Literature DB >> 21388284

Biological dosimetry by the triage dicentric chromosome assay: potential implications for treatment of acute radiation syndrome in radiological mass casualties.

Horst Romm1, Ruth C Wilkins, C Norman Coleman, Patricia K Lillis-Hearne, Terry C Pellmar, Gordon K Livingston, Akio A Awa, Mark S Jenkins, Mitsuaki A Yoshida, Ursula Oestreicher, Pataje G S Prasanna.   

Abstract

Biological dosimetry is an essential tool for estimating radiation dose. The dicentric chromosome assay (DCA) is currently the tool of choice. Because the assay is labor-intensive and time-consuming, strategies are needed to increase throughput for use in radiation mass casualty incidents. One such strategy is to truncate metaphase spread analysis for triage dose estimates by scoring 50 or fewer metaphases, compared to a routine analysis of 500 to 1000 metaphases, and to increase throughput using a large group of scorers in a biodosimetry network. Previously, the National Institutes for Allergies and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) and the Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute (AFRRI) sponsored a double-blinded interlaboratory comparison among five established international cytogenetic biodosimetry laboratories to determine the variability in calibration curves and in dose measurements in unknown, irradiated samples. In the present study, we further analyzed the published data from this previous study to investigate how the number of metaphase spreads influences dose prediction accuracy and how this information could be of value in the triage and management of people at risk for the acute radiation syndrome (ARS). Although, as expected, accuracy decreased with lower numbers of metaphase spreads analyzed, predicted doses by the laboratories were in good agreement and were judged to be adequate to guide diagnosis and treatment of ARS. These results demonstrate that for rapid triage, a network of cytogenetic biodosimetry laboratories can accurately assess doses even with a lower number of scored metaphases.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21388284     DOI: 10.1667/RR2321.1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiat Res        ISSN: 0033-7587            Impact factor:   2.841


  19 in total

1.  Laboratory intercomparison of gene expression assays.

Authors:  C Badie; S Kabacik; Y Balagurunathan; N Bernard; M Brengues; G Faggioni; R Greither; F Lista; A Peinnequin; T Poyot; F Herodin; A Missel; B Terbrueggen; F Zenhausern; K Rothkamm; V Meineke; H Braselmann; C Beinke; M Abend
Journal:  Radiat Res       Date:  2013-07-25       Impact factor: 2.841

Review 2.  Prevention of future incidents and investigational lines.

Authors:  Miguel J Martín; José Zapatero; Mario López
Journal:  Rep Pract Oncol Radiother       Date:  2011-07-16

3.  Acute radiation syndrome and Fukushima: A watershed moment?

Authors:  Laura Cerezo; Miquel Macià I Garau
Journal:  Rep Pract Oncol Radiother       Date:  2012-01-26

4.  A microwave resonator for limiting depth sensitivity for electron paramagnetic resonance spectroscopy of surfaces.

Authors:  Jason W Sidabras; Shiv K Varanasi; Richard R Mett; Steven G Swarts; Harold M Swartz; James S Hyde
Journal:  Rev Sci Instrum       Date:  2014-10       Impact factor: 1.523

5.  Biological Dosimetry by the Triage Dicentric Chromosome Assay - Further validation of International Networking.

Authors:  Ruth C Wilkins; Horst Romm; Ursula Oestreicher; Leonora Marro; Mitsuaki A Yoshida; Y Suto; Pataje G S Prasanna
Journal:  Radiat Meas       Date:  2011-09-01       Impact factor: 1.898

6.  Web-based scoring of the dicentric assay, a collaborative biodosimetric scoring strategy for population triage in large scale radiation accidents.

Authors:  H Romm; E Ainsbury; A Bajinskis; S Barnard; J F Barquinero; L Barrios; C Beinke; R Puig-Casanovas; M Deperas-Kaminska; E Gregoire; U Oestreicher; C Lindholm; J Moquet; K Rothkamm; S Sommer; H Thierens; A Vral; V Vandersickel; A Wojcik
Journal:  Radiat Environ Biophys       Date:  2014-02-21       Impact factor: 1.925

Review 7.  Systematic review of strategies to manage and allocate scarce resources during mass casualty events.

Authors:  Justin W Timbie; Jeanne S Ringel; D Steven Fox; Francesca Pillemer; Daniel A Waxman; Melinda Moore; Cynthia K Hansen; Ann R Knebel; Richard Ricciardi; Arthur L Kellermann
Journal:  Ann Emerg Med       Date:  2013-03-20       Impact factor: 5.721

Review 8.  Overview of the principles and practice of biodosimetry.

Authors:  Harold M Swartz; Benjamin B Williams; Ann Barry Flood
Journal:  Radiat Environ Biophys       Date:  2014-02-12       Impact factor: 1.925

Review 9.  Mitigating the risk of radiation-induced cancers: limitations and paradigms in drug development.

Authors:  Stephen S Yoo; Timothy J Jorgensen; Ann R Kennedy; John D Boice; Alla Shapiro; Tom C-C Hu; Brian R Moyer; Marcy B Grace; Gary J Kelloff; Michael Fenech; Pataje G S Prasanna; C Norman Coleman
Journal:  J Radiol Prot       Date:  2014-04-14       Impact factor: 1.394

10.  Assessment of biodosimetry methods for a mass-casualty radiological incident: medical response and management considerations.

Authors:  Julie M Sullivan; Pataje G S Prasanna; Marcy B Grace; Lynne K Wathen; Rodney L Wallace; John F Koerner; C Norman Coleman
Journal:  Health Phys       Date:  2013-12       Impact factor: 1.316

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.