Standardization of volumetric modulated arc therapy-based frameless stereotactic technique using a multidimensional ensemble-aided knowledge-based planning.

PURPOSE: Aim of this article is to describe a new knowledge-based planning (KBP) methodology using volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) for stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) and radiotherapy (SRT) assisted by an ensemble mapping technique for use in a Monte Carlo planning system. METHODS: Libraries of 121 stereotactic patients were assembled on the basis of eight different parameters (a) tumor laterality, (b) whether planning target volume (PTV) dose coverage challenged by the presence of the organ at risk (OAR), (c) prescription dose and number of fractions, (d) number of PTVs, (e) tumor volume, (f) shortest distance between OAR and PTV (edge to edge distance, or EED), (g) center to center distance between OARs and PTV (CCD), and (h) lateral dimension of external contour (brain). For new patients, the most appropriate library plan was selected on the basis of the above categorization. A KBP plan was created based on this selected library plan with all parameters unchanged keeping the isocenter at the center of PTV. Using the same beam configuration, another independent treatment plan (IP) was generated by an experienced dosimetrist for comparison. IP and KBP were compared for 76 new patients. RESULTS: Of 197 patients (121 library and 76 new), 103 (52.3%) were placed in the OAR-challenged category and 94 were placed in the OAR unchallenged category. The ensemble mapping technique shows that, for an OAR-challenged patient, picking up the library plan is appropriate. IP was marginally better than KBP in PTV coverage and dose conformity (PCI). Library plans, IP, and KBP offer a mean PCI of 0.77 ± 0.2, 0.79 ± 0.2, and 0.78 ± 0.4, mean PTV-V99% of 97.3 ± 22.0%, 98.9 ± 14.1%, and 98.2 ± 13.2%, and mean MU of 2403.8 ± 2403.8, 2344.0 ± 2423.6, and 2473.6 ± 2296.8, respectively. Statistically significant differences were observed in the planning time between the IP and KBP plans for both OAR-challenged (P < 0.001) and -unchallenged (P < 0.002) categories. Comparison of optimization and dose calculation time showed a much lower average planning time of 111.0 ± 84.1 min for KBP as against 248.2 ± 96.6 min for IP. CONCLUSION: Validation results for KBP plans indicate the multidimensional ensemble mapping mechanism can accurately pick up the most appropriate library plan. KBP plans, although slightly inferior in their dosimetric quality, fulfill all the required clinical conditions and dose constraints. KBP plans save considerable planning time and are nearly independent of the skill and knowledge of the treatment planner. KBP works well with a Monte Carlo planning system like Monaco.