PS-013 Multicentre study of environmental contamination with cyclophosphamide, ifosfamide and methotrexate in 66 canadian hospitals: a 2016 follow-up study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<h3>Background</h3> Oncology workers are occupationally exposed to antineoplastic drugs. This exposure can induce adverse health effects. In order to reduce their exposure, contamination on surfaces should be kept as low as possible. <h3>Purpose</h3> To monitor environmental contamination with cyclophosphamide, ifosfamide and methotrexate in oncology pharmacy and patient care areas in Canadian hospitals. To describe the impact of some factors that may limit contamination. <h3>Material and methods</h3> This was a descriptive study. 12 standardised sites were sampled in each participating centre (6 in the pharmacy and 6 in patient care areas). Samples were analysed for the presence of cyclophosphamide, ifosfamide and methotrexate by ultra performance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry technology. Descriptive statistical analyses were done and results were compared with a Kolmogorov–Smirnov test for independent samples. <h3>Results</h3> In 2016, 66 hospitals from Canada participated in this study (66/202, 33%). A total of 752 samples were quantified. Overall, 43% (326/752) of the samples were positive for cyclophosphamide, 13% (99/752) for ifosfamide and 7% (52/752) for methotrexate. The 75th percentile value of cyclophosphamide surface concentration was 6.8 pg/cm<sup>2</sup>. For ifosfamide and methotrexate, they were lower than the LOD. The most frequently contaminated sites were the arm rest, the floor in front of the hood, the front grille of the hood and on the counter used for priming. Centres who prepared more antineoplastic drugs per year (p<0.0001), centres who used more cyclophosphamide per year (p<0.0001) and centres who primed antineoplastic IV tubing in patient care unit by nurses (p=0.004) showed significantly higher surface contamination. Over the years, we observed stabilisation in surface contamination. <h3>Conclusion</h3> Environmental surveillance is one part of a comprehensive approach for minimising hazardous exposures in healthcare. By repeating this multicentre study annually and systematically, it increases all stakeholders’ awareness about the level of traces of hazardous drugs and the potential strategies that can minimise contamination. This study highlights a low level of contamination of three hazardous drugs among 66 Canadian hospitals. Regular environmental monitoring is a good practice to maintain contamination as low as reasonably achievable. As long as no health based limit is known, we are encouraging centres to monitor their contamination. No conflict of interest
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".