Primary barrier design for linac shielding depends very sensitively on tenth value layer (TVL) data. Inaccuracies can lead to large discrepancies between measured and calculated values of the barrier transmission. Values of the TVL for concrete quoted in several widely used standard references are substantially different than those calculated more recently. The older standard TVL data predict significantly lower radiation levels outside primary barriers than the more recently calculated values under some circumstances. The difference increases with increasing barrier thickness and energy, and it can be as large as a factor of 4 for 18 MV and concrete thickness of 200 cm. This may be due to significant differences in the beam spectra between the earlier and the more recent calculations. Measured instantaneous air kerma rates sometimes show large variations for the same energy and thickness. This may be due to confounding factors such as extra material on, or inside the barrier, variable field size at the barrier, density of concrete, and distal distance from the barrier surface. In some cases, the older TVL data significantly underestimate measured instantaneous air kerma rates, by up to a factor of 3, even when confounding factors are taken into account. This could lead to the necessity for expensive remediation. The more recent TVL values tend to overestimate the measured instantaneous dose rates. Reference TVL data should be computed in a manner that is mathematically consistent with their use in the calculation of air kerma rate outside barriers directly from the linac “dose” rate in MU/min.

There is widespread consensus in the literature that flattening filter free (FFF) beams have a lower primary barrier transmission than flattened beams. Measurements presented here, however, show that for energy compensated FFF beams, the barrier transmission can be as much as 70% higher than for flattened beams. The ratio of the FFF barrier transmission to the flattened beam barrier transmission increases with increasing barrier thickness.The use of published FFF TVL data for energy compensated FFF beams could lead to an order of magnitude underestimate of the air kerma rate. There are little data in the literature on the field size dependence of the barrier transmission for flattened beams. Barrier transmission depends on the field size at the barrier, not at isocenter Measurements are presented showing the relative dependence of barrier transmission on the field size, measured at the barrier, for 6 MV and 10 MV beams. An analytical fitting formula is provided for the field size dependence. For field sizes greater than about 150 cm in side length, the field size dependence is minimal. For field sizes less than about 100 cm, the transmission declines rapidly as the field size decreases.

Purpose: To compare commercially available detectors for small field dosimetry. Methods: PTW (Freiburg, Germany) diode E, PTW microDiamond, and SunNuclear (Melbourne, FL) Edge detector were used to measure output factors, PDD, and profiles on a Varian iX linear accelerator (Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, CA) using 6MV and 18MV photon beams. The water tank was set to 100cm SSD. Centering profiles at 5cm and 20cm depth confirmed an offset <0.1mm. High resolution PDD (0.1mm) aligned the collecting volume at water surface. For setup and linearity verification, PDD and profiles were matched to annual measurements, which were performed with an A1SL ion chamber.Scans were taken for 6X and 18X, for 10cmx10cm, 10cmx2cm, 10cmx1cm, and 10cmx0.5cm fields. Profiles were measured at Dmax (6X=1.5cm, 18X=3.5cm), 5cm, 10cm, and 20cm depths. All fields used 10cmx10cm jaws with the MLC defining the field in the X‐direction. PDDs used 2mm step size and 0.2s discrete collecting time. Profiles used 1mm step size and a 0.4s discrete collecting time. Results: The PTW diode E and Edge detector exhibit centering stability, but all detectors require vertical shifts from Vendor defined vertical alignment. Output factor measurements reveal good agreement between detectors. The Edge detector demonstrates the sharpest penumbra and the closest consistent match to ion chamber measurements in the out of field regions for 6MV (3.2%). Each detector provides comparable curve quality for PDDs, with a maximum difference across detectors giving a standard deviation of 0.6% at 30cm depth, 18X, and 10cmx0.5cm. Profiles match closely across all detectors, depths, energies, and field sizes. The microDiamond detector produces the largest penumbra width, largest deviation from ion chamber dose in the tail region for 6MV, and exhibits centering instability. Conclusion: Based on our findings, the Edge detector was chosen for stereotactic measurements. The PTW diode E is an acceptable alternative.