Evaluation of the annual Canadian biodosimetry network intercomparisons

Purpose: To evaluate the importance of annual intercomparisons for maintaining the capacity and capabilities of a well-established biodosimetry network in conjunction with assessing efficient and effective analysis methods for emergency response. Materials and methods: Annual intercomparisons were conducted between laboratories in the Canadian National Biological Dosimetry Response Plan. Intercomparisons were performed over a six-year period and comprised of the shipment of 10-12 irradiated, blinded blood samples for analysis by each of the participating laboratories. Dose estimates were determined by each laboratory using the dicentric chromosome assay (conventional and QuickScan scoring) and where possible the cytokinesis block micronucleus (CBMN) assay. Dose estimates were returned to the lead laboratory for evaluation and comparison. Results: Individual laboratories performed comparably from year to year with only slight fluctuations in performance. Dose estimates using the dicentric chromosome assay were accurate about 80% of the time and the QuickScan method for scoring the dicentric chromosome assay was proven to reduce the time of analysis without having a significant effect on the dose estimates. Although analysis with the CBMN assay was comparable to QuickScan scoring with respect to speed, the accuracy of the dose estimates was greatly reduced. Conclusions: Annual intercomparisons are necessary to maintain a network of laboratories for emergency response biodosimetry as they evoke confidence in their capabilities

Biological dosimetry by the triage dicentric chromosome assay: Potential implications for treatment of acute radiation syndrome in radiological mass casualties

Biological dosimetry is an essential tool for estimating radiation dose. The dicentric chromosome assay (DCA) is currently the tool of choice. Because the assay is labor-intensive and time-consuming, strategies are needed to increase throughput for use in radiation mass casualty incidents. One such strategy is to truncate metaphase spread analysis for triage dose estimates by scoring 50 or fewer metaphases, compared to a routine analysis of 500 to 1000 metaphases, and to increase throughput using a large group of scorers in a biodosimetry network. Previously, the National Institutes for Allergies and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) and the Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute (AFRRI) sponsored a double-blinded interlaboratory comparison among five established international cytogenetic biodosimetry laboratories to determine the variability in calibration curves and in dose measurements in unknown, irradiated samples. In the present study, we further analyzed the published data from this previous study to investigate how the number of metaphase spreads influences dose prediction accuracy and how this information could be of value in the triage and management of people at risk for the acute radiation syndrome (ARS). Although, as expected, accuracy decreased with lower numbers of metaphase spreads analyzed, predicted doses by the laboratories were in good agreement and were judged to be adequate to guide diagnosis and treatment of ARS. These results demonstrate that for rapid triage, a network of cytogenetic biodosimetry laboratories can accurately assess doses even with a lower number of scored metaphases

Interlaboratory comparison of the dicentric chromosome assay for radiation biodosimetry in mass casualty events

This interlaboratory comparison validates the dicentric chromosome assay for assessing radiation dose in mass casualty accidents and identifies the advantages and limitations of an international biodosimetry network. The assay's validity and accuracy were determined among five laboratories following the International Organization for Standardization guidelines. Blood samples irradiated at the Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute were shipped to all laboratories, which constructed individual radiation calibration curves and assessed the dose to dose-blinded samples. Each laboratory constructed a dose-effect calibration curve for the yield of dicentrics for 60Co γ rays in the 0 to 5-Gy range, using the maximum likelihood linear-quadratic model, Y = c + αD + βD2. For all laboratories, the estimated coefficients of the fitted curves were within the 99.7% confidence intervals (CIs), but the observed dicentric yields differed. When each laboratory assessed radiation doses to four dose-blinded blood samples by comparing the observed dicentric yield with the laboratory's own calibration curve, the estimates were accurate in all laboratories at all doses. For all laboratories, actual doses were within the 99.75% CI for the assessed dose. Across the dose range, the error in the estimated doses, compared to the physical doses, ranged from 15% underestimation to 15% overestimation