Paper detail

The influence of nuclear models and Monte Carlo radiation transport codes on stray neutron dose estimations in proton therapy

This study investigates the influence of several Monte Carlo radiation transport codes and nuclear models on the simulation of secondary neutron spectra and its impact on calculating and measuring neutron doses in proton therapy. Three different multi-purpose Monte Carlo radiation transport codes (FLUKA, MCNPX, Geant4) were used with different available nuclear models to calculate secondary neutron energy spectra at various points inside a water tank phantom with PMMA walls using a 10 cm x 10 cm rectangular, mono-energetic proton beam (110, 150, 180, and 210 MeV). Using Kerma approximation secondary neutron doses were calculated applying fluence-to-dose equivalent conversion coefficients in water. Moreover, the impact of varying spectra for electrochemically etched CR39 detector calibration was analyzed for different codes and models. In distal positions beyond the Bragg peak, results show largest variations between the codes, up to 53% for the high energy neutron fluence at 16 cm from the Bragg peak of the 110 MeV proton beam. In lateral positions, the variation between the codes is smaller and for the total neutron fluence within 20%. Variation in the nuclear models in MCNPX was only visible for the proton beam energies of 180 and 210 MeV and modeling the high energy neutron fluence which reached up to 23% for 210 MeV at 11 cm lateral from the beam axis. Impact on neutron dose equivalent was limited for the different models used (<8%) while it was pronounced for the different codes (45% at 16 cm from the Bragg peak of the 110 MeV proton beam). CR39 calibration factors in lateral positions were on average varying 10% between codes and 5 % between nuclear models.This study demonstrated a large impact on the neutron fluence spectra calculated by different codes while the impact of different models in MCNPX proved to be less prominent for the neutron modeling in proton therapy.

preprint2021arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access9 authors2 topics

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 map preview

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.