25 With the meta-analysis, no significant association was detected between exposure to antineoplastic drugs and congenital malformations and stillbirths. However, a significant association was identified between exposure and spontaneous abortions. A number of other endpoints had elevated responses, but were not statistically significant. A study from China that was not included in the meta-analysis reported a significant decrease in full-term births and significant increases in premature birth, spontaneous abortion, and congenital malformations in nursing personnel who were exposed to antineoplastic drugs.26 A recent study by Martin27 documented learning disabilities in the children of nurses who had handled antineoplastic drugs during the course of their employment.
The adverse effects found in many of these studies occurred before the adoption of safe handling guidelines promoted by the Occupational Safety and Health Organization (OSHA) and professional organizations in the mid-1980s. However, these studies document the plausibility of occupational exposure sufficient to cause clinically significant adverse outcomes in routinely exposed workers.
Taking advantage of the vital records data linkage systems available in Denmark, two reports have addressed the link between cancer occurrence and health care workers' exposures to antineoplastic drugs. A significantly increased risk of leukemia has been reported among oncology nurses identified in the Danish cancer registry for the period 1943 to 1987.28 The same group29 found an increased risk of leukemia in physicians employed for at least 6 months in a department where patients were treated with antineoplastic drugs. However, the increase was not statistically significant. Despite the small number of cases observed, the biological relevance of these excess hematopoietic malignancies is underscored in light of the commonly observed hematopoietic second malignancies observed in treated patients.8 These two studies28,29 examined workers' exposure to antineoplastic drugs before safe handling guidelines were in place, however, and no contemporary studies have examined cancer outcomes in similar populations.
|
SOURCES AND INDICATORS OF OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE
|
|---|
Exposure of health care providers to antineoplastic drugs is varied, and the routes of exposure are typically inhalation, dermal, or oral. Workers may be exposed by inhalation via droplets, particulates, and vapors when they create aerosols, generate dust by crushing tablets, and clean up spills. Dermal exposure may occur when workers touch contaminated surfaces during the preparation, administration, or disposal of hazardous drugs, and oral exposure may occur from hand-to-mouth contact. Accidental injection with an antineoplastic drug, although rare, has been documented. Table 3 lists activities that may result in exposures through inhalation, skin contact, ingestion, or injection.6
Dermal contamination can arise from drug residues on the outside of drug vials.30–38 Thus, the environment of health care personnel may be contaminated even before antineoplastic drug reconstitution has begun. Since the early 1990s, numerous studies have been published that have demonstrated contamination of the workplace with antineoplastic drugs.18,19,30,31,38–60 Typically, two to five "marker" drugs are sampled and analyzed in pharmacies and patient treatment areas. Studies from several countries have shown contamination of surfaces of biological safety cabinets, countertops, floors, equipment, and most surfaces in areas where patients are treated. In all studies, at least one of the drugs was detected. In many studies, all drugs were detected, indicating that other drugs for which analyses were not performed were most likely present.
Most studies involving air sampling for antineoplastic drugs have detected little to no airborne contamination with these agents.6 Studies have typically reported drugs present in only a small percentage of samples and then usually at low concentrations. However, this may be related to problems with the methodology used in the early studies.61 A recent study by Mason in the United Kingdom reported significant concentrations of several drugs in both personal and area air samples.62 Drug particulates can become airborne after the drying of contaminated areas. Vaporization of antineoplastic agents has also been reported with various drugs such as carmustine, ifosfamide, thiotepa, and cyclophosphamide.53,63
Inadvertent ingestion may be an additional route of exposure. When food or beverages are prepared, stored, or consumed in work areas, they may easily become contaminated with airborne particles of antineoplastic drugs. Likewise, hands, cigarettes, cosmetics, and chewing gum can be contaminated. A potential source of exposure is direct skin contact when a spill or leak occurs and a large volume of drug is released to the environment.
As an indicator of internal worker exposure to antineoplastic drugs, 19 studies have measured some of the same marker drugs used in environmental sampling in the urine of health care workers.30,39,41–43,56,57,62,64–74 All but two of the studies detected one or more of the drugs in the urine. Four studies reported the presence of antineoplastic drugs in the urine of workers who were not preparing the drugs, indicating secondary exposure from environmental contamination.30,41,71,73
Because many of the antineoplastic drugs are genotoxic by nature, biomarkers for genotoxic agents have been used to monitor worker exposure to these drugs.17–19 Biomarkers for a number of endpoints such as urine mutagenicity, chromosomal aberrations, micronuclei, sister chromatid exchange, and DNA damage have been used in more than 100 research studies in health care settings where antineoplastic drugs are prepared and administered. Because of their nonspecific nature, these biomarkers can only be used as an indicator of exposure to a genotoxic agent and may be influenced by extraneous sources of exposure, especially tobacco smoke. However, many properly controlled studies have demonstrated a significant difference in the outcomes of these biomarkers in workers exposed to antineoplastic drugs compared with control populations.17,75–81
This evidence highlights the critical need to reduce exposure to all hazardous drugs in the health care environment. Efforts must be made to reduce occupational exposure to concentrations as low as reasonably achievable. A combination of exposure control methods can be applied to achieve this goal.
|
SAFE HANDLING GUIDELINES
|
|---|
When the risk to the health of exposed workers first became a recognized safety concern, the Society of Hospital Pharmacists of Australia published safe handling guidelines in 1981.82 Several organizations and government agencies in the United States also published guidelines for the safe handling of hazardous drugs, starting with the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists (ASHP) in 1985,83 and including the Oncology Nursing Society (ONS),84 the National Institutes of Health (NIH),85,86 the National Study Commission on Cytotoxic Exposure,87 and the American Medical Association's Council on Scientific Affairs.88 OSHA issued safe handling guidelines in 1986.89 These guidelines were expanded in 1995 to include all hazardous drugs.90
The ASHP Technical Assistance Bulletin of 1990 first used the term "hazardous drug" to address other pharmaceuticals that posed a hazard to workers, but were not used in cancer therapy.91 They proposed a schema whereby a drug could be qualitatively characterized as hazardous based on its inherent toxicity. These characteristics generally relate to carcinogenicity, genotoxicity, teratogenic, or reproductive hazards and are listed in Table 4. Two-thirds of the approximately 140 hazardous drugs that have been identified are classified as antineoplastic/cytotoxic agents. The remainder includes some hormonal agents, immunosuppressants, antiviral medications, and monoclonal antibodies.6
Although guidelines for safe handling have been in place since the mid-1980s in the United States, subsequent reports indicate that workplace contamination and worker exposure were continuing where antineoplastic drugs were being prepared and administered.46,57 Therefore, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) developed an alert that addressed safe handling issues for all hazardous drugs.6 Other safe handling guidelines have been updated by professional organizations in this time frame, including the ASHP92 and the ONS.93
|
CONTROL OF EXPOSURE
|
|---|
The basic occupational health approach to minimize exposure to any workplace hazard is a hierarchy of industrial hygiene control methods. This approach has achieved success across many industrial settings.94 The elements of this hierarchy include elimination or substitution of the hazard, engineering controls, administrative controls, and personal protective equipment (PPE), (Table 5) and can be applied to the health care setting.
|
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SAFE HANDLING OF ANTINEOPLASTIC DRUGS
|
|---|
NIOSH, ASHP, and ONS have current guidelines for the safe handling of hazardous drugs that are based on sound occupational health principals and professional standards of practice. Considerable concurrence exists between the various recommendations and also with the OSHA guidance of 1999.90 The highlights from the NIOSH recommendations presented in Table 6 generally reflect the hierarchy of control technologies. More detailed recommendations can be found at www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2004-165/.
Adherence to recommended work practices and the use of engineering controls and PPE has been shown to substantially reduce worker exposure to antineoplastic drugs. However, several factors, such as increased workload, understaffing, improper training, budgetary constraints, more complex treatment regimens, use in non-oncology specialities, and others can adversely affect how these drugs are handled.
The use of safe handling practices for antineoplastic and other hazardous drugs in some primary areas can dramatically reduce the potential exposure of health care workers to these drugs. These include receipt and storage of drugs, drug preparation, administration of the drug to the patient, transportation of the drug, and drug waste handling, including patient waste, drug waste, and laundry. In addition to the recommendations in Table 5, the following is a summary of some of the highlights of safe handling guidelines that have been described in greater detail elsewhere.6,90,92,93
General Precautions
Only individuals trained in the safe handling of antineoplastic drugs should be involved in their handling. Retraining and competency testing should be done at least on a yearly basis. This training should include the location and use of spill kits, fit-testing and training for respirators, and sources of safety information (Material Safety Data Sheets, Standard Operating Procedures, OSHA, NIOSH, ASHP, ONS websites) for all employees handling antineoplastic drugs.6,92,93,95
Receipt and Storage of Antineoplastic Drugs
As described above, drug vials received from manufacturers are often contaminated on the outside of the vial.30–38 Studies have shown that from a few vials to all the vials in a shipment may be contaminated. The contamination is not typically associated with vials being broken during shipment.37 Obviously when vials are broken during shipment, much higher concentrations of contamination must be dealt with. It is recommended that shippers of antineoplastic drugs place them in zippered plastic bags inside rigid, sealable shipping containers. Containers should be opened carefully and closely inspected on arrival. Personnel unpacking drug vials should wear gloves recommended for handling antineoplastic drugs and respiratory protection to protect themselves from dermal and inhalation exposures. Antineoplastic drugs should be stored in a well-ventilated area separate from other drugs.6,92
Antineoplastic Drug Preparation
Procedures for drug preparation can vary from one institution to the next. In some locations, BSCs are used for antineoplastic drug preparation, whereas others use isolators. A horizontal laminar flow clean bench should never be used for antineoplastic drug preparation, as this design results in significant exposure of the worker and work area.15 For preparing antineoplastic drugs, a Class II or Class III BSC or an isolator intended for asepsis and containment is required.6 When a Class II BSC is used, NIOSH recommends that it be a Class II, 100%-vented cabinet whenever possible. Drug preparation should be done in a controlled environment where access is limited to authorized personnel. BSCs and isolators should be free from clutter, properly cleaned, and maintained to ensure maximum efficiency and to reduce exposure of personnel. Personnel should follow all recommendations for PPE.6,90,92 All waste should be segregated and disposed of according to hospital policy and state and federal regulations that apply.96
Antineoplastic Drug Administration
Detailed guidelines for the administration of antineoplastic drugs have been developed by the ONS,93 and additional recommendations have been published by others.6,90 Although administration of antineoplastic drugs can take several forms, some general recommendations should be stressed. PPE that is appropriate for the task being performed should be used. Needleless systems should be used whenever possible. If intravenous tubing is not primed in the pharmacy, it should be primed with a solution other than the drug, or by the backflow method, and tubing and administrative sets should remain intact for disposal. As in the pharmacy, all waste should be segregated and disposed of according to hospital policy and state and federal regulations that apply.96
Antineoplastic Drug Transportation
Drugs within an institution should be transported in zippered plastic bags placed in containers that protect them. Containers should be labelled to identify the contents as hazardous. Personnel who transport the drugs should be aware of emergency procedures in case of a spill and have access to spill kits.
Antineoplastic Drug Waste Handling
Each institution should have a policy for segregation of waste materials resulting from antineoplastic drug preparation and administration. Some states have their own regulations for disposal of hazardous waste, and federal regulations apply to some medications.6,92,96 Personnel collecting and transporting waste materials in institutions should wear recommended PPE and follow institutional policies. All materials that come in contact with the drugs and patient waste (urine, blood, sweat, feces, and vomit) should be considered to contain the drugs and/or their metabolites and should be handled as hazardous. These materials include used vials and intravenous sets, syringes, gloves, gowns, bedpans, linen, underpads, and similar materials and must be disposed of accordingly. Many institutions have special requirements for linen handling, such as double washing and washing contaminated linen separately from other linen.95
Medical Surveillance
Medical surveillance involves collecting and interpreting data to detect changes in the health status of working populations potentially exposed to hazardous substances.6 The elements of a medical surveillance program are used to establish a baseline of workers' health and then monitor their future health as it relates to their potential exposure to hazardous agents. Medical surveillance is one element of a comprehensive approach to minimizing worker exposure and should be used as part of a safety and health program that includes engineering controls, good work practices, and PPE.
Employers should ensure that health care workers who are exposed to hazardous drugs are routinely monitored as part of a medical surveillance program.90,92,93 This includes workers who directly handle hazardous drugs, such as nurses, pharmacists, and pharmacy technicians. In addition, other workers (eg, nurses' aides) who may come directly into contact with patient wastes within 48 hours after a patient has received a hazardous drug should be included in a medical surveillance program.
|
SUMMARY
|
|---|
The toxicity of anticancer chemotherapy has been well known since its initial clinical use. Indeed, it has often been these drugs' toxic side effects that have limited their therapeutic value. The risk-benefit equation for a cancer patient often determines these drugs' appropriate use despite acknowledged side effects. Although these drugs present the same potential toxicities to exposed health care workers, that risk-benefit ratio is altered. A balance must be achieved to continue the use of these beneficial drugs in patients, while assuring the health of personnel administering them. A body of guidance now exists on how to achieve this goal. Much of the new guidance revisits the long standing elements of a comprehensive safe handling program and reminds us that the risk remains and our vigilance is required, but that a harmonized safe handling approach has been adopted that assures minimal risk to workers who provide lifesaving therapies to their patients.
|
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
|
|---|
The assistance of Rosemary Sokas, Margaret Barton-Burke, and Jeanne Hewitt is acknowledged for reviewing this manuscript. The assistance of Patricia Mathias and Cynthia Striley is acknowledged in the preparation of this manuscript.
|
REFERENCES
|
|---|
- World Health Organization. Cancer: WHO cancer control programme. Available at: . Accessed September 18, 2006.
- Jemal A, Siegel R, Ward E, et al. Cancer Statistics, 2006. CA Cancer J Clin 2006;56:106–130.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Edwards BK, Howe HL, Ries LA, et al. Annual report to the nation on the status of cancer, 1973–1999, featuring implications of age and aging on U. S. cancer burden. Cancer 2002;94:2766–2792.[Medline]
- Chabner BA, Allegra CJ, Curt GA, Calabresi P. Antineoplastic Agents, in Hardman JG, Limbird LE (eds). Goodman and Gilman's The Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics. 9th ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill; 1996:1233–1287.
- Tew K, Colvin OM, Chabner BA. Alkylating Agents, in Chabner BA, Longo DL (eds). Cancer Chemotherapy and Biotherapy: Principles and Practice. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott-Raven; 1996:297–332.
- National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. NIOSH Alert: Preventing Occupational Exposures to Antineoplastic and Other Hazardous Drugs in Health Care Settings. DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 2004-165. Washington DC: US Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2004.
- Barton-Burke M, Wilkes GM. Cancer Therapies. Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett Publishers; 2006.
- Erlichman C, Moore M. Carcinogenesis: a late complication of cancer chemotherapy, in Chabner BA, Longo DL (eds). Cancer Chemotherapy and Biotherapy: Principles and Practice. 2nd ed. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott-Raven; 1996:45–58.
- International Agency for Research on Cancer. IARC Monographs Database on Carcinogenic Risks to Humans. Available at: http://monographs.iarc.fr/. Accessed September 18, 2006.
- Meirow D, Schiff E. Appraisal of chemotherapy effects on reproductive outcome according to animal studies and clinical data. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 2005;34:21–25.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Valanis BG, Vollmer WM, Labuhn KT, Glass AG. Acute symptoms associated with antineoplastic drug handling among nurses. Cancer Nurs 1993;16:288–295.[Medline]
- Valanis BG, Vollmer WM, Labuhn KT, Glass AG. Association of antineoplastic drug handling with acute adverse effects in pharmacy personnel. Am J Hosp Pharm 1993;50:455–462.[Abstract]
- McDiarmid MA. Antineoplastics, Anesthetic Agents, Sex Steroid Hormones, in Paul M (ed). Occupational and Environmental Reproductive Hazards: A Guide for Clinicians. Baltimore, MD: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins;1993:280–295.
- Falck K, Gröhn P, Sorsa M, et al. Mutagenicity in urine of nurses handling cytostatic drugs. Lancet 1979;1:1250–1251.[Medline]
- Anderson RW, Puckett WH, Dana WJ, et al. Risk of handling injectable antineoplastic agents. Am J Hosp Pharm 1982;39:1881–1887.[Abstract]
- US Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. CDER Human Drugs. Available at: http://www.fda.gov/cder/index.html. Accessed June 8, 2006.
- Baker ES, Connor TH. Monitoring occupational exposure to cancer chemotherapy drugs. Am J Health Syst Pharm 1996;53:2713–2723.[Abstract]
- Sorsa M, Anderson D. Monitoring of occupational exposure to cytostatic anticancer agents. Mutat Res 1996;355:253–261.[Medline]
- Sessink PJ, Bos RP. Drugs hazardous to healthcare workers. Evaluation of methods for monitoring occupational exposure to cytostatic drugs. Drug Saf 1999;20:347–359.[Medline]
- Dranitsaris G, Johnson 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.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Selevan SG, Lindbohm ML, Hornung RW, Hemminki K. A study of occupational exposure to antineoplastic drugs and fetal loss in nurses. N Engl J Med 1985;313:1173–1178.[Abstract]
- Stücker I, Caillard JF, Collin R, et al. Risk of spontaneous abortion among nurses handling antineoplastic drugs. Scand J Work Environ Health 1990;16:102–107.[Medline]
- Hemminki K, Kyyrönen P, Lindbohm ML. Spontaneous abortions and malformations in the offspring of nurses exposed to anesthetic gases, cytostatic drugs, and other potential hazards in hospitals, based on registered information of outcome. J Epidemiol Community Health 1985;39:141–147.[Abstract]
- Peelen S, Roeleveld N, Heederik D, et al. Toxic Effects on Reproduction in Hospital Personnel. Reproductie-toxische effecten bij ziekenhuispersonel. Netherlands: Elsevier; 1999.
- Valanis B, Vollmer WM, Steele P. Occupational exposure to antineoplastic agents: self-reported miscarriages and stillbirths among nurses and pharmacists. J Occup Environ Med 1999;41:632–638.[Medline]
- Zhao SF, Zhang XC, Wang QF, Bao YS. The efects of occupational exposure of female nurses to antineoplasic drugs on pregnancy outcome and embryonic development. Teratology 1996;53:94.
- Martin S. Chemotherapy handling and effects among nurses and their offspring. Paper presented at: the Oncology Nursing Society 30th Annual Congress; April 28–May 1, 2005; Orlando, Fla. Abstract 13.
- Skov T, Maarup B, Olsen J, et al. Leukaemia and reproductive outcome among nurses handling antineoplastic drugs. Br J Ind Med 1992;49:855–861.[Medline]
- Skov T, Lynge E, Maarup B, et al. Risk for physicians handling antineoplastic drugs. Lancet 1990;336:1446.[Medline]
- Sessink PJ, Boer KA, Scheefhals AP, et al. Occupational exposure to antineoplastic agents at several departments in a hospital: Environmental contamination and excretion of cyclophosphamide and ifosfamide in urine of exposed workers. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 1992;64:105–112.[Medline]
- Ros JJ, Simons KA, Verzijl JM, et al. Practical applications of a validated method of analysis for the detection of traces of cyclophosphamide on injection bottles and at oncological outpatient center. Ziekenhuisfarmacie 1997;13:168–171.
- Hepp R, Gentschew G. External contamination of commercially available cytotoxic drugs. Krankenhauspharmazie 1998;19:22–27.
- Delporte JP, Chenoix P, Hubert P. Chemical contamination of the primary packaging of 5-fluorouracil RTU solutions commercially available on the Belgian market. Eur Hosp Pharm 1999;5:119–121.
- Nygren O, Gustavsson B, Ström L, Friberg A. Cisplatin contamination on the outside of drug vials. Ann Occup Hyg 2002;46:555–557.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Favier B, Gilles L, Ardiet C, Latour JF. External contamination of vials containing cytotoxic agents supplied by pharmaceutical manufacturers. J Oncol Pharm Pract 2003;9:15–20.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Mason HJ, Morton J, Garfitt SJ, et al. Cytotoxic drug contamination on the outside of vials delivered to a hospital pharmacy. Ann Occup Hyg 2003;47:681–685.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Connor TH, Sessink PJ, Harrison BR, et al. Surface contamination of chemotherapy drug vials and evaluation of new vial-cleaning techniques: results of three studies. Am J Health Syst Pharm 2005;62:475–484.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Hedmer M, Georgiadi A, Rämme Bremberg ER, et al. Surface contamination of cyclophosphamide packaging and surface contamination with antineoplastic drugs in a hospital pharmacy in Sweden. Ann Occup Hyg 2005;49:629–637.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Sessink PJ, Anzion RB, van den Broek PH, Bos RP. Detection of contamination with antineoplastic agents in a hospital pharmacy department. Pharm Weekbl Sci 1992;14:16–22.[Medline]
- McDevitt JJ, Lees PS, McDiarmid MA. Exposure of hospital pharmacists and nurses to antineoplastic agents. J Occup Med 1993;35:57–60.[Medline]
- Sessink PJ, Van de Kerkhof MC, Anzion RB, et al. Environmental contamination and assessment of exposure to antineoplastic agents by determination of cyclophosphamide in urine of exposed pharmacy technicians: is skin absorption an important exposure route? Arch Environ Health 1994;49:165–169.[Medline]
- Sessink PJ, Wittenhorst BC, Anzion RB, Bos RP. Exposure of pharmacy technicians to antineoplastic agents: reevaluation after additional protective measures. Arch Environ Health 1997;52:240–244.[Medline]
- Minoia C, Turci R, Sottani C, et al. Application of high performance liquid chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry in the environmental and biological monitoring of healthcare personnel occupationally exposed to cyclophosphamide and ifosfamide. Rapid Commun Mass Spectrom 1998;12:1485–1493.[Medline]
- Rubino FM, Floridia L, Pietropaolo AM, et al. Measurement of surface contamination by certain antineoplastic drugs using high-performance liquid chromatography: applications in occupational hygiene investigations in hospital environments. Med Lav 1999;90:572–583.[Medline]
- Sessink PJ, Rolf M-AE, Rydèn NS. Evaluation of the PhaSeal hazardous drug containment system. Hosp Pharm 1999;34:1311–1317.
- Connor TH, Anderson RW, Sessink PJ, et al. Surface contamination with antineoplastic agents in six cancer treatment centers in Canada and the United States. Am J Health Syst Pharm 1999;56:1427–1432.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Kromhout H, Hoek F, Uitterhoeve R, et al. Postulating a dermal pathway for exposure to anti-neoplastic drugs among hospital workers. Applying a conceptual model to the results of three workplace surveys. Ann Occup Hyg 2000;44:551–560.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Favier B, Rull FM, Bertucat H, et al. Surface and human contamination with 5-fluorouracil in six hospital pharmacies. J Pharmacie Clinique 2001;20:157–162.
- Micoli G, Turci R, Arpellini M, Minoia C. Determination of 5-fluorouracil in environmental samples by solid-phase extraction and high-performance liquid chromatography with ultraviolet detection. J Chromatogr B Biomed Sci Appl 2001;750:25–32.[Medline]
- Vandenbroucke J, Robays H. How to protect environment and employees against cytotoxic agents, the UZ Ghent experience. J Oncol Pharm Practice 2001;6:146–152.
- Connor TH, Anderson RW, Sessink PJ, Spivey SM. 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.[Free Full Text]
- Leboucher G, Serratrice F, Bertholle V, et al. Evaluation of platinum contamination of a hazardous drug preparation area in a hospital pharmacy. Bull Cancer 2002;89:949–955.[Medline]
- Kiffmeyer TK, Kube C, Opiolka S, et al. Vapor pressures, evaporation behaviour and airborne concentrations of hazardous drugs: implications for occupational safety. Pharmeaceut J 2002;268:331–337.
- Schmaus G, Schierl R, Funck S. Monitoring surface contamination by antineoplastic drugs using gas chromatography-mass spectrometry and voltammetry. Am J Health Syst Pharm 2002;59:956–961.[Free Full Text]
- Schulz H, Bigelow S, Dobish R, Chambers CR. Antineoplastic agent workplace contamination study: the Alberta Cancer Board Pharmacy perspective. J Oncol Pharm Practice 2005;11:101–109.
- Turci R, Sottani C, Ronchi A, Minoia C. Biological monitoring of hospital personnel occupationally exposed to antineoplastic agents. Toxicol Lett 2002;134:57–64.[Medline]
- Wick C, Slawson MH, Jorgenson JA, Tyler LS. Using a closed-system protective device to reduce personnel exposure to antineoplastic agents. Am J Health Syst Pharm 2003;60:2314–2320.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- 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.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- 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.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Zeedijk M, Greijdanus B, Steenstra FB, Uges DR. Monitoring exposure of cytotoxics 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.
- Larson RR, Khazaeli MB, Dillion HK. A new monitoring method using solid sorbent media for evaluation of airborne cyclophosphamide and other antineoplastic agents. Appl Occup Environ Hyg 2003;18:120–131.[Medline]
- 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.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Connor TH, Shults M, Fraser MP. Determination of the vaporization of solutions of mutagenic antineoplastic agents at 23° and 37° C using a desiccator technique. Mutat Res 2000;470:85–92.[Medline]
- Burgaz S, Karahalil B, Bayrak P, et al. Urinary cyclophosphamide excretion and micronuclei frequencies in peripheral lymphocytes and in exfoliated buccal epithelial cells of nurses handling antineoplastics. Mutat Res 1999;439:97–104.[Medline]
- Deschamps F, Marinutti-Liberge V, Lamiable D. Biological monitoring of occupational exposure to cytostatic drugs with platinum. Cancer Detect Prev Online 2002; Available at: http://www.cancerprev.org/Journal/Issues/26/101/1193/4393. Accessed June 1, 2006.
- Ensslin AS, Pethran A, Schierl R, Fruhmann G. Urinary platinum in hospital personnel occupationally exposed to platinum-containing antineoplastic drugs. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 1994;65:339–342.[Medline]
- Ensslin AS, Stoll Y, Pethran A, et al. Biological monitoring of cyclophosphamide and ifosfamide in urine of hospital personnel occupationally exposed to cytostatic drugs. Occup Environ Med 1994;51:229–233.[Abstract]
- Ensslin AS, Huber R, Pethran A, et al. Biological monitoring of hospital pharmacy personnel occupationally exposed to cytostatic drugs: urinary excretion and cytogenetics studies. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 1997;70:205–208.[Medline]
- Evelo CT, Bos RP, Peters JG, Henderson PT. Urinary cyclophosphamide assay as a method for biological monitoring of occupational exposure to cyclophosphamide. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 1986;58:151–155.[Medline]
- Favier B, Gilles L, Desage M, Latour JF. Analysis of cyclophosphamide in the urine of antineoplastic drug handlers. Bull Cancer 2003;90:905–909.[Medline]
- Mader RM, Rizovski B, Steger GG, et al. Exposure of oncologic nurses to methotrexate in the treatment of osteosarcoma. Arch Environ Health 1996;51:310–314.[Medline]
- Nygren O, Lundgren C. Determination of platinum in workroom air and in blood and urine from nursing staff attending patients receiving cisplatin chemotherapy. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 1997;70:209–214.[Medline]
- Pethran A, Schierl R, Hauff K, et al. Uptake of antineoplastic agents in pharmacy and hospital personnel. Part 1: monitoring of urinary concentrations. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 2003;76:5–10.[Medline]
- Sessink PJ, Cerná M, Rössner P, et al. Urinary cyclophosphamide excretion and chromosomal aberrations in peripheral blood lymphocytes after occupational exposure to antineoplastic agents. Mutat Res 1994;309:193–199.[Medline]
- McDiarmid MA, Kolodner K, Humphrey F, et al. Baseline and mutagen-induced sister chromatid exchanges in lymphocytes of pharmacists handling anticancer drugs. Environ Epidemol Tox 2000;2:254–260.
- Pilger A, Kohler I, Stettner H, et al. Long-term monitoring of sister chromatid exchanges and micronucleus formation in pharmacy personnel occupationally exposed to cytostatic drugs. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 2000;73:442–448.[Medline]
- Hessel H, Radon K, Pethran A, et al. The genotoxic risk of hospital, pharmacy and medical personnel occupationally exposed to cytostatic drugs—evaluation by the micronucleus assay. Mutat Res 2001;497:101–109.[Medline]
- Jakab MG, Major J, Tompa A. Follow-up genotoxicological monitoring of nurses handling antineoplastic drugs. J Toxicol Environ Health 2001;62:307–318.
- Burgaz S, Karahalil B, Canhi Z, et al. Assessment of genotoxic damage in nurses occupationally exposed to antineoplastics by the analysis of chromosomal aberrations. Hum Exp Toxicol 2002;21:129–135.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Yang DP, Xu SJ, Wang JX. Study on chromosomal damage among nurses occupationally exposed to antineoplastic drugs in an oncology department. Biomed Environ Sci 2002;15:268–270.[Medline]
- Laffon B, Teixeira JP, Silva S, et al. Genotoxic effects in a population of nurses handling antineoplastic drugs, and relationship with genetic polymorphisms in DNA repair enzymes. Am J Ind Med 2005;48:128–136.[Medline]
- Society of Hospital Pharmacists of Australia's Speciality Practice Committee on Parenteral Services. Guidelines for safe handling of cytotoxic drugs in pharmacy departments and hospital wards. Hosp Pharm 1981;16:17–20.[Medline]
- American Society of Hospital Pharmacists. ASHP technical assistance bulletin on handling cytotoxic drugs in hospitals. Am J Hosp Pharm 1985;42:131–137.
- Oncology Nursing Society Education Committee. Outcome Standards for Cancer Nursing Education. Pittsburgh, PA: Oncology Nursing Society; 1982.
- US Department of Health and Human Services. Recommendations for the Safe Handling of Parenteral Antineoplastic Drugs. NIH Publication 83–2621. Bethesda, MD: National Institutes of Health; 1983.
- US Department of Health and Human Services. Recommendations for the Safe Handling of Cytotoxic Drugs. Bethesda, MD: National Institutes of Health; 1999. Available at: http://www.nih.gov/od/ors/ds/pubs/cyto. Accessed June 1, 2006.
- National Study Commission on Cytotoxic Exposure. Recommendations for Handling Cytotoxic Agents. September 1987. Available from Louis P. Jeffrey, Sc.D., Chairman, National Study Commission on Cytotoxic Exposure, Massachusetts College of Pharmacy and Allied Health Sciences, 179 Longwood Avenue, Boston, MA 02115.
- AMA Council on Scientific Guidelines. Guidelines for handling parenteral antineoplastics. JAMA 1985;253:1590–1592.[Medline]
- US Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Work practice guidelines for personnel dealing with cytotoxic (antineoplastic) drugs. OSHA Publication 8–1.1. Washington DC: Occupational Safety and Health Administration; 1986.
- Occupational Safety and Health Administration. OSHA Technical Manual, TED 1–0.15A, Section VI, Chapter 2, January 20, 1999. Available at: http://www.osha.gov/dts/osta/otm/otm_vi/otm_vi_2.html#2. Accessed June 1, 2006.
- American Society of Hospital Pharmacists. ASHP technical assistance bulletin on handling cytotoxic and hazardous drugs. Am J Hosp Pharm 1990;47:1033–1049.[Medline]
- American Society of Health-System Pharmacists. ASHP Guidelines on Handling Hazardous Drugs. Am J Health Syst Pharm 2006;63:1172–1193.[Free Full Text]
- Polovich M, White JM, Kelleher LO, eds. Chemotherapy and Biotherapy Guidelines and Recommendations for Practice. Pittsburgh, PA: Oncology Nursing Society; 2005. Available at: http://www.guideline.gov/summary/summary.aspx?doc_id=8337. Accessed August 21, 2006.
- Soule RD. Industrial Hygiene Engineering Controls, in Patty FA (ed). Patty's Industrial Hygiene and Toxicology. 3rd Ed. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons; 1978:771–823.
- Peterson AM, Barton-Burke M. Introduction to chemotherapy drugs, in Wilkes GM, Barton-Burke M (eds). Oncology Nursing Drug Handbook. Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett Publishers; 2005:255–288.
- Smith CA. Managing pharmaceutical waste: what pharmacists should know. J Pharm Soc WI 2002;November/December:17–22.
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
