Literature DB >> 3513557

Limitations of urinary mutagen assays for monitoring occupational exposure to antineoplastic drugs.

P G Tuffnell, M T Gannon, A Dong, G DeBoer, C Erlichman.   

Abstract

The sensitivity of the Salmonella reversion test of Ames as a screen for accidental absorption of 17 antineoplastic agents by drug handlers was evaluated. Dilutions of each drug were added to agar inoculated with each of two Salmonella typhimurium strains (TA98 and TA100); control plates contained no test drug. Colonies were counted after incubation at 36 degrees C for 48 hours. The drugs were tested in the presence of a liver preparation to provide metabolic activation of mutagenicity. Urine samples collected from patients after doses of three mutagenic drugs were extracted and tested with the Ames test. For 11 of the 17 drug solutions, no mutagenic activity was seen, but many of these 11 were toxic to the organisms. The most highly mutagenic drugs were doxorubicin and cisplatin, with mechlorethamine, carmustine, dacarbazine, and cyclophosphamide exhibiting less mutagenic activity. Urine from patients treated with doxorubicin or cyclophosphamide showed mutagenicity, but the results suggested that the quantity of these drugs that would have to be absorbed to produce a definite reaction in urine is unlikely to be achieved by drug handlers who use standard precautions. Because of its lack of sensitivity and the potential effects of environmental and dietary factors on the results, this bacterial mutagenicity test should not be used routinely for detection of accidental absorption of antineoplastic drugs.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1986        PMID: 3513557

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Hosp Pharm        ISSN: 0002-9289


  6 in total

Review 1.  Drugs hazardous to healthcare workers. Evaluation of methods for monitoring occupational exposure to cytostatic drugs.

Authors:  P J Sessink; R P Bos
Journal:  Drug Saf       Date:  1999-04       Impact factor: 5.606

Review 2.  The risks of handling cytotoxic drugs. I. Methods of testing exposure.

Authors:  G P Kaijser; W J Underberg; J H Beijnen
Journal:  Pharm Weekbl Sci       Date:  1990-12-14

3.  Evaluation of genotoxic risk of handling cytostatic drugs in clinical pharmacy practice.

Authors:  E P Guinée; G H Beuman; G Hageman; I J Welle; J C Kleinjans
Journal:  Pharm Weekbl Sci       Date:  1991-04-26

4.  Handling of cytostatic drugs and urine mutagenesis.

Authors:  D Poyen; M P De Méo; A Botta; J Gouvernet; G Duménil
Journal:  Int Arch Occup Environ Health       Date:  1988       Impact factor: 3.015

Review 5.  Handling of cytotoxic drugs by healthcare workers. A review of the risks of exposure.

Authors:  P R Jochimsen
Journal:  Drug Saf       Date:  1992 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 5.606

Review 6.  The potential of exposure biomarkers in epidemiologic studies of reproductive health.

Authors:  C J Hogue; M A Brewster
Journal:  Environ Health Perspect       Date:  1991-01       Impact factor: 9.031

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.