Research ExplorerPublicationsLaboratory intercomparison of the dicentric chromosome analy...

Laboratory intercomparison of the dicentric chromosome analysis assay

Standard

Laboratory intercomparison of the dicentric chromosome analysis assay. / Beinke, C; Barnard, S; Boulay-Greene, H; De Amicis, A; De Sanctis, S; Herodin, F; Jones, A; Kulka, U; Lista, F; Lloyd, D; Martigne, P; Moquet, J; Oestreicher, U; Romm, H; Rothkamm, K; Valente, M; Meineke, V; Braselmann, H; Abend, M.

In: RADIAT RES, Vol. 180, No. 2, 08.2013, p. 129-37.

Research output: SCORING: Contribution to journal › SCORING: Journal article › Research › peer-review

Harvard

Beinke, C, Barnard, S, Boulay-Greene, H, De Amicis, A, De Sanctis, S, Herodin, F, Jones, A, Kulka, U, Lista, F, Lloyd, D, Martigne, P, Moquet, J, Oestreicher, U, Romm, H, Rothkamm, K, Valente, M, Meineke, V, Braselmann, H & Abend, M 2013, 'Laboratory intercomparison of the dicentric chromosome analysis assay', RADIAT RES, vol. 180, no. 2, pp. 129-37. https://doi.org/10.1667/RR3235.1

APA

Beinke, C., Barnard, S., Boulay-Greene, H., De Amicis, A., De Sanctis, S., Herodin, F., Jones, A., Kulka, U., Lista, F., Lloyd, D., Martigne, P., Moquet, J., Oestreicher, U., Romm, H., Rothkamm, K., Valente, M., Meineke, V., Braselmann, H., & Abend, M. (2013). Laboratory intercomparison of the dicentric chromosome analysis assay. RADIAT RES, 180(2), 129-37. https://doi.org/10.1667/RR3235.1

Vancouver

Beinke C, Barnard S, Boulay-Greene H, De Amicis A, De Sanctis S, Herodin F et al. Laboratory intercomparison of the dicentric chromosome analysis assay. RADIAT RES. 2013 Aug;180(2):129-37. https://doi.org/10.1667/RR3235.1

Bibtex

@article{ac3876eb6f774b9db5ae9e1dcf4f633c,
title = "Laboratory intercomparison of the dicentric chromosome analysis assay",
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. ",
keywords = "Adult, Automation, Biological Assay/methods, Calibration, Chromosome Aberrations, Chromosomes, Human/radiation effects, Dose-Response Relationship, Radiation, Film Dosimetry, Humans, Laboratory Proficiency Testing, Leukocytes/radiation effects, Male, Radiation Injuries/diagnosis, Radioactive Hazard Release, Radiometry/methods, Reproducibility of Results, Sensitivity and Specificity, Single-Blind Method, Time Factors, Triage/methods",
author = "C Beinke and S Barnard and H Boulay-Greene and {De Amicis}, A and {De Sanctis}, S and F Herodin and A Jones and U Kulka and F Lista and D Lloyd and P Martigne and J Moquet and U Oestreicher and H Romm and K Rothkamm and M Valente and V Meineke and H Braselmann and M Abend",
year = "2013",
month = aug,
doi = "10.1667/RR3235.1",
language = "English",
volume = "180",
pages = "129--37",
number = "2",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Laboratory intercomparison of the dicentric chromosome analysis assay

AU - Beinke, C

AU - Barnard, S

AU - Boulay-Greene, H

AU - De Amicis, A

AU - De Sanctis, S

AU - Herodin, F

AU - Jones, A

AU - Kulka, U

AU - Lista, F

AU - Lloyd, D

AU - Martigne, P

AU - Moquet, J

AU - Oestreicher, U

AU - Romm, H

AU - Rothkamm, K

AU - Valente, M

AU - Meineke, V

AU - Braselmann, H

AU - Abend, M

PY - 2013/8

Y1 - 2013/8

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

KW - Adult

KW - Automation

KW - Biological Assay/methods

KW - Calibration

KW - Chromosome Aberrations

KW - Chromosomes, Human/radiation effects

KW - Dose-Response Relationship, Radiation

KW - Film Dosimetry

KW - Humans

KW - Laboratory Proficiency Testing

KW - Leukocytes/radiation effects

KW - Male

KW - Radiation Injuries/diagnosis

KW - Radioactive Hazard Release

KW - Radiometry/methods

KW - Reproducibility of Results

KW - Sensitivity and Specificity

KW - Single-Blind Method

KW - Time Factors

KW - Triage/methods

U2 - 10.1667/RR3235.1

DO - 10.1667/RR3235.1

M3 - SCORING: Journal article

C2 - 23862730

VL - 180

SP - 129

EP - 137

IS - 2

ER -