% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded.  This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.

@ARTICLE{Port:1010513,
      author       = {Port, M. and Barquinero, J-F. and Endesfelder, D. and
                      Moquet, J. and Oestreicher, U. and Terzoudi, G. and
                      Trompier, F. and Vral, A. and Abe, Y. and Ainsbury, L. and
                      Alkebsi, L. and Amundson, S. A. and Badie, C. and Baeyens,
                      A. and Balajee, A. S. and Balázs, K. and Barnard, S. and
                      Bassinet, C. and Beaton-Green, L. A. and Beinke, C. and
                      Bobyk, L. and Brochard, P. and Ciesielski, B. and Cuceu, C.
                      and Discher, M. and D,Oca, M. C. and Domínguez, I. and
                      Doucha-Senf, S. and Dumitrescu, A. and Duy, P. N. and Finot,
                      F. and Garty, G. and Ghandhi, S. A. and Gregoire, E. and
                      Goh, V. S. T. and Güçlü, I. and Hadjiiska, L. and
                      Hargitai, R. and Hristova, R. and Ishii, K. and Kis, E. and
                      Juniewicz, M. and Kriehuber, R. and Lacombe, J. and Lee, Y.
                      and Lopez Riego, M. and Lumniczky, K. and Mai, T. T. and
                      Maltar-Strmečki, N. and Marrale, M. and Martinez, J. S. and
                      Marciniak, A. and Maznyk, N. and McKeever, S. W. S. and
                      Meher, P. K. and Milanova, M. and Miura, T. and Monteiro
                      Gil, O. and Montoro, A. and Moreno Domene, M. and Mrozik, A.
                      and Nakayama, R. and O'Brien, G. and Oskamp, D. and Ostheim,
                      P. and Pajic, J. and Pastor, N. and Patrono, C. and Prieto
                      Rodriguez, M. J. and Pujol-Canadell, M. and Repin, M. and
                      Romanyukha, A. and Rößler, U. and Sabatier, L. and Sakai,
                      A. and Scherthan, H. and Schüle, S. and Seong, K. M. and
                      Sevriukova, O. and Sholom, S. and Sommer, S. and Suto, Y.
                      and Sypko, T. and Szatmári, T. and Takahashi-Sugai, M. and
                      Takebayashi, K. and Testa, A. and Testard, I. and Tichy, A.
                      ii A. and Triantopoulou, S. and Tsuyama, N. and
                      Unverricht-Yeboah, M. and Valente, M. and Van Hoey, O. and
                      Wilkins, R. C. and Wojcik, A. and Wojewodzka, M. and
                      Younghyun, Lee and Zafiropoulos, D. and Abend, M.},
      title        = {{RENEB} {I}nter-{L}aboratory {C}omparison 2021:
                      {I}nter-{A}ssay {C}omparison of {E}ight {D}osimetry
                      {A}ssays},
      journal      = {Radiation research},
      volume       = {199},
      number       = {6},
      issn         = {0033-7587},
      address      = {Great Falls, Va.},
      publisher    = {Radiation Research Society},
      reportid     = {FZJ-2023-03096},
      pages        = {535-555},
      year         = {2023},
      abstract     = {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},
      cin          = {S-US},
      ddc          = {530},
      cid          = {I:(DE-Juel1)S-US-20090406},
      pnm          = {899 - ohne Topic (POF4-899)},
      pid          = {G:(DE-HGF)POF4-899},
      typ          = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
      pubmed       = {37310880},
      UT           = {WOS:001004143500002},
      doi          = {10.1667/RADE-22-00207.1},
      url          = {https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/1010513},
}