The harmonization process to set up and maintain an operational biological and physical retrospective dosimetry network: QA QM applied to the RENEB network

References

• Ainsbury EA, Badie C, Barnard S, Manning G, Moquet JE, Abend M, Bassinet C, Bortolin E, Bossin L, Bricknell C, et al. 2016a. Integration of new biological and physical retrospective dosimetry methods into EU emergency response plans – joint RENEB and EURADOS inter-laboratory comparisons. Int J Radiat Biol., in this issue. doi: 10.1080/09553002.2016.1206233.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ainsbury EA, Higueras M, Puig P, Einbeck J, Samaga D, Barquinero JF, Barrios L, Brzozowska B, Fattibene P, Gregoire E, et al. 2016b. Uncertainty of fast biological radiation dose assessment for emergency response scenarios. Int J Radiat Biol, in this issue. doi: 10.1080/09553002.2016.1227106.
   Google Scholar
• Ainsbury EA, Bakhanova E, Barquinero JF, Brai M, Darroudi F, Fattibene P, Gruel G, Guclu I, Horn S, Jaworska A, et al. 2011. Review of Retrospective Dosimetry Techniques for External Ionising Radiation Exposures. Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 147:573–592.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bakkiam D, Bhavani M, Anantha Kumar AA, Sonwani S, Venkatachalam P, Sivasubramanian K, Venkatraman B. 2015. Dicentric assay: inter-laboratory comparison in Indian laboratories for routine and triage applications. Appl Radiat Isot. 99:77–85.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barnard S, Ainsbury E, Al-hafidh J, Hadjidekova V, Hristova R, Lindholm C, Monteiro Gil O, Moquet J, Moreno M, Rößler U, et al. 2015. The First Gamma-H2ax Biodosimetry Intercomparison Exercise Of The Developing European Biodosimetry Network Reneb. Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 164:265–270.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barquinero JF, Beinke C, Borras M, Buraczewska I, Darroudi F, Grégoire E, Hristova R, Kulka U, Lindholm C, Moreno M, et al. 2016. RENEB biodosimetry intercomparison analysing translocations by FISH. Int J Radiat Biol. [Epub ahead of print]. doi:10.1080/09553002.2016.1222092.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bassinet C, Woda C, Bortolin E, Della Monaca S, Fattibene P, Quattrini MC, Bulanek B, Ekendahl D, Burbidge CI, Cauwels V, et al. 2014. Retrospective radiation dosimetry using OSL of electronic components: results of an inter-laboratory comparison Radiat Meas. 71; 475–479.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beinke C, Barnard S, Boulay-Greene H, De Amicis A, De Sanctis S, Herodin F, Jones A, Kulka U, Lista F, Lloyd D, et al. 2013. Laboratory inter-comparison of the dicentric chromosome analysis assay. Radiat Res. 180:129–137.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bertho JM, Roy L. 2009. A rapid multiparametric method for victim triage in cases of accidental protracted irradiation or delayed analysis. Br J Radiol. 82:764–770.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Depuydt J, Baert A, Vandersickel V, Thierens H, Vral A. 2013. Relative biological effectiveness of mammography X-rays at the level of DNA and chromosomes in lymphocytes. Int J Radiat Biol. 89:532–538.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Djuzenova CS, Mühl B, Fehn M, Oppitz U, Müller B, Flentje M. 2006. Radiosensitivity in breast cancer assessed by the Comet and micronucleus assays. Br J Cancer. 94:1194–203.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fattibene P, Trompier F, Wieser A, Brai M, Ciesielski B, De Angelis C, Della Monaca S, Garcia T, Gustafsson H, Hole EO, et al. 2014. EPR dosimetry inter-comparison using smart phone touch screen glass. Radiat Environ Biophys. 53:311–320.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• García O, Di Giorgio M, Vallerga MB, Radl A, Taja MR, Seoane A, De Luca J, Stuck Oliveira M, Valdivia P, Lamadrid AI, et al. 2013. Inter-laboratory comparison of dicentric chromosome assay using electronically transmitted images. Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 154:18–25.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Di Giorgio M, Barquinero JF, Vallerga MB, Radl A, Taja MR, Seoane A, De Luca J, Oliveira MS, Valdivia P, Lima OG, et al. 2011. Biological dosimetry inter-comparison exercise: an evaluation of triage and routine mode results by robust methods. Radiat Res. 175:638–649.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greve B, Bölling T, Amler S, Rössler U, Gomolka M, Mayer C, Popanda O, Dreffke K, Rickinger A, Fritz E, et al. 2012. Evaluation of Different Biomarkers to Predict Individual Radiosensitivity in an Inter-Laboratory Comparison: lessons for future studies. PLoS One. 7:1–12.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• IAEA. 2011. Cytogenetic Dosimetry: Applications in Preparedness for and Response to Radiation Emergencies. Vienna.
   Google Scholar
• ISO 13304. 2013. INTERNATIONAL STANDARD Radiological protection – minimum criteria for electron paramagnetic resonance (EPR) spectroscopy for retrospective dosimetry of ionizing radiation. Geneva.
   Google Scholar
• ISO 13528. 2005. Statistical methods for use in proficiency testing by inter-laboratory comparisons. Geneva.
   Google Scholar
• ISO 17099. 2013. DRAFT INTERNATIONAL STANDARD ISO/DIS 17099 Radiation Protection – performance criteria for laboratories using the cytokinesis-blocked micronucleus assay in blood lymphocytes for biological dosimetry. Geneva.
   Google Scholar
• ISO 19238. 2013. Radiation protection -Performance criteria for service laboratories performing biological dosimetry by cytogenetic. Geneva.
   Google Scholar
• ISO 21243. 2008. Radiation protection – performance criteria for laboratories performing cytogenetic triage for assessment of mass casualties in radiological or nuclear emergencies. General principles and application to dicentric assay-21243. Geneva.
   Google Scholar
• Jaworska A, Ainsbury EA, Fattibene P, Lindholm C, Oestreicher U, Rothkamm K, Romm H, Thierens H, Trompier F, Voisin P, et al. 2015. Operational guidance for radiation emergency response organizations in Europe for using biodosimetric tools developed in EU multibiodose project. Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 164:165–169.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kulka U, Ainsbury L, Atkinson M, Barnard S, Smith R, Barquinero JF, Barrios L, Bassinet C, Beinke C, Cucu A, et al. 2015. Realizing the European network of biodosimetry: Reneb status quo. Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 164:42–45.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lloyd DC, Edwards AA, Moquet JE, Guerrero-Carbajal YC. 2000. The role of cytogenetics in early triage of radiation casualties. Appl Radiat Isot. 52:1107–1112.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moquet JE, Barnard S, Staynova A, Lindholm C, Monteiro Gil O, Martins V, Rößler U, Vral A, Vandevoorde C, Wojewódzka M, Rothkamm K. 2016. The second gamma-H2AX assay inter-comparison exercise carried out in the framework of the European biodosimetry network (RENEB). Int J Radiat Biol, in this issue. doi: 10.1080/09553002.2016.1207822.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• MULTIBIODOSE. 2011. Multi-disciplinary biodosimetric tools to manage high scale radiological casualties MULTIBIODOSE. The aim of MULTIBIODOSE is to analyse a variety of biodosimetric tools and adapt them to different mass casualty scenarios [Internet]. Available from: www.multibiodose.eu.
   Google Scholar
• Monteiro Gil O, Vaz P, Romm H, De Agelis C, Antunes AC, Barquinero JF, Beinke C, Bortolin E, Burbidge CI, Cucu A, et al. 2016. Capabilities of the RENEB network for research and large scale radiological and nuclear emergency situations. Int J Radiat Biol, in this issue. Doi: 10.1080/09553002.2016.1227107.
   Google Scholar
• Oestreicher U, Samaga D, Ainsbury EA, Antunes AC, Baeyens A, Barrios L, Beinke C, Beukes P, Blakely WF, Cucu A, et al. 2016. RENEB intercomparisons applying the conventional Dicentric Chromosome Assay (DCA). Int J Radiat Biol, in this issue. Doi: 10.1080/09553002.2016.1233370.
   Google Scholar
• Roy L, Roch-Lefevre S, Vaurijoux A, Voisin P, Martin C, Grégoire E, Voisin P. 2007. Optimization of cytogenetic procedures for population triage in case of radiological emergency. Radiat Meas. 42:1143–1146.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Terzoudi G, Hadjidekova V, Hatzi V, Karakosta M, Mkacher R, Montoro A, Palitti F, Pantelias G, Sebastià N, Sommer S, et al. 2016. RENEB inter-comparisons analysing prematurely condensed chromosomes (PCC assay). Int J Radiat Biol. [Epub ahead of print].
   Google Scholar
• Trompier F, Burbidge C, Bassinet C, Baumann M, Bortolin E, De Angelis C, Eakins J, Della Monaca S, Fattibene P, Quattrini MC, et al. 2016a. Overview of physical dosimetry methods for triage application integrated in the new European network RENEB. Int J Radiat Biol, in this issue. doi: 10.1080/09553002.2016.1221545.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Trompier F, Baumann M, Barrios L, Gregoire E, Abend M, Ainsbury EA, Barnard S, Barquinero JF, Bautista JA, Brzozowska B, et al. 2016b. Investigation of the influence of calibration practices on cytogenetic laboratory performance for dose estimation. Int J Radiat Biol, in this issue. doi: 10.1080/09553002.2016.1213455.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Vaurijoux A, Gruel G, Pouzoulet F, Grégoire E, Martin C, Roch-Lefèvre S, Voisin P, Voisin P, Roy L. 2009. Strategy for population triage based on dicentric analysis. Radiat Res. 171:541–548.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Voisin P, Benderitter M, Claraz M, Chambrette V, Sorokine-Durm I, Delbos M, Durand V, Leroy A, Paillole N. 2001. The cytogenetic dosimetry of recent accidental overexposure. Cell Mol Biol (Noisy-le-grand). 47:557–64.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilkins RC, Beaton-Green LA, Lachapelle S, Kutzner BC, Ferrarotto C, Chauhan V, Marro L, Livingston GK, Greene HB, Flegal FN. 2015. Evaluation of the annual Canadian biodosimetry network inter-comparisons. Int J Radiat Biol. 91:443–451.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar