Applicability of the comet assay in evaluation of DNA damage in healthcare providers’ working with antineoplastic drugs: a systematic review and meta-analysis

References

• DeVita VT, Chu E. A history of cancer chemotherapy. Cancer Res. 2008;68(21):8643–8653.10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-07-6611
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Espinosa E, Zamora P, Feliu J, Barón MG. Classification of anticancer drugs – a new system based on therapeutic targets. Cancer Treat Rev. 2003;29(6):515–523.10.1016/S0305-7372(03)00116-6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jones and B. Publishers, Nurse’s Drug 2009. 2008; Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning.
   Google Scholar
• Some Antiviral and Antineoplastic Drugs, and other Pharmaceutical Agents, IARC Monograph on the Carcinogenic Risks to Humans, Volume 76. IARC Monographs. 2000, Lyon: IARC.
   Google Scholar
• Yoshida J, Koda S, Nishida S, Nakano H, Tei G, Kumagai S. Association between occupational exposure and control measures for antineoplastic drugs in a pharmacy of a hospital. Ann Occupational Hyg. 2013;57(2):251–260.10.1093/annhyg/mes061
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yoshida J, Koda S, Nishida S, Yoshida T, Miyajima K, Kumagai S. Association between occupational exposure levels of antineoplastic drugs and work environment in five hospitals in Japan. J Oncol Pharm Practice. 2011;17(1):29–38. doi:10.1177/1078155210380485.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• McKenna DJ, McKeown SR, McKelvey-Martin VJ. Potential use of the comet assay in the clinical management of cancer. Mutagenesis. 2008;23(3):183–190.10.1093/mutage/gem054
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Falck K, Gröhn P, Sorsa M, Vainio H, Heinonen E, Holsti L. Mutagenicity in urine of nurses handling cytostatic drugs. Lancet. 1979;313(8128):1250–1251. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(79)91939-1.
   Google Scholar
• El-Ebiary AA, Abuelfadl AA, Sarhan NI. Evaluation of genotoxicity induced by exposure to antineoplastic drugs in lymphocytes of oncology nurses and pharmacists. J Appl Toxicol. 2013;33(3):196–201.10.1002/jat.v33.3
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kopjar N, Garaj-Vrhovac V, Kašuba V, Rozgaj R, Ramić S, Pavlica V, Želježić D. Assessment of genotoxic risks in Croatian health care workers occupationally exposed to cytotoxic drugs: A multi-biomarker approach. Int J Hyg Environ Health. 2009;212(4):414–431. doi:10.1016/j.ijheh.2008.10.001.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Musak L, Smerhovsky Z, Halasova E, Osina O, Letkova L, Vodickova L, et al. Chromosomal damage among medical staff occupational exposed to volatile anesthetics, antineoplastic drugs, and formaldehyde. Scand J Work, Environ Health, 2013; 39(6):618–630.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Singh NP, McCoy MT, Tice RR, Schneider EL. A simple technique for quantitation of low levels of DNA damage in individual cells. Exp Cell Res. 1988;175(1):184–191.10.1016/0014-4827(88)90265-0
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Valverde M, Rojas E. Environmental and occupational biomonitoring using the Comet assay. Mutation Res/Rev Mutation Res. 2009;681(1):93–109.10.1016/j.mrrev.2008.11.001
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ündeğer Ü, Başaran N, Kars A, Güç D. Assessment of DNA damage in nurses handling antineoplastic drugs by the alkaline COMET assay. Mutation Res/Genet Toxicol Environ Mutagenesis. 1999;439(2):277–285.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Suspiro A, Prista J. Biomarkers of occupational exposure do anticancer agents: a minireview. Toxicol Lett. 2011;207(1):42–52.10.1016/j.toxlet.2011.08.022
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ersson C, Loft S, Azqueta A, Godschalk RW, van Schooten FJ, Jones GD, Higgins JA, et al. An ECVAG inter-laboratory validation study of the comet assay: inter-laboratory and intra-laboratory variations of DNA strand breaks and FPG-sensitive sites in human mononuclear cells. Mutagenesis. 2013;28(3):279–286. doi:10.1093/mutage/get001.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoffmann H, Högel J, Speit G. The effect of smoking on DNA effects in the comet assay: a meta-analysis. Mutagenesis. 2005;20(6):455–466.10.1093/mutage/gei064
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dhawan, A, Anderson D. The comet assay in toxicology. Vol. 5. 2009: Royal Society of Chemistry.10.1039/9781847559746
   Google Scholar
• Borenstein, M, Higgins J, Rothstein H, Comprehensive meta-analysis. 2005; Engelwood.
   Google Scholar
• Higgins JP, Green S, Collaboration C. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Vol. 5. 2008: Wiley Online Library.10.1002/9780470712184
   Google Scholar
• Hozo SP, Djulbegovic B, Hozo I. Estimating the mean and variance from the median, range, and the size of a sample. BMC Med Res Methodology. 2005;5(1):13.10.1186/1471-2288-5-13
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Rothstein HR, Sutton AJ, Borenstein M. Publication bias in meta-analysis: prevention, assessment and adjustments. 2006: John.
   Google Scholar
• Sedgwick P. Meta-analyses: how to read a funnel plot. BMJ. 2013;346–347.
   Google Scholar
• Kevekordes S, Gebel TW, Hellwig M, Dames W, Dunkelberg H. Human effect monitoring in cases of occupational exposure to antineoplastic drugs: a method comparison. Occup Environ Med. 1998;55(3):145–149. doi:10.1136/oem.55.3.145.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Deng H, Zhang M, He J, Wu W, Jin L, Zheng W, et al. Investigating genetic damage in workers occupationally exposed to methotrexate using three genetic end-points. Mutagenesis. 2005;20(5):351–357. doi:10.1093/mutage/gei048.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hongping D, Jianlin L, Meibian Z, Wei W, Lifen J, Shijie C, et al. Detecting the cytogenetic effects in workers occupationally exposed to vincristine with four genetic tests. Mutat Res. 2006;599(1–2):152–159. doi:10.1016/j.mrfmmm.2006.02.003.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cavallo D, Ursini CL, Rondinone B, Iavicoli S. Evaluation of a suitable DNA damage biomarker for human biomonitoring of exposed workers. Environ Mol Mutagen. 2009;50(9):781–790. doi:10.1002/em.v50:9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Connor TH, DeBord DG, Pretty JR, Oliver MS, Roth TS, Lees PS, et al. Evaluation of antineoplastic drug exposure of health care workers at three university-based US Cancer Centers. J Occup Environ Med. 2010;52(10):1019–1027. doi:10.1097/JOM.0b013e3181f72b63.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maluf SW, Erdtmann B. Follow-up study of the genetic damage in lymphocytes of pharmacists and nurses handling antineoplastic drugs evaluated by cytokinesis-block micronuclei analysis and single cell gel electrophoresis assay. Mutat Res. 2000;471(1–2):21–27.10.1016/S1383-5718(00)00107-8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buschini A, Villarini M, Feretti D, Mussi F, Dominici L, Zerbini I, et al. Multicentre study for the evaluation of mutagenic/carcinogenic risk in nurses exposed to antineoplastic drugs: assessment of DNA damage. Occup Environ Med. 2013;70(11):789–794. doi:10.1136/oemed-2013-101475.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cornetta T, Padua L, Testa A, Ievoli E, Festa F, Tranfo G, Baccelliere L, et al. Molecular biomonitoring of a population of nurses handling antineoplastic drugs. Mutat Res. 2008;638(1–2):75–82. doi:10.1016/j.mrfmmm.2007.08.017.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Laffon B, Teixeira JP, Silva S, Loureiro J, Torres J, Pasaro E, et al. Genotoxic effects in a population of nurses handling antineoplastic drugs, and relationship with genetic polymorphisms in DNA repair enzymes. Am J Ind Med. 2005;48(2):128–136. doi:10.1002/(ISSN)1097-0274.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mader RM, Kokalj A, Kratochvil E, Pilger A, Rüdiger HW. Longitudinal biomonitoring of nurses handling antineoplastic drugs. J Clin Nurs. 2008;18(2):263-269.
   Google Scholar
• Ursini CL, Cavallo D, Colombi A, Giglio M, Marinaccio A, Iavicoli S. Evaluation of early DNA damage in healthcare workers handling antineoplastic drugs. Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 2006;80(2):134–140. doi:10.1007/s00420-006-0111-x.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yoshida J, Kosaka H, Tomioka K, Kumagai S. Genotoxic risks to nurses from contamination of the work environment with antineoplastic drugs in Japan. J Occup Health. 2006;48(6):517–522. doi:10.1539/joh.48.517.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Izdes S, Sardas S, Kadioglu E, Kaymak C, Ozcagli E. Assessment of genotoxic damage in nurses occupationally exposed to anaesthetic gases or antineoplastic drugs by the comet assay. J Occup Health. 2009;51(3):283–286. doi:10.1539/joh.M8012.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kopjar N, Garaj-Vrhovac V. Application of the alkaline comet assay in human biomonitoring for genotoxicity: a study on Croatian medical personnel handling antineoplastic drugs. Mutagenesis. 2001;16(1):71–78.10.1093/mutage/16.1.71
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sasaki M, Dakeishi M, Hoshi S, Ishii N, Murata K. Assessment of DNA damage in Japanese nurses handling antineoplastic drugs by the comet assay. J Occup Health. 2008;50(1):7–12. doi:10.1539/joh.50.7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rekhadevi PV, Sailaja N, Chandrasekhar M, Mahboob M, Rahman MF, Grover P. Genotoxicity assessment in oncology nurses handling anti-neoplastic drugs. Mutagenesis. 2007;22(6):395–401. doi:10.1093/mutage/gem032.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Villarini M, Dominici L, Piccinini R, Fatigoni C, Ambrogi M, Curti G, et al. Assessment of primary, oxidative and excision repaired DNA damage in hospital personnel handling antineoplastic drugs. Mutagenesis. 2011;26(3):359–369.10.1093/mutage/geq102
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pitarque M, Creus A, Marcos R, Hughes JA, Anderson D. Examination of various biomarkers measuring genotoxic endpoints from Barcelona airport personnel. Mutation Res/Genet Toxicol Environ Mutagenesis. 1999;440(2):195–204.10.1016/S1383-5718(99)00026-1
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Milić M, Kopjar N. Evaluation of in vitro genotoxic activity of bleomycin and mitomycin C in human lymphocytes using the alkaline comet assay. Arhiv za higijenu rada i toksikologiju. 2004;55(4):249–259.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hartmann A, Herkommer K, Glück M, Speit G. DNA-damaging effect of cyclophosphamide on human blood cells in vivo and in vitro studied with the single-cell gel test (comet assay). Environ Mol Mutagenesis. 1995;25(3):180–187.10.1002/(ISSN)1098-2280
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fransman W, Peelen S, Hilhorst S, Roeleveld N, Heederik DI, Kromhout H. A pooled analysis to study trends in exposure to antineoplastic drugs among nurses. Annals of occupational hygiene. 2007;51(3):231–239.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hedmer M, Tinnerberg H, Axmon A, Jönsson BA. Environmental and biological monitoring of antineoplastic drugs in four workplaces in a Swedish hospital. Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 2008;81(7):899–911.10.1007/s00420-007-0284-y
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yoshida, J., Koda S, Nishida S, Yoshida T, Miyajima K, Kumagai S. Association between occupational exposure levels of antineoplastic drugs and work environment in five hospitals in Japan. J Oncol Pharm Practice, 2010:1–10.
   Google Scholar
• Laidlaw J, Connor TH, Theiss JC, Anderson RW, Matney TS. Permeability of latex and polyvinyl chloride gloves to 20 antineoplastic drugs. Am J Health-Sys Pharm. 1984;41(12):2618–2623.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hama K, Fukushima K, Hirabatake M, Hashida T, Kataoka K. Verification of surface contamination of Japanese cyclophosphamide vials and an example of exposure by handling. J Oncol Pharm Practice. 2012;18(2):201–206.10.1177/1078155211419543
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Zock MD, Soefje S, Rickabaugh K. Evaluation of surface contamination with cyclophosphamide following simulated hazardous drug preparation activities using two closed-system products. J Oncol Pharm Practice. 2011;17(1):49–54.10.1177/1078155210374673
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wilhelm M, Eberwein G, Hölzer J, Gladtke D, Angerer J, Marczynski B, et al. Influence of industrial sources on children’s health–hot spot studies in North Rhine Westphalia, Germany. Int J Hygiene Environ Health. 2007;210(5):591–599.10.1016/j.ijheh.2007.02.007
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Müller W-U, Bauch T, Stüben G, Sack H, Streffer C. Radiation sensitivity of lymphocytes from healthy individuals and cancer patients as measured by the comet assay. Radiat Environ Biophys. 2001;40(1):83–89.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zana M, Szécsényi A, Czibula Á, Bjelik A, Juhász A, Rimanóczy Á, et al. Age-dependent oxidative stress-induced DNA damage in Down’s lymphocytes. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2006;345(2):726–733.10.1016/j.bbrc.2006.04.167
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Humphreys V, Martin RM, Ratcliffe B, Duthie S, Wood S, Gunnell D, et al. Age-related increases in DNA repair and antioxidant protection: A comparison of the Boyd Orr Cohort of elderly subjects with a younger population sample. Age Ageing. 2007;36(5):521–526.10.1093/ageing/afm107
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mendoza-Núñez VM, Sánchez-Rodrı́guez MA, Retana-Ugalde R, Vargas-Guadarrama LA, Altamirano-Lozano MA. Total antioxidant levels, gender, and age as risk factors for DNA damage in lymphocytes of the elderly. Mech Age Dev, 2001. 122(8):835–847.
   Google Scholar
• Mutlu-Türkoğlu Ü, İlhan E, Öztezcan S, Kuru A, Aykaç-Toker G, Uysal M. Age-related increases in plasma malondialdehyde and protein carbonyl levels and lymphocyte DNA damage in elderly subjects. Clin. Biochem. 2003;36(5):397–400.10.1016/S0009-9120(03)00035-3
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tsilimigaki SI, Messini-Nikolaki N, Kanariou M, Piperakis SM. A study on the effects of seasonal solar radiation on exposed populations. Mutagenesis. 2003;18(2):139–143.10.1093/mutage/18.2.139
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Robinson L, Gallos ID, Conner SJ, Rajkhowa M, Miller D, Lewis S, et al. The effect of sperm DNA fragmentation on miscarriage rates: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Human Reprod, 2012: des261.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Møller P, Möller L, Godschalk RW, Jones GD. Assessment and reduction of comet assay variation in relation to DNA damage: studies from the European Comet Assay Validation Group. Mutagenesis, 2009: gep067.
   Google Scholar
• Sirota NP, Zhanataev AK, Kuznetsova EA, Khizhnyak EP, Anisina EA, Durnev AD. Some causes of inter-laboratory variation in the results of comet assay. Mutation Res/Genet Toxicol Environ Mutagenesis. 2014;770:16–22.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Azqueta A, Collins AR. The essential comet assay: a comprehensive guide to measuring DNA damage and repair. Arch Toxicol. 2013;87(6):949–968.10.1007/s00204-013-1070-0
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McKelvey-Martin V, Green MH, Schmezer P, Pool-Zobel BL, De Meo MP, Collins A. The single cell gel electrophoresis assay (comet assay): a European review. Mutation Res/Fundam Mol Mech Mutagenesis. 1993;288(1):47–63.10.1016/0027-5107(93)90207-V
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Green MH, Lowe JE, Waugh AP, Aldridge KE, Cole J, Arlett CF. Effect of diet and vitamin C on DNA strand breakage in freshly-isolated human white blood cells. Mutation Res/DNAging. 1994;316(2):91–102.10.1016/0921-8734(94)90011-6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yendle J, Tinwell H, Elliott BM, Ashby J. The genetic toxicity of time: importance of DNA-unwinding time to the outcome of single-cell gel electrophoresis assays. Mutation Res/Fundam Mol Mech Mutagenesis. 1997;375(2):125–136.10.1016/S0027-5107(97)00008-0
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tice R. The single cell gel/comet assay: a microgel electrophoretic technique for the detection of DNA damage and repair in individual cells. Environ Mutagenesis. 1995;315–339.
   Google Scholar
• Collins AR. Measuring oxidative damage to DNA and its repair with the comet assay. Biochimica et Biophysica Acta (BBA)-General Subjects, 2014. 1840(2):794–800.10.1016/j.bbagen.2013.04.022
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kumaravel T, Jha AN. Reliable Comet assay measurements for detecting DNA damage induced by ionising radiation and chemicals. Mutation Res/Genet Toxicol Environ Mutagenesis. 2006;605(1–2):7–16.10.1016/j.mrgentox.2006.03.002
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Møller P. The alkaline comet assay: towards validation in biomonitoring of DNA damaging exposures. Basic Clin Pharmacol Toxicol. 2006;98(4):336–345.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Møller P. Genotoxicity of environmental agents assessed by the alkaline comet assay. Basic Clin Pharmacol Toxicol. 2004;96:1–42.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Møller P, Knudsen LE, Loft S, Wallin H. The comet assay as a rapid test in biomonitoring occupational exposure to DNA-damaging agents and effect of confounding factors. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prevention. 2000;9(10):1005–1015.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bonassi S, Znaor A, Ceppi M, Lando C, Chang WP, Holland N. An increased micronucleus frequency in peripheral blood lymphocytes predicts the risk of cancer in humans. Carcinogenesis. 2006;28(3):625–631.10.1093/carcin/bgl177
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smerhovsky Z, Landa K, Rössner P, Brabec M, Zudova Z, Hola N, et al. Risk of cancer in an occupationally exposed cohort with increased level of chromosomal aberrations. Environ Health Perspect. 2000;109(1):41.10.1289/ehp.0110941
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Albertini RJ, Anderson D, Douglas GR, Hagmar L, Hemminki K, Merlo F, et al. IPCS guidelines for the monitoring of genotoxic effects of carcinogens in humans. Mutation Res/Rev Mutation Res. 2000;463(2):111–172.10.1016/S1383-5742(00)00049-1
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar