Evaluation of the environmental contamination and exposure risk in medical/non-medical staff after oxaliplatin-based pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy

Airborne and surface contamination after rotational intraperitoneal pressurized aerosol chemotherapy using cisplatin

OBJECTIVE

We evaluated the occupational exposure levels of healthcare workers while conducting rotational pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (RIPAC) using cisplatin in a large animal model.

METHODS

We performed RIPAC using cisplatin in 6 female pigs and collected surface and air samples during the procedure. Surface samples were obtained from RIPAC devices and personal protective equipment (PPE) by wiping, and air samples were collected around the operating table. All samples were analyzed by inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry to detect platinum.

RESULTS

Among all surface samples (n=44), platinum was detected in 41 samples (93.2%) but not in all air samples (n=16). Among samples collected from RIPAC devices (n=23), minimum and maximum cisplatin levels of 0.08 and 235.09 ng/cm² were detected, mainly because of direct aerosol exposure in the abdominal cavity. Among samples collected from healthcare workers' PPE (n=21), 18 samples (85.7%) showed contamination levels below the detection limit, with a maximum of 0.23 ng/cm². There was no significant contamination among samples collected from masks, shoes, or gloves.

CONCLUSION

During the RIPAC procedures, there is a potential risk of dermal exposure, as platinum, a surrogate material for cisplatin, was detected at low concentration levels in some surface samples. However, the respiratory exposure risk was not identified, as platinum was not detected in the airborne samples in this study.

Knowledge and practices about safe handling regarding the risk of exposure to antineoplastic drugs for caregivers in compounding units and in operating rooms performing HIPEC/PIPAC

INTRODUCTION

Ever since the late 1970s, occupational exposure associated with the handling of antineoplastic drugs (ADs) in the healthcare environment has been highlighted and demonstrated. Contamination was detected in both operating rooms (OR) and compounding units (CU), where healthcare workers handle and are exposed to ADs in different ways. In the OR, the risk of exposure is higher and the staff receives less training in handling ADs than in the CU. This study aimed to assess and compare knowledge and practices about the safe handling of ADs by caregivers working in these two locations, namely the CU and OR.

METHODS

Two questionnaires (one each for the OR and CU) were created by two investigator pharmacists and were completed during a personal interview of 20 min. The questions were related to the following topics: training, knowledge about occupational exposure and questions related to protective practices. A scoring system was implemented to assess the knowledge and practices of each participant.

RESULTS

In total, 38 caregivers working in the OR and 39 in the CU were included in our study. Significantly more CU staff had specific initial training (p < 0.001) and ongoing training (p < 0.001) in handling ADs. Concerning the knowledge score, OR caregivers had a significantly lower median score for contamination routes (p < 0.001), contamination surfaces (p < 0.001), existing procedures (p < 0.001) and total knowledge (p < 0.001) than CU caregivers. Concerning protective handling practices of ADs, the two locations had nonsignificantly different median scores (p = 0.892).

CONCLUSION

This study suggests that there is still room for improvement in terms of knowledge and protection practices when handling ADs. An appropriate and tailored training program should be developed and provided to all caregivers who handle or come in contact with ADs.Clinical trial registrationStudy CONTACT, ref. 19-504.

Perception, knowledge and protective practices for surgical staff handling antineoplastic drugs during HIPEC and PIPAC

Objectives

Two surgical techniques used for peritoneal metastasis involve a risk of exposure to antineoplastic drugs (ADs): hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) and pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC). The objective of this study was to assess the differences in perception, training, and knowledge of the risks as well as in the protection practices and occupational exposures of all worker categories.

Methods

This descriptive study, led in two hospitals from two distant French regions, was performed through a face-to-face interview and assessed the perception, knowledge and handling practices of ADs by a questionnaire consisting of 52 questions.

Results

Fifty-one professionals participated in this survey. A total of 29.4% (n=15) professionals were afraid to handle ADs. Very few workers have been trained on handling ADs during initial training dedicated to all caregiver (5.9%; n=3). HIPEC is considered to involve a higher risk of exposure to ADs than PIPAC (81.6% (n=31) vs. 57.9% (n=22), respectively, p=0.022, agreement 65.8%). Protective equipment is considered to be less suitable for HIPEC than for PIPAC (29% (n=11) vs. 10.5% (n=4), respectively, p=0.016, agreement 81.6%). Concerning the potential AD contamination location, the participants identified a significant difference between these two practices. During HIPEC, 15.7% (n=6) of caregivers indicated that they had negative symptoms perceived in their practice vs. 2.6% (n=1) during PIPAC.

Conclusions

This study shows that perception, knowledge and protection practices are different between HIPEC and PIPAC. It also shows a difference between the worker categories. In view of the difficulties in making operating room staff available, the related training programmes must have an adapted format.