Yang Hee Lee, Hyo Jin Yoon, Su San Yang, In Kyung Lee, Wol Soon Jo, Soo Kyung Jeong, Su Jung Oh, Jiin Kim, Younghyun Lee, Ki Moon Seong
{"title":"韩国在统一双中心染色体检测评分标准方面的经验教训。","authors":"Yang Hee Lee, Hyo Jin Yoon, Su San Yang, In Kyung Lee, Wol Soon Jo, Soo Kyung Jeong, Su Jung Oh, Jiin Kim, Younghyun Lee, Ki Moon Seong","doi":"10.1080/09553002.2024.2316603","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Networking with other biodosimetry laboratories is necessary to assess the radiation exposure of many individuals in large-scale radiological accidents. The Korea biodosimetry network, K-BioDos, prepared harmonized scoring guidelines for dicentric chromosome assay to obtain homogeneous results within the network and investigated the efficiency of the guidelines.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Three laboratories in K-BioDos harmonized the scoring guidelines for dicentric chromosome assay. The results of scoring dicentric chromosomes using the harmonized scoring guidelines were compared with the laboratories' results using their own methods. Feedback was collected from the scorers following the three intercomparison exercises in 3 consecutive years.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>K-BioDos members showed comparable capacity to score dicentrics in the three exercises. However, the results of the K-BioDos guidelines showed no significant improvement over those of the scorers' own methods. According to the scorers, our harmonized guidelines led to more rejected metaphases and ultimately decreased the number of scorable metaphases compared with their own methods. Moreover, the scoring time was sometimes longer with the K-BioDos protocol because some scorers were not yet familiar with the guidelines, though most scorers reported that the time decreased or was unchanged. These challenges may cause low adherence to the guidelines. Most scorers expressed willingness to use the guidelines to select scorable metaphases or identify dicentrics for other biodosimetry works, whereas one did not want to use it due to the difference from their calibration curves.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>We identified potential resistance to following the harmonized guidelines and received requests for more detailed methods. Our findings suggest that the harmonized criteria should be continually updated, and education and training should be provided for all scorers. These changes could allow members within the biodosimetry network to successfully collaborate and support each other in large-scale radiological accidents.</p>","PeriodicalId":94057,"journal":{"name":"International journal of radiation biology","volume":" ","pages":"709-714"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Lessons on harmonization of scoring criteria for dicentric chromosome assay in South Korea.\",\"authors\":\"Yang Hee Lee, Hyo Jin Yoon, Su San Yang, In Kyung Lee, Wol Soon Jo, Soo Kyung Jeong, Su Jung Oh, Jiin Kim, Younghyun Lee, Ki Moon Seong\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/09553002.2024.2316603\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Networking with other biodosimetry laboratories is necessary to assess the radiation exposure of many individuals in large-scale radiological accidents. The Korea biodosimetry network, K-BioDos, prepared harmonized scoring guidelines for dicentric chromosome assay to obtain homogeneous results within the network and investigated the efficiency of the guidelines.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Three laboratories in K-BioDos harmonized the scoring guidelines for dicentric chromosome assay. The results of scoring dicentric chromosomes using the harmonized scoring guidelines were compared with the laboratories' results using their own methods. Feedback was collected from the scorers following the three intercomparison exercises in 3 consecutive years.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>K-BioDos members showed comparable capacity to score dicentrics in the three exercises. However, the results of the K-BioDos guidelines showed no significant improvement over those of the scorers' own methods. According to the scorers, our harmonized guidelines led to more rejected metaphases and ultimately decreased the number of scorable metaphases compared with their own methods. Moreover, the scoring time was sometimes longer with the K-BioDos protocol because some scorers were not yet familiar with the guidelines, though most scorers reported that the time decreased or was unchanged. These challenges may cause low adherence to the guidelines. Most scorers expressed willingness to use the guidelines to select scorable metaphases or identify dicentrics for other biodosimetry works, whereas one did not want to use it due to the difference from their calibration curves.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>We identified potential resistance to following the harmonized guidelines and received requests for more detailed methods. Our findings suggest that the harmonized criteria should be continually updated, and education and training should be provided for all scorers. These changes could allow members within the biodosimetry network to successfully collaborate and support each other in large-scale radiological accidents.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":94057,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International journal of radiation biology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"709-714\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International journal of radiation biology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/09553002.2024.2316603\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/2/23 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International journal of radiation biology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09553002.2024.2316603","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/2/23 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Lessons on harmonization of scoring criteria for dicentric chromosome assay in South Korea.
Purpose: Networking with other biodosimetry laboratories is necessary to assess the radiation exposure of many individuals in large-scale radiological accidents. The Korea biodosimetry network, K-BioDos, prepared harmonized scoring guidelines for dicentric chromosome assay to obtain homogeneous results within the network and investigated the efficiency of the guidelines.
Materials and methods: Three laboratories in K-BioDos harmonized the scoring guidelines for dicentric chromosome assay. The results of scoring dicentric chromosomes using the harmonized scoring guidelines were compared with the laboratories' results using their own methods. Feedback was collected from the scorers following the three intercomparison exercises in 3 consecutive years.
Results: K-BioDos members showed comparable capacity to score dicentrics in the three exercises. However, the results of the K-BioDos guidelines showed no significant improvement over those of the scorers' own methods. According to the scorers, our harmonized guidelines led to more rejected metaphases and ultimately decreased the number of scorable metaphases compared with their own methods. Moreover, the scoring time was sometimes longer with the K-BioDos protocol because some scorers were not yet familiar with the guidelines, though most scorers reported that the time decreased or was unchanged. These challenges may cause low adherence to the guidelines. Most scorers expressed willingness to use the guidelines to select scorable metaphases or identify dicentrics for other biodosimetry works, whereas one did not want to use it due to the difference from their calibration curves.
Conclusions: We identified potential resistance to following the harmonized guidelines and received requests for more detailed methods. Our findings suggest that the harmonized criteria should be continually updated, and education and training should be provided for all scorers. These changes could allow members within the biodosimetry network to successfully collaborate and support each other in large-scale radiological accidents.