The fast neutron component in treatment irradiations with 12C beam

Monte Carlo study on secondary neutrons in passive carbon‐ion radiotherapy: Identification of the main source and reduction in the secondary neutron dose

“…In a previous paper, 5 it was confirmed that the secondary neutron dose in passive carbon-ion radiotherapy is lower than that in passive proton radiotherapy and is equal to or less than that in photon radiotherapy with beam energy of higher than 15 MV; however, it is higher than that in active particle radiotherapy by about an order of magnitude. [6][7][8][9] Active particle radiotherapy can theoretically improve the dose distribution as well as the secondary neutron dose by means of free beam control. However, passive radiotherapy, which is the dominant method in the market today, will not be soon displaced by active radiotherapy because the beam scanning technology has not yet been established for usability in general clinical practice, especially for moving targets.…”

Calculation of out‐of‐field dose distribution in carbon‐ion radiotherapy by Monte Carlo simulation

“…Meanwhile, the undesired exposure which patients receive during carbon-ion radiotherapy are being continuously investigated. [2][3][4][5][6][7] Based on our previous studies, the total secondary exposure doses in out-of-field volume per treatment were comparable to or less than those in threedimensional conformal radiation therapy (3D-CRT) and IMRT. In particular, as the position became closer to the field edge, the total dose equivalents in carbon-ion and proton radiotherapies were obviously less than those in 3D-CRT and IMRT.…”

Report of a National Cancer Institute special panel: Characterization of the physical parameters of particle beams for biological research

“…The experimental production of secondary particles has been compared with MC but we are far from a full validation of the physics in the region of interest for therapeutic ion beams . Mainly, the FLUKA and Geant4 MC codes have been compared with experimental data not only for dose but also for secondary particle yields and cross sections .…”

“…The experimental production of secondary particles has been compared with MC but we are far from a full validation of the physics in the region of interest for therapeutic ion beams. 47,66,[72][73][74] Mainly, the FLUKA and Geant4 MC codes have been compared with experimental data not only for dose but also for secondary particle yields and cross sections. 69,70,[75][76][77] Taleei et al compared FLUKA, Geant4, and MCNPX to simulate 3 He ion beams in water and found in general very good agreement among these codes in terms of dose and secondary particle energy fluence.…”