Currently, the dicentric chromosome assay (DCA) is used to estimate radiation doses to individuals following accidental radiological and nuclear overexposures when traditional dosimetry methods are not available. While being an exceptionally sensitive method for estimating doses by radiation, conventional DCA is time-intensive and requires highly trained expertise for analysis. For this reason, in a mass casualty situation, triage-quality conventional DCA struggles to provide dose estimations in a timely manner for triage purposes. In Canada, a new scoring technique, termed DCA QuickScan, has been devised to increase the throughput of this assay. DCA QuickScan uses traditional DCA sample preparation methods while adapting a rapid scoring approach. In this study, both conventional and QuickScan methods of scoring the DCA assay were compared for accuracy and sensitivity. Dose response curves were completed on four different donors based on the analysis of 1,000 metaphases or 200 events at eight to nine dose points by eight different scorers across two laboratories. Statistical analysis was performed on the data to compare the two methods within and across the laboratories and to test their respective sensitivities for dose estimation. This study demonstrated that QuickScan is statistically similar to conventional DCA analysis and is capable of producing dose estimates as low as 0.1 Gy but up to six times faster. Therefore, DCA QuickScan analysis can be used as a sensitive and accurate method for scoring samples for radiological biodosimetry in mass casualty situations or where faster dose assessment is required. Copyright

Additional Metadata
Keywords chromosome aberration, cytogenetics, dose assessment, emergencies, radiological
Persistent URL dx.doi.org/10.1097/HP.0b013e3182307758
Journal Health Physics
Citation
Flegal, F.N. (F. N.), Devantier, Y. (Y.), Marro, L. (L.), & Wilkins, R.C. (2012). Validation of QuickScan dicentric chromosome analysis for high throughput radiation biological dosimetry. Health Physics, 102(2), 143–153. doi:10.1097/HP.0b013e3182307758