RENEB Inter-Laboratory Comparison 2021: Inter-Assay Comparison of Eight Dosimetry Assays
M. Port
(1)
,
J-F Barquinero
(2)
,
D. Endesfelder
(3)
,
J. Moquet
(4)
,
U. Oestreicher
(3)
,
G. Terzoudi
(5)
,
Francois Trompier
(6)
,
A. Vral
(7)
,
Y. Abe
(8)
,
L. Ainsbury
(9)
,
L Alkebsi
(10)
,
S.A. Amundson
(11)
,
C. Badie
(12)
,
A. Baeyens
(7)
,
A.S. Balajee
(13)
,
K. Balázs
(14)
,
S. Barnard
(4)
,
Céline Bassinet
(6)
,
L.A. Beaton-Green
(15)
,
C. Beinke
(1)
,
L. Bobyk
(16)
,
P. Brochard
(17)
,
K. Brzoska
(18)
,
M. Bucher
(3)
,
B. Ciesielski
(19)
,
C. Cuceu
(20)
,
M. Discher
(21)
,
M.C. D,oca
(22)
,
I. Domínguez
(23)
,
S. Doucha-Senf
(1)
,
A. Dumitrescu
(24)
,
P.N. Duy
(25)
,
F. Finot
(20)
,
G. Garty
(11)
,
S.A. Ghandhi
(11)
,
Eric Gregoire
(26)
,
V.S.T. Goh
(27)
,
I. Güçlü
(28)
,
L. Hadjiiska
(29)
,
R. Hargitai
(14)
,
R. Hristova
(29)
,
K. Ishii
(10)
,
E. Kis
(14)
,
M. Juniewicz
(19)
,
R. Kriehuber
(30)
,
J. Lacombe
(31)
,
Y. Lee
(32)
,
M. Lopez Riego
(33)
,
K. Lumniczky
(14)
,
T.T. Mai
(25)
,
N. Maltar-Strmečki
(34)
,
M. Marrale
(22)
,
J.S. Martinez
(26)
,
A. Marciniak
(19)
,
N. Maznyk
(35)
,
S.W.S. Mckeever
(36)
,
P.K. Meher
(33)
,
M. Milanova
(37)
,
T. Miura
(38)
,
O. Monteiro Gil
(39)
,
A. Montoro
(40)
,
M. Moreno Domene
(41)
,
A. Mrozik
(42)
,
R. Nakayama
(38)
,
G. O'Brien
(4)
,
D. Oskamp
(30)
,
P. Ostheim
(1)
,
J. Pajic
(43)
,
N. Pastor
(23)
,
C. Patrono
(44)
,
M. Pujol-Canadell
(2)
,
M.J. Prieto Rodriguez
(41)
,
M. Repin
(11)
,
A. Romanyukha
(45)
,
U. Rößler
(3)
,
L. Sabatier
(17)
,
A. Sakai
(46)
,
H. Scherthan
(1)
,
S. Schüle
(1)
,
K.M. Seong
(32)
,
O. Sevriukova
(47)
,
S. Sholom
(36)
,
S. Sommer
(18)
,
Y. Suto
(48)
,
T. Sypko
(35)
,
T. Szatmári
(14)
,
M. Takahashi-Sugai
(46)
,
K. Takebayashi
(38)
,
A. Testa
(44)
,
I. Testard
(17)
,
A Ii A Tichy
(37)
,
S. Triantopoulou
(5)
,
N. Tsuyama
(46)
,
M. Unverricht-Yeboah
(30)
,
M. Valente
(17)
,
O. van Hoey
(49)
,
R.C. Wilkins
(15)
,
A. Wojcik
(33)
,
M. Wojewodzka
(18)
,
Lee Younghyun
(32)
,
D. Zafiropoulos
(50)
,
M. Abend
(1, 13)
1
Bundeswehr Institute of Radiobiology
2 UAB - Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona = Autonomous University of Barcelona = Universidad Autónoma de Barcelona
3 BfS - Bundesamt für Strahlenschutz - Federal Office for Radiation Protection
4 UKHSA - UK Health Security Agency [London]
5 IPC - Institute of Physical Chemistry "Demokritos"
6 IRSN/PSE-SANTE/SDOS/LDRI - Laboratoire de dosimétrie des rayonnements ionisants
7 UGENT - Universiteit Gent = Ghent University = Université de Gand
8 Nagasaki University
9 UKHSA OHID - UK Health Security Agency and Office for Health Improvement and Disparities Oxfordshire
10 QST - National Institutes for Quantum and Radiological Science and Technology
11 CUMC - Columbia University Medical Center
12 Centre for Radiation, Chemical and Environmental Hazards
13 ORISE - Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education
14 National Public Health Centre,
15 Public Health Agency of Canada
16 IRBA - Institut de Recherche Biomédicale des Armées [Brétigny-sur-Orge]
17 CEA - CEA- Saclay
18 INCT - Institute of Nuclear Chemistry and Technology
19 Medical University of Gdańsk
20 GenEvolutioN
21 University of Salzburg
22 Università degli studi di Palermo - University of Palermo
23 Universidad de Sevilla = University of Seville
24 RHL - National Institute of Public Health, Radiation Hygiene Laboratory, Bucharest
25 Dalat Nuclear Research Institute
26 IRSN/PSE-SANTE/SERAMED/LRAcc - Laboratoire de Radiobiologie des expositions accidentelles
27 Singapore Nuclear Research and Safety Initiativ
28 TENMAK - Turkey Atomic Energy Agency
29 NCRRP - National Centre of Radiobiology and Radiation Protection, Sofia
30 FZJ - Forschungszentrum Jülich GmbH | Centre de recherche de Jülich | Jülich Research Centre
31 University of Arizona
32 Korea Institute of Radiological & Medical Sciences
33 Stockholm University
34 Division of Physical Chemistry [Zagreb]
35 Radiation Cytogenetics Laboratory
36 OSU - Oklahoma State University [Stillwater]
37 Faculty of Military Health Sciences
38 Hirosaki University
39 Instituto Superior Técnico
40 LDB - Laboratorio de Dosimetría Biológica
41 Hospital General Universitario "Gregorio Marañón" [Madrid]
42 PAN - Polska Akademia Nauk = Polish Academy of Sciences = Académie polonaise des sciences
43 Serbian Institute of Occupational Health, Radiation Protection Center
44 ENEA - Italian National agency for new technologies, Energy and sustainable economic development [Frascati]
45 Naval Dosimetry Center
46 Fukushima Medical University School of Medicine
47 Radiation Protection Centre
48 QST-NIRS - National Institutes for Quantum and Radiological Science and Technology-National Institute of Radiological Sciences
49 SCK - BELGIAN NUCLEAR RESEARCH CENTER
50 LNL - Laboratori Nazionali di Legnaro
2 UAB - Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona = Autonomous University of Barcelona = Universidad Autónoma de Barcelona
3 BfS - Bundesamt für Strahlenschutz - Federal Office for Radiation Protection
4 UKHSA - UK Health Security Agency [London]
5 IPC - Institute of Physical Chemistry "Demokritos"
6 IRSN/PSE-SANTE/SDOS/LDRI - Laboratoire de dosimétrie des rayonnements ionisants
7 UGENT - Universiteit Gent = Ghent University = Université de Gand
8 Nagasaki University
9 UKHSA OHID - UK Health Security Agency and Office for Health Improvement and Disparities Oxfordshire
10 QST - National Institutes for Quantum and Radiological Science and Technology
11 CUMC - Columbia University Medical Center
12 Centre for Radiation, Chemical and Environmental Hazards
13 ORISE - Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education
14 National Public Health Centre,
15 Public Health Agency of Canada
16 IRBA - Institut de Recherche Biomédicale des Armées [Brétigny-sur-Orge]
17 CEA - CEA- Saclay
18 INCT - Institute of Nuclear Chemistry and Technology
19 Medical University of Gdańsk
20 GenEvolutioN
21 University of Salzburg
22 Università degli studi di Palermo - University of Palermo
23 Universidad de Sevilla = University of Seville
24 RHL - National Institute of Public Health, Radiation Hygiene Laboratory, Bucharest
25 Dalat Nuclear Research Institute
26 IRSN/PSE-SANTE/SERAMED/LRAcc - Laboratoire de Radiobiologie des expositions accidentelles
27 Singapore Nuclear Research and Safety Initiativ
28 TENMAK - Turkey Atomic Energy Agency
29 NCRRP - National Centre of Radiobiology and Radiation Protection, Sofia
30 FZJ - Forschungszentrum Jülich GmbH | Centre de recherche de Jülich | Jülich Research Centre
31 University of Arizona
32 Korea Institute of Radiological & Medical Sciences
33 Stockholm University
34 Division of Physical Chemistry [Zagreb]
35 Radiation Cytogenetics Laboratory
36 OSU - Oklahoma State University [Stillwater]
37 Faculty of Military Health Sciences
38 Hirosaki University
39 Instituto Superior Técnico
40 LDB - Laboratorio de Dosimetría Biológica
41 Hospital General Universitario "Gregorio Marañón" [Madrid]
42 PAN - Polska Akademia Nauk = Polish Academy of Sciences = Académie polonaise des sciences
43 Serbian Institute of Occupational Health, Radiation Protection Center
44 ENEA - Italian National agency for new technologies, Energy and sustainable economic development [Frascati]
45 Naval Dosimetry Center
46 Fukushima Medical University School of Medicine
47 Radiation Protection Centre
48 QST-NIRS - National Institutes for Quantum and Radiological Science and Technology-National Institute of Radiological Sciences
49 SCK - BELGIAN NUCLEAR RESEARCH CENTER
50 LNL - Laboratori Nazionali di Legnaro
Francois Trompier
- Fonction : Auteur
- PersonId : 184309
- IdHAL : francois-trompier
- ORCID : 0000-0002-8776-6572
- IdRef : 19592083X
Céline Bassinet
- Fonction : Auteur
- PersonId : 1262546
- IdHAL : celine-bassinet
- ORCID : 0000-0002-5642-2208
Eric Gregoire
- Fonction : Auteur
- PersonId : 843233
- ORCID : 0000-0002-1859-3727
J.S. Martinez
- Fonction : Auteur
- PersonId : 1219393
- IdHAL : juan-martinez
Résumé
Tools for radiation exposure reconstruction are required to support the medical management of radiation victims in radiological or nuclear incidents. Different biological and physical dosimetry assays can be used for various exposure scenarios to estimate the dose of ionizing radiation a person has absorbed. Regular validation of the techniques through inter-laboratory comparisons (ILC) is essential to guarantee high quality results. In the current RENEB inter-laboratory comparison, the performance quality of established cytogenetic assays [dicentric chromosome assay (DCA), cytokinesis-block micronucleus assay (CBMN), stable chromosomal translocation assay (FISH) and premature chromosome condensation assay (PCC)] was tested in comparison to molecular biological assays [gamma-H2AX foci (gH2AX), gene expression (GE)] and physical dosimetry-based assays [electron paramagnetic resonance (EPR), optically or thermally stimulated luminescence (LUM)]. Three blinded coded samples (e.g., blood, enamel or mobiles) were exposed to 0, 1.2 or 3.5 Gy X-ray reference doses (240 kVp, 1 Gy/min). These doses roughly correspond to clinically relevant groups of unexposed to low exposed (0-1 Gy), moderately exposed (1-2 Gy, no severe acute health effects expected) and highly exposed individuals (>2 Gy, requiring early intensive medical care). In the frame of the current RENEB inter-laboratory comparison, samples were sent to 86 specialized teams in 46 organizations from 27 nations for dose estimation and identification of three clinically relevant groups. The time for sending early crude reports and more precise reports was documented for each laboratory and assay where possible. The quality of dose estimates was analyzed with three different levels of granularity, 1. by calculating the frequency of correctly reported clinically relevant dose categories, 2. by determining the number of dose estimates within the uncertainty intervals recommended for triage dosimetry (±0.5 Gy or ±1.0 Gy for doses <2.5 Gy or >2.5 Gy), and 3. by calculating the absolute difference (AD) of estimated doses relative to the reference doses. In total, 554 dose estimates were submitted within the 6-week period given before the exercise was closed. For samples processed with the highest priority, earliest dose estimates/categories were reported within 5-10 h of receipt for GE, gH2AX, LUM, EPR, 2-3 days for DCA, CBMN and within 6-7 days for the FISH assay. For the unirradiated control sample, the categorization in the correct clinically relevant group (0-1 Gy) as well as the allocation to the triage uncertainty interval was, with the exception of a few outliers, successfully performed for all assays. For the 3.5 Gy sample the percentage of correct classifications to the clinically relevant group (≥2 Gy) was between 89-100% for all assays, with the exception of gH2AX. For the 1.2 Gy sample, an exact allocation to the clinically relevant group was more difficult and 0-50% or 0-48% of the estimates were wrongly classified into the lowest or highest dose categories, respectively. For the irradiated samples, the correct allocation to the triage uncertainty intervals varied considerably between assays for the 1.2 Gy (29-76%) and 3.5 Gy (17-100%) samples. While a systematic shift towards higher doses was observed for the cytogenetic-based assays, extreme outliers exceeding the reference doses 2-6 fold were observed for EPR, FISH and GE assays. These outliers were related to a particular material examined (tooth enamel for EPR assay, reported as kerma in enamel, but when converted into the proper quantity, i.e. to kerma in air, expected dose estimates could be recalculated in most cases), the level of experience of the teams (FISH) and methodological uncertainties (GE). This was the first RENEB ILC where everything, from blood sampling to irradiation and shipment of the samples, was organized and realized at the same institution, for several biological and physical retrospective dosimetry assays. Almost all assays appeared comparably applicable for the identification of unexposed and highly exposed individuals and the allocation of medical relevant groups, with the latter requiring medical support for the acute radiation scenario simulated in this exercise. However, extreme outliers or a systematic shift of dose estimates have been observed for some assays. Possible reasons will be discussed in the assay specific papers of this special issue. In summary, this ILC clearly demonstrates the need to conduct regular exercises to identify research needs, but also to identify technical problems and to optimize the design of future ILCs.
| Origine | Fichiers produits par l'(les) auteur(s) |
|---|