Laboratory Intercomparison of Cytogenetic Dosimetry Among 38 Laboratories in China

Abstract

A nationwide intercomparison exercise for estimating the irradiated dose was organized by the National Institute for Radiological Protection, Center for Disease Control and Prevention of China. Thirty-eight laboratories participated in this program. The main objective of this intercomparison exercise was to compare the participants’ ability of operation and dose assessment basing on the frequencies of dicentrics and centric rings. Whole blood samples were irradiated with different dosages of 60Co γ-rays. Each laboratory collected 2 blind samples and prepared the slides independently. All participants presented the estimated dose reports within 30 days. The doses assessed by the participants were acceptable within the reference dose of ±20%. The mean absolute difference of estimated dose relative to the reference dose was calculated, which reflected the overall accuracy of dose estimates for each laboratory. The overall estimation results of blind blood samples for intercomparison showed a good agreement with the reference dose for each sample, with nearly 75% of the participants producing acceptable results.

RENEB Inter-Laboratory comparison 2017: limits and pitfalls of ILCs

“…During the last decade several ILCs have been performed. Some of them were focused on the triage (Lloyd et al 2000;Ainsbury et al 2009;Romm et al 2011;Wilkins et al 2011;Garcia et al 2013;Romm, Ainsbury, Bajinskis, et al 2014; while others mainly on dose-assessment (Yoshida et al 2007;Bakkiam et al 2015;Liu et al 2016;Roy et al 2004;Pan et al 2019). In a large-scale ILC involving seven countries from the Latin American Biological Dosimetry Network (LBDNet) and six laboratories from the European Union, a good agreement among participants was shown in terms of the reported dicentric chromosome yields and assessed doses.…”

“…DiscussionIn a mass-casualty radiological event, networks of biological dosimetry laboratories can decide to share different types of samples such as whole-blood, fixed cells, slides or metaphase images. Multiple Inter-Laboratory Comparisons (ILCs) have already tested different possibilities: blood(Roy et al 2004;Wilkins et al 2008;Romm et al 2011;Bakkiam et al 2015;Oestreicher et al 2017;Pan 2019); fixed cells(Roy et al 2004); slides(Miller et al 2007;Liu et al 2016); or metaphase images(Garcia et al 2013;…”

Complementary lessons learned from the testing strategies used for radiation emergencies and COVID-19: A white paper from The International Association of Biological and Electron Paramagnetic Resonance (EPR) Radiation Dosimetry (IABERD)

“…In biodosimetry, many exercises of different sizes have been organized (Beinke et al, 2013;Rothkamm et al, 2013;Wilkins et al, 2015;Oestreicher et al, 2017;Pan et al, 2019;Port et al, 2019;Endesfelder et al, 2021;Gregoire et al, 2021). One such exercise was recently carried out by RENEB in partnership with EURADOS Working Group 10.…”

Cytogenetic bio-dosimetry techniques in the detection of dicentric chromosomes induced by ionizing radiation: A review

“…As previously mentioned, in cytogenetic bio-dosimetry irradiated blood samples are analyzed to score chromosomal aberrations [45]. In vitro samples are taken from experimental laboratories to study the number of chromosomal aberrations after they have received fixed absorbed doses, or in vivo, where samples are taken by radiotherapy patients or directly from nuclear accident victims to analyze the amount of absorbed dose and predict their future health consequences [46][47][48][49]. When the entire body is homogeneously exposed to radiation, the scenario is the irradiation of the whole body, whereas if the exposure takes place in a localized area of the body, the scenario is partial body irradiation (PBI).…”