|Year : 2016 | Volume
| Issue : 4 | Page : 365-369
Genotoxic monitoring of nurses handling cytotoxic drugs
Anna Tompa1, Anna Biró2, Mátyás Jakab2
1 Semmelweis University, Institute Public Health, Budapest, Hungary
2 Department of Geno- and Immune-toxicology, National Public Health Center, National Directorate of Chemical Safety, Budapest, Hungary
|Date of Submission||22-Sep-2016|
|Date of Acceptance||10-Oct-2016|
|Date of Web Publication||22-Dec-2016|
Professor, Semmelweis University, Institute of Public Health, Budapest; H-1089 Budapest, Nagyvárad tér 4
Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None
Objective: Several biomarkers may be used to detect harmful exposure and individual susceptibility to cancer. Monitoring of biomarkers related to exposure may have a significant effect on early detection of cell transformation, thereby aiding the primary prevention of various chronic and malignant diseases. Nurses who handle cytotoxic drugs are exposed to carcinogenic agents, which have the potential to interrupt the cell cycle and to induce chromosomal aberrations. The presence of high chromosomal aberrations indicates the need for intervention even when exposure to these carcinogens is low. Methods: Nationally representative samples of 552 nurses were investigated by a follow-up monitoring system. The measured biomarkers were clinical laboratory routine tests, completed with genotoxicological (chromosome aberrations [CAs] and sister chromatid exchanges [SCEs]) and immunotoxicological monitoring (ratio of lymphocyte subpopulations and lymphocyte activation markers) measured on peripheral blood lymphocytes. Results were compared to the data of 140 healthy, age-matched controls. Results: In nurses exposed to cytostatics, we observed a significantly increased frequency of CAs and SCEs compared with those in the controls. Cytostatic drug exposure also manifested itself in an increased frequency of helper T lymphocytes. Genotoxicological and immunotoxicological changes, as well as negative health effects (i.e., iron deficiency, anemia, and thyroid diseases), increased among cytostatic exposed subjects. Conclusions: These results raised concerns about the protection of nursing staff from chemical carcinogens in the working environment.
Keywords: Chromosome aberrations, cytostatics, genotoxicological monitoring, health status, immunotoxicology, risk assessment, sister chromatid exchange, unscheduled DNA synthesis
|How to cite this article:|
Tompa A, Biró A, Jakab M. Genotoxic monitoring of nurses handling cytotoxic drugs. Asia Pac J Oncol Nurs 2016;3:365-9
| Introduction|| |
A key aspect of public health is a prompt response to various challenges of environmental attacks, as well as occupational and environmental risk assessment of multiple chemical exposures, infections, and physical and radioactive effects. The effect of environmental chemical and physical agents is significantly evident in a "built" environment. Hazard identification and dose-response relationships have become important in exposure assessment because human data are limited in toxicology. Epidemiology and the use of biomarkers in analytical epidemiology may help bridge the gap between human and animal studies. Quantifying human exposure has also been the starting point for evaluating the usefulness of biomarkers in measuring the effect of environment. Exposure assessment enables the evaluation of genetic polymorphisms responsible for determining why individuals with identical levels of exposure have different degrees of target organ toxicity.
More than four decades ago, concern was expressed regarding the possible hazards to pharmacists and nurses who handled or administered cytostatic drugs.  Most of these drugs have been classified as dangerous to humans because of their mutagenic, clastogenic, and carcinogenic properties. ,,,,,,
Primary prevention of occupational diseases is the most powerful tool for health protection in the occupational health sector. Occupational cancer may be preventable by 100% if cancer-causing agents can be eliminated. Detecting early signs of the effects of occupational and environmental carcinogens that cause DNA damage, mutations, and chromosome aberrations (CAs) is a useful indicator of the increased risk of cancer development. The current interpretation of the mechanism of cancer development attributes the appearance of tumors primarily to environmental factors by somatic mutations, and only approximately 5%-10% of the cases are related to original inherent genetic changes. From the aspect of tumor development, the signal transduction mechanism defect is decisive because it is responsible for altering the physiological functions, multiplication, and metabolism of transformed cells. Occupational cancer is induced by exogenous effects, such as chemical, physical, and biological factors, and individual susceptibility promotes the early onset of tumor. The combined effects of these occupational and environmental factors increase the risk of cancer development.
A possible approach for prevention is to eliminate the harmful agents from the (working) environment (i.e., primary prevention) or to promote the elimination of somatic mutations (i.e., chemoprevention). Chemoprevention can promote apoptosis, increase the activity of DNA repair, or eliminate mutagenic metabolites, for example, with the help of antioxidants.
The objective of our study is to investigate the changes in health status and in the early effects of genotoxic agents of nurses who work in oncology departments and handle cytostatic drugs.
Human genotoxicological monitoring by such methods enables assessment and reduction of genotoxic risks and keeping exposure as low as possible. We have used this complex methodology for the 35 years in the risk assessment of different human populations, control subjects, and persons who are occupationally exposed to various genotoxic agents. ,,, This monitoring enables detection and follow-up of alterations in work-related conditions. , We have conducted multiple end-point approach genotoxicology monitoring of nurses since 1992 to observe the improvement in their work-related conditions. ,, In this paper, we present the results obtained with the cytogenetic methods, namely, CA and sister chromatid exchange (SCE) and determination of ultraviolet (UV)-light-induced unscheduled DNA-repair synthesis (UDS) levels, together with the results of immunotoxicological methods, in the investigated groups of nurses who prepare and administer cytostatic infusions.
| Methods|| |
Donors and sample selection
A total of 552 nurses (1400 tests) who handle cytostatic drugs were investigated and compared with 140 nonexposed age- and gender-matched controls. The controls were all women who work in medical care but were occupationally not exposed to cytostatic drugs.
Each donor was personally interviewed by filling in a routine questionnaire in which they indicated demographic data; smoking and drinking habits; exposure to ionizing radiation and/or to known or suspected chemical mutagens and diseases; and occupational history, including duration of exposure to chemicals and use of protective devices during work. All retrospective medical records were available. Active smoker subjects were considered "smokers." Written permission was obtained from blood donors, and blood samples were collected from each donor by venipuncture. The samples were processed for cytogenetic analysis, immunophenotyping, and routine clinical check-up.
Blood samples were processed for CA and SCE using standard cell culture methods, and 0.8 ml samples of heparinized blood were cultured in duplicates in 10 ml of RPMI-1640 medium (Gibco) supplemented with 20% fetal calf serum (flow) and 0.5% phytohemagglutinin-P (Difco) without antibiotics; then, 5 μg/ml of 5-bromo-2-deoxyuridine (BrdU, Sigma) was added at 22 h of incubation. For CA and SCE analysis, the cultures were incubated at 37°C in the presence of 7% CO 2 for 50 h and 72 h, respectively. Culture harvest, slide preparation, and staining were made following standard methods using 5% Giemsa stain (Fluka) for CA and according to the fluorescence-plus-Giemsa method of Perry and Wolff  for SCE. All microscope analyses were performed on coded slides by the same (two) observers. Characterization of CA was performed according to Carrano and Natarajan  in 100 metaphases per donor in the first mitotic cycle with 46 ± 1 chromosomes. Mitoses that contained only achromatic lesions (gaps) and/or aneuploidy (i.e., 46 ± 1 chromosomes per mitosis) were not considered aberrant. Then, 50 of the second divisions per donor were scored for SCE.
Measurement of ultraviolet-induced DNA repair synthesis
According to the method of Bianchi et al.,  UV-induced repair synthesis (UDS) was conducted. The separation of lymphocytes of citrated blood samples was performed by Ficoll-Hypaque density centrifugation. Briefly, PBLs were irradiated in open petri dishes by UV light (24 J/m 2 ) and then incubated for 3 h with 10 μ Ci/mL 3H-TdR (activity: 37 MBq/mL, Amersham) in the presence of 2.5 mM hydroxyurea. UDS was calculated as the difference between radioactivity in irradiated and control cultures (relative units).
For immunotoxicological investigations, flow cytometry analysis of surface antigens was performed on peripheral blood lymphocytes. Heparinized whole blood was incubated at room temperature for 20 min with appropriate amounts of FITC, PE, PerCP, or APC-labeled monoclonal antibodies (Becton Dickinson) against surface antigens. The erythrocytes were removed by lysis through adding FACS lysing solution (Becton Dickinson). Samples were analyzed within 4 h after labeling or fixed with 2% paraformaldehyde. Four-color analysis was performed on a Becton Dickinson FACSCalibur flow cytometer. Standard forward- and side-scatter gating combined with CD45 was used to separate leukocyte populations and to set the lymphocyte gate. CD3 was used as T-cell marker, helper T-cells were characterized by CD3+/CD4 + phenotype, cytotoxic T-cells were characterized by CD3+/CD8 + phenotype, and B-lymphocytes were characterized as CD19+ cells. Data for at least 10,000 cells per sample were obtained, and BD CellQuest software version 3.1 (Becton, Dickinson and Company, Franklin Lakes, New Jersey) was used for analysis.
Statistical analyses were performed by the Student's t-test with GraphPad Prism 3.02 software (GraphPad Software, Inc. San Diego, California); P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
| Results|| |
[Table 1] presents the demography of donors, investigated number of donors, mean age, and percentage of smokers. All donors were of reproductive age between 18 and 50 years.
In the exposed subjects, a decreased mean hemoglobin level only significant at P = 0.10 (P = 0.0858) and a slightly decreased mean of serum iron concentration, as compared with controls, were observed. Thyroid alterations were not observed among controls, but an elevated incidence of thyroid disease occurred in the exposed group [Table 2]. The mean frequencies of CAs and SCEs were significantly increased in the exposed subjects (P < 0.001 and P < 0.0005, respectively), as compared with the control group. A slight, insignificant decrease in UDS was also found in the exposed group [Figure 1].
|Figure 1: Mean values of genotoxicological investigations among hospital staff exposed to cytostatics. *Statistically significant, Student's t-test, P < 0.05|
Click here to view
|Table 2: Mean values of blood hemoglobin and iron, and the number of thyroid disorders among hospital staff exposed to cytostatics|
Click here to view
In the exposed group, the percentage of helper T-cells [Table 3] was significantly increased (P = 0.001), thereby leading to a significantly elevated Th/Tc ratio (P = 0.0183) compared with the controls. The percentage of B-cells also showed a slight but statistically significant increase (P = 0.022).
|Table 3: Mean values of immunotoxicological investigations among hospital staff exposed to cytostatics|
Click here to view
| Conclusion|| |
Hygienic conditions of the working environment are the basic risk factors for the vulnerability of nurses. We observed a significantly increased frequency of CAs and SCEs among nurses exposed to cytostatics. These results agree with the data of oncology nurses and personnel handling cytostatics, with increased frequencies of CAs. ,,,,,, An increase in SCEs was also found among nurses who handle cytostatics. ,, Cytogenetic and immunological biomarkers are appropriate to detect early susceptibility to diseases. The Hungarian Nurse Study[ 16] proved that the use of safety measures could protect against occupational exposure. The increased percentages of CAs, Th cells, and Th/Tc ratio among nurses exposed to cytostatics were even higher among persons with thyroid alterations than those without thyroid alterations, as previously described by us.  Without safety regulations, Hungarian nurses are more susceptible to anemia and thyroid dysfunctions than age-matched controls.
Financial support and sponsorship
Conflicts of interest
There are no conflicts of interest.
| References|| |
Ng LM, Jaffe N. Possible hazards of handling antineoplastic drugs. Pediatrics 1970;46:648-9.
Sieber SM, Adamson RH. Toxicity of antineoplastic agents in man, chromosomal aberrations antifertility effects, congenital malformations, and carcinogenic potential. Adv Cancer Res 1975;22:57-155.
Harris CC. The carcinogenicity of anticancer drugs: A hazard in man. Cancer 1976;37 2 Suppl: 1014-23.
Matney TS, Nguyen TV, Connor TH, Dana WJ, Theiss JC. Genotoxic classification of anticancer drugs. Teratog Carcinog Mutagen 1985;5:319-28.
Sorsa M, Hemminki K, Vainio H. Occupational exposure to anticancer drug - Potential and real hazards. Mutat Res 1985;154:135-49.
IARC. IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of the Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals to Man. Vol. 26. Lyon: IARC; 1981.
IARC. IARC 1987a Monographs on the Evaluation of the Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals to Humans. Lyon: IARC; 1987.
IARC. IARC 1987b Monographs on the Evaluation of the Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals to Humans. Lyon: IARC; 1987.
Jakab M, Major J, Tompa A. Follow-up cytogenetic analysis of peripheral blood lymphocytes in workers occupationally exposed to polychlorinated biphenyls. Cent Eur J Occup Environ Med 1995;1:206-16.
Major J, Jakab M, Kiss G, Tompa A. Chromosome aberration, sister-chromatid exchange, proliferative rate index, and serum thiocyanate concentration in smokers exposed to low-dose benzene. Environ Mol Mutagen 1994;23:137-42.
Major J, Jakab MG, Tompa A. Genotoxicological monitoring of 175 subjects living in the green belts, inner town or near chemical industrial estates in Greater Budapest agglomeration, Hungary. Mutat Res 1998;412:9-16.
Tompa A, Major J, Jakab MG. Occupational acrylonitrile (ACN) and dimethylformamide (DMF) exposure inhibits blastogenesis of peripheral blood lymphocytes. Cell Prolif 1992;25:515.
Major J, Jakab MG, Tompa A. Genotoxicological investigation of hospital nurses occupationally exposed to ethylene-oxide: I. Chromosome aberrations, sister-chromatid exchanges, cell cycle kinetics, and UV-induced DNA synthesis in peripheral blood lymphocytes. Environ Mol Mutagen 1996;27:84-92.
Tompa A, Major J, Jakab MG. Monitoring of benzene-exposed workers for genotoxic effects of benzene: Improved-working-condition-related decrease in the frequencies of chromosomal aberrations in peripheral blood lymphocytes. Mutat Res 1994;304:159-65.
Jakab MG, Major J, Tompa A. Follow-up genotoxicological monitoring of nurses handling antineoplastic drugs. J Toxicol Environ Health A 2001;62:307-18.
Tompa A, Jakab M, Biró A, Magyar B, Fodor Z, Klupp T, et al.
Chemical safety and health conditions among Hungarian hospital nurses. Ann N Y Acad Sci 2006;1076:635-48.
Biró A, Fodor Z, Major J, Tompa A. Immunotoxicity monitoring of hospital staff occupationally exposed to cytostatic drugs. Pathol Oncol Res 2011;17:301-8.
Perry P, Wolff S. New Giemsa method for the differential staining of sister chromatids. Nature 1974;251:156-8.
Carrano AV, Natarajan AT. International Commission for Protection against Environmental Mutagens and Carcinogens. ICPEMC publication no 14. Considerations for population monitoring using cytogenetic techniques. Mutat Res 1988;204:379-406.
Bianchi V, Nuzzo F, Abbondandalo A, Bonatti S, Capelli E, Fiorio R, et al
. Scintillometric determination of DNA repair in human cell lines. Mutat Res 1982;93:447-63.
Oestreicher U, Stephan G, Glatzel M. Chromosome and SCE analysis in peripheral lymphocytes of persons occupationally exposed to cytostatic drugs handled with and without use of safety covers. Mutat Res 1990;242:271-7.
Waksvik H, Klepp O, Brøgger A. Chromosome analyses of nurses handling cytostatic agents. Cancer Treat Rep 1981;65:607-10.
Nikula E, Kiviniitty K, Leisti J, Taskinen PJ. Chromosome aberrations in lymphocytes of nurses handling cytostatic agents. Scand J Work Environ Health 1984;10:71-4.
Pohlová H, Cerná M, Rössner P. Chromosomal aberrations, SCE and urine mutagenicity in workers occupationally exposed to cytostatic drugs. Mutat Res 1986;174:213-7.
Milkovic-Kraus S, Kraus O, Krsnjavi H, Kubelka D. Environmental effects on chromosomes in oncology and radiology department personnel. Prev Med 1992;21:498-502.
Grummt T, Grummt HJ, Schott G. Chromosomal aberrations in peripheral lymphocytes of nurses and physicians handling antineoplastic drugs. Mutat Res 1993;302:19-24.
Sessink PJ, Cerná M, Rössner P, Pastorková A, Bavarová H, Franková K, et al.
Urinary cyclophosphamide excretion and chromosomal aberrations in peripheral blood lymphocytes after occupational exposure to antineoplastic agents. Mutat Res 1994;309:193-9.
Norppa H, Sorsa M, Vainio H, Grohn P, Heinonen E, Holsti L, et al
. Increased SCE frequencies in lymphocytes of nurses handling cytostatic agents. Scand J Work Environ Health 1980;6:299-301.
Tompa A, Jakab M, Biró A, Major J. Genetic and immune-toxicologic studies on abnormal thyroid functions in hospital employees exposed to cytostatic drugs. Orv Hetil 2015;156:60-6.
| Authors|| |
[Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3]
|This article has been cited by|
||The Oxidative Stress Parameters as Useful Tools in Evaluating the DNA Damage and Changes in the Complete Blood Count in Hospital Workers Exposed to Low Doses of Antineoplastic Drugs and Ionizing Radiation
| ||Jasminka Mrdjanovic,Slavica Šolajic,Branislava Srdenovic-Conic,Višnja Bogdanovic,Karaba-Jakovljevic Dea,Nebojša Kladar,Vladimir Jurišic |
| ||International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2021; 18(16): 8445 |
|[Pubmed] | [DOI]|
||An ethical imperative: Safety and specialization as nursing priorities of WHO Global Initiative for Childhood Cancer
| ||Pernilla Pergert,Courtney E. Sullivan,Melissa Adde,Glenn Mbah Afungchwi,Julia Downing,Rachel Hollis,André Ilbawi,Lisa Morrissey,Rehana Punjwani,Julia Challinor |
| ||Pediatric Blood & Cancer. 2019; |
|[Pubmed] | [DOI]|
||Analysis of apoptosis related genes in nurses exposed to anti-neoplastic drugs
| ||Maral Ramazani,Razieh Pourahmad Jaktaji,Farshad H. Shirazi,Maria Tavakoli-Ardakani,Ahmad Salimi,Jalal Pourahmad |
| ||BMC Pharmacology and Toxicology. 2019; 20(1) |
|[Pubmed] | [DOI]|
||Forgotten public health impacts of cancer – an overview
| ||Susana Viegas,Carina Ladeira,Ana Costa-Veiga,Julian Perelman,Goran Gajski |
| ||Archives of Industrial Hygiene and Toxicology. 2017; 68(4) |
|[Pubmed] | [DOI]|