English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Geant4 is an open source simulation toolkit based on C++, which its advantages progressively lead to applications in research domains especially modeling the biological effects of ionizing radiation at the sub-cellular scale. However, it was shown that Geant4 does not give a reasonable result in the prediction of antiproton dose especially in Bragg peak. One of the reasons could be lack of reliable physic model to predict the final states of annihilation products like pions. Considering the fact that most of the antiproton deposited dose is resulted from high-LET nuclear fragments following pion interaction in surrounding nucleons, we reproduced depth dose curves of most probable energy range of pions and neutron particle using Geant4. We consider this work one of the steps to understand the origin of the error and finally verification of Geant4 for antiproton tracking. Geant4 toolkit version 9.4.6.p01 and Fluka version 2006.3 were used to reproduce the depth dose curves of 220 MeV pions (both negative and positive) and 70 MeV neutrons. The geometry applied in the simulations consist a 20 Χ 20 Χ 20 cm 3 water tank, similar to that used in CERN for antiproton relative dose measurements. Different physic lists including Quark-Gluon String Precompound (QGSP)_Binary Cascade (BIC)_HP, the recommended setting for hadron therapy, were used. In the case of pions, Geant4 resulted in at least 5% dose discrepancy between different physic lists at depth close to the entrance point. Even up to 15% discrepancy was found in some cases like QBBC compared to QGSP_BIC_HP. A significant difference was observed in dose profiles of different Geant4 physic list at small depths for a beam of pions. In the case of neutrons, large dose discrepancy was observed when LHEP or LHEP_EMV lists were applied. The magnitude of this dose discrepancy could be even 50% greater than the dose calculated by LHEP (or LHEP_EMV) at larger depths. We found that effect different Geant4 physic list in reproducing depth dose profile of the beam of pions was not negligible. Because the discrepancies were pronounced in smaller depth and also regarding the contribution of pions in deposited dose of a beam of antiproton, further investigation on choosing most suitable and accurate physic list for this purpose should be done. Furthermore, this study showed careful attention must be paid to choose the appropriate Geant4 physic list for neutron tracking depending to the applications criteria. We failed to find any agreement between results from Geant4 and Fluka to reproduce depth dose profile of pion with the energy range used in this study.

Evaluation on Geant4 hadronic models for pion minus, pion plus and neutron particles as major antiproton annihilation products