4.5 Article

RENEB intercomparisons applying the conventional Dicentric Chromosome Assay (DCA)

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RADIATION BIOLOGY
Volume 93, Issue 1, Pages 20-29

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/09553002.2016.1233370

Keywords

Biological dosimetry; dicentric chromosomes; intercomparison; network; RENEB

Funding

  1. European Commission [GA 295513]
  2. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [26420879] Funding Source: KAKEN

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: Two quality controlled inter-laboratory exercises were organized within the EU project 'Realizing the European Network of Biodosimetry (RENEB)' to further optimize the dicentric chromosome assay (DCA) and to identify needs for training and harmonization activities within the RENEB network. Materials and methods: The general study design included blood shipment, sample processing, analysis of chromosome aberrations and radiation dose assessment. After manual scoring of dicentric chromosomes in different cell numbers dose estimations and corresponding 95% confidence intervals were submitted by the participants. Results: The shipment of blood samples to the partners in the European Community (EU) were performed successfully. Outside the EU unacceptable delays occurred. The results of the dose estimation demonstrate a very successful classification of the blood samples in medically relevant groups. In comparison to the 1st exercise the 2nd intercomparison showed an improvement in the accuracy of dose estimations especially for the high dose point. Conclusions: In case of a large-scale radiological incident, the pooling of ressources by networks can enhance the rapid classification of individuals in medically relevant treatment groups based on the DCA. The performance of the RENEB network as a whole has clearly benefited from harmonization processes and specific training activities for the network partners.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available