Tools for radiation exposure reconstruction are required to support the medical management of radiation victims in radiological or nuclear incidents. Different biological and physical dosimetry assays can be used for various exposure scenarios to estimate the dose of ionizing radiation a person has absorbed. Regular validation of the techniques through inter-laboratory comparisons (ILC) is essential to guarantee high quality results. In the current RENEB inter-laboratory comparison, the performance quality of established cytogenetic assays [dicentric chromosome assay (DCA), cytokinesis-block micronucleus assay (CBMN), stable chromosomal translocation assay (FISH) and premature chromosome condensation assay (PCC)] was tested in comparison to molecular biological assays [gamma-H2AX foci (gH2AX), gene expression (GE)] and physical dosimetry-based assays [electron paramagnetic resonance (EPR), optically or thermally stimulated luminescence (LUM)]. Three blinded coded samples (e.g., blood, enamel or mobiles) were exposed to 0, 1.2 or 3.5 Gy X-ray reference doses (240 kVp, 1 Gy/min). These doses roughly correspond to clinically relevant groups of unexposed to low exposed (0–1 Gy), moderately exposed (1–2 Gy, no severe acute health effects expected) and highly exposed individuals (>2 Gy, requiring early intensive medical care). In the frame of the current RENEB inter-laboratory comparison, samples were sent to 86 specialized teams in 46 organizations from 27 nations for dose estimation and identification of three clinically relevant groups. The time for sending early crude reports and more precise reports was documented for each laboratory and assay where possible. The quality of dose estimates was analyzed with three different levels of granularity, 1. by calculating the frequency of correctly reported clinically relevant dose categories, 2. by determining the number of dose estimates within the uncertainty intervals recommended for triage dosimetry (±0.5 Gy or ±1.0 Gy for doses <2.5 Gy or >2.5 Gy), and 3. by calculating the absolute difference (AD) of estimated doses relative to the reference doses. In total, 554 dose estimates were submitted within the 6-week period given before the exercise was closed. For samples processed with the highest priority, earliest dose estimates/categories were reported within 5–10 h of receipt for GE, gH2AX, LUM, EPR, 2–3 days for DCA, CBMN and within 6–7 days for the FISH assay. For the unirradiated control sample, the categorization in the correct clinically relevant group (0–1 Gy) as well as the allocation to the triage uncertainty interval was, with the exception of a few outliers, successfully performed for all assays. For the 3.5 Gy sample the percentage of correct classifications to the clinically relevant group (≥2 Gy) was between 89–100% for all assays, with the exception of gH2AX. For the 1.2 Gy sample, an exact allocation to the clinically relevant group was more difficult and 0–50% or 0–48% of the estimates were wrongly classified into the lowest or highest dose categories, respectively. For the irradiated samples, the correct allocation to the triage uncertainty intervals varied considerably between assays for the 1.2 Gy (29–76%) and 3.5 Gy (17–100%) samples. While a systematic shift towards higher doses was observed for the cytogenetic-based assays, extreme outliers exceeding the reference doses 2–6 fold were observed for EPR, FISH and GE assays. These outliers were related to a particular material examined (tooth enamel for EPR assay, reported as kerma in enamel, but when converted into the proper quantity, i.e. to kerma in air, expected dose estimates could be recalculated in most cases), the level of experience of the teams (FISH) and methodological uncertainties (GE). This was the first RENEB ILC where everything, from blood sampling to irradiation and shipment of the samples, was organized and realized at the same institution, for several biological and physical retrospective dosimetry assays. Almost all assays appeared comparably applicable for the identification of unexposed and highly exposed individuals and the allocation of medical relevant groups, with the latter requiring medical support for the acute radiation scenario simulated in this exercise. However, extreme outliers or a systematic shift of dose estimates have been observed for some assays. Possible reasons will be discussed in the assay specific papers of this special issue. In summary, this ILC clearly demonstrates the need to conduct regular exercises to identify research needs, but also to identify technical problems and to optimize the design of future ILCs.

After large-scale radiation accidents where many individuals are suspected to be exposed to ionizing radiation, biological and physical retrospective dosimetry assays are important tools to aid clinical decision making by categorizing individuals into unexposed/minimally, moderately or highly exposed groups. Quality-controlled inter-laboratory comparisons of simulated accident scenarios are regularly performed in the frame of the European legal association RENEB (Running the European Network of Biological and Physical retrospective Dosimetry) to optimize international networking and emergency readiness in case of large-scale radiation events. In total 33 laboratories from 22 countries around the world participated in the current RENEB inter-laboratory comparison 2021 for the dicentric chromosome assay. Blood was irradiated in vitro with X rays (240 kVp, 13 mA, ∼75 keV, 1 Gy/min) to simulate an acute, homogeneous whole-body exposure. Three blood samples (no. 1: 0 Gy, no. 2: 1.2 Gy, no. 3: 3.5 Gy) were sent to each participant and the task was to culture samples, to prepare slides and to assess radiation doses based on the observed dicentric yields from 50 manually or 150 semi-automatically scored metaphases (triage mode scoring). Approximately two-thirds of the participants applied calibration curves from irradiations with γ rays and about 1/3 from irradiations with X rays with varying energies. The categorization of the samples in clinically relevant groups corresponding to individuals that were unexposed/minimally (0–1 Gy), moderately (1–2 Gy) or highly exposed (>2 Gy) was successfully performed by all participants for sample no. 1 and no. 3 and by ≥74% for sample no. 2. However, while most participants estimated a dose of exactly 0 Gy for the sham-irradiated sample, the precise dose estimates of the samples irradiated with doses >0 Gy were systematically higher than the corresponding reference doses and showed a median deviation of 0.5 Gy (sample no. 2) and 0.95 Gy (sample no. 3) for manual scoring. By converting doses estimated based on γ-ray calibration curves to X-ray doses of a comparable mean photon energy as used in this exercise, the median deviation decreased to 0.27 Gy (sample no. 2) and 0.6 Gy (sample no. 3). The main aim of biological dosimetry in the case of a large-scale event is the categorization of individuals into clinically relevant groups, to aid clinical decision making. This task was successfully performed by all participants for the 0 Gy and 3.5 Gy samples and by 74% (manual scoring) and 80% (semiautomatic scoring) for the 1.2 Gy sample. Due to the accuracy of the dicentric chromosome assay and the high number of participating laboratories, a systematic shift of the dose estimates could be revealed. Differences in radiation quality (X ray vs. γ ray) between the test samples and the applied dose effect curves can partly explain the systematic shift. There might be several additional reasons for the observed bias (e.g., donor effects, transport, experimental conditions or the irradiation setup) and the analysis of these reasons provides great opportunities for future research. The participation of laboratories from countries around the world gave the opportunity to compare the results on an international level.

The goal of the RENEB inter-laboratory comparison 2021 exercise was to simulate a large-scale radiation accident involving a network of biodosimetry labs. Labs were required to perform their analyses using different biodosimetric assays in triage mode scoring and to rapidly report estimated radiation doses to the organizing institution. This article reports the results obtained with the cytokinesis-block micronucleus assay. Three test samples were exposed to blinded doses of 0, 1.2 and 3.5 Gy X-ray doses (240 kVp, 13 mA, ∼75 keV, 1 Gy/min). These doses belong to 3 triage categories of clinical relevance: a low dose category, for no exposure or exposures inferior to 1 Gy, requiring no direct treatment of subjects; a medium dose category, with doses ranging from 1 to 2 Gy, and a high dose category, after exposure to doses higher than 2 Gy, with the two latter requiring increasing medical attention. After irradiation the test samples (no. 1, no. 2 and no. 3) were sent by the organizing laboratory to 14 centers participating in the micronucleus assay exercise. Laboratories were asked to setup micronucleus cultures and to perform the micronucleus assay in triage mode, scoring 500 binucleated cells manually, or 1,000 binucleated cells in automated/semi-automated mode. One laboratory received no blood samples, but scored pictures from another lab. Based on their calibration curves, laboratories had to provide estimates of the administered doses. The accuracy of the reported dose estimates was further analyzed by the micronucleus assay lead. The micronucleus assay allowed classification of samples in the corresponding clinical triage categories (low, medium, high dose category) in 88% of cases (manual scoring, 88%; semi-automated scoring, 100%; automated scoring, 73%). Agreement between scoring laboratories, assessed by calculating the Fleiss' kappa, was excellent (100%) for semi-automated scoring, good (83%) for manual scoring and poor (53%) for fully automated scoring. Correct classification into triage scoring dose intervals (reference dose ±0.5 Gy for doses ≤2.5 Gy, or reference dose ±1 Gy for doses >2.5 Gy), recommended for triage biodosimetry, was obtained in 79% of cases (manual scoring, 73%; semi-automated scoring, 100%; automated scoring, 67%). The percentage of dose estimates whose 95% confidence intervals included the reference dose was 58% (manual scoring, 48%; semiautomated scoring, 72%; automated scoring, 60%). For the irradiated samples no. 2 and no. 3, a systematic shift towards higher dose estimations was observed. This was also noticed with the other cytogenetic assays in this intercomparison exercise. Accuracy of the rapid triage modality could be maintained when the number of manually scored cells was scaled down to 200 binucleated cells. In conclusion, the micronucleus assay, preferably performed in a semi-automated or manual scoring mode, is a reliable technique to perform rapid biodosimetry analysis in large-scale radiation emergencies.

Translocation analysis using fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) is the method of choice for dose assessment in case of chronic or past exposures to ionizing radiation. Although it is a widespread technique, unlike dicentrics, the number of FISH-based inter-laboratory comparisons is small. For this reason, although the current Running the European Network of Biological and Physical retrospective Dosimetry (RENEB) inter-laboratory comparison 2021 was designed as a fast response to a real emergency scenario, it was considered a good opportunity to perform an inter-laboratory comparison using the FISH technique to gain further experience. The Bundeswehr Institute of Radiobiology provided peripheral blood samples from one healthy human volunteer. Three test samples were irradiated with blinded doses of 0, 1.2, and 3.5 Gy, respectively. Samples were then sent to the seven participating laboratories. The FISH technique was applied according to the standard procedure of each laboratory. Both, the frequency of translocations and the estimated dose for each sample were sent to the coordinator using a special scoring sheet for FISH. All participants sent their results in due time. However, although it was initially requested to send the results based on the full analysis, evaluating 500 equivalent cells, most laboratories only sent the results based on triage, with a smaller number of analyzed cells. In the triage analysis, there was great heterogeneity in the number of equivalent cells scored. On the contrary, for the full analysis, this number was more homogeneous. For all three samples, one laboratory showed outlier yields compared to the other laboratories. Excluding these results, in the triage analysis, the frequency of translocations in sample no. 1 ranged from 0 to 0.013 translocations per cell, and for samples no. 2 and no. 3 the genomic mean frequency were 0.27 ± 0.03 and 1.47 ± 0.14, with a coefficient of variation of 0.29 and 0.23 respectively. Considering only results obtained in the triage analysis for sample no. 1, all laboratories, except one, classified this sample as the non-irradiated one. For sample no. 2, excluding the outlier value, the mean reported dose was 1.74 ± 0.16 Gy indicating a mean deviation of about 0.5 Gy to the delivered dose of 1.2 Gy. For sample no. 3 the mean dose estimated was 4.21 ± 0.21 Gy indicating a mean deviation of about 0.7 Gy to the delivered dose of 3.5 Gy. In the frame of RENEB, this is the second FISH-based inter-laboratory comparison. The whole exercise was planned as a response to an emergency, therefore, a triage analysis was requested for all the biomarkers except for FISH. Although a full analysis was initially requested for FISH, most of the laboratories reported only a triage-based result. The main reason is that it was not clearly stated what was required before starting the exercise. Results show that most of the laboratories successfully discriminated unexposed and irradiated samples from each other without any overlap. A good agreement in the observed frequencies of translocations was observed but there was a tendency to overestimate the delivered doses. Efforts to improve the harmonization of this technique and subsequent exercises to elucidate the reason for this trend should be promoted.

The Running the European Network of biological and retrospective dosimetry (RENEB) network of laboratories has a range of biological and physical dosimetry assays that can be deployed in the event of a radiation incident to provide exposure assessment. To maintain operational capability and provide training, RENEB runs regular inter-laboratory comparison (ILC) exercises. The RENEB ILC2021 was carried out with all the biological and physical dosimetry assays employed in the network. The focus of this paper is to evaluate the results from 6 laboratories that took part using the gamma-H2AX radiation-induced foci assay. For two laboratories this was their first RENEB ILC. Blood samples were homogenously exposed to 240 kVp X rays (1 Gy/min) to provide calibration data, (0–4 Gy), and a few weeks later three blind coded test samples, (0, 1.2 and 3.5 Gy) were prepared. All samples were allowed a 2 h repair time at 37°C before being transported, on ice packs, to the participating laboratories. On arrival, the samples were processed, scored either manually or automatically for gamma-H2AX foci and dose estimates for the 3 blind coded samples sent to the organizing laboratory. The temperature of samples during transit and the time taken to report the dose estimates were recorded. Subsequent examination of the data from each laboratory used the doses estimates to assign triage categories to the samples. After receipt of the samples, the quickest report of dose estimates was 4.6 h. Analysis of variance revealed that the laboratory carrying out the assay had a significant effect on the foci yield (P < 0.001) for the calibration data, but not on the dose estimates of the blind coded samples (P = 0.101). All laboratories correctly identified the unirradiated and irradiated samples, although the dose estimates for the latter tended to under-estimate the dose. Two participants seriously under-estimated the dose for the highly exposed sample, which resulted in the sample being placed in the lowest triage category not the highest. However, this under-estimation resulted from the samples not remaining cold during shipment, due to a delay in transit and was not related to the experience of the participating laboratory. Overall, the RENEB network laboratories have demonstrated it is possible to quickly identify a recent whole-body acute exposure using the gamma-H2AX assay within the conditions of the ILC. In addition, an ILC provides a useful training and harmonization exercise for laboratories.

Early and high-throughput individual dose estimates are essential following large-scale radiation exposure events. In the context of the Running the European Network for Biodosimetry and Physical Dosimetry (RENEB) 2021 exercise, gene expression assays were conducted and their corresponding performance for dose-assessment is presented in this publication. Three blinded, coded whole blood samples from healthy donors were exposed to 0, 1.2 and 3.5 Gy X-ray doses (240 kVp, 1 Gy/min) using the X-ray source Yxlon. These exposures correspond to clinically relevant groups of unexposed, low dose (no severe acute health effects expected) and high dose exposed individuals (requiring early intensive medical health care). Samples were sent to eight teams for dose estimation and identification of clinically relevant groups. For quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (qRT-PCR) and microarray analyses, samples were lysed, stored at 20°C and shipped on wet ice. RNA isolations and assays were run in each laboratory according to locally established protocols. The time-to-result for both rough early and more precise later reports has been documented where possible. Accuracy of dose estimates was calculated as the difference between estimated and reference doses for all doses (summed absolute difference, SAD) and by determining the number of correctly reported dose estimates that were defined as ±0.5 Gy for reference doses <2.5 Gy and ±1.0 Gy for reference doses >3 Gy, as recommended for triage dosimetry. We also examined the allocation of dose estimates to clinically/diagnostically relevant exposure groups. Altogether, 105 dose estimates were reported by the eight teams, and the earliest report times on dose categories and estimates were 5 h and 9 h, respectively. The coefficient of variation for 85% of all 436 qRT-PCR measurements did not exceed 10%. One team reported dose estimates that systematically deviated several-fold from reported dose estimates, and these outliers were excluded from further analysis. Teams employing a combination of several genes generated about two-times lower median SADs (0.8 Gy) compared to dose estimates based on single genes only (1.7 Gy). When considering the uncertainty intervals for triage dosimetry, dose estimates of all teams together were correctly reported in 100% of the 0 Gy, 50% of the 1.2 Gy and 50% of the 3.5 Gy exposed samples. The order of dose estimates (from lowest to highest) corresponding to three dose categories (unexposed, low dose and highest exposure) were correctly reported by all teams and all chosen genes or gene combinations. Furthermore, if teams reported no exposure or an exposure >3.5 Gy, it was always correctly allocated to the unexposed and the highly exposed group, while low exposed (1.2 Gy) samples sometimes could not be discriminated from highly (3.5 Gy) exposed samples. All teams used FDXR and 78.1% of correct dose estimates used FDXR as one of the predictors. Still, the accuracy of reported dose estimates based on FDXR differed considerably among teams with one team's SAD (0.5 Gy) being comparable to the dose accuracy employing a combination of genes. Using the workflow of this reference team, we performed additional experiments after the exercise on residual RNA and cDNA sent by six teams to the reference team. All samples were processed similarly with the intention to improve the accuracy of dose estimates when employing the same workflow. Re-evaluated dose estimates improved for half of the samples and worsened for the others. In conclusion, this inter-laboratory comparison exercise enabled (1) identification of technical problems and corrections in preparations for future events, (2) confirmed the early and high-throughput capabilities of gene expression, (3) emphasized different biodosimetry approaches using either only FDXR or a gene combination, (4) indicated some improvements in dose estimation with FDXR when employing a similar methodology, which requires further research for the final conclusion and (5) underlined the applicability of gene expression for identification of unexposed and highly exposed samples, supporting medical management in radiological or nuclear scenarios.

Inter-laboratory exercises are important tools within the European network for biological dosimetry and physical retrospective dosimetry (RENEB) to validate and improve the performance of member laboratories and to ensure an operational network with high quality standards for dose estimations in case of a large-scale radiological or nuclear event. In addition to the RENEB inter-laboratory comparison 2021, several inter-laboratory comparisons have been performed in the frame of RENEB for a number of assays in recent years. This publication gives an overview of RENEB inter-laboratory comparisons for biological dosimetry assays in the past and a final summary of the challenges and lessons learnt from the RENEB inter-laboratory comparison 2021. In addition, the dose estimates of all RENEB inter-laboratory comparisons since 2013 that have been conducted for the dicentric chromosome assay, the most established and applied assay, are compared and discussed.