Comparison of established and emerging biodosimetry assays

K. Rothkamm, C. Beinke, H. Romm, C. Badie, Y. Balagurunathan, S. Barnard, N. Bernard, H. Boulay-Greene, M. Brengues, A. De Amicis, S. De Sanctis, R. Greither, F. Herodin, A. Jones, S. Kabacik, T. Knie, U. Kulka, F. Lista, P. Martigne, A. MisselJ. Moquet, U. Oestreicher, A. Peinnequin, T. Poyot, U. Roessler, H. Scherthan, B. Terbrueggen, H. Thierens, M. Valente, A. Vral, Frederic Zenhausern, V. Meineke, H. Braselmann, M. Abend

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

60 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Rapid biodosimetry tools are required to assist with triage in the case of a large-scale radiation incident. Here, we aimed to determine the dose-assessment accuracy of the well-established dicentric chromosome assay (DCA) and cytokinesis-block micronucleus assay (CBMN) in comparison to the emerging γ-H2AX foci and gene expression assays for triage mode biodosimetry and radiation injury assessment. Coded blood samples exposed to 10 X-ray doses (240 kVp, 1 Gy/min) of up to 6.4 Gy were sent to participants for dose estimation. Report times were documented for each laboratory and assay. The mean absolute difference (MAD) of estimated doses relative to the true doses was calculated. We also merged doses into binary dose categories of clinical relevance and examined accuracy, sensitivity and specificity of the assays. Dose estimates were reported by the first laboratories within 0.3-0.4 days of receipt of samples for the γ-H2AX and gene expression assays compared to 2.4 and 4 days for the DCA and CBMN assays, respectively. Irrespective of the assay we found a 2.5-4-fold variation of interlaboratory accuracy per assay and lowest MAD values for the DCA assay (0.16 Gy) followed by CBMN (0.34 Gy), gene expression (0.34 Gy) and γ-H2AX (0.45 Gy) foci assay. Binary categories of dose estimates could be discriminated with equal efficiency for all assays, but at doses ≥1.5 Gy a 10% decrease in efficiency was observed for the foci assay, which was still comparable to the CBMN assay. In conclusion, the DCA has been confirmed as the gold standard biodosimetry method, but in situations where speed and throughput are more important than ultimate accuracy, the emerging rapid molecular assays have the potential to become useful triage tools.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)111-119
Number of pages9
JournalRadiation Research
Volume180
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Aug 2013

Fingerprint

Micronucleus Tests
Cytokinesis
Triage
emerging
Chromosomes
dosage
Gene Expression
chromosomes
gene expression
Radiation Injuries
X-Rays
Radiation
Sensitivity and Specificity
radiation injuries
incident radiation
estimates
blood

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging
  • Biophysics
  • Radiation

Cite this

Rothkamm, K., Beinke, C., Romm, H., Badie, C., Balagurunathan, Y., Barnard, S., ... Abend, M. (2013). Comparison of established and emerging biodosimetry assays. Radiation Research, 180(2), 111-119. https://doi.org/10.1667/RR3231.1

Comparison of established and emerging biodosimetry assays. / Rothkamm, K.; Beinke, C.; Romm, H.; Badie, C.; Balagurunathan, Y.; Barnard, S.; Bernard, N.; Boulay-Greene, H.; Brengues, M.; De Amicis, A.; De Sanctis, S.; Greither, R.; Herodin, F.; Jones, A.; Kabacik, S.; Knie, T.; Kulka, U.; Lista, F.; Martigne, P.; Missel, A.; Moquet, J.; Oestreicher, U.; Peinnequin, A.; Poyot, T.; Roessler, U.; Scherthan, H.; Terbrueggen, B.; Thierens, H.; Valente, M.; Vral, A.; Zenhausern, Frederic; Meineke, V.; Braselmann, H.; Abend, M.

In: Radiation Research, Vol. 180, No. 2, 08.2013, p. 111-119.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Rothkamm, K, Beinke, C, Romm, H, Badie, C, Balagurunathan, Y, Barnard, S, Bernard, N, Boulay-Greene, H, Brengues, M, De Amicis, A, De Sanctis, S, Greither, R, Herodin, F, Jones, A, Kabacik, S, Knie, T, Kulka, U, Lista, F, Martigne, P, Missel, A, Moquet, J, Oestreicher, U, Peinnequin, A, Poyot, T, Roessler, U, Scherthan, H, Terbrueggen, B, Thierens, H, Valente, M, Vral, A, Zenhausern, F, Meineke, V, Braselmann, H & Abend, M 2013, 'Comparison of established and emerging biodosimetry assays', Radiation Research, vol. 180, no. 2, pp. 111-119. https://doi.org/10.1667/RR3231.1
Rothkamm K, Beinke C, Romm H, Badie C, Balagurunathan Y, Barnard S et al. Comparison of established and emerging biodosimetry assays. Radiation Research. 2013 Aug;180(2):111-119. https://doi.org/10.1667/RR3231.1
Rothkamm, K. ; Beinke, C. ; Romm, H. ; Badie, C. ; Balagurunathan, Y. ; Barnard, S. ; Bernard, N. ; Boulay-Greene, H. ; Brengues, M. ; De Amicis, A. ; De Sanctis, S. ; Greither, R. ; Herodin, F. ; Jones, A. ; Kabacik, S. ; Knie, T. ; Kulka, U. ; Lista, F. ; Martigne, P. ; Missel, A. ; Moquet, J. ; Oestreicher, U. ; Peinnequin, A. ; Poyot, T. ; Roessler, U. ; Scherthan, H. ; Terbrueggen, B. ; Thierens, H. ; Valente, M. ; Vral, A. ; Zenhausern, Frederic ; Meineke, V. ; Braselmann, H. ; Abend, M. / Comparison of established and emerging biodosimetry assays. In: Radiation Research. 2013 ; Vol. 180, No. 2. pp. 111-119.
@article{e0c3bce91f654f0faebab99daa001043,
title = "Comparison of established and emerging biodosimetry assays",
abstract = "Rapid biodosimetry tools are required to assist with triage in the case of a large-scale radiation incident. Here, we aimed to determine the dose-assessment accuracy of the well-established dicentric chromosome assay (DCA) and cytokinesis-block micronucleus assay (CBMN) in comparison to the emerging γ-H2AX foci and gene expression assays for triage mode biodosimetry and radiation injury assessment. Coded blood samples exposed to 10 X-ray doses (240 kVp, 1 Gy/min) of up to 6.4 Gy were sent to participants for dose estimation. Report times were documented for each laboratory and assay. The mean absolute difference (MAD) of estimated doses relative to the true doses was calculated. We also merged doses into binary dose categories of clinical relevance and examined accuracy, sensitivity and specificity of the assays. Dose estimates were reported by the first laboratories within 0.3-0.4 days of receipt of samples for the γ-H2AX and gene expression assays compared to 2.4 and 4 days for the DCA and CBMN assays, respectively. Irrespective of the assay we found a 2.5-4-fold variation of interlaboratory accuracy per assay and lowest MAD values for the DCA assay (0.16 Gy) followed by CBMN (0.34 Gy), gene expression (0.34 Gy) and γ-H2AX (0.45 Gy) foci assay. Binary categories of dose estimates could be discriminated with equal efficiency for all assays, but at doses ≥1.5 Gy a 10{\%} decrease in efficiency was observed for the foci assay, which was still comparable to the CBMN assay. In conclusion, the DCA has been confirmed as the gold standard biodosimetry method, but in situations where speed and throughput are more important than ultimate accuracy, the emerging rapid molecular assays have the potential to become useful triage tools.",
author = "K. Rothkamm and C. Beinke and H. Romm and C. Badie and Y. Balagurunathan and S. Barnard and N. Bernard and H. Boulay-Greene and M. Brengues and {De Amicis}, A. and {De Sanctis}, S. and R. Greither and F. Herodin and A. Jones and S. Kabacik and T. Knie and U. Kulka and F. Lista and P. Martigne and A. Missel and J. Moquet and U. Oestreicher and A. Peinnequin and T. Poyot and U. Roessler and H. Scherthan and B. Terbrueggen and H. Thierens and M. Valente and A. Vral and Frederic Zenhausern and V. Meineke and H. Braselmann and M. Abend",
year = "2013",
month = "8",
doi = "10.1667/RR3231.1",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "180",
pages = "111--119",
journal = "Radiation Research",
issn = "0033-7587",
publisher = "Radiation Research Society",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of established and emerging biodosimetry assays

AU - Rothkamm, K.

AU - Beinke, C.

AU - Romm, H.

AU - Badie, C.

AU - Balagurunathan, Y.

AU - Barnard, S.

AU - Bernard, N.

AU - Boulay-Greene, H.

AU - Brengues, M.

AU - De Amicis, A.

AU - De Sanctis, S.

AU - Greither, R.

AU - Herodin, F.

AU - Jones, A.

AU - Kabacik, S.

AU - Knie, T.

AU - Kulka, U.

AU - Lista, F.

AU - Martigne, P.

AU - Missel, A.

AU - Moquet, J.

AU - Oestreicher, U.

AU - Peinnequin, A.

AU - Poyot, T.

AU - Roessler, U.

AU - Scherthan, H.

AU - Terbrueggen, B.

AU - Thierens, H.

AU - Valente, M.

AU - Vral, A.

AU - Zenhausern, Frederic

AU - Meineke, V.

AU - Braselmann, H.

AU - Abend, M.

PY - 2013/8

Y1 - 2013/8

N2 - Rapid biodosimetry tools are required to assist with triage in the case of a large-scale radiation incident. Here, we aimed to determine the dose-assessment accuracy of the well-established dicentric chromosome assay (DCA) and cytokinesis-block micronucleus assay (CBMN) in comparison to the emerging γ-H2AX foci and gene expression assays for triage mode biodosimetry and radiation injury assessment. Coded blood samples exposed to 10 X-ray doses (240 kVp, 1 Gy/min) of up to 6.4 Gy were sent to participants for dose estimation. Report times were documented for each laboratory and assay. The mean absolute difference (MAD) of estimated doses relative to the true doses was calculated. We also merged doses into binary dose categories of clinical relevance and examined accuracy, sensitivity and specificity of the assays. Dose estimates were reported by the first laboratories within 0.3-0.4 days of receipt of samples for the γ-H2AX and gene expression assays compared to 2.4 and 4 days for the DCA and CBMN assays, respectively. Irrespective of the assay we found a 2.5-4-fold variation of interlaboratory accuracy per assay and lowest MAD values for the DCA assay (0.16 Gy) followed by CBMN (0.34 Gy), gene expression (0.34 Gy) and γ-H2AX (0.45 Gy) foci assay. Binary categories of dose estimates could be discriminated with equal efficiency for all assays, but at doses ≥1.5 Gy a 10% decrease in efficiency was observed for the foci assay, which was still comparable to the CBMN assay. In conclusion, the DCA has been confirmed as the gold standard biodosimetry method, but in situations where speed and throughput are more important than ultimate accuracy, the emerging rapid molecular assays have the potential to become useful triage tools.

AB - Rapid biodosimetry tools are required to assist with triage in the case of a large-scale radiation incident. Here, we aimed to determine the dose-assessment accuracy of the well-established dicentric chromosome assay (DCA) and cytokinesis-block micronucleus assay (CBMN) in comparison to the emerging γ-H2AX foci and gene expression assays for triage mode biodosimetry and radiation injury assessment. Coded blood samples exposed to 10 X-ray doses (240 kVp, 1 Gy/min) of up to 6.4 Gy were sent to participants for dose estimation. Report times were documented for each laboratory and assay. The mean absolute difference (MAD) of estimated doses relative to the true doses was calculated. We also merged doses into binary dose categories of clinical relevance and examined accuracy, sensitivity and specificity of the assays. Dose estimates were reported by the first laboratories within 0.3-0.4 days of receipt of samples for the γ-H2AX and gene expression assays compared to 2.4 and 4 days for the DCA and CBMN assays, respectively. Irrespective of the assay we found a 2.5-4-fold variation of interlaboratory accuracy per assay and lowest MAD values for the DCA assay (0.16 Gy) followed by CBMN (0.34 Gy), gene expression (0.34 Gy) and γ-H2AX (0.45 Gy) foci assay. Binary categories of dose estimates could be discriminated with equal efficiency for all assays, but at doses ≥1.5 Gy a 10% decrease in efficiency was observed for the foci assay, which was still comparable to the CBMN assay. In conclusion, the DCA has been confirmed as the gold standard biodosimetry method, but in situations where speed and throughput are more important than ultimate accuracy, the emerging rapid molecular assays have the potential to become useful triage tools.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84882253955&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84882253955&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1667/RR3231.1

DO - 10.1667/RR3231.1

M3 - Article

C2 - 23862692

AN - SCOPUS:84882253955

VL - 180

SP - 111

EP - 119

JO - Radiation Research

JF - Radiation Research

SN - 0033-7587

IS - 2

ER -