Abstract:Although stringent rules were adopted at national and international levels to prevent occupational exposure to antineoplastic drugs, data reported in this study support the idea that a more efficient survey on long-lasting exposures at very low concentrations is needed.
“…In a recently published paper (Buschini et al 2013), we have reported on the extent of primary, oxidative, and "cryptic" DNA damage as evaluated by comet assay in circulating leukocytes from the same nurses (exposed and controls) evaluated herein for cytogenetic damage. In such earlier work, we did not observe any statistically significant difference between exposed nurses and control subjects when primary DNA damage was evaluated in leukocytes (i.e., alkaline comet assay).…”
Because both MN and CA have been described as being predictive of group-increased cancer risk, our findings point to a need for improving specific safety procedures in handling and administering ANPD.
“…In a recently published paper (Buschini et al 2013), we have reported on the extent of primary, oxidative, and "cryptic" DNA damage as evaluated by comet assay in circulating leukocytes from the same nurses (exposed and controls) evaluated herein for cytogenetic damage. In such earlier work, we did not observe any statistically significant difference between exposed nurses and control subjects when primary DNA damage was evaluated in leukocytes (i.e., alkaline comet assay).…”
Because both MN and CA have been described as being predictive of group-increased cancer risk, our findings point to a need for improving specific safety procedures in handling and administering ANPD.
“…Epidemiological studies of personnel who handle antineoplastic drugs, performed on a global scale, showed detectable levels of genotoxic drugs in the work environment and a statistically significant increase in DNA damage and chromosomal aberrations in the exposed population versus the reference group (Buschini, 2013). Other studies have found increased chromosomal aberrations and evidences of mutagenic/carcinogenic risks in urine samples of exposed nurses (Shahrasbi et al, 2014).…”
“…Antineoplastic or cytostatic drugs are a heterogeneous group of widely used therapeutics for neoplastic and non-neoplastic diseases. However, these drugs have been proved to be also mutagens, carcinogens, and teratogens (19)(20)(21)(22)(23)(24)(25).…”
Section: Antineoplastic Drugs In Cancer Treatmentmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…According to the European Guidelines (74), any use of carcinogenic, mutagenic or teratogenic substances, including the application in health care settings, is assigned to the highest risk level (20)(21)(22)(23)75). Based on epidemiological reports, animal carcinogenicity data, and the outcomes of in vitro genotoxicity studies, several antineoplastic drugs have been classified by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) as belonging to the group of human carcinogens (Group 1), probable human carcinogens (Group 2A), or possible human carcinogens (Group 2B) (76,77).…”
Section: Occupational Exposure To Antineoplastic Drugsmentioning
Cancer is one of the diseases of greatest concern in developed countries and much effort has been invested in discovering and developing therapeutics for curing cancer. Despite the improvements in antineoplastic therapeutics in the last decades, cancer is still one of the most harmful diseases worldwide. The global burden of cancer also implies financial costs: these can be direct costs, such as those related to treatment, care, and rehabilitation and indirect, which include the loss of economic output due to missed work (morbidity costs) and premature death (mortality costs). There are also hidden costs such as health insurance premiums and nonmedical expenses that are worth noting. This paper intends to present an overview of the generally forgotten impacts that the increasing number of cancer cases can have on the environment, workers who handle antineoplastic drugs, and health services. The knowledge available of each of the impacts will be addressed and discussed regarding the expected development. Overall, lessons learnt reflect on the impact of cancer through aspects not commonly evidenced in the literature or even considered in socio-economic analysis, in part due to the fact that these are difficult to contemplate in direct and indirect cancer costs already defined. Attention may be drawn to the need of continuous investment in prevention to reduce the negative impact on the environment, and in the health of workers who handle antineoplastic drugs for patients' treatment.
KEY WORDS: costs of cancer; global burden; occupational healthGlobally, cancer is a growing public health problem. It is the second cause of death (21 %) after cardiovascular diseases (48 %), followed by respiratory diseases (12 %) in the sector of non-communicable diseases or diseases caused by non-infectious and non-transmissible medical conditions (1). Important resources are mobilised in order to improve research on new therapeutics, and ultimately devise a cure for this particular disease. Despite the increase in the effectiveness and specificity of chemotherapeutic treatments, cancer still remains one of the most harmful diseases (2-4).In 2012, worldwide incidence of cancer rose to an estimated 14 million new cases per year, with an estimated 8.2 million cancer deaths. The most common cancers diagnosed were of lung (1.8 million cases, 13 %), breast (1.7 million, 11.9 %) and colon (1.4 million, 9.7 %) (1
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.