Preventing the contamination of hospital personnel by cytotoxic agents: evaluation and training of the para-professional healthcare workers in oncology units

Impact of low- and high-risk operators handling irinotecan on the blood contamination of health care workers in oncology day care units

INTRODUCTION

Health care workers handling antineoplastic drugs (ADs) are at risk of mutagenicity and adverse reproductive effects. Despite protective equipment and AD handling guidelines, AD levels are still detected in caregivers in oncology units. This study attempted to assess blood contamination by irinotecan and its metabolites in all health care workers in oncology day hospital units according to activities specific to each employment category.

METHODS

The study was performed at two different hospitals: a university hospital and a comprehensive cancer centre. Forty-four participants were categorized according to their daily activity as a high-risk operator (29 nurses/ward aides and 5 cleaning staff) and a low-risk operator (7 doctors and 3 secretaries). The collected blood samples were subjected to UHPLC-MS/MS. The plasma and red blood cell (RBC) levels of irinotecan and its metabolites (SN-38; APC) were determined using a validated analytical method detection test.

RESULTS

Two hundred sixty-four assay results were collected (132 plasma results and 132 RBC results). The comparison between low- and high-risk operator-contaminated workers was not significant (18.33% positive results in low-risk operators vs. 25.98% positive results in high-risk operators; P = 0.22). This homogeneity showed overall contamination within the unit. Positive results were obtained in 21.43% of physicians, 11.11% of secretaries, 25.86% of nurses/ward aides and 26.67% of cleaning staff. These results could be explained by the lack or failure of personal and collective protective equipment. A lack of protection and inadequate decontamination procedures can result in surface contamination.

CONCLUSIONS

This study evaluated blood contamination with irinotecan and its metabolites in health care workers from day hospital care units. Among the 24.24% of contaminations observed in care units, the difference between low- and high-risk operator contamination was not significant (P = 0.22). The impact on blood contamination found is the same between low- and high-risk caregivers. This implies that the protective precautions associated with the handling of anticancer drugs must therefore be followed by all staff, including those believed to be at low risk of exposure.

Barriers and facilitators for the safe handling of antineoplastic drugs

INTRODUCTION

Antineoplastic drugs are widely used in the treatment of cancer. However, some are known carcinogens and reproductive toxins, and incidental low-level exposure to workers is a health concern. CAREX Canada estimated that approximately 75,000 Canadians are exposed to antineoplastic drugs in workplace settings. While policies and guidelines on safe handling of antineoplastic drugs are available, evidence suggests that compliance is low. In this paper, we identify barriers and facilitators for safe handling of antineoplastic drugs in workplace settings.

METHODS

We utilized a unique method to study public policy which involved compiling policy levers, developing a logic model, conducting a literature review, and contextualizing data through a deliberative process with stakeholders to explore in-depth contextual factors and experiences for the safe handling of antineoplastic drugs.

RESULTS

The most common barriers identified in the literature were: poor training (46%), poor safety culture (41%), and inconsistent policies (36%). The most common facilitators were: adequate safety training (41%), leadership support (23%), and consistent policies (21%). Several of these factors are intertwined and while this means one barrier can cause other barriers, it also allows healthcare employers to mitigate these barriers by implementing small but meaningful changes in the workplace.

CONCLUSION

The combination of barriers and facilitators identified in our review highlight the importance of creating work environments where safety is a priority for the safe handling of antineoplastic drugs. The results of this study will assist policy makers and managers in identifying gaps and enhancing strategies that reduce occupational exposure to antineoplastic drugs.

Occupational exposure to antineoplastic drugs: what about hospital sanitation personnel?

OBJECTIVE

Occupational exposure to antineoplastic drugs (ANPs) occurs mainly through dermal contact. Our study was set up to assess the potential exposure of hospital sanitation (HS) personnel, for whom almost no data are available, through contamination of surfaces they regularly touch.

METHODS

In the oncology departments of two hospitals around Montreal, surface wipe samples of 120-2000 cm² were taken at 10 sites cleaned by the HS personnel and five other sites frequently touched by nursing and pharmacy personnel. A few hand wipe samples were collected to explore skin contamination. Wipes were analyzed by ultra-performance liquid chromatography tandem-mass spectrometry for 10 ANPs.

RESULTS

Overall, 60.9% of 212 surface samples presented at least one ANP above the limits of detection (LOD). Cyclophosphamide and gemcitabine were most often detected (52% and 31% of samples respectively), followed by 5-fluorouracil and irinotecan (15% each). Highest concentrations of five ANPs were found in outpatient clinics on toilet floors (5-fluorouracil, 49 ng/cm²; irinotecan, 3.6 ng/cm²), a perfusion pump (cyclophosphamide, 19.6 ng/cm²) and on a cytotoxic waste bin cover (gemcitabine, 4.97 ng/cm²). Floors in patient rooms had highest levels of cytarabine (0.12 ng/cm²) and methotrexate (6.38 ng/cm²). Hand wipes were positive for two of 12 samples taken on HS personnel, seven of 18 samples on nurses, and two of 14 samples on pharmacy personnel.

CONCLUSIONS

A notable proportion of surfaces showed measurable levels of ANPs, with highest concentrations found on surfaces cleaned by HS personnel, who would benefit from appropriate preventive training. As potential sources of worker exposure, several hospital surfaces need to be regularly monitored to evaluate environmental contamination and efficacy of cleaning.

Important exposure controls for protection against antineoplastic agents: Highlights for oncology health care workers

BACKGROUND

A great number of antineoplastic drugs (ANPDs) are used globally in cancer treatment. Due to their adverse health effects, occupational exposure to ANPDs is considered a potential health risk to health care workers.

OBJECTIVE

The current study aimed to evaluate safe-handling practices of ANPDs, exposure controls, and adverse health implications for health care providers exposed to ANDPs.

METHODS

Prevention measures, including engineering, administrative, and work practice controls, as well as personal protective equipment (PPE), were recorded daily through a questionnaire for six weeks. Acute adverse health effects experienced by health care workers were also documented.

RESULTS

The implemented exposure controls for preparation, administration, cleaning, and waste disposal were not in accordance with the safe handling guidelines. Central nervous system disorders (26.33%) were the most frequent acute adverse effects reported by health care workers. A significant correlation was found between the number of experienced adverse effects and handling characteristics, including the number of preparations (r = 0.38, p < 0.05), dose, and the number of prepared drugs (r = 0.46, p < 0.01 and 0.39, p < 0.05), and working hours in different locations of oncology setting for six weeks (preparation room: r = 0.38, P < 0.05, treatment room: r = 0.46, P < 0.01, patient room: r = 0.63, P < 0.01, and station: r = 0.68, P < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Due to inadequate control measures, oncology health care workers were in danger of exposure to ANPDs and experienced acute adverse health effects. Implementation of appropriate exposure controls is required to prevent occupational exposure to ANPDs.

Is hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) safe for healthcare workers?

BACKGROUND

During hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC), caregivers are exposed by different routes to cytotoxic drugs. This review proposes an overview of the safety of HIPEC by assessing existing data on protection procedures, biological and non-biological samples. Based on these data, relevant good practices, eventual irrelevant overprotection procedures and missing data to implement adapted protections are highlighted.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Data were extracted from a systematic review of literature from 1980 till 2016: number and type of surgical procedure, healthcare professionals present, protective equipment, samples, pre-analytical method and analytical method.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Only 55 HIPEC procedures have been evaluated. The majority of antineoplastic drugs used have all required characteristics to penetrate the organism and are recognized as very dangerous. Moreover, a great heterogeneity in protective equipment used, either individual or collective is observed. Environmental contamination occurs during HIPEC, especially for all surfaces in the operating room. Compounds penetration into caregivers lungs cannot be excluded. Priority remains to prove professionals contamination by focusing on biological samples. Biological material is rarely sampled or samples are not necessarily adapted.

CONCLUSION

Repeated blood tests should be preferred using appropriate sampling schedules and validated sensitive analytical methods. Furthermore, there is a great need of new biological indicators to monitor caregivers exposure. During hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC), healthcare workers are exposed by different routes to cytotoxic drugs. There are currently few available occupational exposure data and environmental monitoring and biomonitoring must be improved in order to ensure optimal protection against antineoplastic drugs.

Professional risks when carrying out cytoreductive surgery for peritoneal malignancy with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC): A French multicentric survey

BACKGROUND

Over the last two decades, many surgical teams have developed programs to treat peritoneal carcinomatosis with extensive cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC). Currently, there are no specific recommendations for HIPEC procedures concerning environmental contamination risk management, personal protective equipment (PPE), or occupational health supervision.

METHODS

A survey of the institutional practices among all French teams currently performing HIPEC procedures was carried out via the French network for the treatment of rare peritoneal malignancies (RENAPE).

RESULTS

Thirty three surgical teams responded, 14 (42.4%) which reported more than 10 years of HIPEC experience. Some practices were widespread, such as using HIPEC machine approved by the European Community (100%), individualized or centralized smoke evacuation (81.8%), "open" abdominal coverage during perfusion (75.8%), and maintaining the same surgeon throughout the procedure (69.7%). Others were more heterogeneous, including laminar flow air circulation (54.5%) and the provision of safety protocols in the event of perfusate spills (51.5%). The use of specialized personal protective equipment is ubiquitous (93.9%) but widely variable between programs.

CONCLUSION

Protocols regarding cytoreductive surgery/HIPEC and the associated professional risks in France lack standardization and should be established.