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

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

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

Figure 0003: 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.

Mentions: Figure 2 shows the agreement between laboratories for each year for each endpoint. For all assays except the CBMN assay, dose estimates from all laboratories were in agreement for more than 60% of the samples and in 19 out of these 22 cases, agreement occurred in 80% or more of the cases. This can be compared to a similar analysis based on the percent of correct dose estimates as those being within 0.5 Gy of the dose delivered to the sample (Figure 3) which also shows the percentage of samples over and underestimated. Similarly, both variations of the DCA performed better than the CBMN, however, based on this criteria, the CBMN assay was consistently correct at least 55% of the time in all years tested. Figure 3 also demonstrates that a greater number of samples were overestimated rather than underestimated.


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)

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

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

Figure 0003: 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.
Mentions: Figure 2 shows the agreement between laboratories for each year for each endpoint. For all assays except the CBMN assay, dose estimates from all laboratories were in agreement for more than 60% of the samples and in 19 out of these 22 cases, agreement occurred in 80% or more of the cases. This can be compared to a similar analysis based on the percent of correct dose estimates as those being within 0.5 Gy of the dose delivered to the sample (Figure 3) which also shows the percentage of samples over and underestimated. Similarly, both variations of the DCA performed better than the CBMN, however, based on this criteria, the CBMN assay was consistently correct at least 55% of the time in all years tested. Figure 3 also demonstrates that a greater number of samples were overestimated rather than underestimated.

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