Paul Ametsbichler1, Antje Böhlandt2, Dennis Nowak3, Rudolf Schierl4. 1. Institute and Clinic for Occupational, Social and Environmental Medicine, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Ziemssenstrasse 1, D-80336 Muenchen, Germany. Electronic address: paul.ametsbichler@gmx.de. 2. Institute and Clinic for Occupational, Social and Environmental Medicine, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Ziemssenstrasse 1, D-80336 Muenchen, Germany. Electronic address: Antje.Boehlandt@med.uni-muenchen.de. 3. Institute and Clinic for Occupational, Social and Environmental Medicine, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Ziemssenstrasse 1, D-80336 Muenchen, Germany. Electronic address: Dennis.Nowak@med.uni-muenchen.de. 4. Institute and Clinic for Occupational, Social and Environmental Medicine, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Ziemssenstrasse 1, D-80336 Muenchen, Germany. Electronic address: Rudolf.Schierl@med.uni-muenchen.de.
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/cm2 and 1733 pg/cm2 (median 1.04 pg/cm2), 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/cm2 (median 0.58 pg/cm2). 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.
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/cm2 and 1733 pg/cm2 (median 1.04 pg/cm2), 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/cm2 (median 0.58 pg/cm2). 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.
Authors: Mustafa Raoof; Gautam Malhotra; Adrian Kohut; Michael O'Leary; Paul Frankel; Thuy Tran; Marwan Fakih; Joseph Chao; Dean Lim; Yanghee Woo; Isaac B Paz; Michael Lew; Mihaela C Cristea; Lorna Rodriguez-Rodriguez; Yuman Fong; Andrew Blakely; Richard Whelan; Marc A Reymond; Amit Merchea; Thanh H Dellinger Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2021-08-13 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Florian Struller; Philipp Horvath; Wiebke Solass; Frank-Jürgen Weinreich; Dirk Strumberg; Marios K Kokkalis; Imma Fischer; Christoph Meisner; Alfred Königsrainer; Marc A Reymond Journal: Ther Adv Med Oncol Date: 2019-05-13 Impact factor: 8.168
Authors: Koen P Rovers; Robin J Lurvink; Emma Ce Wassenaar; Thomas Jm Kootstra; Harm J Scholten; Rudaba Tajzai; Maarten J Deenen; Joost Nederend; Max J Lahaye; Clément Jr Huysentruyt; Iris van 't Erve; Remond Ja Fijneman; Alexander Constantinides; Onno Kranenburg; Maartje Los; Anna Mj Thijs; Geert-Jan M Creemers; Jacobus Wa Burger; Marinus J Wiezer; Djamila Boerma; Simon W Nienhuijs; Ignace Hjt de Hingh Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2019-07-27 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Till Markowiak; Michael Ried; Christopher Larisch; Dennis Nowak; Hans-Stefan Hofmann; Stefan Rakete Journal: Int Arch Occup Environ Health Date: 2021-06-30 Impact factor: 3.015
Authors: Daniel Clerc; Martin Hübner; K R Ashwin; S P Somashekhar; Beate Rau; Wim Ceelen; Wouter Willaert; Naoual Bakrin; Nathalie Laplace; Mohammed Al Hosni; Edgar Luis Garcia Lozcano; Sebastian Blaj; Pompiliu Piso; Andrea Di Giorgio; Giuseppe Vizzelli; Cécile Brigand; Jean-Baptiste Delhorme; Amandine Klipfel; Rami Archid; Giorgi Nadiradze; Marc A Reymond; Olivia Sgarbura Journal: Pleura Peritoneum Date: 2021-02-12