Table 3.

A comparison of calculated ROFs and measurements for irregular fields using different energies and applicators. All ROFs were measured at $\text{SSD}=100\text{cm}$. An irregular cutout the same as (Fig. 3a) was used for the $6\times 6{\text{cm}}^2$ applicator, and cutouts the same as (Fig. 3b) were used for other applicators.

Energy (MeV)	Applicator (cmxcm)	Measured ROF	Predicted ROF (Poly.)	Percentage difference (%)	Predicted ROF (Exp.)	Percentage difference (%)
4	$10\times 10$	0.934	0.930	$-0.5$	0.932	$-0.3$
4	$15\times 15$	1.003	0.990	$-1.3$	0.991	$-1.3$
6	$15\times 15$	0.997	0.987	$-1.0$	0.986	$-1.1$
6	$20\times 20$	1.014	1.003	$-1.0$	1.004	$-0.9$
9	$10\times 10$	0.896	0.897	0.1	0.897	0.1
9	$15\times 15$	0.974	0.965	0.1	0.966	$-0.8$
9	$20\times 20$	0.980	0.970	$-1.0$	0.972	$-0.8$
12	$6\times 6$	0.787	0.789	0.2	0.786	$-0.1$
12	$15\times 15$	0.964	0.955	$-0.9$	0.958	$-0.6$
12	$20\times 20$	0.972	0.961	$-1.1$	0.962	$-0.9$
16	$6\times 6$	0.894	0.899	0.6	0.901	0.8
16	$10\times 10$	0.933	0.926	$-0.7$	0.926	$-0.7$