Experimental depth dose curves of a 67.5 MeV proton beam for benchmarking and validation of Monte Carlo simulation.

PURPOSE: To measure depth dose curves for a 67.5 ± 0.1 MeV proton beam for benchmarking and validation of Monte Carlo simulation.
METHODS: Depth dose curves were measured in 2 beam lines. Protons in the raw beam line traversed a Ta scattering foil, 0.1016 or 0.381 mm thick, a secondary emission monitor comprised of thin Al foils, and a thin Kapton exit window. The beam energy and peak width and the composition and density of material traversed by the beam were known with sufficient accuracy to permit benchmark quality measurements. Diodes for charged particle dosimetry from two different manufacturers were used to scan the depth dose curves with 0.003 mm depth reproducibility in a water tank placed 300 mm from the exit window. Depth in water was determined with an uncertainty of 0.15 mm, including the uncertainty in the water equivalent depth of the sensitive volume of the detector. Parallel-plate chambers were used to verify the accuracy of the shape of the Bragg peak and the peak-to-plateau ratio measured with the diodes. The uncertainty in the measured peak-to-plateau ratio was 4%. Depth dose curves were also measured with a diode for a Bragg curve and treatment beam spread out Bragg peak (SOBP) on the beam line used for eye treatment. The measurements were compared to Monte Carlo simulation done with geant4 using topas.
RESULTS: The 80% dose at the distal side of the Bragg peak for the thinner foil was at 37.47 ± 0.11 mm (average of measurement with diodes from two different manufacturers), compared to the simulated value of 37.20 mm. The 80% dose for the thicker foil was at 35.08 ± 0.15 mm, compared to the simulated value of 34.90 mm. The measured peak-to-plateau ratio was within one standard deviation experimental uncertainty of the simulated result for the thinnest foil and two standard deviations for the thickest foil. It was necessary to include the collimation in the simulation, which had a more pronounced effect on the peak-to-plateau ratio for the thicker foil. The treatment beam, being unfocussed, had a broader Bragg peak than the raw beam. A 1.3 ± 0.1 MeV FWHM peak width in the energy distribution was used in the simulation to match the Bragg peak width. An additional 1.3-2.24 mm of water in the water column was required over the nominal values to match the measured depth penetration.
CONCLUSIONS: The proton Bragg curve measured for the 0.1016 mm thick Ta foil provided the most accurate benchmark, having a low contribution of proton scatter from upstream of the water tank. The accuracy was 0.15% in measured beam energy and 0.3% in measured depth penetration at the Bragg peak. The depth of the distal edge of the Bragg peak in the simulation fell short of measurement, suggesting that the mean ionization potential of water is 2-5 eV higher than the 78 eV used in the stopping power calculation for the simulation. The eye treatment beam line depth dose curves provide validation of Monte Carlo simulation of a Bragg curve and SOBP with 4%/2 mm accuracy.