Management of ionizing radiation injuries and illnesses, part 1: physics, radiation protection, and radiation instrumentation.

Ionizing radiation injuries and illnesses are exceedingly rare; therefore, most physicians have never managed such conditions. When confronted with a possible radiation injury or illness, most physicians must seek specialty consultation. Protection of responders, health care workers, and patients is an absolute priority for the delivery of medical care. Management of ionizing radiation injuries and illnesses, as well as radiation protection, requires a basic understanding of physics. Also, to provide a greater measure of safety when working with radioactive materials, instrumentation for detection and identification of radiation is needed. Because any health care professional could face a radiation emergency, it is imperative that all institutions have emergency response plans in place before an incident occurs. The present article is an introduction to basic physics, ionizing radiation, radiation protection, and radiation instrumentation, and it provides a basis for management of the consequences of a radiologic or nuclear incident.

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.