% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded. This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.
@ARTICLE{Freitas:299796,
author = {H. Freitas$^*$ and E. Nobakht$^*$ and F. Grüner and J.
Seco$^*$},
title = {{A} comparative analysis of {GEANT}4, {MCNP}6 and {FLUKA}
on proton-induced gamma-ray simulation.},
journal = {Medical physics},
volume = {52},
number = {6},
issn = {0094-2405},
address = {Hoboken, NJ},
publisher = {Wiley},
reportid = {DKFZ-2025-00551},
pages = {4862-4870},
year = {2025},
note = {#EA:E041#LA:E041# / 2025 Jun;52(6):4862-4870},
abstract = {Precise range verification is essential in proton therapy
to minimize treatment margins due to the steep dose fall-off
of proton beams. The emission of secondary radiation from
nuclear reactions between incident particles and tissues
stands out as a promising method for range verification. Two
prominent techniques are PET and Prompt Gamma-Ray
Spectroscopy (PGS). PGS holds significant promise due to its
real-time capability for range monitoring. This method
allows for prompt detection and quantification of any
disparities between planned and actual dose delivery,
facilitating adaptive treatment strategies. Given the key
role of Monte Carlo (MC) codes in understanding the PGS
mechanisms during proton therapy, it is essential to address
the current lack of validated codes covering the full energy
spectrum of emitted gamma-rays.Addressing the need for
precise range monitoring in proton therapy, our study aims
to develop and validate MC codes for PGS. We focus on
analyse MCNP6, GEANT4, and FLUKA codes, conducting rigorous
validation process by comparing our simulation results with
experimental data. Additionally, we propose optimal models
and parameters to refine the accuracy of simulations for
prompt gamma-ray (PG) spectra.Various proton data libraries,
models and cross-sections values were used in this study to
simulate proton-induced gamma-rays in MCNP6, GEANT4 and
FLUKA. To validate these simulations, PGS spectra of 15.0 cm
3 $15.0 \,{\rm cm}^{3}$ PMMA block irradiation were obtained
with CeBr 3 ${\rm CeBr}_3$ inorganic scintillator detector
for different proton energies, raging from approximately 90
$\hskip.001pt 90$ to 130 MeV $130 \,{\rm MeV}$ .GEANT4 was
the only MC code capable of successfully reproducing 10 B
$^{10}{\rm B}$ PG lines, while the FLUKA aligned better with
experimental data for mid-range energies. At higher
energies, FLUKA overestimated the 12 C $^{12}{\rm C}$ PG
line ( 2 + → 0 + $2^{+} \rightarrow 0^{+}$ ) at 4.44 MeV
$4.44 \,{\rm MeV}$ , whereas GEANT4 underestimated it; MCNP6
provided the closest match. Additionally, GEANT4, FLUKA, and
MCNP6 failed to accurately reproduce the 16 O $^{16}{\rm O}$
PG line ( 3 - → 0 + $3^{-} \rightarrow 0^{+}$ ) at 6.13
MeV $6.13 \,{\rm MeV}$ , consistent with previous findings.
To address this limitation, a new model based on
experimental and theoretical data from literature was
developed.This study emphasizes the need for updates to the
data tables in MC simulations and underscores the importance
of further theoretical and experimental research on PG
de-excitation lines relevant to proton therapy. The newly
developed model, designed to address discrepancies in the
simulation of 12 C $^{12}{\rm C}$ and 16 O $^{16}{\rm O}$
de-excitation lines across different toolkits, successfully
improved the accuracy of the oxygen de-excitation line,
which was previously not well-reproduced.},
keywords = {FLUKA (Other) / GEANT4 (Other) / MCNP6 (Other) / Monte
Carlo simulations (Other) / prompt gamma‐ray spectroscopy
(Other)},
cin = {E041},
ddc = {610},
cid = {I:(DE-He78)E041-20160331},
pnm = {315 - Bildgebung und Radioonkologie (POF4-315)},
pid = {G:(DE-HGF)POF4-315},
typ = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
pubmed = {pmid:40066823},
doi = {10.1002/mp.17754},
url = {https://inrepo02.dkfz.de/record/299796},
}