Implementation of superficial radiation therapy (SRT) using SRT‐100 Vision™ for non‐melanoma skin cancer in a Radiation Oncology clinic

PURPOSE: This article describes our experience in implementation of superficial radiation therapy (SRT) using SRT‐100 Vision™ for non‐melanoma skin cancer. METHODS: Following the American Association of Physicists in Medicine Task Group‐61 protocol, absolute output (absorbed dose to water at surface (cGy/min)) was measured for three energies (50, 70, and 100 kV) and for six applicators (1.5–5.0 cm in diameter). Percent depth dose (PDD) and profiles were also measured. Timer testing and ultrasound testing were performed. A treatment time calculation worksheet was created. Quality assurance (QA) of SRT‐100 Vision was implemented. After treatment workflow for our clinic was developed, end‐to‐end (E2E) testing was performed using a Rando phantom. Considerations for treatment using SRT‐100 Vision were made. RESULTS: Absolute output (cGy/min) decreases as energy increases and applicator size decreases. Due to scatter from the applicator, PDD at depths ≤5 mm does not follow conventional trends but PDD at depths ≥15 mm increases with increasing applicator size. Profiles for the 5 cm applicator do not have strong dependence on depth except profiles at 5 mm for 50 kV. Timer/end errors are negligible for all three energies. Ultrasound images confirm allowed field of view and depth as well as no image artifacts and spatial integrity. Daily, monthly and annual QA of SRT‐100 Vision implemented in our clinic is listed in a table format. E2E testing results (<1%) demonstrate the functionality and performance of our treatment workflow. Our considerations for SRT treatment include patient, applicator size and energy selections, patient setup, and shields. CONCLUSIONS: This article is expected to serve as guidance for Radiation Oncology and/or Dermatology clinics aspiring to initiate an SRT program in their clinics.