Cells subjected to ATM inhibitor Ku55933

by Selleckchem | Dec 18 2012

Antineoplastic drugs play an important role in cancer therapy. A growing number of patients and new fields of application have resulted in an increasing use of these agents. Most ATM inhibition antineoplastic drugs have carcinogenic, mutagenic and teratogenic properties. However, the therapeutic benefits for the patients outweigh the risks. When viewed from the point of health care workers who handle these drugs, these side effects represent a potential health risk. Acute adverse health effects such as skin rashes and hair loss have been reported (Krstev et al. 2003; Valanis et al. 1993). Delayed and long-term side effects include adverse impact on the DNA-PK activation reproductive system, and spontaneous abortion and malformation have been documented. In a case report, Skov et al. (1992) have reported a correlation between the handling of cytotoxic drugs and the development of cancer in c-Met inhibition health care workers. Carcinogenic, mutagenic and teratogenic effects usually do not depend on a minimum dosage; therefore, it is not possible to set a side effect-free exposure level for antineoplastic drugs.
Hence, it is important to minimize the exposure to health care workers as much as possible. To achieve this, several guidelines and regulations for safe handling of cytotoxic drugs have been published in various countries (Heinemann 2008; NIOSH 2004; ASHP 2006; Polovich et al. 2009). Despite the implementation of safety measures such as personal protective equipment (PPE), biological safety cabinets and employee training, occupational exposure of health PDK 1 Signaling care workers is still being documented in many studies. Biological monitoring surveys were performed using biomarkers (e.g., chromosomal abnormalities, sister chromatid exchanges) (Boughattas et al. 2010; Burgaz et al. 2002; McDiarmid et al. 2010), as well as the detection of specific drugs or their metabolites in urine (Hedmer et al. 2008; Connor et al. 2010; Fransman et al. 2007; Pethran et al. 2003; Sugiura et al. 2011). Remarkably, according to Sessink et al.
(1992) and Pethran et al. (2003), workers who had no known contact to cytotoxic drugs were also exposed, which means that contamination can indirectly occur from unexpected sources. As the dermal route represents the most significant point of entry into the body (Fransman et al. 2005; Kromhout et al. 2000; Sessink et al. 1994; Sottani et al. 2010), surface contamination in the working area plays an important role in occupational exposure. Many wipe sample studies have been performed to investigate work environment surface contamination levels in pharmacies and hospitals, where preparation, administration or nursing activities take place (Fransman et al. 2004, 2005; Hedmer et al. 2008; Mason et al. 2005; Schierl et al. 2009; Sottani et al. 2010; Touzin et al. 2009; Bussieres et al. 2007). Widespread contamination with antineoplastic drugs was found, despite adherence to Receptor Tyrosine Kinase Signaling currently recommended handling procedures (Acampora et al. 2005; Connor et al. 2010; Schmaus et al. 2002).
Most published reports dealing with workplace contamination reflect hospital pharmacies and wards; only a few have focused on outpatient oncology settings. Trends in the healthcare system have caused a shift in the delivery of chemotherapy from a predominately inpatient and hospital- based service to outpatient and physician-based settings. In this study, we assessed the contamination with cytotoxic drugs in day hospitals and private practices and determined the working procedures and use of safety measures during the administration of antineoplastic drugs. In addition, we investigated the potential correlation between working procedures and contamination.