Thomas M Seed1, Shiyun Xiao2, Nancy Manley2, Janko Nikolich-Zugich3, Jason Pugh3, Marcel Van den Brink4, Yoko Hirabayashi5, Koji Yasutomo6, Atsushi Iwama7, Shigeo Koyasu8, Ivo Shterev9, Gregory Sempowski9, Francesca Macchiarini10, Kei Nakachi11, Keith C Kunugi12, Clifford G Hammer12, Lawrence A Dewerd12. 1. a Tech Micro Services Co , Bethesda , MD , USA ; 2. b Department of Genetics , University of Georgia , Athens , GA , USA ; 3. c Department of Immunology , Arizona Center for Aging, University of Arizona , Tucson , AZ , USA ; 4. d Division of Hematologic Oncology , Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center , New York , NY , USA ; 5. e Division of Cellular and Molecular Toxicology , National Institute of Health Sciences , Tokyo , Japan ; 6. f Department of Immunology , University of Tokushima , Tokushima , Japan ; 7. g Department of Cellular and Molecular Medicine , Chiba University , Chiba , Japan ; 8. h Department of Microbiology and Immunology , Keio University , Tokyo , Japan ; 9. i Human Vaccine Institute, Departments of Pathology and Medicine , Duke University , Durham , NC , USA ; 10. j Division of Allergy , Immunology and Transplantation, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health , Bethesda , MD , USA ; 11. k Department of Radiobiology and Molecular Epidemiology , Radiation Effects Research Foundation , Hiroshima , Japan ; 12. l Medical Radiation Research Center, University of Wisconsin , Madison , WI , USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: An interlaboratory comparison of radiation dosimetry was conducted to determine the accuracy of doses being used experimentally for animal exposures within a large multi-institutional research project. The background and approach to this effort are described and discussed in terms of basic findings, problems and solutions. METHODS: Dosimetry tests were carried out utilizing optically stimulated luminescence (OSL) dosimeters embedded midline into mouse carcasses and thermal luminescence dosimeters (TLD) embedded midline into acrylic phantoms. RESULTS: The effort demonstrated that the majority (4/7) of the laboratories was able to deliver sufficiently accurate exposures having maximum dosing errors of ≤5%. Comparable rates of 'dosimetric compliance' were noted between OSL- and TLD-based tests. Data analysis showed a highly linear relationship between 'measured' and 'target' doses, with errors falling largely between 0 and 20%. Outliers were most notable for OSL-based tests, while multiple tests by 'non-compliant' laboratories using orthovoltage X-rays contributed heavily to the wide variation in dosing errors. CONCLUSIONS: For the dosimetrically non-compliant laboratories, the relatively high rates of dosing errors were problematic, potentially compromising the quality of ongoing radiobiological research. This dosimetry effort proved to be instructive in establishing rigorous reviews of basic dosimetry protocols ensuring that dosing errors were minimized.
PURPOSE: An interlaboratory comparison of radiation dosimetry was conducted to determine the accuracy of doses being used experimentally for animal exposures within a large multi-institutional research project. The background and approach to this effort are described and discussed in terms of basic findings, problems and solutions. METHODS: Dosimetry tests were carried out utilizing optically stimulated luminescence (OSL) dosimeters embedded midline into mouse carcasses and thermal luminescence dosimeters (TLD) embedded midline into acrylic phantoms. RESULTS: The effort demonstrated that the majority (4/7) of the laboratories was able to deliver sufficiently accurate exposures having maximum dosing errors of ≤5%. Comparable rates of 'dosimetric compliance' were noted between OSL- and TLD-based tests. Data analysis showed a highly linear relationship between 'measured' and 'target' doses, with errors falling largely between 0 and 20%. Outliers were most notable for OSL-based tests, while multiple tests by 'non-compliant' laboratories using orthovoltage X-rays contributed heavily to the wide variation in dosing errors. CONCLUSIONS: For the dosimetrically non-compliant laboratories, the relatively high rates of dosing errors were problematic, potentially compromising the quality of ongoing radiobiological research. This dosimetry effort proved to be instructive in establishing rigorous reviews of basic dosimetry protocols ensuring that dosing errors were minimized.
Authors: J Zoetelief; J J Broerse; R W Davies; M Octave-Prignot; M Rezvani; J C Vergara; M P Toni Journal: Int J Radiat Biol Date: 2001-07 Impact factor: 2.694
Authors: Marc Desrosiers; Larry DeWerd; James Deye; Patricia Lindsay; Mark K Murphy; Michael Mitch; Francesca Macchiarini; Strahinja Stojadinovic; Helen Stone Journal: J Res Natl Inst Stand Technol Date: 2013-12-30
Authors: Andrea L DiCarlo; Zulmarie Perez Horta; Carmen I Rios; Merriline M Satyamitra; Lanyn P Taliaferro; David R Cassatt Journal: Int J Radiat Biol Date: 2020-09-24 Impact factor: 2.694
Authors: Mary P Gronberg; Ramesh C Tailor; Susan A Smith; Stephen F Kry; David S Followill; Strahinja Stojadinovic; Joshua S Niedzielski; Patricia E Lindsay; Sunil Krishnan; Francisco Aguirre; Tara N Fujimoto; Cullen M Taniguchi; Rebecca M Howell Journal: Radiat Res Date: 2020-02-18 Impact factor: 2.841
Authors: Jason L Pugh; Sarah A Foster; Alona S Sukhina; Janka Petravic; Jennifer L Uhrlaub; Jose Padilla-Torres; Tomonori Hayashi; Kei Nakachi; Megan J Smithey; Janko Nikolich-Žugich Journal: Aging Cell Date: 2016-04-13 Impact factor: 9.304