Search

After large-scale radiation accidents where many individuals are suspected to be exposed to ionizing radiation, biological and physical retrospective dosimetry assays are important tools to aid clinical decision making by categorizing individuals into unexposed/minimally, moderately or highly exposed groups. Quality-controlled inter-laboratory comparisons of simulated accident scenarios are regularly performed in the frame of the European legal association RENEB (Running the European Network of Biological and Physical retrospective Dosimetry) to optimize international networking and emergency readiness in case of large-scale radiation events. In total 33 laboratories from 22 countries around the world participated in the current RENEB inter-laboratory comparison 2021 for the dicentric chromosome assay. Blood was irradiated in vitro with X rays (240 kVp, 13 mA, ∼75 keV, 1 Gy/min) to simulate an acute, homogeneous whole-body exposure. Three blood samples (no. 1: 0 Gy, no. 2: 1.2 Gy, no. 3: 3.5 Gy) were sent to each participant and the task was to culture samples, to prepare slides and to assess radiation doses based on the observed dicentric yields from 50 manually or 150 semi-automatically scored metaphases (triage mode scoring). Approximately two-thirds of the participants applied calibration curves from irradiations with γ rays and about 1/3 from irradiations with X rays with varying energies. The categorization of the samples in clinically relevant groups corresponding to individuals that were unexposed/minimally (0–1 Gy), moderately (1–2 Gy) or highly exposed (>2 Gy) was successfully performed by all participants for sample no. 1 and no. 3 and by ≥74% for sample no. 2. However, while most participants estimated a dose of exactly 0 Gy for the sham-irradiated sample, the precise dose estimates of the samples irradiated with doses >0 Gy were systematically higher than the corresponding reference doses and showed a median deviation of 0.5 Gy (sample no. 2) and 0.95 Gy (sample no. 3) for manual scoring. By converting doses estimated based on γ-ray calibration curves to X-ray doses of a comparable mean photon energy as used in this exercise, the median deviation decreased to 0.27 Gy (sample no. 2) and 0.6 Gy (sample no. 3). The main aim of biological dosimetry in the case of a large-scale event is the categorization of individuals into clinically relevant groups, to aid clinical decision making. This task was successfully performed by all participants for the 0 Gy and 3.5 Gy samples and by 74% (manual scoring) and 80% (semi-automatic scoring) for the 1.2 Gy sample. Due to the accuracy of the dicentric chromosome assay and the high number of participating laboratories, a systematic shift of the dose estimates could be revealed. Differences in radiation quality (X ray vs. γ ray) between the test samples and the applied dose effect curves can partly explain the systematic shift. There might be several additional reasons for the observed bias (e.g., donor effects, transport, experimental conditions or the irradiation setup) and the analysis of these reasons provides great opportunities for future research. The participation of laboratories from countries around the world gave the opportunity to compare the results on an international level.

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), 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.