Abstract
In the case of a radiological or nuclear event, biological dosimetry can be an important tool to support clinical decision-making. During a nuclear event, individuals might be exposed to a mixed field of neutrons and photons. The composition of the field and the neutron energy spectrum influence the degree of damage to the chromosomes. During the transatlantic BALANCE project, an exposure similar to a Hiroshima-like device at a distance of 1.5 km from the epicenter was simulated, and biological dosimetry based on dicentric chromosomes was performed to evaluate the participants ability to discover unknown doses and to test the influence of differences in neutron spectra. In a first step, calibration curves were established by irradiating blood samples with 5 doses in the range of 0–4 Gy at two different facilities in Germany (Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt [PTB]) and the USA (the Columbia IND Neutron Facility [CINF]). The samples were sent to eight participating laboratories from the RENEB network and dicentric chromosomes were scored by each participant. Next, blood samples were irradiated with 4 blind doses in each of the two facilities and sent to the participants to provide dose estimates based on the established calibration curves. Manual and semiautomatic scoring of dicentric chromosomes were evaluated for their applicability to neutron exposures. Moreover, the biological effectiveness of the neutrons from the two irradiation facilities was compared. The calibration curves from samples irradiated at CINF showed a 1.4 times higher biological effectiveness compared to samples irradiated at PTB. For manual scoring of dicentric chromosomes, the doses of the test samples were mostly successfully resolved based on the calibration curves established during the project. For semiautomatic scoring, the dose estimation for the test samples was less successful. Doses >2 Gy in the calibration curves revealed nonlinear associations between dose and dispersion index of the dicentric counts, especially for manual scoring. The differences in the biological effectiveness between the irradiation facilities suggested that the neutron energy spectrum can have a strong impact on the dicentric counts.
Journal Section:
Original Article
References
1.
Beinke C, Ben-Shlomo A, Abend M, Port M. A case report: cytogenetic dosimetry after accidental radiation exposure during (192)Ir industrial radiography testing. Radiat Res. 2015;184(1):66–72.
2.
Bloom A, Neriishi S, Kamada N, Iseki T, Keehn R. Cytogenetic investigation of survivors of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Lancet. 1966;2(7465):672–4.
3.
Brede HJ, Cosack M, Dietze G, Gumpert H, Guldbakke S, Jahr R, et al. The Braunschweig accelerator facility for fast neutron research. Nucl Instrum Methods. 1980;169(3):349–58.
4.
Broustas CG, Harken AD, Garty G, Amundson SA. Identification of differentially expressed genes and pathways in mice exposed to mixed field neutron/photon radiation. BMC Genomics. 2018;19(1):504.
5.
Buddemeier B, Dillon M. Key Response Planning Factors for the Aftermath of Nuclear Terrorism. Livermore, CA: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory; 2009.
6.
Dobson RL, Straume T, Carrano AV, Minkler JL, Deaven LL, Littlefield LG, et al. Biological effectiveness of neutrons from Hiroshima bomb replica: results of a collaborative cytogenetic study. Radiat Res. 1991;128(2):143–9.
7.
Egbert SD, Kerr GD, Cullings HM. DS02 fluence spectra for neutrons and gamma rays at Hiroshima and Nagasaki with fluence-to-kerma coefficients and transmission factors for sample measurements. Radiat Environ Biophys. 2007;46(4):311–25.
8.
Endesfelder D, Kulka U, Einbeck J, Oestreicher U. Improving the accuracy of dose estimates from automatically scored dicentric chromosomes by accounting for chromosome number. Int J Radiat Biol. 2020;96(12):1571–84.
9.
Endesfelder D, Oestreicher U, Kulka U, Ainsbury EA, Moquet J, Barnard S, et al. RENEB/EURADOS field exercise 2019: robust dose estimation under outdoor conditions based on the dicentric chromosome assay. Int J Radiat Biol. 2021;97(9):1181–98.
10.
Fajgelj A, Horvat D, Pucelj B. Chromosome aberrations induced in human lymphocytes by U-235 fission neutrons. Part II: evaluation of the effect of the induced Na-24 activity on the chromosomal aberration yield. Strahlenther Onkol. 1992;168(7):406–11.
11.
Garty G, Chen Y, Salerno A, Turner H, Zhang J, Lyulko O, et al. The RABIT: a rapid automated Biodosimetry tool for radiological triage. Health Phys. 2010;98(2):209–17.
12.
Garty G, Xu Y, Elliston C, Marino SA, Randers-Pehrson G, Brenner DJ. Mice and the A-bomb: irradiation systems for realistic exposure scenarios. Radiat Res. 2017;187(4):465–75.
13.
Gregoire E, Barquinero JF, Gruel G, Benadjaoud M, Martinez JS, Beinke C, et al. RENEB Inter-Laboratory comparison 2017: limits and pitfalls of ILCs. Int J Radiat Biol. 2021;97(7):888–905.
14.
Güçlü İ. Cytogenetic follow-up of an individual after accidental exposure to industrial radiation using dicentric frequency in blood lymphocytes. Mutat Res Genet Toxicol Environ Mutagen. 2021;861-862:503276.
15.
Heimers A, Brede HJ, Giesen U, Hoffmann W. Influence of mitotic delay on the results of biological dosimetry for high doses of ionizing radiation. Radiat Environ Biophys. 2005;44(3):211–8.
16.
Heimers A, Brede HJ, Giesen U, Hoffmann W. Chromosome aberration analysis and the influence of mitotic delay after simulated partial-body exposure with high doses of sparsely and densely ionising radiation. Radiat Environ Biophys. 2006;45(1):45–54.
17.
IAEA. Cytogenetic Dosimetry: Applications in Prepardness for and Response to Radiation Emergencies. Vienna: EPR-Biodosimetry, International Atomic Energy Agency; 2011.
18.
ICRP. Relative biological effectiveness (RBE), quality factor (Q), and radiation weighting factor (wR). ICRP publication 92 ann. ICRP. 2003;33(4).
19.
ICRU. ICRU Report No.45, Clinical neutron dosimetry, part I: determination of absorbed dose in a patient treated by external beams of fast neutrons. Bethesda, MD: ICRU, International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements; 1989.
20.
ISO13528. Statistical methods for use in proficiency testing by interlaboratory comparison. Geneva: ISO; 2015.
21.
ISO19238. Radiation protection performance criteria for service laboratories performing biological dosimetry by cytogenetics. Geneva: ISO; 2014.
22.
Kramer K, Li A, Madrigal J, Sanchez B, Millage K. Monte Carlo Modeling of the Initial Radiation Emitted by an Improvised Nuclear Device in the National Capital Region (Revision 1); 2016.
23.
Kulka U, Abend M, Ainsbury EA, Badie C, Barquinero JF, Barrios L, et al. RENEB - Running the European Network of biological dosimetry and physical retrospective dosimetry. Int J Radiat Biol. 2017;93(1):2–14.
24.
Kulka U, Wojcik A, Di Giorgio M, Wilkins R, Suto Y, Jang S, et al. Biodosimetry and Biodosimetry networks for managing radiation emergency. Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2018;182(1):128–38.
25.
Laiakis E, Canadell M, Grilj V, Harken A, Garty G, Astarita G, et al. Serum lipidomic analysis from mixed neutron/X-ray radiation fields reveals a hyperlipidemic and pro-inflammatory phenotype. Sci Rep. 2019;9(1):4539.
26.
Laiakis EC, Wang YW, Young EF, Harken AD, Xu Y, Smilenov L, et al. Metabolic dysregulation after neutron exposures expected from an improvised nuclear device. Radiat Res. 2017;188(1):21–34.
27.
Malmer CJ. ICRU report 63. Nuclear data for neutron and proton radiotherapy and for radiation protection. Med Phys. 2001;28(5):861.
28.
Meadows JW. The 9Be(d, n) thick-target neutron spectra for deuteron energies between 2.6 and 7.0 MeV. Nucl Instr Methods Phys Res Section A. 1993;324(1-2):239–46
29.
Mukherjee S, Grilj V, Broustas CG, Ghandhi SA, Harken AD, Garty G, et al. Human transcriptomic response to mixed neutron-photon exposures relevant to an improvised nuclear device. Radiat Res. 2019;192(2):189–99.
30.
Oestreicher U, Endesfelder D, Gomolka M, Kesminiene A, Lang P, Lindholm C, et al. Automated scoring of dicentric chromosomes differentiates increased radiation sensitivity of young children after low dose CT exposure in vitro. Int J Radiat Biol. 2018;94(11):1017–26.
31.
Oestreicher U, Samaga D, Ainsbury EA, Antunes AC, Baeyens A, Barrios L, et al. RENEB intercomparisons applying the conventional Dicentric Chromosome Assay (DCA). Int J Radiat Biol. 2017;93(1):20–9.
32.
Pandita TK, Geard CR. Chromosome aberrations in human fibroblasts induced by monoenergetic neutrons. I. Relative biological effectiveness. Radiat Res. 1996;145(6):730–9.
33.
Repin M, Pampou S, Karan C, Brenner DJ, Garty G. RABiT-II: implementation of a high-throughput micronucleus Biodosimetry assay on commercial biotech robotic systems. Radiat Res. 2017;187(4):492–8.
34.
Romm H, Ainsbury EA, Barnard S, Barrios L, Barquinero JF, Beinke C, et al. Automatic scoring of dicentric chromosomes as a tool in large scale radiation accidents. Mutat Res. 2013;756(1-2):174–83.
35.
Rossi HH, Bateman JL, Bond VP, Goodman LJ, Stickley EE. The dependence of RBE on the energy of fast neutrons: 1. Physical design and measurement of absorbed dose. Radiat Res. 1960;13(4):503–20.
36.
Royba E, Repin M, Pampou S, Karan C, Brenner DJ, Garty G. RABiT-II-DCA: a fully-automated dicentric chromosome assay in multiwell plates. Radiat Res. 2019;192(3):311–23.
37.
Salassidis K, Schmid E, Peter RU, Braselmann H, Bauchinger M. Dicentric and translocation analysis for retrospective dose estimation in humans exposed to ionising radiation during the Chernobyl nuclear power plant accident. Mutat Res. 1994;311(1):39–48.
38.
Sasaki MS, Endo S, Ejima Y, Saito I, Okamura K, Oka Y, et al. Effective dose of A-bomb radiation in Hiroshima and Nagasaki as assessed by chromosomal effectiveness of spectrum energy photons and neutrons. Radiat Environ Biophys. 2006;45(2):79–91.
39.
Savage JRK, Papworth DG. Constructing a 2B calibration curve for retrospective dose reconstruction. Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2000;88(1):69–76.
40.
Schmid E, Regulla D, Guldbakke S, Schlegel D, Bauchinger M. The effectiveness of monoenergetic neutrons at 565 keV in producing dicentric chromosomes in human lymphocytes at low doses. Radiat Res. 2000;154(3):307–12.
41.
Schmid E, Schlegel D, Guldbakke S, Kapsch RP, Regulla D. RBE of nearly monoenergetic neutrons at energies of 36 keV-14.6 MeV for induction of dicentrics in human lymphocytes. Radiat Environ Biophys. 2003;42(2):87–94.
42.
Schmid E, Schraube H, Bauchinger M. Chromosome aberration frequencies in human lymphocytes irradiated in a phantom by a mixed beam of fission neutrons and gamma -rays. Int J Radiat Biol. 1998;73(3):263–7.
43.
Schmid E, Wagner FM, Romm H, Walsh L, Roos H. Dose–response relationship of dicentric chromosomes in human lymphocytes obtained for the fission neutron therapy facility MEDAPP at the research reactor FRM II. Radiat Environ Biophys. 2009;48(1):67–75.
44.
Tanaka K, Gajendiran N, Endo S, Komatsu K, Hoshi M, Kamada N. Neutron energy-dependent initial DNA damage and chromosomal exchange. J Radiat Res. 1999;40(Suppl):36–44.
45.
Tawn EJ, Curwen GB, Riddell AE. Chromosome aberrations in workers occupationally exposed to tritium. J Radiol Prot. 2018;38(2):N9–N16.
46.
Wernli C, Eikenberg J, Marzocchi O, Breustedt B, Oestreicher U, Romm H, et al. 30-y follow-up of a Pu/Am inhalation case. Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2015;164(1-2):57–64.
47.
Xu Y, Randers-Pehrson G, Marino SA, Garty G, Harken A, Brenner DJ. Broad energy range neutron spectroscopy using a liquid scintillator and a proportional counter: application to a neutron spectrum similar to that from an improvised nuclear device. Nucl Instrum Methods Phys Res. 2015a;794:234–9.
48.
Xu Y, Randers-Pehrson G, Turner HC, Marino SA, Geard CR, Brenner DJ, et al. Accelerator-based biological irradiation facility simulating neutron exposure from an improvised nuclear device. Radiat Res. 2015b;184(4):404–10.
© 2023 S. Karger AG, Basel
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
2023
You do not currently have access to this content.
