UHPLC-MS/MS method for the quantification of ultra-traces of irinotecan and its metabolites in red blood cells and plasma to detect caregivers' contamination.

The occupational exposure of caregivers to antineoplastic agents has been demonstrated since 1979. Since the early 1990s, numerous studies from several countries have demonstrated the contamination of care facilities by antineoplastic drugs. As it is easier to sample, most contamination measurements in workers are carried out in urine sample. The distribution and elimination half-lives of irinotecan suggest that blood can be considered as better than urine for the biomonitoring of a potential contamination of healthcare workers. We describe here the development and the validation of a UHPLC-MS/MS method to simultaneously quantify irinotecan, and two of its main metabolites, APC and SN-38, at ultra-trace levels in plasma and red blood cells (RBC). This method has been applied to blood samples collected from several healthcare services in a French comprehensive cancer center. The results demonstrate that the method is sensitive enough to identify a contamination of healthcare workers by irinotecan and SN-38 at very low concentrations. Moreover, the results show that analysis of RBC is of great interest and complementary to that of serum.

Perception, knowledge, practices and training regarding the risk of exposure to antineoplastic drugs in three French compounding units.

INTRODUCTION: Healthcare workers are exposed to hazardous drugs such as antineoplastic drugs, which have potential carcinogenic, mutagenic and teratogenic effects. Protective measures must be taken after appropriate staff training to handle antineoplastic drugs in a safe way. The objective was to assess perception, knowledge, practices and training regarding the risk of exposure of healthcare workers in three French compounding units. METHODS: This descriptive study was based on a questionnaire made of 33 questions divided into five sections related to the handling of antineoplastic drugs: perception of the risks, knowledge of the risks, protection practices, specific training and general questions. RESULTS: Among the 39 participants, over half considered their overall risk of exposure to antineoplastic drugs not being very low. Inhalation was known to 69.2% of them as possible route of contamination. The breakroom was identified by 28.9% of them as a place of contamination. The procedure in case of accidental exposure to antineoplastic drugs was known by 69.2%, but only half could explain it. Only 38.5% said they changed their gloves every 30 min as recommended. Barely half said that they had been trained specifically for the handling of antineoplastic drugs during an initial training. Over half wished to be informed, trained and aware of the proper handling of antineoplastic drugs. CONCLUSION: Although some of these results are encouraging, specifically when compared to the other settings where antineoplastic drugs are handled, there is still room for improvement. Efforts to build an adapted and impactful training program must pursue. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: Study CONTACT, ref. 19-504.

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.

Perception, knowledge, and handling practice regarding the risk of exposure to antineoplastic drugs in oncology day hospitalization units and compounding unit staff.

BACKGROUND: Antineoplastic drug exposure is a major problem in regard to caregivers' health. The aim of the present study was to assess the perception, knowledge, and handling practices of all occupation level categories of two oncology day hospitalization units and two compounding units regarding the risk of exposure to antineoplastic drugs. METHODS: This descriptive study, performed through face-to-face interviews, concurrently assessed the perception, knowledge, and handling practices of antineoplastic drugs in five different job categories in four different settings. This work was part of a larger comprehensive project examining surface and blood contamination. Different scores were assigned to evaluate responses to a questionnaire about the perception, knowledge, and handling practices of healthcare workers, a risk global score including a risk perception score, and education/knowledge and handling practices scores. RESULTS: In the survey, continuous training was associated with the global risk score (p = 0.03), particularly with the handling practices risk score (p = 0.01). Job category was also significantly associated with the global risk score (p < 0.001), particularly with the handling practices risk score (p < 0.001) and the education/knowledge score (p < 0.001). Pharmacy technicians had the highest score regarding risk perception (71.4%), indicating a higher perception of risk, and had a lower score regarding handling practices (25.0%) as well as a lower score (15.7%) regarding risk knowledge. Nurses and physicians had a high score (50%) regarding the risk of handling practices and a score of 57.1% regarding risk perception, indicating an increased perception of safety. Auxiliary caregivers had the highest global score (43.5%) and a score of 30.0% regarding handling practices. CONCLUSIONS: This study identified significant differences among healthcare workers depending on job categories in the antineoplastic drug handling practices and in the knowledge of the risks associated with occupational exposure to antineoplastic drugs. These differences were particularly important between trained and untrained participants, revealing the importance of implementing a continuous training program.

Blood contamination of the pharmaceutical staff by irinotecan and its two major metabolites inside and outside a compounding unit.

BACKGROUND: Caregivers in healthcare settings are exposed to a risk of antineoplastic drug contamination which can lead to adverse health effects. Biological monitoring is necessary to estimate the actual level of exposure of these workers. This study was conducted with the aim of assessing blood contamination levels by irinotecan and its metabolites of pharmaceutical staff operating inside and outside a compounding unit. METHODS: The study took place within the pharmaceutical unit of a French comprehensive cancer centre. Blood samples were collected from the pharmacy workers operating inside and outside the compounding unit, and analysed by UHPLC-MS/MS. Plasma and red blood cell irinotecan and its metabolites (SN-38; APC) were determined with a validated analytical method detection test. RESULTS: A total of 17/78 (21.8%) plasma and red blood cell-based assays were found to be contaminated among staff. Overall, the total number of positive assays was significantly higher for staff members working outside the compounding unit than for workers working inside it (P = 0.022), with respectively 5/42 (11.9%) and 12/36 (33.3%) positive assays. For plasma dosages, the "outside" group had a significantly higher number of positive assays (P = 0.014). For red blood cell-based assays, no significant difference was found (P = 0.309). CONCLUSIONS: This study reveals that pharmaceutical staff serving in health care settings are exposed to a risk of antineoplastic drug contamination, not only inside the compounding room but also in adjacent rooms. The results would help to raise awareness and potentially establish protective measures for caregivers working in areas close to the compounding room as well.

[A multidisciplinary collaboration for the benefit of patients]. / Une collaboration pluriprofessionnelle au bénéfice des patients.

A study focusing on therapeutic education sessions for patients with psoriasis receiving subcutaneous biotherapy was carried out in a dermatology department of a university hospital. To meet the needs identified by the research, multi-professional collaboration around a therapeutic patient education approach resulted in the creation and implementation of specific information tools and the organisation of training sessions for the nurses. A subsequent survey showed a 100% satisfaction rate among patients and nurses.