Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2015 May;91(5):443-51.
doi: 10.3109/09553002.2015.1012305. Epub 2015 Feb 27.

Evaluation of the annual Canadian biodosimetry network intercomparisons

Ruth C Wilkins  1 , Lindsay A Beaton-Green, Sylvie Lachapelle, Barbara C Kutzner, Catherine Ferrarotto, Vinita Chauhan, Leonora Marro, Gordon K Livingston, Hillary Boulay Greene, Farrah N Flegal
Affiliations
Comparative Study

Evaluation of the annual Canadian biodosimetry network intercomparisons

Ruth C Wilkins et al. Int J Radiat Biol. 2015 May.

Abstract

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.

Keywords: Intercomparison; biodosimetry; dicentric chromosome assay; emergency response.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Intercomparisons across laboratories of estimated doses obtained using (A) conventional dicentric chromosome assay (CDCA) analysis of 50 metaphase spreads, (B) QuickScan DCA of 50 metaphase spreads, and (C) cytokinesis block micronucleus (CBMN) analysis of 200 binucleated cells. Each data point is a dose estimate from one individual, with scorers from each laboratory shown using the same symbol. The solid lines represent ± 0.5 Gy intervals.
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
Illustration of the percentage of samples with dose estimates in agreement between laboratories for each year for each endpoint. A tally was prepared of the samples in which all laboratories were in agreement of the dose estimate (p > 0.05). The average dose estimate from each laboratory and method was calculated and compared using ANOVA.
Figure 3.
Figure 3.
Illustration of the percentage of samples with dose estimates (A) within 0.5 Gy of the given dose, (B) more than 0.5 Gy over the given dose, and (C) more than 0.5 Gy under the given dose.
Figure 4.
Figure 4.
Illustration of the average time required to score one sample for each method.
Figure 5.
Figure 5.
A comparison of the percentage of correctly evaluated samples based on a |z| ≤ 2 for each method across all years of the intercomparisons.
Figure 6.
Figure 6.
A comparison of the percentage of correctly evaluated samples based on a |z| ≤ 2 for each method in each laboratory.
Figure 7.
Figure 7.
A comparison of the percentage of correctly evaluated samples based on a |z| ≤ 2 for each year in each laboratory.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Ainsbury EA, Lloyd DC. Dose estimation software for radiation biodosimetry. Health Phys. 2010;98:290–295. - PubMed
    1. Beinke C, Barnard S, Boulay-Greene H, De AA, De SS, Herodin F, Jones A, Kulka U, Lista F, Lloyd D, Martigne P, Moquet J, Oestreicher U, Romm H, Rothkamm K, Valente M, Meineke V, Braselmann H, Abend M. Laboratory intercomparison of the dicentric chromosome analysis assay. Radiat Res. 2013;180:129–137. - PubMed
    1. Casella G, Berger RL. Statistical inference. 2nd ed. Belmont, CA: Druxbury Press; 2002.
    1. Deperas J, Szluinska M, Deperas-Kaminska M, Edwards A, Lloyd D, Lindholm C, Romm H, Roy L, Moss R, Morand J, Wojcik A. CABAS: A freely available PC program for fitting calibration curves in chromosome aberration dosimetry. Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2007;124:115–123. - PubMed
    1. Di GM, Barquinero JF, Vallerga MB, Radl A, Taja MR, Seoane A, De LJ, Oliveira MS, Valdivia P, Lima OG, Lamadrid A, Mesa JG, Aguilera IR, Cardoso TM, Carvajal YC, Maldonado CA, Espinoza ME, Martinez-Lopez W, Mendez-Acuna L, Di Tomaso MV, Roy L, Lindholm C, Romm H, Guclu I, Lloyd DC. Biological dosimetry intercomparison exercise: An evaluation of triage and routine mode results by robust methods. Radiat Res. 2011;175:638–649. - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources