Work environment influence on cytostatics-induced genotoxicity in oncologic nurses

Abstract

The aim of the study was to point out the influence of workplace conditions on chromosomal damage incidence in nurses handling cytostatics. The study comprised two groups of 17 oncologic nurses each and the same number of matched controls. Sister chromatid exchange method (SCE) was used for genotoxicity assessment. In the group of nurses provided with a safe working environment, the SCE‐frequency was insignificantly increased when compared to the controls (p> 0.8), although wide SCE‐ranges were obtained. By contrast, in the group of nurses provided with neither such an environment nor with the appropriate personal protective equipment, the SCE‐frequency was significantly higher, not only compared to the controls (p< 0.001), but also to the first test group (p< 0.001). © 1996 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.

Long-term monitoring of sister chromatid exchanges and micronucleus frequencies in pharmacy personnel occupationally exposed to cytostatic drugs

“…This might be due to high standards of self-protection and technical equipment, which have been reported to decrease the genotoxic impact of occupational exposure to anticancer agents (Roth et al 1994, Brumen andHorvat 1996). On the other hand, we observed slightly higher ranges of interindividual SCE scores in exposed subjects than in unexposed controls, which may point to cytostatic-induced genotoxicity related to dierent workplace conditions.…”

“…Although SCE are supposed to be short-lived (Brumen and Horvat 1996), we found good correlations between individual average SCEs obtained from series 1±3 and series 4±5. In addition, a similar correlation was found for individual average levels of MN.…”

“…Elevated levels were still observed 2 months later, but had decreased to control values after 9 months. Brumen and Horvat (1996) showed signi®-cantly higher SCE in 17 oncology nurses with poor protective equipment, than in a test group with high safety standards. Despite safe handling of cytostatic agents, incorporation of these substances may still be of signi®cance.…”

Methotrexate – Genotoxic and teratogenic for medical staff of oncology wards?

“…Wszystkie badane pielęgniarki były wyposażone w ręka-wice ochronne, maski chirurgiczne, fartuchy ochronne i czepki. Kolejne badanie, które obejmowało 17 pielęg-niarek z oddziału onkologicznego, wykazało nieistotny wzrost częstości wymiany chromatyd siostrzanych w przypadku kobiet stosujących środki ochrony osobistej, natomiast w przypadku pielęgniarek ich niestosujących w stosunku do grupy zarówno porównawczej (p < 0,001), jak i niestosującej żadnego rodzaju ochrony (p < 0,001) wzrost ten był istotny [46]. Nie podano informacji dotyczących wielkości stężeń MTX w powietrzu środowiska pracy lub w materiale biologicznym wykorzystanym w tych badaniach.…”

Antineoplastic Drugs as a Potential Risk Factor in Occupational Settings: Mechanisms of Action at the Cell Level, Genotoxic Effects, and Their Detection Using Different Biomarkers

“…U Hrvatskoj (58,67,69,72,78,79) to je donedavno bila i jedina metoda koja se izvodila kao dodatna pretraga u okviru zdravstvenih pregleda medicinskog osoblja izloženog antineoplasticima. Iz grafičkog prikaza (slika 6) vidljivo je da je broj istraživanja, koja su primjenom SCE utvrdila pozitivne i negativne rezultate, sličan.…”