Advertisement

Pharmaceutisch Weekblad

, Volume 14, Issue 1, pp 16–22 | Cite as

Detection of contamination with antineoplastic agents in a hospital pharmacy department

  • Paul J. M. Sessink
  • Rob B. Anzion
  • Petra H. H. Van den Broek
  • Rob P. Bos
Articles

Abstract

The contamination with fluorouracil, cyclophosphamide and methotrexate was studied in a hospital pharmacy department where these drugs were prepared. In the preparation room, air samples were taken before and during preparation of the drugs. Methotrexate was detected in one sample which was collected during preparation (0.3μg/m3). Spot samples were taken in the vertical laminar airflow safety hood before and after preparation of the drugs and after cleaning of the hood. Contamination of the laminar airflow hood was: cyclophosphamide: 1–160 ng/cm2; fluorouracil: 10–62 ng/cm2 and methotrexate: 2–633 ng/cm2. Spot samples from the floor in front of and beneath the laminar airflow hood showed contamination with especially fluorouracil (48–236μg/m2). The gloves used during preparation of the drugs were contaminated mainly with fluorouracil (5–980 ng/cm2). Urine samples from two workers involved in the preparation of the drugs were analysed for unmetabolized cyclophosphamide; it was not detected. Although no uptake of cyclophosphamide was established, it is shown that the methods for measurement of cyclophosphamide, fluorouracil and methotrexate in the preparation room are applicable for the control of occupational exposure to these drugs.

Keywords

Contamination Cyclophosphamide Drug compounding Fluorouracil Methotrexate Occupational exposure Pharmacy service, hospital 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    International Agency for Research on Cancer. Some antineoplastic and immunosuppressive agents. Lyon: IARC, 1981. (IARC monographs on the evaluation of the carcinogenic risk of chemicals to humans; vol. 26).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Jagun O, Ryan M, Waldron HA. Urinary thioether excretion in nurses handling cytotoxic drugs [letter]. Lancet 1982;2:443–4.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Burgaz S, Özdamar YN, Karakay AE. A signal assay for the detection of genotoxic compounds: application on the urines of cancer patients on chemotherapy and of nurses handling cytotoxic drugs. Human Toxicol 1988;7:557–60.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Staianio N, Gallelli JF, Adamson RH, Thorgeirsson SS. Lack of mutagenic activity in urine from hospital pharmacists admixing antitumour drugs [letter]. Lancet 1981;1:615–6.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wilson JP, Solimando DA Jr. Antineoplastics: a safety hazard? [letter]. Am J Hosp Pharm 1981;38:624.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hoffman DM. Lack of urine mutagenicity of nurses administering pharmacy prepared doses of antineoplastic agents. Am J IV Ther Clin Nutr 1983;10:28–31.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gibson JF, Gompertz D, Hedworth-Whitty RB. Mutagenicity of urine from nurses handling cytotoxic drugs [letter]. Lancet 1984;1:100–1.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Venitt S, Crofton-Sleigh C, Hunt J, Speechley V, Briggs K. Monitoring exposure of nursing and pharmacy personnel to cytotoxic drugs: urinary mutation assays and urinary platinum as markers of absorption. Lancet 1984;1:74–7.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cloak MM, Connor TH, Stevens KR, Theiss JC, Alt JM, Matney TS, et al. Occupational exposure of nursing personnel to antineoplastic agents. Oncol Nurs Forum 1985;12:33–9.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Everson RB, Ratcliffe JM, Flack PM, Hoffman DM, Watanabe AS. Detection of low levels of urinary mutagen excretion by chemotherapy workers which was not related to occupational drug exposures. Cancer Res 1985;45:6487–97.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Connor TH, Theiss JC, Anderson RW, Puckett WH, Matney TS. Re-evaluation of urine mutagenicity of pharmacy personnel exposed to antineoplastic agents. Am J Hosp Pharm 1986;43:1236–9.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Friederich U, Molko F, Hofmann V, Scossa D, Hann D, Würgler FE, et al. Limitations of theSalmonella/mammalian microsome assay (Ames test) to determine occupational exposure to cytostatic drugs. Eur J Cancer Clin Oncol 1986;22:567–77.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Poyen D, DeMéo MP, Botta A, Gouvernet J, Duménil G. Handling of cytostatic drugs and urine mutagenesis. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 1988;61:183–8.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Barale R, Sozzi G, Toniolo P, Borghi O, Reali D, Loprieno N, et al. Sister-chromatid exchanges in lymphocytes and mutagenicity in urine of nurses handling cytostatic drugs. Mutat Res 1985;157:235–40.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sorsa M, Pyy L, Salomaa S, Nylund L, Yager JW. Biological and environmental monitoring of occupational exposure to cyclophosphamide in industry and hospitals. Mutat Res 1988;204:465–79.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Krepinsky A, Bryant DW, Davison L, Young B, Heddle J, McCalla DR, et al. Comparison of three assays for genetic effects of antineoplastic drugs on cancer patients and their nurses. Environ Mol Mutagen 1990;15:83–92.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Falck K, Gröhn P, Sorsa M, Vainio H, Heinonen E, Holsti LR. Mutagenicity in urine of nurses handling cytostatic drugs [letter]. Lancet 1979;1:1250–1.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Anderson RW, Puckett WH Jr, Dana WJ, Nguyen TV, Theiss JC, Matney TS. Risk of handling injectable antineoplastic agents. Am J Hosp Pharm 1982;39:1881–7.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bos RP, Leenaars AO, Theuws JLG, Henderson PT. Mutagenicity of urine from nurses handling cytostatic drugs, influence of smoking. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 1982;50:359–69.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Nguyen TV, Theiss JC, Matney TS. Exposure of pharmacy personnel to mutagenic antineoplastic drugs. Cancer Res 1982;42:4792–6.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Macek C. Hospital personnel who handle anticancer drugs may face risks [editorial]. JAMA 1982;247:11–2.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Benhamou S, Callais F, Sancho-Garnier H, Min S, Courtois YA, Pesty B. Mutagenicity in urine from nurses handling cytostatic agents. Eur J Cancer Clin Oncol 1986;22:1489–93.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Caudell KA, Vredevoe DL, Dietrich MF, Caudell TP, Hoban MJ, Block JB. Quantification of urinary mutagens in nurses during potential antineoplastic agent exposure. A pilot study with concurrent environmental and dietary control. Cancer Nurs 1988;11:41–50.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kolmodin-Hedman B, Hartvig P, Sorsa M, Falck K. Occupational handling of cytostatic drugs. Arch Toxicol 1983;54:25–33.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Stucker I, Hirsch A, Doloy T, Batie-Sigeac I, Hemon D. Urine mutagenicity, chromosomal abnormalities and sister chromatid exchanges in lymphocytes of nurses handling cytostatic drugs. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 1986;57:195–205.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Pohlová H, Cerná M, Rössner P. Chromosomal aberrations, SCE and urine mutagenicity in workers occupationally exposed to cytostatic drugs. Mutat Res 1986;174:213–7.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Norppa H, Sorsa M, Vainio H, Gröhn P, Heinonen E, Holsti L, et al. Increased sister chromatid exchange frequencies in lymphocytes of nurses handling cytostatic drugs. Scand J Work Environ Health 1980;6:299–301.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Waksvik H, Klepp O, Brøgger A. Chromosome analyses of nurses handling cytostatic agents. Cancer Treat Rep 1981;65:607–10.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Nikula E, Kiviniitty K, Leisti J, Taskinen PJ. Chromosome aberrations in lymphocytes of nurses handling cytostatic agents. Scand J Work Environ Health 1984;10:71–4.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Stiller A, Obe G, Boll I, Pribilla W. No elevation of the frequencies of chromosomal alterations as a consequence of handling cytostatic drugs. Analyses with peripheral blood and urine of hospital personnel. Mutat Res 1983;121:253–9.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Jordan DK, Patil SR, Jochimsen PR, Lachenbruch PA, Corder MP. Sister chromatid exchange analysis in nurses handling antineoplastic drugs. Cancer Invest 1986;4:101–7.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Benhamou S, Pot-Deprun J, Sancho-Garnier H, Chouroulinkov I. Sister chromatid exchanges and chromosomal aberrations in lymphocytes of nurses handling cytostatic agents. Int J Cancer 1988;41:350–3.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Hirst M, Tse S, Mills DG, Levin L. Occupational exposure to cyclophosphamide. Lancet 1984;1:186–8.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Evelo CTA, Bos RP, Peters JGP, Henderson PT. Urinary cyclophosphamide assay as a method for biological monitoring of occupational exposure to cyclophosphamide. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 1986;58:151–5.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Kaijser GP, Underberg WJM, Beijnen JH. The risks of handling cytotoxic drugs. I. Methods of testing exposure. Pharm Weekbl [Sci] 1990;12(6):217–27.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    De Werk Neal A, Wadden RA, Chiou WL. Exposure of hospital workers to airborne antineoplastic agents. Am J Hosp Pharm 1983;40:597–601.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    McDiarmid MA, Egan T, Furio M, Bonacci M, Watts SR. Sampling for airborne fluorouracil in a hospital drug preparation area. Am J Hosp Pharm 1986;43:1942–5.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Richtlijnen voor het werken met en het toepassen van cytostatica [Guidelines for handling and application of antineoplastic agents]. Groningen/Nijmegen: Integraal Kankercentrum Noord/Integraal Kankercentrum Oost, 1986.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Kaijser GP, Underberg WJM, Beijnen JH. The risks of handling cytotoxic drugs. II. Recommendations for working with cytotoxic drugs. Pharm Weekbl [Sci] 1990;12(6):228–38.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Arbeidssituaties en bedrijfsgezondheidszorg in ziekenhuizen [Working situations and occupational healthcare in hospitals]. The Hague: Directoraat-Generaal van de Arbeid, 1988:70.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Pantarotto C, Bossi A, Belvedere G, Martini A, Donelli MG, Frigero G. Quantitative GLC determination of cyclophosphamide and isophosphamide in biological specimens. J Pharmacol Sci 1974;63:1554–8.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Sessink PJ, Van den Broek PH, Bos RP. Urinary cyclophosphamide excretion in rats after intratracheal, dermal, oral and intravenous administration of cyclophosphamide. J Appl Toxicol 1991;11:125–8.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Connor TH, Laidlaw JL, Theiss JC, Anderson RW, Matney TS. Permeability of latex and polyvinyl chloride gloves to carmustine. Am J Hosp Pharm 1984;41:676–9.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Laidlaw JL, Connor TH, Theiss JC, Anderson RW, Matney TS. Permeability of latex and polyvinyl chloride gloves to 20 antineoplastic drugs. Am J Hosp Pharm 1984;41:2618–23.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Slevin ML, Ang LM, Johnston A, Turner P. The efficiency of protective gloves used in the handling of cytotoxic drugs. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 1984;12:151–3.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Stoikes ME, Carlson JD, Farris FF, Walker PR. Permeability of latex and polyvinyl chloride gloves to fluorouracil and methotrexate. Am J Hosp Pharm 1987;44:1341–6.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Mouridsen HT, Faber O, Skovsted L. The biotransformation of cyclophosphamide in man: analysis of the variation in normal subjects. Acta Pharmacol Toxicol 1974;35:98–106.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Royal Dutch Association for Advancement of Pharmacy 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • Paul J. M. Sessink
    • 1
  • Rob B. Anzion
    • 1
  • Petra H. H. Van den Broek
    • 1
  • Rob P. Bos
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Toxicology, Faculty of Medical SciencesUniversity of NijmegenHB NijmegenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations