Literature DB >> 23862730

Laboratory intercomparison of the dicentric chromosome analysis assay.

C Beinke1, S Barnard, H Boulay-Greene, A De Amicis, S De Sanctis, F Herodin, A Jones, U Kulka, F Lista, D Lloyd, P Martigne, J Moquet, U Oestreicher, H Romm, K Rothkamm, M Valente, V Meineke, H Braselmann, M Abend.   

Abstract

The study design and obtained results represent an intercomparison of various laboratories performing dose assessment using the dicentric chromosome analysis (DCA) as a diagnostic triage tool for individual radiation dose assessment. Homogenously X-irradiated (240 kVp, 1 Gy/min) blood samples for establishing calibration data (0.25-5 Gy) as well as blind samples (0.1-6.4 Gy) were sent to the participants. DCA was performed according to established protocols. The time taken to report dose estimates was documented for each laboratory. Additional information concerning laboratory organization/characteristics as well as assay performance was collected. The mean absolute difference (MAD) was calculated and radiation doses were merged into four triage categories reflecting clinical aspects to calculate accuracy, sensitivity and specificity. The earliest report time was 2.4 days after sample arrival. DCA dose estimates were reported with high and comparable accuracy, with MAD values ranging between 0.16-0.5 Gy for both manual and automated scoring. No significant differences were found for dose estimates based either on 20, 30, 40 or 50 cells, suggesting that the scored number of cells can be reduced from 50 to 20 without loss of precision of triage dose estimates, at least for homogenous exposure scenarios. Triage categories of clinical significance could be discriminated efficiently using both scoring procedures.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23862730     DOI: 10.1667/RR3235.1

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


  14 in total

1.  Next generation platforms for high-throughput biodosimetry.

Authors:  Mikhail Repin; Helen C Turner; Guy Garty; David J Brenner
Journal:  Radiat Prot Dosimetry       Date:  2014-05-17       Impact factor: 0.972

2.  Advances in a framework to compare bio-dosimetry methods for triage in large-scale radiation events.

Authors:  Ann Barry Flood; Holly K Boyle; Gaixin Du; Eugene Demidenko; Roberto J Nicolalde; Benjamin B Williams; Harold M Swartz
Journal:  Radiat Prot Dosimetry       Date:  2014-04-11       Impact factor: 0.972

3.  ROC Analysis for Evaluation of Radiation Biodosimetry Technologies.

Authors:  Benjamin B Williams; Ann Barry Flood; Eugene Demidenko; Harold M Swartz
Journal:  Radiat Prot Dosimetry       Date:  2016-07-13       Impact factor: 0.972

4.  Assessment of absorbed dose of gamma rays using the simultaneous determination of inactive hemoglobin derivatives as a biological dosimeter.

Authors:  A M M Attia; W M Aboulthana; G M Hassan; E Aboelezz
Journal:  Radiat Environ Biophys       Date:  2019-11-16       Impact factor: 1.925

5.  Evaluation of the annual Canadian biodosimetry network intercomparisons.

Authors:  Ruth C Wilkins; Lindsay A Beaton-Green; Sylvie Lachapelle; Barbara C Kutzner; Catherine Ferrarotto; Vinita Chauhan; Leonora Marro; Gordon K Livingston; Hillary Boulay Greene; Farrah N Flegal
Journal:  Int J Radiat Biol       Date:  2015-02-27       Impact factor: 2.694

6.  Comparing seven mitogens with PHA-M for improved lymphocyte stimulation in dicentric chromosome analysis for biodosimetry.

Authors:  C Beinke; M Port; A Lamkowski; M Abend
Journal:  Radiat Prot Dosimetry       Date:  2015-05-09       Impact factor: 0.972

Review 7.  State-of-the-Art Advances in Radiation Biodosimetry for Mass Casualty Events Involving Radiation Exposure.

Authors:  Mary Sproull; Kevin Camphausen
Journal:  Radiat Res       Date:  2016-10-06       Impact factor: 2.841

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.  Establishing cytogenetic biodosimetry laboratory in Saudi Arabia and producing preliminary calibration curve of dicentric chromosomes as biomarker for medical dose estimation in response to radiation emergencies.

Authors:  Khaled Al-Hadyan; Sara Elewisy; Belal Moftah; Mohamed Shoukri; Awad Alzahrany; Ghazi Alsbeih
Journal:  3 Biotech       Date:  2014-04-18       Impact factor: 2.406

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.