Paper detail

Benchmarking GEANT4 nuclear models for hadron therapy with 95 MeV/nucleon carbon ions

In carbon-therapy, the interaction of the incoming beam with human tissues may lead to the production of a large amount of nuclear fragments and secondary light particles. An accurate estimation of the biological dose deposited into the tumor and the surrounding healthy tissues thus requires sophisticated simulation tools based on nuclear reaction models. The validity of such models requires intensive comparisons with as many sets of experimental data as possible. Up to now, a rather limited set of double di erential carbon fragmentation cross sections have been measured in the energy range used in hadrontherapy (up to 400 MeV/A). However, new data have been recently obtained at intermediate energy (95 MeV/A). The aim of this work is to compare the reaction models embedded in the GEANT4 Monte Carlo toolkit with these new data. The strengths and weaknesses of each tested model, i.e. G4BinaryLightIonReaction, G4QMDReaction and INCL++, coupled to two di fferent de-excitation models, i.e. the generalized evaporation model and the Fermi break-up are discussed.

preprint2014arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.