Safety and Health at Work

  • 제14권2호
  • /
  • Pages.237-242
  • /
  • 2023
  • /
  • 2093-7911(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2093-7997(eISSN)
산업안전보건연구원 (Occupational Safety and Health Research Institute, Korea Occupational Safety and Health Agency)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Occupational Exposure during Intraperitoneal Pressurized Aerosol Chemotherapy Using Doxorubicin in a Pig Model

  • Wongeon Jung (Department of Environmental Health Sciences, Graduate School of Public Health, Seoul National University) ;
  • Mijin Park (Department of Environmental Health Sciences, Graduate School of Public Health, Seoul National University) ;
  • Soo Jin Park (Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Seoul National University Hospital) ;
  • Eun Ji Lee (Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Chung-Ang University Hospital) ;
  • Hee Seung Kim (Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Seoul National University College of Medicine) ;
  • Sun Ho Chung ( Bio-Center, Gyeonggido Business & Science Accelerator (GBSA)) ;
  • Chungsik Yoon (Department of Environmental Health Sciences, Graduate School of Public Health, Seoul National University)
  • 투고 : 2022.09.06
  • 심사 : 2023.04.07
  • 발행 : 2023.06.30
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

Background: This study evaluated occupational exposure levels of doxorubicin in healthcare workers performing rotational intraperitoneal pressurized aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) procedures. Methods: All samples were collected during PIPAC procedures applying doxorubicin to an experimental animal model (pigs). All procedures were applied to seven pigs, each for approximately 44 min. Surface samples (n = 51) were obtained from substances contaminating the PIPAC devices, surrounding objects, and protective equipment. Airborne samples were also collected around the operating table (n = 39). All samples were analyzed using ultra-high performance liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry. Results: Among the surface samples, doxorubicin was detected in only five samples (9.8%) that were directly exposed to antineoplastic drug aerosols in the abdominal cavity originating from PIPAC devices. The telescopes showed concentrations of 0.48-5.44 ng/cm2 and the trocar showed 0.98 ng/cm2 in the region where the spraying nozzles were inserted. The syringe line connector showed a maximum concentration of 181.07 ng/cm2, following a leakage. Contamination was not detected on the surgeons' gloves or shoes. Objects surrounding the operating table, including tables, operating lights, entrance doors, and trocar holders, were found to be uncontaminated. All air samples collected at locations where healthcare workers performed procedures were found to be uncontaminated. Conclusions: Most air and surface samples were uncontaminated or showed very low doxorubicin concentrations during PIPAC procedures. However, there remains a potential for leakage, in which case dermal exposure may occur. Safety protocols related to leakage accidents, selection of appropriate protective equipment, and the use of disposable devices are necessary to prevent occupational exposure.

키워드

과제정보

The authors deeply appreciate Dreampac Corp. (WonjuGangwon, Republic of Korea) and Precision Medicine for Peritoneal Metastasis Corp. (WonjuGangwon, Republic of Korea) for their support in conducting rotational intraperitoneal pressurized aerosol chemotherapy. Moreover, the authors thank members of the Korean Rotational Intraperitoneal pressurized Aerosol chemotherapy (KoRIA) Trial Group, including Hee Su Lee, Junsik Kim (Interdisciplinary Program in Bioengineering, Seoul National University Graduate School, Seoul, Republic of Korea), Sunwoo Park (Department of Plant & Biomaterials science, Gyeongsang National University, Jinju, Republic of Korea), Jiyeon Ham, Gwonhwa Song (Institute of Animal Molecular Biotechnology and Department of Biotechnology, College of Life Sciences and Biotechnology, Korea University, Seoul, Republic of Korea), Ga Won Yim (Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Dongguk University Ilsan Hospital, Goyang, Republic of Korea), Seung-Hyuk Shim (Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Research Institute of Medical Science, Konkuk University School of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea), Beong-Cheol Kang (Department of Experimental Animal Research, Biomedical Research Institute, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Republic of Korea) Suk Joon Chang (Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Ajou University School of Medicine, Suwon, Republic of Korea), Whasun Lim (Department of Biological Sciences, Sungkyunkwan University, Suwon, Republic of Korea), Ji Won Park (Department of Surgery, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea), and Jung Chan Lee (Department of Biomedical Engineering, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea).

참고문헌

  1. Giorgio AD, Naticchioni E, Biacchi D, Sibio S, Accarpio F, Rocco M, Tarquini S, Seri MD, Ciardi A, Montruccoli D, Sammartino P. Cytoreductive surgery (peritonectomy procedures) combined with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) in the treatment of diffuse peritoneal carcinomatosis from ovarian cancer. Cancer 2008;113(2):315-25. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.23553.
  2. Solass W, Giger-Pabst U, Zieren J, Reymond MA. Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC): occupational health and safety aspects. Ann Surg Oncol 2013;20:3504-11. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-013-3039-x.
  3. Rodier S, Saint-Lorant G, Guilloit J, Palix A, Divanon F, Sichel F, Delepee R. Is hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) safe for healthcare workers? Surg Oncol 2017;26:242-51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.suronc.2017.04.001.
  4. Solass W, Hetzel A, Nadiradze G, Sagynaliev E, Reymond MA. Description of a novel approach for intraperitoneal drug delivery and the related device. Surg Endosc 2012;26:1849-55. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-012-2148-0.
  5. Kurtz F, Struller F, Horvath P, Solass W, Bosmuller H, Konigsrainer A, Reymond MA. Feasibility, safety, and efficacy of pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) for peritoneal metastasis: a registry study. Gastroenterol Res Pract 2018:1-8. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/2743985.
  6. Reymond L, Solass W, Tempfer C, Reymond MA. Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC). In: Berhardt LV, editor. Advances in medicine and biology, vol. 87. New York: Nova Science Publishers; 2015. p. 159-80.
  7. Giger-Pabst U, Tempfer CB. How to perform safe and technically optimized pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC): experience after a consecutive series of 1200 procedures. J Gastrointest Surg 2018;22:2187-93. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11605-018-3916-5.
  8. International Agency for Research on Cancer [Internet]. IARC monographs on the identification of carcinogenic hazards to humans. World Health Organization. 1987 [cited 2021 Oct 31]. Available from: https://monographs.iarc.who.int/list-of-classifications.
  9. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health [Internet]. Preventing occupational exposures to antineoplastic and other hazardous drugs in health care settings (Publication no. 2004-165). Cincinnati (OH): DHHS (NIOSH). 2004 [cited 2021 Oct 31]. Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2004-165/pdfs/2004-165.pdf?id=10.26616/NIOSHPUB2004165.
  10. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health [Internet]. NIOSH list of antineoplastic and other hazardous drugs in healthcare settings (Publication No. 2012-150). Cincinnati (OH): DHHS (NIOSH). 2012 [cited 2021 Oct 31]. Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2012-150/pdfs/2012-150.pdf.
  11. Graversen M, Pedersen PB, Mortensen MB. Environmental safety during the administration of pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC). Pleura Peritoneum 2016;1(4):203-8. https://doi.org/10.1515/pp-2016-0019.
  12. Willaert W, Sessink P, Ceelen W. Occupational safety of pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC). Pleura Peritoneum 2017;2(3):121-8. https://doi.org/10.1515/pp-2017-0018.
  13. Roussin F, Taibi A, Canal-Raffin M, Cantournet L, Durand-Fontanier S, DruetCabanac M, Balkhi SE, Maillan G. Assessment of workplace environmental contamination and occupational exposure to cisplatin and doxorubicin aerosols during electrostatic pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy. Eur J Surg Oncol 2021;47(11):2939-47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejso.2021.05.020.
  14. Lee HS, Kim J, Lee EJ, Park SJ, Mun J, Paik H, Oh SH, Park S, Ryu S, Lim W, Song G, Kim HS, Lee JC. Evaluation of a novel prototype for pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy. Cancers (Basel) 2020;12:633. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers12030633.
  15. Mun J, Park SJ, Kim HS. Rotational intraperitoneal pressurized aerosol chemotherapy in a porcine model. Gland Surg 2021;10:1271-5. https://doi.org/10.21037/gs-2019-ursoc-11.
  16. Park SJ, Lee EJ, Lee HS, Kim J, Park S, Ham J, Mun J, Paik H, Lim H, Seol A, Yim GW, Shim S, Kang B, Chang SJ, Lim W, Song G, Kim J, Lee N, Park JW, Lee JC, Kim HS. Development of rotational intraperitoneal pressurized aerosol chemotherapy to enhance drug delivery into the peritoneum. Drug Deliv 2021;28:1179-87. https://doi.org/10.1080/10717544.2021.1937382.
  17. Turci R, Sottani C, Spagnoli G, Minoia C. Biological and environmental monitoring of hospital personnel exposed to antineoplastic agents: a review of analytical methods. J Chromatogr B Analyt Technol Biomed Life Sci 2003;789:169-209. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1570-0232(03)00100-4.
  18. Connor TH, DeBord DG, Pretty JR, Oliver MS, Roth TS, Lees PSJ, Kreig EF, Rogers B, Escalante CP, Toennis CA, Clark JC, Johnson BC, McDiarmid MA. Evaluation of antineoplastic drug exposure of health care workers at three university-based US cancer centers. J Occup Environ Med 2010;52(10):1019-27. https://doi.org/10.1097/JOM.0b013e3181f72b63.
  19. Connor TH, Zock MD, Snow AH. Surface wipe sampling for antineoplastic (chemotherapy) and other hazardous drug residue in healthcare settings: methodology and recommendations. J Occup Environ Hyg 2016;13(9):658-67. https://doi.org/10.1080/15459624.2016.1165912.
  20. Larson RR. Development and validation of a method for accurate collection and analysis of select antineoplastic contaminants, both in air and on surfaces, and implications for exposure assessment. Ph. D. dissertation. The University of Alabama at Birmingham. ProQuest Information and Learning Company; 2001.
  21. Larson RR, Khazaeli MB, Dillon HK. Development of an HPLC method for simultaneous analysis of five antineoplastic agents. Appl Occup Environ Hyg 2003;18(2):109-19. https://doi.org/10.1080/10473220301432.
  22. Bobin-Dubigeon C, Amiand M, Percheron C, Audeval C, Rochard S, Leynia P, Bard J. A new, validated wipe-sampling procedure coupled to LC-MS analysis for the simultaneous determination of 5-fluorouracil, doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide in surface contamination. J Anal Toxicol 2013;37:433-9. https://doi.org/10.1093/jat/bkt045.
  23. Pan American Health Organization [Internet]. Safe handling of hazardous chemotherapy drugs in limited-resource settings. Washington, DC: Pan American Health Organization. 2013 [cited 2021 Oct 30]. Available from: http://www.paho.org/hq/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_download&gid=24983&Itemid=&lang=en.
  24. Murff SJ. United States Concensus Occupational Exposure Level(s)/Limits for Cytotoxic Drugs. In: Murff SJ, editor. Safety and Health Handbook for Cytotoxic Drugs. Lanham (MD): Government Institutes An imprint of The Scarecrow Press; 2012. 244 p.