Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://doi.org/10.1667/RADE-22-00202.1
DC FieldValue
dc.titleRENEB Inter-Laboratory Comparison 2021: The Dicentric Chromosome Assay
dc.contributor.authorD Endesfelder
dc.contributor.authorU Oestreicher
dc.contributor.authorM Bucher
dc.contributor.authorC Beinke
dc.contributor.authorC Siebenwirth
dc.contributor.authorE Ainsbury
dc.contributor.authorJ Moquet
dc.contributor.authorG Gruel
dc.contributor.authorE Gregoire
dc.contributor.authorJ S Martinez
dc.contributor.authorA Vral
dc.contributor.authorA Baeyens
dc.contributor.authorM Valente
dc.contributor.authorA Montoro
dc.contributor.authorG Terzoudi
dc.contributor.authorS Triantopoulou
dc.contributor.authorA Pantelias
dc.contributor.authorO Monteiro Gil
dc.contributor.authorM J Prieto
dc.contributor.authorM M Domene
dc.contributor.authorD Zafiropoulos
dc.contributor.authorJ F Barquinero
dc.contributor.authorM Pujol-Canadell
dc.contributor.authorK Lumniczky
dc.contributor.authorR Hargitai
dc.contributor.authorE Kis
dc.contributor.authorA Testa
dc.contributor.authorC Patrono
dc.contributor.authorS Sommer
dc.contributor.authorR Hristova
dc.contributor.authorN Kostova
dc.contributor.authorM Atanasova
dc.contributor.authorO Sevriukova
dc.contributor.authorI Domínguez
dc.contributor.authorN Pastor
dc.contributor.authorI Güçlü
dc.contributor.authorJ Pajic
dc.contributor.authorL Sabatier
dc.contributor.authorP Brochard
dc.contributor.authorA Tichy
dc.contributor.authorM Milanova
dc.contributor.authorF Finot
dc.contributor.authorC Cuceu Petrenci
dc.contributor.authorR C Wilkins
dc.contributor.authorL A Beaton-Green
dc.contributor.authorK M Seong
dc.contributor.authorY Lee
dc.contributor.authorY H Lee
dc.contributor.authorA S Balajee
dc.contributor.authorN Maznyk
dc.contributor.authorT Sypko
dc.contributor.authorN D Pham
dc.contributor.authorT M Tran
dc.contributor.authorT Miura
dc.contributor.authorY Suto
dc.contributor.authorM Akiyamam
dc.contributor.authorN Tsuyama
dc.contributor.authorY Abe
dc.contributor.authorValerie Swee Ting Goh
dc.contributor.authorEn Lin Christelle Chua
dc.contributor.authorM Abend
dc.contributor.authorM Port
dc.date.accessioned2023-06-16T06:43:26Z
dc.date.available2023-06-16T06:43:26Z
dc.date.issued2023-06-01
dc.identifier.citationD Endesfelder, U Oestreicher, M Bucher, C Beinke, C Siebenwirth, E Ainsbury, J Moquet, G Gruel, E Gregoire, J S Martinez, A Vral, A Baeyens, M Valente, A Montoro, G Terzoudi, S Triantopoulou, A Pantelias, O Monteiro Gil, M J Prieto, M M Domene, D Zafiropoulos, J F Barquinero, M Pujol-Canadell, K Lumniczky, R Hargitai, E Kis, A Testa, C Patrono, S Sommer, R Hristova, N Kostova, M Atanasova, O Sevriukova, I Domínguez, N Pastor, I Güçlü, J Pajic, L Sabatier, P Brochard, A Tichy, M Milanova, F Finot, C Cuceu Petrenci, R C Wilkins, L A Beaton-Green, K M Seong, Y Lee, Y H Lee, A S Balajee, N Maznyk, T Sypko, N D Pham, T M Tran, T Miura, Y Suto, M Akiyamam, N Tsuyama, Y Abe, Valerie Swee Ting Goh, En Lin Christelle Chua, M Abend, M Port (2023-06-01). RENEB Inter-Laboratory Comparison 2021: The Dicentric Chromosome Assay. Radiation Research 199 (6) : 556–570. ScholarBank@NUS Repository. https://doi.org/10.1667/RADE-22-00202.1
dc.identifier.issn1938-5404
dc.identifier.issn0033-7587
dc.identifier.urihttps://scholarbank.nus.edu.sg/handle/10635/242062
dc.description.abstractAfter large-scale radiation accidents where many individuals are suspected to be exposed to ionizing radiation, biological and physical retrospective dosimetry assays are important tools to aid clinical decision making by categorizing individuals into unexposed/minimally, moderately or highly exposed groups. Quality-controlled inter-laboratory comparisons of simulated accident scenarios are regularly performed in the frame of the European legal association RENEB (Running the European Network of Biological and Physical retrospective Dosimetry) to optimize international networking and emergency readiness in case of large-scale radiation events. In total 33 laboratories from 22 countries around the world participated in the current RENEB inter-laboratory comparison 2021 for the dicentric chromosome assay. Blood was irradiated in vitro with X rays (240 kVp, 13 mA, ∼75 keV, 1 Gy/min) to simulate an acute, homogeneous whole-body exposure. Three blood samples (no. 1: 0 Gy, no. 2: 1.2 Gy, no. 3: 3.5 Gy) were sent to each participant and the task was to culture samples, to prepare slides and to assess radiation doses based on the observed dicentric yields from 50 manually or 150 semi-automatically scored metaphases (triage mode scoring). Approximately two-thirds of the participants applied calibration curves from irradiations with γ rays and about 1/3 from irradiations with X rays with varying energies. The categorization of the samples in clinically relevant groups corresponding to individuals that were unexposed/minimally (0-1 Gy), moderately (1-2 Gy) or highly exposed (>2 Gy) was successfully performed by all participants for sample no. 1 and no. 3 and by ≥74% for sample no. 2. However, while most participants estimated a dose of exactly 0 Gy for the sham-irradiated sample, the precise dose estimates of the samples irradiated with doses >0 Gy were systematically higher than the corresponding reference doses and showed a median deviation of 0.5 Gy (sample no. 2) and 0.95 Gy (sample no. 3) for manual scoring. By converting doses estimated based on γ-ray calibration curves to X-ray doses of a comparable mean photon energy as used in this exercise, the median deviation decreased to 0.27 Gy (sample no. 2) and 0.6 Gy (sample no. 3). The main aim of biological dosimetry in the case of a large-scale event is the categorization of individuals into clinically relevant groups, to aid clinical decision making. This task was successfully performed by all participants for the 0 Gy and 3.5 Gy samples and by 74% (manual scoring) and 80% (semiautomatic scoring) for the 1.2 Gy sample. Due to the accuracy of the dicentric chromosome assay and the high number of participating laboratories, a systematic shift of the dose estimates could be revealed. Differences in radiation quality (X ray vs. γ ray) between the test samples and the applied dose effect curves can partly explain the systematic shift. There might be several additional reasons for the observed bias (e.g., donor effects, transport, experimental conditions or the irradiation setup) and the analysis of these reasons provides great opportunities for future research. The participation of laboratories from countries around the world gave the opportunity to compare the results on an international level.
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherRadiation Research Society
dc.typeArticle
dc.contributor.departmentS'PORE NUCLEAR RSCH & SAFETY INITIATIVE
dc.description.doi10.1667/RADE-22-00202.1
dc.description.sourcetitleRadiation Research
dc.description.volume199
dc.description.issue6
dc.description.page556–570
dc.published.statePublished
Appears in Collections:Elements
Staff Publications

Show simple item record
Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.

Google ScholarTM

Check

Altmetric


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.