Paper detail

Validation of nuclear models in Geant4 using the dose distribution of a 177 MeV proton pencil beam

A proton pencil beam is associated with a surrounding low-dose envelope, originating from nuclear interactions. It is important for treatment planning systems to accurately model this envelope when performing dose calculations for pencil beam scanning treatments, and Monte Carlo (MC) codes are commonly used for this purpose. This work aims to validate the nuclear models employed by the Geant4 MC code, by comparing the simulated absolute dose distribution to a recent experiment of a 177 MeV proton pencil beam stopping in water. Striking agreement is observed over five orders of magnitude, with both the shape and normalisation well modelled. The normalisations of two depth dose curves are lower than experiment, though this could be explained by an experimental positioning error. The Geant4 neutron production model is also verified in the distal region. The entrance dose is poorly modelled, suggesting an unaccounted upstream source of low-energy protons. Recommendations are given for a follow-up experiment which could resolve these issues.

preprint2015arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access4 authors1 topic

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.