Introduction Occupational exposure to antineoplastic drugs can lead to long-term adverse effects on workers’ health. Environmental monitoring is conducted once a year, as part of a Canadian monitoring program. The objective was to describe contamination with 11 antineoplastic drugs measured on surfaces. Methods Six standardized sites in oncology pharmacy and six in outpatient clinic were sampled in each hospital. Samples were analyzed by ultra-performance liquid chromatography coupled with tandem mass spectrometry (non-platinum drugs) and by inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (platinum-based drugs). The limits of detection (in ng/cm2) were: 0.0006 for cyclophosphamide; 0.001 for docetaxel; 0.04 for 5-fluorouracil; 0.0004 for gemcitabine; 0.0007 for irinotecan; 0.0009 for methotrexate; 0.004 for paclitaxel, 0.009 for vinorelbine, 0.02 for doxorubicine, 0.0037 for etoposide and 0.004 for the platinum. Sub-analyses were done with a Kolmogorov-Smirnov test Results 122 Canadian hospitals participated. Cyclophosphamide (451/1412, 32% of positive samples, 90th percentile of concentration 0.0160 ng/cm2) and gemcitabine (320/1412, 23%, 0.0036 ng/cm2) were most frequently measured on surfaces. The surfaces most frequently contaminated with at least one drug were the front grille inside the biological safety cabinet (97/121, 80%) and the armrest of patient treatment chair (92/118, 78%).The distribution of cyclophosphamide concentration was higher for centers that prepared ≥ 5000 antineoplastic drug preparations/year (p < 0.0001). Conclusions This monitoring program allowed centers to benchmark their contamination with pragmatic contamination thresholds derived from the Canadian 90th percentiles. Problematic areas need corrective measures such as decontamination. The program helps to increase the workers’ awareness.

Objectives To evaluate the efficacy of two decontamination protocols on cyclophosphamide surface contamination and to explore its lasting effect 30 days later. Methods All sampling sites that were systematically contaminated with cyclophosphamide in 2017–2020 were included, from a convenience sample of centers. The first decontamination protocol consisted of four steps, each with 20 mL and a Wypall® wipe: detergent, sodium hypochlorite 2%, isopropyl alcohol 70% and water. The second decontamination protocol consisted of eight steps, each with 15 mL and a Micronsolo® microfibre wipe: detergent, sodium hypochlorite 2%, isopropyl alcohol 70%, water and then a second round with each of the four products. A first sampling was done at the end of a regular working day (T0), a second immediately following decontamination (T1) and a third 30 days later (T2) after regular operations. Cyclophosphamide was quantified by ultra-performance liquid chromatography – tandem mass spectrometry (limit of detection 0.001 ng/cm2). Results Seventeen sampling sites were included: six biological safety cabinet (BSC) front grilles, eight floors in front of BSCs and three cyclophosphamide storage shelves. The second protocol was more effective; however they both failed to completely remove all cyclophosphamide traces. BSCs and floors were found to be contaminated again 30 days later, at similar concentrations than at T0. A lasting effect was observed on the cyclophosphamide storage shelves that were less prone to be contaminated again. Conclusions Periodic decontamination with many cleaning steps is necessary on all surfaces, including those less frequently contaminated. Regular surface monitoring identifies systematically contaminated areas.

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 registration Study CONTACT, ref. 19-504.

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.