Limits...
Evaluation of the annual Canadian biodosimetry network intercomparisons.

Wilkins RC, Beaton-Green LA, Lachapelle S, Kutzner BC, Ferrarotto C, Chauhan V, Marro L, Livingston GK, Boulay Greene H, Flegal FN - Int. J. Radiat. Biol. (2015)

Bottom Line: 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.Annual intercomparisons are necessary to maintain a network of laboratories for emergency response biodosimetry as they evoke confidence in their capabilities.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Health Canada, Environmental Radiation and Health Sciences Directorate , Ottawa, ON , Canada.

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.

Show MeSH

Related in: MedlinePlus

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.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License 1 - License 2
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4487546&req=5

Figure 0001: 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.

Mentions: Typical results from an intercomparison from a single year are shown in Figure 1(A–C) for CDCA, QuickScan DCA and CBMN assays. These figures show the results after scoring 50 cells for DCA and 200 cells for CBMN. Similar results after scoring 20 cells for DCA are not shown. The black solid lines represent the ± 0.5 Gy range from the actual dose delivered. Data from each laboratory is represented by a different symbol. The data from multiple years has been analyzed to provide an overview of the results from several exercises for the purposes of assessing biological trends. Examples of the statistical analysis are shown with a summary of the data in bar chart format below.


Evaluation of the annual Canadian biodosimetry network intercomparisons.

Wilkins RC, Beaton-Green LA, Lachapelle S, Kutzner BC, Ferrarotto C, Chauhan V, Marro L, Livingston GK, Boulay Greene H, Flegal FN - Int. J. Radiat. Biol. (2015)

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.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License 1 - License 2
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4487546&req=5

Figure 0001: 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.
Mentions: Typical results from an intercomparison from a single year are shown in Figure 1(A–C) for CDCA, QuickScan DCA and CBMN assays. These figures show the results after scoring 50 cells for DCA and 200 cells for CBMN. Similar results after scoring 20 cells for DCA are not shown. The black solid lines represent the ± 0.5 Gy range from the actual dose delivered. Data from each laboratory is represented by a different symbol. The data from multiple years has been analyzed to provide an overview of the results from several exercises for the purposes of assessing biological trends. Examples of the statistical analysis are shown with a summary of the data in bar chart format below.

Bottom Line: 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.Annual intercomparisons are necessary to maintain a network of laboratories for emergency response biodosimetry as they evoke confidence in their capabilities.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Health Canada, Environmental Radiation and Health Sciences Directorate , Ottawa, ON , Canada.

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.

Show MeSH
Related in: MedlinePlus