95046888741J Occup Environ MedJ. Occup. Environ. Med.Journal of occupational and environmental medicine / American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine1076-27521536-594825153300456900310.1097/JOM.0000000000000249HHSPA713303ArticleReproductive Health Risks Associated with Occupational Exposures to Antineoplastic Drugs in Health Care Settings: A Review of the EvidenceConnorThomas H.PhDResearch Biologist, Division of Applied Research and Technology, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Cincinnati, OHLawsonChristina C.PhDLead Health Scientist, Division of Surveillance Hazard Evaluations & Field Studies, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Cincinnati, OHPolovichMarthaPhD, RN, AOCNProfessor of Medicine and Epidemiology & Public Health Director, Division of Occupational & Environmental Medicine, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MDMcDiarmidMelissa A.MD, MPH, DABTClinical Associate Professor, Byrdine F. Lewis School of Nursing & Health Sciences, Georgia State University, Atlanta, GACorresponding author: Thomas H. Connor, tconnor@cdc.gov492015920141492015569901910Objectives

Antineoplastic drugs are known reproductive and developmental toxicants. Our objective was to review the existing literature of reproductive health risks to workers who handle antineoplastic drugs.

Methods

A structured literature review of 18 peer-reviewed, English language publications of occupational exposure and reproductive outcomes was performed.

Results

While effect sizes varied with study size and population, occupational exposure to antineoplastic drugs appears to raise the risk of both congenital malformations and miscarriage. Studies of infertility and time-to-pregnancy also suggested an increased risk for sub-fertility.

Conclusions

Antineoplastic drugs are highly toxic in patients receiving treatment and adverse reproductive effects have been well documented in these patients. Healthcare workers with chronic, low level occupational exposure to these drugs also appear to have an increased risk of adverse reproductive outcomes. Additional precautions to prevent exposure should be considered.

antineoplastic drugshealthcareoccupational exposurespregnancy and adverse reproductive effects
Introduction

Healthcare workers who prepare or administer antineoplastic drugs, or who work in areas where these drugs are used can be exposed to these agents when they are present on contaminated work surfaces, drug vials and containers, contaminated clothing and medical equipment, and in patient excreta and secretions such as urine, feces, and sweat. The toxicity of antineoplastic drugs is well recognized and includes acute effects such as nausea and vomiting, blood count declines and skin and mucous membrane irritation. Also well recognized in treated patients are these drugs’ reproductive and developmental toxicity1.

Routine work activities can result in spills, create aerosols or generate dust, thereby increasing the potential of exposure14. Skin absorption and inhalation are the most common ways a healthcare worker is exposed to antineoplastic drugs. However, ingestion (from hand-to-mouth contact), accidental injection through a needle stick, or other sharps injury is also possible5. These workplace exposures to antineoplastic drugs have been associated with health effects such as skin disorders, adverse reproductive outcomes, and certain cancers1,69. Workers with potential exposure include pharmacy and nursing personnel, physicians, physicians’ assistants, nurse practitioners, operating room personnel, shipping and receiving personnel, waste handlers, maintenance and housekeeping workers, laundry workers, laboratory personnel, and workers in veterinary practices and others working in healthcare settings who come into contact with drugs or drug waste1.

Occupational exposure characteristics

Numerous published reports have documented: (1) Workplace contamination with a small percentage of the total number of antineoplastic drugs currently in use (presumably similar for others, but not known at this time); (2) Uptake of antineoplastic drugs as indicated by measurable amounts of the drugs in the urine of healthcare workers; and (3) Significant increases in biomarkers of genotoxicity in healthcare workers compared to control populations10. At the present time, measurement of surface contamination is the best indicator of the level of environmental contamination in areas where antineoplastic drugs are prepared, administered to patients, or otherwise handled (such as receiving areas, transit routes throughout the facility, and waste storage areas)11. Based on over 100 published studies, the majority of work-places where antineoplastic drugs are handled are contaminated with antineoplastic drugs and numerous studies have demonstrated worker exposure to these drugs10,12. Some studies have shown an association between surface contamination and worker exposure1315. Industrial hygiene studies suggest that work-place contamination with antineoplastic drugs in the United States has not changed considerably over the past decade or more, indicating that worker exposure probably has not changed considerably, despite efforts to reduce or eliminate environmental contamination14,1619.

The introduction of Class II biological safety cabinets (BSCs) for the preparation of antineoplastic drugs in the 1980s substantially reduced the potential for worker exposure20, but not as efficiently as first believed16. More recent attempts to reduce or eliminate workplace contamination have included using engineering controls such as compounding aseptic containment isolators (CACIs), robotic systems, and closed system drug transfer devices (CSTDs)1719, 2123. This research suggests that even when these controls are used in healthcare settings, the potential for exposure to antineoplastic drugs cannot be completely eliminated12,14, 18,19,2431.

Antineoplastic drugs listing and contraindications during pregnancy

In 2004, NIOSH published an “Alert” document on antineoplastic and other hazardous drugs that described safe handling practices for all healthcare workers1. The alert also included a list of drugs that were considered hazardous to workers based on the hazardous drug definition that includes properties of mutagenicity, carcinogenicity and reproductive or developmental toxicity. That list of hazardous drugs was most recently updated in 2014 and approximately one-half of drugs listed as hazardous by NIOSH are classified as antineoplastic while the remainder comprise hormonal agents, immunosuppressants, antiviral agents, and others5.

Of the 184 drugs identified as hazardous by NIOSH, 99 possess precautionary labeling from the FDA as Pregnancy Category D and 43 are listed as Pregnancy Category X, indicating the potential for fetal harm. The remainder of the listed drugs are Category C or B. Pregnancy Category A is characterized as adequate and well-controlled studies in pregnant women have failed to demonstrate a risk to the fetus in the first trimester of pregnancy; Pregnancy Category B is characterized as animal reproduction studies have failed to demonstrate a risk to the fetus and there are no adequate and well-controlled studies in pregnant women, and Pregnancy Category C is characterized as animal reproduction studies have shown an adverse effect on the fetus, if there are no adequate and well-controlled studies in humans, and if the benefits from the use of the drug in pregnant women may be acceptable despite its potential risks. For Category D drugs, there is positive evidence of human fetal risk, based on adverse reaction data from investigational or marketing experience or studies in humans, but potential benefits may warrant use of the drug in pregnant women despite potential risks to the fetus. Category X drugs are those for which the fetal risk clearly outweighs the benefits to patients3133.

Although published reports of adverse reproductive outcomes among healthcare workers pertain to exposure to antineoplastic drugs, the studies may be generalized to include healthcare workers exposed to other hazardous drugs. NIOSH has identified hazardous drugs that are used to treat noncancerous conditions5. Many of these drugs are reproductive hazards and are classified as FDA Pregnancy Category D or X. Some examples of hazardous drugs other than antineoplastic drugs that produce adverse reproductive effects in patients treated with them include: thalidomide, diethylstilbestrol, valproic acid and products containing valproic acid, paxil, ribavirin, and finasteride3441.

According to the FDA, the current pregnancy category labeling may be misleading42. Using A, B, C, D and X to describe the risk of fetal harm implies that risk increases from one category to the next. In fact, C- and D-category drugs may have risks similar to those in category X, but risk is weighed against benefit. When considered in the context of occupational exposure, there are no benefits associated with drug exposure; therefore, occupational exposure of pregnant workers cannot be assumed to be harmless.

Biologic mechanisms

A substantial number of the drugs have been identified by NIOSH as hazardous and are also suspected or known human carcinogens5,43. Many are teratogenic and have adverse reproductive effects. The severity of the teratogenic effects depends on the drug, the dose, and the developmental stage of the fetus at exposure. Schardein44 lists several common antineoplastic drugs as human teratogens. Although information is available from human studies about individual drug exposures, most malignancies are treated with multi-drug regimens. Therefore, many of the known teratogenic effects of individual drugs have been derived from animal studies. The literature on adverse reproductive effects of antineoplastic drugs in laboratory studies is beyond the scope of this publication. Drug package inserts for the antineoplastic drugs list adverse reproductive effects, including lethality, in animal studies at, and often below, the recommended human dose45. Reproductive health is one of the most vulnerable biological events at risk from exposure to antineoplastic drugs. Moreover, it has been hypothesized that many antineoplastic drugs actually target the developing fetus in the same way they target rapidly proliferating cancer cells46. The risk can be influenced by the timing of exposure during discrete stages of development as well as the potency and toxicity of the hazardous drug.

Reproductive hazards can affect the reproductive function of women or men or the ability of couples to conceive or bear healthy children47. In women treated with antineoplastic drugs, adverse effects have been reported including damage to ovarian follicles, decreased ovarian volume, and ovarian fibrosis resulting in amenorrhea and menopausal symptoms48. For pregnant women, the “window of risk” begins approximately one month before conception and lasts through the pregnancy, though data from treated patients indicates the most vulnerable window of risk occurs in the first trimester. In addition, numerous hazardous drugs are known to enter the breast milk of treated patients32,47,49,50; therefore, the infants of healthcare workers have the potential to be exposed during breastfeeding if exposure to the mother occurs. In men, reported adverse effects include primary or secondary hormonal changes. In addition, a man can expose his female partner and/or her developing fetus via contaminants on his skin or clothing, or during sexual intercourse51. Men produce sperm over approximately a 2-month cycle; therefore, a man’s sperm is vulnerable to hazardous exposures from as early as 2 months before conception52. Infertility following treatment with antineoplastic drugs has been reported for both men and women because of the gonadal toxicity of the drugs5355. Consequently, both male and female workers who are handling antineoplastic drugs during any of these critical reproductive periods should be especially aware of potential risks to the health of their offspring even if their exposure is much lower than treated patients.

Although adults can be adversely affected by prolonged exposures to certain chemicals, the developing fetus and newborns up to the age of six months are usually more sensitive to chemical toxicity because of the incomplete development of systems for biotransformation and elimination. Unlike older children and adults, these pathways are underdeveloped and may be less efficient at detoxifying and excreting drugs. Therefore, in young children, toxicants may be present in higher concentrations in the blood for longer periods than would be true in older children whose detoxification and excretion pathways are more effective56. For many chemical exposures, it is known that the fetus is more susceptible than the mother to the toxic chemical5660. In addition, studies have shown that exposure to chemicals and radiation in utero and early in life can disproportionally increase the occurrence of childhood cancer compared with exposures that occur later in life60.

Laboratory studies have demonstrated that many antineoplastic drugs are teratogenic, often in more than one animal species. Some classes of drugs are more hazardous than others44,61. As a group, the antineoplastic drugs have been shown in animal studies to be some of the most potent teratogenic agents known even at doses typically used in cancer treatment. Alkylating agents, anthracycline antineoplastic antibiotics, and antimetabolites all have potent teratogenic activity in multiple animal species44. For the developing fetus, it is known that the placenta is not an effective barrier to low-molecular-weight molecules and it is also more permeable to lipophilic chemicals and drugs. In patients treated with drugs, many antineoplastic and other hazardous drugs can reach the fetus in concentrations that could have deleterious effects62.

In the United States, there are an estimated 8 million healthcare workers potentially exposed to hazardous drugs63; it is not known how many of them actually have exposure to antineoplastic drugs. However, the majority of these healthcare workers are women of reproductive age who are at increased risk for adverse reproductive outcomes64,65. The actual number of men and women who may be at reproductive risk while exposed to hazardous drugs, although less than 8 million, is still quite large.

Therapeutic exposure to antineoplastic drug and reproductive effects

There is a wealth of information documenting the adverse reproductive effects of antineoplastic drugs in patients who have been treated with them. Four recent publications have reviewed and summarized the effects of cancer treatment on the developing fetus46, 6668. Although data are limited or not available for many drugs, the authors concluded that, in general, antineoplastic drugs have their principal adverse effects on the fetus during the first trimester. Therapeutic exposure during the first 2–3 weeks of pregnancy typically results in miscarriage but not teratogenesis. Brief treatment-related exposures during early pregnancy to antineoplastic drugs (those for which there are data) had little effect on the fetus. However, continued exposure resulted in congenital anomaly rates of approximately 20%. Findings about single-agent exposures were mixed; perhaps due to small sample sizes, but Selig46 noted that exposure of the fetus during the first trimester was most critical, though effects have been seen in second and third trimester exposure68. Some commonly used drugs such as methotrexate, daunorubicin, and idarubicin are contraindicated during the entire pregnancy. A recent report by the National Toxicology Program68 provides a comprehensive summary of the effects of some antineoplastic drugs on reproductive outcomes in patients. Among other outcomes, NTP reported: (1) a higher rate of major malformations following exposure during the first trimester compared to exposure in the second and/or third trimester; (2) an increase in the rate of stillbirth following exposure in the second and/ or third trimester; and (3); abnormally low levels of amniotic fluid (primarily attributable to trastuzumab). This report also briefly addresses occupational exposure to these drugs and possible adverse reproductive outcomes in healthcare workers.

Methods

An extensive review of the literature linking occupational exposure to antineoplastic drugs and adverse reproductive effects was conducted in February 2014 using the following databases: Canadiana, CI-NAHL, CISILO, DTIC, Embase, Health & Safety Science Abstracts, HSELine, NIOSHTIC-2, NTIS, OSHLine, PubMed, Risk Abstracts, Toxicology Abstracts, Toxline, Web of Science and WorldCat searching from 1980 to February 2014. Using the MeSH controlled vocabulary the following search was performed in PubMed: (“Antineoplastic agents/adverse effects”[Mesh] OR “antineoplastic agents/prevention and control”[Mesh] OR “Cytotoxins”[Mesh] OR “Hazardous Substances/adverse effects”[Mesh] OR “Hazardous Substances/toxicity”[Mesh] OR “Pharmaceutical Preparations/adverse effects”[Mesh] OR antineoplastic[TI] OR cytotoxic[TI] OR cytostatic[TI] OR chemotherap*[TI]) AND (“Personnel, Hospital”[Mesh] OR “Health Personnel”[Mesh]) AND (“Occupational Exposure”[Mesh:NoExp] OR “Occupational Diseases”[Mesh] OR “Environmental Exposure”[Mesh] OR occupational[TI]) AND (“Reproduction”[Mesh] OR “Infertility”[Mesh] OR “Fertility”[Mesh] OR “Pregnancy Complications”[Mesh] OR pregnan*[TI] OR infertility[TI] OR reproducti*[TI]). The other databases were searched using the following key word search strings: (antineoplastic OR chemotherapeutic OR cytotoxic OR cytostatic) AND (pregnan* OR infertility OR reproducti*) AND occupational.

The initial electronic database search was supplemented by manual searches of published reference lists, review articles and conference abstracts.

All English language, peer-reviewed publications that were obtained were included in this document. Meeting abstracts were not included. Overall, 18 individual studies were reviewed, some with multiple endpoints.

Results

Table 1 summarizes studies of occupational exposure to antineoplastic drugs and congenital anomalies in offspring, including eight studies. The primary limitation of these studies is the small sample sizes; five of the eight studies had 10 or fewer exposed cases, and all studies had fewer than 20 exposed cases. The small sample sizes resulted in several other important limitations. These included a limited ability to adjust for confounding; the need to group anomalies that had different etiologies; and wide confidence intervals, which reflect poor statistical power. However, of the studies that had more than five exposed cases, three showed significantly increased risks associated with exposure 6971, and two showed increased risks that were not statistically significant7.9. The odds ratios of adjusted models ranged from 1.36 (95% confidence interval, 0.59–3.14)7 to 5.1 (95% confidence interval, 1.1–23.6)71. A meta-analysis72 of four studies with exposure periods ranging from 1966 to 19857,69,71,73 reported a crude odds ratio of 1.64 (95% confidence interval, 0.91–2.94) for all congenital anomalies combined. Although these previous studies suggest an increased risk for congenital anomalies with maternal occupational exposure, the limitations and wide confidence intervals make the size of the adverse effect uncertain. In addition, studies are needed that reflect current exposure levels as the studies published to date include data that was collected prior to the year 2000.

Studies of maternal occupational exposure to antineoplastic drugs and miscarriage are shown in Table 2. We identified eight studies evaluating miscarriage, an additional three studies that analyzed combined outcomes of miscarriage and stillbirth, four studies of stillbirths, and two studies of tubal pregnancies. The studies of miscarriage had mixed results, and three of these studies were limited by small sample sizes (fewer than 20 exposed cases). The three largest studies7476 showed increased occurrence of miscarriages among women who reported handling of antineoplastic drugs during the first trimester. Most exposures were among oncology nurses or pharmacists. Other studies that did not find statistically significant associations had odds ratios ranging from 0.7 to 2.8. A meta-analysis22 that pooled the results of five studies7,71,74,75,77 found an overall adjusted increased risk of 46% among exposed workers (95% confidence interval, 11% to 92%)72. All studies published to date contain data collected prior to 2002.

More research is needed to examine the effects of occupational exposure to antineoplastic drugs and stillbirth because this is an uncommon outcome and therefore difficult to study. All of the studies of stillbirths (or of fetal loss which combined miscarriage and stillbirth) had insufficient numbers of exposed cases (n = 1 to 13), resulting in wide confidence intervals 9,70,71,73,75,78,79. We found only two studies of tubal pregnancies, both with ten or fewer exposed cases, and the results varied widely from OR=0.95 (95% CI 0.39–2.31)80 to OR 11.4 (95% CI 2.7–17.6)81.

We found only two studies of occupational exposure to antineoplastic drugs and fertility and time to pregnancy (Table 3), though the results suggest that exposure to antineoplastic drugs is associated with an increased risk of subfertility79,82. Only one study evaluated menstrual cycle characteristics; it showed a statistically significant three-fold increased risk of menstrual cycle irregularities from occupational exposure to antineoplastic drugs83. A study of Danish oncology nurses showed no statistically significant differences in birth weight, gestational age, or sex ratio among exposed mothers7, while a study of French oncology nurses exposed to antineoplastic drugs found the mean birth weight of offspring to be lower than that the unexposed84.

Discussion

Although there is some variability in the size of the adverse outcomes observed among occupational cohorts reviewed here, the findings are generally indicative of an increased risk of adverse reproductive outcomes with occupational exposure, especially with exposures during the first trimester of pregnancy. While all of the studies published to date were conducted before the release of the NIOSH Alert in 2004, environmental exposure studies since 2004 have documented that workplaces are still commonly contaminated with these drugs12,14,18,19,2430 and hence, workers are likely chronically exposed to low levels of multiple agents known to be toxic to human reproduction. A workplace should be safe for all workers, regardless of their reproductive status and this includes workplaces where antineoplastic drugs are used85. When the reproductive outcomes data reviewed here are considered in light of their biologic plausibility based on mechanisms of drug action and for their consistency with the results of animal and patient studies, a coherent body of evidence emerges. This evidence suggests the need for specific guidance for healthcare workers exposed to antineoplastic and other hazardous drugs, which assures protections for their reproductive health and the well-being of their offspring.

Given the unique vulnerability to exposure of the developing fetus and a newborn infant described above, and also given the potentially devastating impact of such exposures, several professional and government organizations have recommendations in place for alternative duty or temporary reassignment for healthcare workers who may be at risk of exposure to hazardous drugs during critical, vulnerable periods in reproduction3,4,47,8691. Typically, these vulnerable windows include times when couples (males and females) are actively trying to conceive and when women are pregnant or breast-feeding. Since 1995, OSHA has recommended that healthcare facilities have a policy in place regarding reproductive risks associated with occupational exposure of workers to hazardous drugs and that such a policy should be followed2. Britain’s Health and Safety Executive and other professional bodies recommend that an initial risk assessment should be performed in order to determine if there is potential reproductive harm to the fetus or offspring47,92. However, because there are no established permissible exposure limits (PELs) or other guidance values for these drugs1, a classical risk assessment is often not possible. Therefore, other exposure assessments may be applied here. Although a precise dose of a hazardous drug may not be estimated for a given work task, the likelihood of some exposure can be assumed given the environmental contamination data described above. Beyond the benefits to the health of workers and their offspring, providing accommodations to expectant and nursing workers makes good business sense since it is estimated that 68% of working women will become pregnant at least once during their working life93; moreover, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, two-thirds of women work during their first pregnancy, and more than half (55%) of all births are to working women94. Family friendly workplace policies reduce turnover, and increase morale and productivity. Because of the possibility that healthcare workers may be exposed to low levels of many drugs with adverse reproductive effects, additional vigilance and protections might be required for those healthcare workers who are most vulnerable to the reproductive and developmental effects of hazardous drugs2,3,4,47,87,90,95.

The primary limitation of the studies we evaluated is the era of the data collection; all studies published to date evaluate data collected prior to 2002, and most data were collected in the 1980’s. Though there has been a lot of attention recently to raise awareness of controlling exposures, studies continue to show that exposures are still occurring. Another important limitation of the literature is the small sample sizes, particularly the small numbers of exposed cases. Because of this limitation, studies were often unable to adjust for confounding factors and reported wide confidence intervals. However, most of the studies we reviewed that had larger relative sample sizes indicated an increased risk of adverse reproductive health outcomes. Though there are few studies of fertility, there appears to be an indication of a risk with exposure. A data gap we identified is a lack of data on later childhood health of offspring exposed in utero. One study that was published as a dissertation showed an increased risk of learning disabilities among offspring of workers exposed to antineoplastic drugs96. Finally, most studies lacked enough statistical power or proper exposure assessment to evaluate dose. Thus, until more current studies are available on occupational exposures, we recommend reducing or avoiding exposures until better epidemiologic data show the risk is no longer occurring.

Considering the biologic plausibility of the mechanisms of action of many hazardous antineoplastic drugs, and observations of adverse reproductive and developmental health outcomes observed in treated cancer patients, this review suggests, fairly consistently that, there are also elevated risks to reproductive health for exposed workers. Workplace contamination studies indicate that hazardous drug exposure is widespread, commonly occurring during any handling activity, despite use of current safety guidance. Therefore, additional precautions to prevent exposure during uniquely vulnerable windows of fetal and newborn development should be considered.

We would like to thank Kathleen Connick for assistance with the database searches and Patricia Mathias for assistance with the citations. We would like to acknowledge Andrew S. Rowland, Linda A. McCauley, and Elizabeth A. Whalen for their critical review of this manuscript.

Disclaimers: Mention of company names and/or products does not constitute endorsement by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.

NIOSHNIOSH Alert: preventing occupational exposures to antineoplastic and other hazardous drugs in health care settingsDHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 2004–165Cincinnati, OHU.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health2004Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2004-165/Accessed April 1, 2014OSHAOSHA technical manual, TED 1–0.15A, Sec VI, Chapter II: Categorization of drugs as hazardousWashington, DCOccupational Safety and Health Administration1999Available at: http://www.osha.gov/dts/osta/otm/otm_vi/otm_vi_2.htmlAccessed April 1, 2014American Society of Health-System PharmacistsASHP guidelines on handling hazardous drugsAm J Health Syst Pharm20066311721193Oncology Nursing SocietySafe handling of hazardous drugs2PolovichMPittsburgh, PAOncology Nursing Society2011NIOSHTopic PageOccupational Exposure to Antineoplastic DrugsCincinnati, OHU.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health2014Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/antineoplastic/Accessed April 1, 2014SkovTLyngeEMaarupBRisks for physicians handling antineoplastic drugsLancet199033614461978899SkovTMaarupBOlsenJLeukaemia and reproductive outcome among nurses handling antineoplastic drugsBr J Ind Med1992498558611472444HansenJOlsenJHCancer morbidity among Danish female pharmacy techniciansScand J Work Environ Health19942022268016595RatnerPASpinelliJJBekingKCancer incidence and adverse pregnancy outcome in registered nurses potentially exposed to antineoplastic drugsBMC Nurs20109Avalilable at: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6955/9/15Accessed April 1, 2014NIOSHNIOSH list of antineoplastic and other hazardous drugs in healthcare settingsCincinnati, OHU.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and HealthDHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 2014–138HonC-YTeschkeKChuWDemersPVennersSAntineoplastic drug contamination of surfaces throughout the hospital medication system in Canadian hospitalsJ Occup Environ Hyg20131037438323668810DavisJMcLauchlanRConnorTHExposure to hazardous drugs in healthcare: an issue that will not go awayJ Oncol Pharm Practice201117913PethranASchierlRHauffKUptake of antineoplastic agents in pharmacy and hospital personnel. Part I: monitoring of urinary concentrationsInt Arch Environ Health200376510ConnorTHDeBordGPrettyJREvaluation of antineoplastic drug exposure of health care workers at three university-based US cancer centersJ Occup Environ Med2010521019102720881620VillariniMDominiciLPiccininiRAssessment of primary, oxidative and excision repaired DNA damage in hospital personnel handling antineoplastic drugsMutagenesis20112635936921112930ConnorTHAndersonRWSessinkPJMSurface contamination with antineoplastic agents in six cancer treatment centers in the United States and CanadaAm J Health-Syst Pharm1999561427143210428450WickCSlawsonMHJorgensonJAUsing a closed-system protective device to reduce personnel exposure to antineoplastic agentsAm J Health-Syst Pharm2003602314232014652980SessinkPJMConnorTHJorgensonJAReduction in surface contamination with antineoplastic drugs in 22 hospital pharmacies in the US following implementation of a closed-system drug transfer deviceJ Oncol Pharm Practice2011173948SessinkPJMTrahanJCoyneJWReduction in surface contamination with cyclophosphamide in 30 hospital pharmacies following implementation of a closed-system drug transfer deviceHosp Pharm20134820421224421463AndersonRWPuckettWHDanaWJRisk of handling injectable antineoplastic agentsAm J Hosp Pharm198239188118876756133ConnorTHAndersonRWSessinkPJSpiveySMEffectiveness of a closed-system device in containing surface contamination with cyclophosphamide and ifosfamide in an i.v. admixture areaAm J Health-Syst Pharm200259687211813470HarrisonBRPetersBGBingMRComparison of surface contamination with cyclophosphamide and fluorouracil using a closed-system drug transfer device versus standard preparation techniquesAm J Health-Syst Pharm2006631736174416960258SegerACChurchillWWKeohaneCAImpact of robotic antineoplastic preparation on safety, workflow, and costsJ Oncol Pract2012834434923598843SchierlRBohlandtANowakDGuidance values for surface monitoring of antineoplastic drugs in German pharmaciesAnn Occup Hyg2009531918948546SiderovJKirsaSMcLauchlanRSurface contamination of cytotoxic chemotherapy preparation areas in Australian hospital pharmacy departmentsJ Pharm Pract Res201039117121YoshidaJKodaSNishidaSAssociation between occupational exposure levels of antineoplastic drugs and work environment in five hospitals in JapanJ Oncol Pharm Practice2010172938TurciRMinoiaCSottaniCOccupational exposure to antineoplastic drugs in seven Italian hospitals: the effect of quality assurance and adherence to guidelinesJ Oncol Pharm Practice201117320332ChuWCHonC-YDanylukQPilot assessment of the antineoplastic drug contamination levels in British Columbia hospitals pre- and post-cleaningJ Oncol Pharm Pract201218465121737485PolovichMMartinSNurses’ use of hazardous drug-handling precautions and awareness of national safety guidelinesOncol Nurs Forum20113871872622037334KoppBSchierlRNowakDEvaluation of working practices and surface contamination with antineoplastic drugs in outpatient oncology health care settingsInt Arch Occup Environ Health201386475522311009TimpeEMMotlSEHoganMLEnvironmental exposure of health care workers to category D and X medicationsAm J Health Syst Pharm2004611556156115372828BriggsGGFreemanRKYaffeSJDrugs in pregnancy and lactationA reference guide to fetal and neonatal risk8Philadelphia, PALippincott, Williams & Wilkins2008Code of Federal RegulationsWashington, DCU.S. Government Printing Office, Office of the Federal Register21 CFR 201.57(c)(9)(i)2013ShahabNDollDCChemotherapy in pregnancyPerryMCThe Chemotherapy Source Book4Philadelphia, PAWolters Kluwer/Lippincott Williams & Wilkins2008273282StrohsnitterWCNollerKLHooverRNRobboySJPalmerJRTitus-ErnstoffLCancer risk in men exposed in utero to diethylstilbestrolJ Natl Cancer Inst20019354555111287449HatchEEPalmerJRTitus-ErnstoffLCancer risk in women exposed to diethylstilbestrol in uteroJAMA19982806306349718055PalmerJRHatchEERosenbergCLRisk of breast cancer in women exposed to diethylstilbestrol in utero: Preliminary results (United States)Cancer Causes Control20021375375812420954GarryVFTruranPTeratogenicityGupatRCReproductive and Developmental ToxicologyAmsterdamElsevier2011961970GlaxoSmithKlineDrug Package Insert, Paxil2011Merck Sharp & Dohme2014Drug Package insert for Rebetol (ribavirin)Merck Sharp & Dohme2003Drug Package Insert for Propecia (finastride)US Food and Drug AdministrationSummary of proposed rule on pregnancy and lactation labelingWashington, DCUS Food and Drug Administration2008Available at: http://www.fda.gov/drugs/developmentapprovalprocess/developmentresources/labeling/ucm093310.htmAccessed April 1, 2014IARCIARC monographs on the evaluation of the carcinogenic risk of chemicals to humansLyons, FranceWorld Health Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer2014Available at: www.iarc.frAccessed April 1, 2014SchardeinJLChemically induced birth defects3New YorkMarcel Dekker2000559621American Hospital Formulary ServiceAHFS Drug Information: online updatesBethesda, MDAmerican Society of Health-System Pharmacists2013Available at: www.ahfs.druginformation.comAccessed April 1, 2014SeligBPFurrJRHueyRWCancer chemotherapeutic agents as human teratogens [2012]Birth Def Res (Part A): Clin Mol Teratology201294626650United Kingdom Health and Safety ExecutiveNew and expectant mothers at work: a guide to health professionals2003Available at: www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/indg373hp.pdfAccessed April 1, 2014KnobfMTReproductive and hormonal sequelae of chemotherapy in womenAm J Nurs2006106Suppl 3606516481857NIOSHThe effects of workplace hazards on male reproductive healthDHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 96–132Cincinnati, OHU.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health1996Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/96-132/Accessed April 1, 2014NIOSHThe effects of workplace hazards on female reproductive healthDHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 1999-104Cincinnati, OHU.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health1999Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/99-104/Accessed April 1, 2014PichiniSZuccaroPPacificiGMDrugs in semenClin Pharmacokinet1994263563738055681MaltarisTKoelblHSeufertRGonadal damage and options for fertility preservation in female and male cancer survivorsAsian J Androl2006851553316847527McInnesSSchilskyRLInfertility following cancer chemotherapyChabnerBALongoDLCancer Chemotherapy and Biotherapy: Principles and Practice2Philadelphia, PALippincott-Raven19963144MaltarisTSeufertRFischlFThe effect of cancer treatment on female fertility and strategies for preserving fertilityEur J Obstet Gynecol Repro Biol2007130148155BradburyARSchilskyRLInfertility after cancer chemotherapyChabnerBALongoDLCancer Chemotherapy and Biotherapy: Principles and Practice5Philadelphia, PAWolters Klewer/Lippincott Williams & Wilkins432011773784ScheupleinRCharnleyGDoursonMDifferential sensitivity of children and adults to chemical toxicityRegul Toxicol Pharmacol20023542944712202057NRC. National Research CouncilPesticides in the diets of infants and childrenWashington, DCNational Academy Press19932347GoldmanLRChildren: unique and vulnerable. Environmental risks facing children and recommendations for responseEnviron Health Perspect1995103Suppl 613188549460BrentRLTanskiSWeitzmanMA pediatric perspective on the unique vulnerability and resilience of the embryo and the child to environmental toxicants: The importance of rigorous research concerning age and agentPediatrics200411393594415060185PereraFPThe big questions to address in coming yearsCancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev20112057157321454418ShepardTHCatalog of teratogenic agents8Baltimore, MDJohns Hopkins University Press1995ArnonJMeirowDLewis-RonessHOrnoyAGenetic and teratogenic effects of cancer treatments on gametes and embryosHuman Repro Update20017394403US Bureau of Labor Statistics2011Occupational employment statistics homepageMay 2011 employment and wage estimatesWashington, DCBureau of Labor Statistics2011Available at http://www.bls.gov/oes/home.htmAccessed March 5–2013HoodJThe pregnant health care worker: an evidence-based approach to job assignment and reassignmentAAOHN J20085632933318717297AlexMROccupational hazards for pregnant nursesAm J Nurs2011111283721191230AzimHAJrPeccatoriFAPavadisNTreatment of the pregnant mother with cancer: A systematic review on the use of cytotoxic, endocrine, targeted agents and immunotherapy during pregnancy. Part I: Solid tumorsCancer Treat Rev20103610110920015593AzimHAJrPeccatoriFAPavadisNTreatment of the pregnant mother with cancer: A systematic review on the use of cytotoxic, endocrine, targeted agents and immunotherapy during pregnancy. Part II: Hematological tumorsCancer Treat Rev20103611012120018452NTP. National Toxicology ProgramDevelopmental effects and pregnancy outcomes associated with cancer chemotherapy use during pregnancyResearch Triangle Park, NCU.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institute of Environmental Health SciencesNIH Publication No. 13–59562013HemminkiKKyyrönenPLindbohmMLSpontaneous abortions and malformations in the offspring of nurses exposed to anaesthetic gases, cytostatic drugs and other potential hazards in hospitals, based on registered information of outcomeJ Epidemiol Community Health1985391411473925060McDonaldADMcDonaldJCArmstrongBCongenital defects and work in pregnancyBr J Ind Med1988455815883179232PeelenSRoeleveldNHeederikDReproductie-toxische effecten bij ziekenhuispersoneel (in Dutch) Toxic effects on reproduction in hospital personnelThe Hague, The NetherlandsDutch Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment1999DranitsarisGJohnstonMPoirierSAre health care providers who work with cancer drugs at an increased risk for toxic events? A systematic review and meta-analysis of the literatureJ Oncol Pharm Practice2005116978McAbeeRRGallucciBJCheckowayHAdverse reproductive outcomes and occupational exposure among nursesAAOHN J1993411101198476440StückerICaillardJ-FCollinRRisk of spontaneous abortion among nurses handling antineoplastic drugsScand J Work Environ Health1990161021072353192ValanisBVollmerWMSteelePOccupational exposure to antineoplastic agents: Self-reported miscarriages and stillbirths among nurses and pharmacistsJ Occup Environ Med19994163263810457505LawsonCCRocheleauCMWhelanEAOccupational exposures among nurses and risk of spontaneous abortionsAm J Obstet Gynecol2012206327e1822304790SelevanSGLindbohmM-LHornungRWA study of occupational exposure to antineoplastic drugs and fetal loss in nursesN Eng J Med198531311731178RogersBEmmettEAHandling antineoplastic agents: Urine mutagenicity in nursesJ Nurs Scholarship198719108113FransmanWRoeleveldNPeelenSNurses with dermal exposure to antineoplastic drugsReproductive Outcomes Epidemiology20071811211917099323BouyerJSaurel-CubizollesMJGrenierCEctopic pregnancy and occupational exposure of hospital personnelScand J Work Environ Health199824981039630056Saurel-CubizollesMJJob-SpiraNEstryn-BeharMEctopic pregnancy and occupational exposure to antineoplastic drugsLancet1993341116911718098075ValanisBVollmerWLabuhnKOccupational exposure to antineoplastic agents and self-reported infertility among nurses and pharmacistsJ Occup Environ Med1997395745809211216ShortridgeLALemastersGKValanisBMenstrual cycles in nurses handling antineoplastic drugsCancer Nurs1995184394448564939StückerIMandereauLHémonDRelationship between birthweight and occupational exposure to cytotoxic drugs during or before pregnancyScand J Work Environ Health1993191481538367691GonzalezCProtecting pregnant health care workers from occupational hazardsAAOHN J20115941742021973285American Society of Hospital PharmacistsASHP technical assistance bulletin on handling cytotoxic and hazardous drugsAm J Hosp Pharm199047103310492186621BC Cancer AgencyModule 1: Safe handling of hazardous drugsBC cancer agency pharmacy practice standards for hazardous drugsBC Cancer Agency2008Available at: http://www.bccancer.bc.ca/HPI/Pharmacy/GuidesManuals/safehandling.htmAccessed March 5–2013Canadian Association of Pharmacy in OncologyStandards of Practice for Oncology Pharmacy in Canada11(Version 2)Vancouver, BCCanadian Association of Pharmacy in Oncology2009Oncology Nursing SocietyChemotherapy and Biotherapy Guidelines and Recommendations for Practice3PolovichMWhitfordJMOlsenMPittsburgh, PAOncology Nursing Society2009American Nurses AssociationAmerican Nurses Association’s House of Delegates, Reproductive Rights of Registered Nurses Handling Hazardous Drugs62012National Harbor, MDAmerican Nurses Association2012U.S. Army Technical Bulletin Medical 515Occupational Health and Industrial Hygiene Guidance for the Management, Use and Disposal of Hazardous Drugs42014American College of Occupational and Environmental MedicineReproductive and developmental hazard management guidanceElk Grove Village, ILAmerican College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine2011Available at: http://www.acoem.org/Reproductive_Developmental_Hazard_Management.aspxAccessed March 5–2013ClevelandJNStockdaleMMurphyKRWomen and Men in Organizations: Sex and Gender Issues at WorkMahwah, NJLawrence Erlbaum Associates2000U.S. Census BureauFertility of American Women Current Population Survey62010US Department of CommerceAvailable at: http://www.census.gov/hhes/fertility/Accessed April 1, 2014LawsonCCGrajewskiBDastonGPWorkgroup report. Implementing a national occupational reproductive research agenda: decade one and beyondEnviron Health Perspect200611443544116507468MartinSChemotherapy handling and effects among nurses and their offspring [doctoral dissertation]New YorkColumbia University2003

Studies of Congenital Anomalies Associated with Occupational Exposure to Antineoplastic Drugs

ReferenceExposure PeriodStudy LocationPopulationStudy DesignOverall Sample SizeNumber of exposed casesResultsComments
Fransman et al. 20071990–1997NetherlandsOncology & other types of nursesSurvey1,5195 in highest exposure categoryNo significant associations; CIs were wideRetrospective exposure assessment was based on frequency of tasks; estimated dermal exposure. No evidence of dose response.
Hemminki et al. 1985<1985FinlandFinnish hospital nursesCase–control; survey38 cases; 99 controls19Adj OR, 4.7 (1.2–18.1)11 exposed cases handled less than 1/week; 8 expo cases handled once or more per week.
McAbee et al. 19931985USNurses and university employeesCross- sectional survey633 women (1,133 pregnancies)10Oncology nurses reported more birth defects than the control group (p = 0.02 for crude analysis).Response rate was 30%; analyzed first pregnancies separately from each additional pregnancy
McDonald et al. 19881982–1984MontrealPopulation based; doctors and nursesSurvey152 exposed pregnancies88/4 = observed / expectedUsed medical records
Peelen et al. 1999<1985NetherlandsOncology nursesSurvey229 exposed + 956 unexposed7OR, 5.1 (1.1– 23.6) among nurses who prepare hazardous drugsHad to work in oncology for 2 months or more during pregnancy
Ratner et al. 20101974–2000CanadaRNsSurvey; registry12,74117Adj OR, 1.42 (0.86–2.36)Based on RNs who were ever or never employed in oncology
Skov et al. 19921985DenmarkOncology nursesRetrospective cohort266 exposed +770 unexposed16Adj OR, 1.36 (0.59–3.14) in highest exposure categoryPrepared or administered hazardous drugs during pregnancy
Lorente et al. 20001989–1992EuropePopulation- basedCase–control64 cleft lip / palate + 36 cleft palate + 751 controls3Cleft lip: OR, 3.35 (0.37– 3.12); Cleft palate: OR, 11.25 (1.98–63.7)Note the wide CIs.

Studies of Miscarriage, Stillbirth, Tubal Pregnancy Associated with Occupational Exposure to Antineoplastic Drugs

ReferenceExposure PeriodStudy LocationPopulationStudy DesignOverall Sample SizeNumber of exposed casesResultsComments
Fransman et al. 20071990–1997NetherlandsOncology and other types of nursesSurvey1,51934, but divided into 3 categoriesNo significant associations; CIs were wide for miscarriageToo many categories for small numbers; sample sizes were not clearly reported. Retrospective exposure assessment among nurses
Hemminki et al. 1985<1985FinlandFinnish hospital nursesCase-control169 cases + 469 controls12Adj OR, 0.8 (0.3–1.7) for miscarriage50% Response rate
Lawson et al. 20111993–2001U.S.U.S. nursesSurvey775 cases + 6,707 live births48Adj OR, 1.94 (1.32–2.86) for miscarriage
Peelen et al. 1999<1985NetherlandsOncology nursesSurvey249 exposed + 1,010 unexposedUnclearOR, 1.4 (0.8– 2.6) for miscarriageSmall numbers, limitations in study design. See Fransman study that replaces this study.
Selevan et al. 1985<1985FinlandNursesCase–control124 cases +321 controls18OR, 2.3 (1.21– 4.39) for miscarriageFirst-trimester exposure to hazardous drugs more than once per week
Skov et al. 19921985DenmarkOncology nursesRetrospective cohort281 exposed + 809 unexposed18Adj OR, 0.74 (0.40–1.38) for miscarriagePrepared or administered hazardous drugs anytime during pregnancy
Stücker et al. 19901985FranceHospital personnelSurvey139 exposed +357 unexposed36Adj OR, 1.7 (1.03–2.80) for miscarriagePrepared hazardous drugs
Valanis et al. 19991985U.S.Nurses and pharmacistsSurvey1,448 exposed + 5,297 unexposed223Adj OR, 1.50 (1.25–1.80) for miscarriageExposure to hazardous drugs during pregnancy
McDonald et al. 19881982–1984MontrealPopulation basedIn-person survey22,6131313 observed /13.4 expected miscarriages and stillbirthsAdministered hazardous drugs during 1st trimester
McAbee et al. 19931985U.S.Nurses and university employeesCross- sectional survey663 women (1,133 pregnancies)3Adj OR of 0.67 for miscarriage and stillbirthLow response rates (<30%)
Rogers and Emmett 1987<1985U.S.Oncology and community health nursesSurvey23313OR, 2.5 (p < 0.04) for miscarriage and stillbirthOR didn’t change with adjustment for age
Fransman et al. 20071990–1997NetherlandsOncology & other types of nursesSurvey1,5191 in the highest categoryNo significant associations; CIs were wide for stillbirthRetrospective exposure assessment of frequency of tasks, dermal exposure
Peelen et al. 19991990–1997NetherlandsOncology nursesSurvey249 exposed + 1,010 unexposed2OR, 1.2 (0.65– 2.20) for still- birthSmall numbers
Valanis et al. 19991985U.S.Nurses and pharmacistsSurvey7,09412Adj OR, 1.10 (0.55–2.20) for stillbirth
Ratner et al. 20101974–2000CanadaRNsCohort147/23,2223Adj OR, 0.67 (0.21–2.13) for stillbirth
Bouyer et al. 19981993–1994FranceHospital personnelCase–control104 cases/ 279 controls10Adj OR, 0.95 (0.39–2.31) for tubal pregnancyStudied only preconception exposures. Update of Saurel- Cubizolles 1993 article. Could have over- adjusted; included previous SA in analysis. CIs were wide, so power is a question.
Saurel- Cubizolles et al. 19931985ParisHospital nursesSelf- administered survey85 exposed and 599 unexposed6Adj OR, 11.4 (2.7–17.6) for tubal pregnancyExposure to hazardous drugs during 1st trimester. See Bouyer update from 1998.

Studies of Fertility, Time to Pregnancy, Menstrual Function, Birthweight, Gestational Age, Sex Ratio, and Learning Cognitive Function in Offspring Associated with Occupational Exposure to Antineoplastic Drugs

ReferenceExposure PeriodStudy LocationPopulationStudy DesignOverall Sample SizeNumber of exposed casesResultsComments
Valanis et al. 1997<1985U.S.Nurses and pharmacy personnelCase- control405 cases+ 1,215 controls78OR, 1.5 (1.1– 2.0) for infertility
Fransman et al. 20071990–1997NetherlandsOncology and other types of nursesSurvey12626 in highest categoryHazard ratio, 0.8 (0.6–−0.9) for time to pregnancyRetrospective exposure assessment among nurses
Shortridge et al. 19951986U.S.ONS and ANA membersSurvey1,458172Adj OR, 3.4 (1.6–7.3) for menstrual dysfunction among nurses who administer chemotherapyMenstrual dysfunction defined as one of the following: a) 3+ months of no periods, b) cycle length of <25 or >31 days, or c) flow duration of <2 or >7 days
Skov et al. 19921985DenmarkOncology nursesRetrospective cohort266 exposed / 770 unexposed266No statistically significant differences in adjusted analyses between exposed and unexposed for birthweight, gestational age, or sex ratio
Stücker et al. 19931985–1986FranceOncology nursesSurvey420 Singleton live births107 exposed pregnanciesIn adjusted models, mean birthweight of exposed pregnancies was 56 g lower than unexposed (95% CI, minus 155.1 to 43.1)No difference in gestational age between exposed and unexposed

Abbreviations used: OR-odds ratio; AdOR-adjusted odds ratio; CI-confidence interval