RENEB Inter-Laboratory Comparison 2021: The Cytokinesis-Block Micronucleus Assay

The goal of the RENEB inter-laboratory comparison 2021 exercise was to simulate a large-scale radiation accident involving a network of biodosimetry labs. Labs were required to perform their analyses using different biodosimetric assays in triage mode scoring and to rapidly report estimated radiation doses to the organizing institution. This article reports the results obtained with the cytokinesis-block micronucleus assay. Three test samples were exposed to blinded doses of 0, 1.2 and 3.5 Gy X-ray doses (240 kVp, 13 mA, ∼75 keV, 1 Gy/min). These doses belong to 3 triage categories of clinical relevance: a low dose category, for no exposure or exposures inferior to 1 Gy, requiring no direct treatment of subjects; a medium dose category, with doses ranging from 1 to 2 Gy, and a high dose category, after exposure to doses higher than 2 Gy, with the two latter requiring increasing medical attention. After irradiation the test samples (no. 1, no. 2 and no. 3) were sent by the organizing laboratory to 14 centers participating in the micronucleus assay exercise. Laboratories were asked to setup micronucleus cultures and to perform the micronucleus assay in triage mode, scoring 500 binucleated cells manually, or 1,000 binucleated cells in automated/semi-automated mode. One laboratory received no blood samples, but scored pictures from another lab. Based on their calibration curves, laboratories had to provide estimates of the administered doses. The accuracy of the reported dose estimates was further analyzed by the micronucleus assay lead. The micronucleus assay allowed classification of samples in the corresponding clinical triage categories (low, medium, high dose category) in 88% of cases (manual scoring, 88%; semi-automated scoring, 100%; automated scoring, 73%). Agreement between scoring laboratories, assessed by calculating the Fleiss' kappa, was excellent (100%) for semi-automated scoring, good (83%) for manual scoring and poor (53%) for fully automated scoring. Correct classification into triage scoring dose intervals (reference dose ±0.5 Gy for doses ≤2.5 Gy, or reference dose ±1 Gy for doses >2.5 Gy), recommended for triage biodosimetry, was obtained in 79% of cases (manual scoring, 73%; semi-automated scoring, 100%; automated scoring, 67%). The percentage of dose estimates whose 95% confidence intervals included the reference dose was 58% (manual scoring, 48%; semi-automated scoring, 72%; automated scoring, 60%). For the irradiated samples no. 2 and no. 3, a systematic shift towards higher dose estimations was observed. This was also noticed with the other cytogenetic assays in this intercomparison exercise. Accuracy of the rapid triage modality could be maintained when the number of manually scored cells was scaled down to 200 binucleated cells. In conclusion, the micronucleus assay, preferably performed in a semi-automated or manual scoring mode, is a reliable technique to perform rapid biodosimetry analysis in large-scale radiation emergencies.

RENEB Inter-Laboratory Comparison 2021: Inter-Assay Comparison of Eight Dosimetry Assays

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.