Occupational exposure to cisplatin/oxaliplatin during Pressurized Intraperitoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC)?. Issue 11 (November 2018)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Ametsbichler, Paul; Böhlandt, Antje; Nowak, Dennis; Schierl, Rudolf
• Is Part Of: European journal of surgical oncology. Volume 44:Issue 11(2018)
• Page Start: 1793
• Page End: 1799
• Publication Date: 2018-11
• Subjects: PIPAC -- Occupational exposure -- Environmental monitoring -- Platinum -- Contamination -- Peritoneal carcinomatosis; Oncology -- Periodicals; Cancer -- Surgery -- Periodicals; Medical Oncology -- Periodicals; Neoplasms -- surgery -- Periodicals; Cancer -- Chirurgie -- Périodiques; Cancérologie -- Périodiques; Oncologie; Chirurgie (geneeskunde); Electronic journals; Electronic journals -- Sciences; Electronic journals -- Medicine; Electronic journals; 616.994059005
• DOI: 10.1016/j.ejso.2018.05.020
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0748-7983

Abstract

Abstract: Introduction: Pressurized Intraperitoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC) is a new promising treatment for patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis. It is supposed to provide a higher local drug concentration and deeper penetrate into the tumor tissue compared to systemic chemotherapy or hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy perfusion (HIPEC). Due to the application of cytotoxic drug aerosols within the operating room (OR), concern has been raised regarding the occupational exposure risk of the involved OR staff. Materials and Methods: In this study, an OR workplace monitoring was performed during 14 PIPAC procedures in two hospitals by collecting air samples (n = 14) during PIPAC and wipe samples (n = 223) before and after PIPAC: 56 samples from the OR floor, 84 from the injector, 28 from trocars and 55 from gloves. All samples were analyzed for platinum (Pt). Results: While air Pt concentrations were below 3.1 pg/m³, surface contaminations widely varied between 0.01 pg/cm 2 and 1733 pg/cm 2 (median 1.04 pg/cm 2 ), with substantial Pt concentrations on injector parts (i.e. syringe holder) and trocars. Floors and particularly injectors were often higher contaminated before compared to after PIPAC, probably due to inefficient cleaning or cross-contamination. Glove samples taken after different tasks ranged between 0.04 and 423 pg/cm 2 (median 0.58 pg/cm 2 ). Conclusion: Contamination on various OR surfaces widely ranged and can lead to a distribution of cytotoxic drug residues. However, the air contamination was very low. The results indicate that PIPAC performance seems to be possible with low occupational exposure risk, but adequate safety and cleaning standards for PIPAC must be developed and monitored.