You are here

  • Home
  • Archive
  • Volume 33, Issue Suppl 4
  • EP212/#606  Occupational safety and therapeutic effect of paclitaxel according to types of formulation aerosolized during rotational intraperitoneal pressurized aerosol chemotherapy for peritoneal metastasis

Article Text

Article menu

Download PDFPDF

ePoster Viewing
AS09. Nursing and health care
EP212/#606  Occupational safety and therapeutic effect of paclitaxel according to types of formulation aerosolized during rotational intraperitoneal pressurized aerosol chemotherapy for peritoneal metastasis
Free
  1. Soo Jin Park1,
  2. Wongeon Jung2,
  3. Sunwoo Park3,
  4. Wonhyoung Park4,
  5. Mijin Park2,
  6. Chungsik Yoon2 and
  7. Hee Seung Kim1
  1. 1Seoul National University Hospital, Obstetrics and Gynecology, Seoul, Korea, Republic of
  2. 2Graduate School of Public Health, Seoul National University, Department of Environmental Health Sciences, Seoul, Korea, Republic of
  3. 3Gyeongsang National University, Department of Plant and Biomaterials Science, Jinju-si, Korea, Republic of
  4. 4College of Life Sciences and Biotechnology, Korea University, Department of Biotechnology, Seoul, Korea, Republic of

Abstract

Introduction To evaluate the occupation safety and effect of paclitaxel based on types of formulation aerosolized during rotational intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (RIPAC) in pigs

Methods In terms of occupational safety, we first conducted RIPAC using paclitaxel twice over two days (n=2), and then performed RIPAC using paclitaxel (n=3) and polymeric nanoparticle micellar paclitaxel (PM-Pac, n=3) three consecutive times a day in eight pigs for estimating airborne and surface contamination. Moreover, we tried to make ten piglets with peritoneal metastasis (PM) using SNU-008 cells. We evaluated the pattern of PM by using the modified peritoneal cancer index (PCI) score five weeks after the first inoculation. After RIPAC only on piglets with successful PM, we compared the rate of tumor reduction between paclitaxel and PM-Pac used in RIPAC.

Results The airborne detection rate of paclitaxel was 75–100% despite no detection of PM-Pac during RIPAC. The number of airborne particles increased in the abdominal closure period during RIPAC using paclitaxel despite no increase in them during RIPAC using PM-PAC. Among surface wipe samples, the concentration above the limit of detection (LOD) was more common in paclitaxel than in PM-Pac (100% vs. 66.7% for laparoscopic instruments, P=0.03; 87% vs. 3.6% for healthcare personnel equipment). On the other hand, the modified PCI score increased after PM-Pac despite no change after paclitaxel for RIPAC in seven piglets with PM.

Conclusion/Implications PM-Pac may be safe occupationally for RIPAC, whereas it may not be effective in suppressing PM of ovarian cancer when compared with paclitaxel.

https://doi.org/10.1136/ijgc-2023-IGCS.294

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.