Cargando…

Evaluation of the annual Canadian biodosimetry network intercomparisons

Purpose: To evaluate the importance of annual intercomparisons for maintaining the capacity and capabilities of a well-established biodosimetry network in conjunction with assessing efficient and effective analysis methods for emergency response. Materials and methods: Annual intercomparisons were c...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Wilkins, Ruth C., Beaton-Green, Lindsay A., Lachapelle, Sylvie, Kutzner, Barbara C., Ferrarotto, Catherine, Chauhan, Vinita, Marro, Leonora, Livingston, Gordon K., Boulay Greene, Hillary, Flegal, Farrah N.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Taylor & Francis 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4487546/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25670072
http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/09553002.2015.1012305
_version_ 1782379018835722240
author Wilkins, Ruth C.
Beaton-Green, Lindsay A.
Lachapelle, Sylvie
Kutzner, Barbara C.
Ferrarotto, Catherine
Chauhan, Vinita
Marro, Leonora
Livingston, Gordon K.
Boulay Greene, Hillary
Flegal, Farrah N.
author_facet Wilkins, Ruth C.
Beaton-Green, Lindsay A.
Lachapelle, Sylvie
Kutzner, Barbara C.
Ferrarotto, Catherine
Chauhan, Vinita
Marro, Leonora
Livingston, Gordon K.
Boulay Greene, Hillary
Flegal, Farrah N.
author_sort Wilkins, Ruth C.
collection PubMed
description Purpose: To evaluate the importance of annual intercomparisons for maintaining the capacity and capabilities of a well-established biodosimetry network in conjunction with assessing efficient and effective analysis methods for emergency response. Materials and methods: Annual intercomparisons were conducted between laboratories in the Canadian National Biological Dosimetry Response Plan. Intercomparisons were performed over a six-year period and comprised of the shipment of 10–12 irradiated, blinded blood samples for analysis by each of the participating laboratories. Dose estimates were determined by each laboratory using the dicentric chromosome assay (conventional and QuickScan scoring) and where possible the cytokinesis block micronucleus (CBMN) assay. Dose estimates were returned to the lead laboratory for evaluation and comparison. Results: Individual laboratories performed comparably from year to year with only slight fluctuations in performance. Dose estimates using the dicentric chromosome assay were accurate about 80% of the time and the QuickScan method for scoring the dicentric chromosome assay was proven to reduce the time of analysis without having a significant effect on the dose estimates. Although analysis with the CBMN assay was comparable to QuickScan scoring with respect to speed, the accuracy of the dose estimates was greatly reduced. Conclusions: Annual intercomparisons are necessary to maintain a network of laboratories for emergency response biodosimetry as they evoke confidence in their capabilities.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4487546
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher Taylor & Francis
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-44875462015-08-03 Evaluation of the annual Canadian biodosimetry network intercomparisons Wilkins, Ruth C. Beaton-Green, Lindsay A. Lachapelle, Sylvie Kutzner, Barbara C. Ferrarotto, Catherine Chauhan, Vinita Marro, Leonora Livingston, Gordon K. Boulay Greene, Hillary Flegal, Farrah N. Int J Radiat Biol Biodosimetry Comparison Purpose: To evaluate the importance of annual intercomparisons for maintaining the capacity and capabilities of a well-established biodosimetry network in conjunction with assessing efficient and effective analysis methods for emergency response. Materials and methods: Annual intercomparisons were conducted between laboratories in the Canadian National Biological Dosimetry Response Plan. Intercomparisons were performed over a six-year period and comprised of the shipment of 10–12 irradiated, blinded blood samples for analysis by each of the participating laboratories. Dose estimates were determined by each laboratory using the dicentric chromosome assay (conventional and QuickScan scoring) and where possible the cytokinesis block micronucleus (CBMN) assay. Dose estimates were returned to the lead laboratory for evaluation and comparison. Results: Individual laboratories performed comparably from year to year with only slight fluctuations in performance. Dose estimates using the dicentric chromosome assay were accurate about 80% of the time and the QuickScan method for scoring the dicentric chromosome assay was proven to reduce the time of analysis without having a significant effect on the dose estimates. Although analysis with the CBMN assay was comparable to QuickScan scoring with respect to speed, the accuracy of the dose estimates was greatly reduced. Conclusions: Annual intercomparisons are necessary to maintain a network of laboratories for emergency response biodosimetry as they evoke confidence in their capabilities. Taylor & Francis 2015-05-04 2015-02-27 /pmc/articles/PMC4487546/ /pubmed/25670072 http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/09553002.2015.1012305 Text en © 2015 The Author(s). Published by Taylor & Francis. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/Licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Biodosimetry Comparison
Wilkins, Ruth C.
Beaton-Green, Lindsay A.
Lachapelle, Sylvie
Kutzner, Barbara C.
Ferrarotto, Catherine
Chauhan, Vinita
Marro, Leonora
Livingston, Gordon K.
Boulay Greene, Hillary
Flegal, Farrah N.
Evaluation of the annual Canadian biodosimetry network intercomparisons
title Evaluation of the annual Canadian biodosimetry network intercomparisons
title_full Evaluation of the annual Canadian biodosimetry network intercomparisons
title_fullStr Evaluation of the annual Canadian biodosimetry network intercomparisons
title_full_unstemmed Evaluation of the annual Canadian biodosimetry network intercomparisons
title_short Evaluation of the annual Canadian biodosimetry network intercomparisons
title_sort evaluation of the annual canadian biodosimetry network intercomparisons
topic Biodosimetry Comparison
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4487546/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25670072
http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/09553002.2015.1012305
work_keys_str_mv AT wilkinsruthc evaluationoftheannualcanadianbiodosimetrynetworkintercomparisons
AT beatongreenlindsaya evaluationoftheannualcanadianbiodosimetrynetworkintercomparisons
AT lachapellesylvie evaluationoftheannualcanadianbiodosimetrynetworkintercomparisons
AT kutznerbarbarac evaluationoftheannualcanadianbiodosimetrynetworkintercomparisons
AT ferrarottocatherine evaluationoftheannualcanadianbiodosimetrynetworkintercomparisons
AT chauhanvinita evaluationoftheannualcanadianbiodosimetrynetworkintercomparisons
AT marroleonora evaluationoftheannualcanadianbiodosimetrynetworkintercomparisons
AT livingstongordonk evaluationoftheannualcanadianbiodosimetrynetworkintercomparisons
AT boulaygreenehillary evaluationoftheannualcanadianbiodosimetrynetworkintercomparisons
AT flegalfarrahn evaluationoftheannualcanadianbiodosimetrynetworkintercomparisons