Tooth enamel ESR doses and cytogenetic doses of Nagasaki atomic-bomb survivors in comparison with DS02R1 doses.

PURPOSE: Cancer risks for Nagasaki survivors once appeared to be lower than for Hiroshima survivors. The possibility that this was due to overestimation of the doses for the Nagasaki survivors was tested by measuring biological doses of Nagasaki survivors and comparing them with DS02R1 individual doses as previously done for Hiroshima survivors. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The electron spin resonance (ESR) method and cytogenetic method were used to estimate radiation doses for 24 Nagasaki survivors, and the results were compared to calculated DS02R1 doses. RESULTS: Six factory workers and 10 other survivors showed ESR or cytogenetically estimated doses that were in reasonably good agreement with their DS02R1 doses, while one factory worker was found to have an ESR dose estimate of nearly one half of the DS02R1 dose to the eye lens (a proxy organ for teeth). A few outliers were also observed. CONCLUSIONS: Although apparently lower cancer risks were observed in the past for Nagasaki survivors when compared to Hiroshima survivors, the present results do not indicate the existence of a trend that DS02R1 doses are overestimated when compared with biologically estimated tooth or cytogenetic doses. This observation is in line with the recent disappearance of the city difference in cancer risks.

Cytogenetic Reconstruction of Gamma-Ray Doses Delivered to Atomic Bomb Survivors: Dealing with Wide Distributions of Photon Energies and Contributions from Hematopoietic Stem/Progenitor Cells.

Retrospective estimation of the doses received by atomic bomb (A-bomb) survivors by cytogenetic methods has been hindered by two factors: One is that the photon energies released from the bomb were widely distributed, and since the aberration yield varies depending on the energy, the use of monoenergetic 60Co gamma radiation to construct a calibration curve may bias the estimate. The second problem is the increasing proportion of newly formed lymphocytes entering into the lymphocyte pool with increasing time intervals since the exposures. These new cells are derived from irradiated precursor/stem cells whose radiosensitivity may differ from that of blood lymphocytes. To overcome these problems, radiation doses to tooth enamel were estimated using the electron spin resonance (ESR; or EPR, electron paramagnetic resonance) method and compared with the cytogenetically estimated doses from the same survivors. The ESR method is only weakly dependent on the photon energy and independent of the years elapsed since an exposure. Both ESR and cytogenetic doses were estimated from 107 survivors. The latter estimates were made by assuming that although a part of the cells examined could be lymphoid stem or precursor cells at the time of exposure, all the cells had the same radiosensitivity as blood lymphocytes, and that the A-bomb gamma-ray spectrum was the same as that of the 60Co gamma rays. Subsequently, ESR and cytogenetic endpoints were used to estimate the kerma doses using individual DS02R1 information on shielding conditions. The results showed that the two sets of kerma doses were in close agreement, indicating that perhaps no correction is needed in estimating atomic bomb gamma-ray doses from the cytogenetically estimated 60Co gamma-ray equivalent doses. The present results will make it possible to directly compare cytogenetic doses with the physically estimated doses of the survivors, which would pave the way for testing whether or not there are any systematic trends or factors affecting physically estimated doses.

Biological dosimetry by the triage dicentric chromosome assay: potential implications for treatment of acute radiation syndrome in radiological mass casualties.

Biological dosimetry is an essential tool for estimating radiation dose. The dicentric chromosome assay (DCA) is currently the tool of choice. Because the assay is labor-intensive and time-consuming, strategies are needed to increase throughput for use in radiation mass casualty incidents. One such strategy is to truncate metaphase spread analysis for triage dose estimates by scoring 50 or fewer metaphases, compared to a routine analysis of 500 to 1000 metaphases, and to increase throughput using a large group of scorers in a biodosimetry network. Previously, the National Institutes for Allergies and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) and the Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute (AFRRI) sponsored a double-blinded interlaboratory comparison among five established international cytogenetic biodosimetry laboratories to determine the variability in calibration curves and in dose measurements in unknown, irradiated samples. In the present study, we further analyzed the published data from this previous study to investigate how the number of metaphase spreads influences dose prediction accuracy and how this information could be of value in the triage and management of people at risk for the acute radiation syndrome (ARS). Although, as expected, accuracy decreased with lower numbers of metaphase spreads analyzed, predicted doses by the laboratories were in good agreement and were judged to be adequate to guide diagnosis and treatment of ARS. These results demonstrate that for rapid triage, a network of cytogenetic biodosimetry laboratories can accurately assess doses even with a lower number of scored metaphases.

Interlaboratory comparison of the dicentric chromosome assay for radiation biodosimetry in mass casualty events.

This interlaboratory comparison validates the dicentric chromosome assay for assessing radiation dose in mass casualty accidents and identifies the advantages and limitations of an international biodosimetry network. The assay's validity and accuracy were determined among five laboratories following the International Organization for Standardization guidelines. Blood samples irradiated at the Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute were shipped to all laboratories, which constructed individual radiation calibration curves and assessed the dose to dose-blinded samples. Each laboratory constructed a dose-effect calibration curve for the yield of dicentrics for (60)Co gamma rays in the 0 to 5-Gy range, using the maximum likelihood linear-quadratic model, Y = c + alphaD + betaD(2). For all laboratories, the estimated coefficients of the fitted curves were within the 99.7% confidence intervals (CIs), but the observed dicentric yields differed. When each laboratory assessed radiation doses to four dose-blinded blood samples by comparing the observed dicentric yield with the laboratory's own calibration curve, the estimates were accurate in all laboratories at all doses. For all laboratories, actual doses were within the 99.75% CI for the assessed dose. Across the dose range, the error in the estimated doses, compared to the physical doses, ranged from 15% underestimation to 15% overestimation.