Comparison of Setup Errors in Prostate Cancer Radiotherapy: MV EPID vs. kV CBCT

Document Type : Original Paper

Authors

1 Medical Physics, Medicine, Sefako Makgatho Health Sciences University, Pretoria, South Africa. Department of Medical Physics, Charlotte Maxeke Johannesburg Academic Hospital/WITS, South Africa.

2 Department of Medical Physics Sefako Makgatho Health Sciences University South Africa

10.22038/ijmp.2025.81930.2438

Abstract

Introduction: Accurate patient setup is essential for precise dose delivery in prostate radiotherapy. This study quantified random and systematic setup errors using MV EPID and kV CBCT verification techniques to identify the modality associated with minimal setup errors and to determine appropriate planning target volume (PTV) margins.
Material and Methods: Setup errors along the X (left–right, LR), Y (superior–inferior, SI), and Z (anterior–posterior, AP) axes were retrospectively extracted from archived electronic records for 100 prostate cancer patients treated between 2015 and 2023. Fifty (50) patients had positions verified using MV EPID and 50 using kV CBCT techniques. Setup errors were compared using an independent samples t-test with a significance threshold of p < 0.05. PTV margins were calculated using Van Herk's formula.
Results: For kV CBCT, random errors were 0.8 (LR), 3.0 (SI), and 1.5 mm (AP), and systematic errors were 0.1, 0.4, and 0.2 mm, respectively. For MV EPID, corresponding random errors were 0.5 (LR), 14.1 (SI), and 8.6 mm (AP), and systematic errors were 0.1, 2.0, and 1.2 mm. No statistically significant difference was found along the LR axis (p = 0.0630), but significant differences were observed along the SI and AP axes (p = 0.0022 and p = 0.0001). Calculated PTV margins for kV CBCT were 0.9 (LR), 3.2 (SI), and 1.6 mm (AP), whereas for MV EPID, these were 0.5 (LR), 14.8 (SI), and 9.0 mm (AP). kV CBCT demonstrated superior setup accuracy with reduced margins.
Conclusion: kV CBCT demonstrated superior setup accuracy, enabling tighter PTV margins and reduced normal tissue exposure. Its use is recommended for hypofractionated prostate cancer radiotherapy.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

  1. Khoramian D, Sistani S, Farhood B. Evaluation of set-up errors and estimation of set-up margin in external beam radiation therapy of prostate cancer using an electronic portal imaging device (EPID). J Radiother Pract. 2022;1–
  2. Yagihashi T, Inoue K, Nagata H, Yamanaka M, Yamano A, Suzuki S, et al. Effectiveness of robust optimisation against geometric uncertainties in TomoHelical planning for prostate cancer. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2023;24:e13881.
  3. Amaoui B, Hadaoui A, Mouhssine D, Semghouli S. Evaluation of setup errors in conformal radiotherapy for pelvic tumours: case of the Regional Centre of Oncology, Agadir. Radiat Med Prot. 2020;1:99–
  4. Audrey DA, Kupelian PA, Cao M, Agazaryan N, Kishan AU. Image-guided radiotherapy for prostate cancer. Transl Androl Urol. 2018;7(3):308–
  5. Neil A, Parland MC. kV-cone beam CT as an IGRT tool in the treatment of early-stage prostate cancer: a literature review. J Radiol Prot Res. 2009;40:9–
  6. Martins L, Couto JG, Barbosa B. Use of planar kV vs CBCT in evaluation of setup errors in oesophagus carcinoma radiotherapy. Rep Pract Oncol Radiother. 2016;21:57–
  7. Kok D, Gill S, Bressel M, Duchesne G, Tai KH, Foroudi F. Late toxicity and biochemical control in 554 prostate cancer patients treated with and without dose-escalated image-guided radiotherapy. Radiother Oncol. 2013;107(2):140–
  8. Hoskin P. On target: ensuring geometric accuracy in radiotherapy. London: Royal College of Radiologists; 2008.
  9. SeyedHadi M, Farshid A, Mastaneh S, Elham H, Mina T, Aram R et al. Evaluation of patient setup accuracy and determination of optimal setup margin for external beam radiation therapy using electronic portal imaging device. Cancer Ther Oncol Int J. 2018;11(2):555808.
  10. Xing L, Thorndyke B, Schreibmann E, Yang Y, Li TF, Kim GY, et al. Overview of image-guided radiation therapy. Med Dosim. 2006;31:91–
  11. Morsy MA, Ahmed AR, Elshahat KM. Measure the errors of treatment set-ups of prostate cancer patients using electronic portal imaging devices (EPID). IOSR J Appl Phys. 2018;10(2):55–
  12. Kragelj B. Setup error and its effect on safety margin in conformal radiotherapy of the prostate. Radiol Oncol. 2005;39(3):211–
  13. Kanakavelu N, Samuel EJJ. Accuracy in automatic image registration between MV cone-beam computed tomography and planning kV computed tomography in image-guided radiotherapy. Rep Pract Oncol Radiother. 2016;21(5):487–
  14. Cheng HCY, Wu VWC, Liu ESF, Kwong DLW. Evaluation of radiation dose and image quality for the Varian cone-beam computed tomography system. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2011;80(1):291–
  15. Mahdavi SR, Gharehbagh J, Mofid B, Jafari AH, Nikoofar AR. Accuracy of dose delivery in prostate cancer patients using an electronic portal imaging device (EPID). Int J Radiat Res. 2017;15(1):1–
  16. Belay EY. Evaluating setup accuracy of a positioning device for supine pelvic radiotherapy. Johannesburg: University of the Witwatersrand; 2011.
  17. Rani S, Goutham KC. Comparison of three-dimensional and two-dimensional imaging in a busy radiotherapy department. Int J Med Health Res. 2017;3(11):84–
  18. Greer PB, Dahl K, Ebert MA, Wratten C, White M, Denham JW. Comparison of prostate set-up accuracy and margins with offline bony anatomy corrections and online implanted fiducial-based corrections. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol. 2008;52:511–
  19. McNair HA, Hansen VN, Parker CC, Evans PM, Norman A, Miles E, et al. A comparison of the use of bony anatomy and internal markers for offline verification and evaluation of verification protocols for prostate radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2008;71:41–
  20. Greener T. Practical determination of systematic and random set-up errors using portal imaging. In: Geometric Uncertainties in Radiotherapy. London: British Institute of Radiology; 2003; 36–
  21. Fransson P. Ultra-hypofractionated versus conventionally fractionated radiotherapy for prostate cancer (HYPO-RT-PC): patient-reported quality-of-life outcomes. Lancet Oncol. 2021;22:235–
  22. Van Herk M, Remeijer P, Rasch C, Lebesque JV. The probability of correct target dosage: dose-population histograms for deriving treatment margins in radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2000;47(4):1121–
  23. Hanley J, Lumley MA, Mageras GS, Sun J, Zelefsky MJ, Leibel SA, et al. Measurement of patient positioning errors in three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy of the prostate. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1997;37(2):435–
  24. Michalski JM, Wong JW, Gerber RL, Yan D, Cheng A, Graham MV, et al. The use of online image verification to estimate variation in radiation therapy dose delivery. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1993;27:707–
  25. Van Herk M. Errors and margins in radiotherapy. Semin Radiat Oncol. 2004;14(1):52–
  26. Stroom JC, Heijmen BJM. Geometrical uncertainties, radiotherapy planning margins and the ICRU-62 report. Radiother Oncol. 2002;64(1):75–
  27. Ye JC, Qureshi MM, Clancy P, Dise LN, Willins J, Hirsch AE. Daily patient setup in prostate IGRT with fiducial-based kV imaging and CBCT. Quant Imaging Med Surg. 2015;5(5):665–
  28. Moseley DJ, White EA, Wiltshire KL, Rosewall T, Sharpe MB, Siewerdsen JH, et al. Comparison of localisation performance with fiducial markers and CBCT for prostate IGRT. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2007;67:942–
  29. Landoni V, Saracino B, Marzi S, Gallucci M, Petrongari MG, Chianese E, et al. Effect of setup errors and organ motion on prostate IMRT. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2006;65:587–
  30. Mesías MC, Boda-Heggemann J, Thölking J, Lohr F, Wertz H. Quantification and assessment of interfraction setup errors based on CBCT and determination of safety margins for radiotherapy. PLoS One. 2016;11(3):e0150326.
  31. Ten Haken RK, Forman JD, Heimburger DK, Gerhardsson A, McShan DL, Perez-Tamayo C, et al. Treatment planning issues related to prostate movement. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1991;20:1317–
  32. Verellen D, De Ridder M, Tournel K, Duchateau M, Reynders T, Gevaert T, et al. Overview of volumetric imaging technologies for IGRT. Acta Oncol. 2008;47:1271–
  33. Jaffray DA, Siewerdsen JH, Wong JW, Martinez AA. Flat-panel cone-beam CT for image-guided radiation therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2002;53:1337–
  34. Palombarini M, Mengoli S, Fantazzini P, Cadioli C, Degli Esposti C, Frezza GP. Analysis of interfraction setup errors by daily CBCT in IMRT for prostate cancer. Radiat Oncol. 2012;7:56.
  35. Giordani AJ, Dias RS, Segreto HRC, Segreto RA. Accuracy of daily patient setup in 3D-CRT for prostate cancer. Radiol Bras. 2010;43(4):236–
  36. Huntzinger C, Munro P, Johnson S, Miettinen M, Zankowski C, Ahlstrom G, et al. Dynamic targeting image-guided radiotherapy. Med Dosim. 2006;31:113–
  37. Ding GX, Coffey CW. Radiation dose from kilovoltage cone-beam computed tomography in an image-guided radiotherapy procedure. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2009;73:610–
  38. Alaei P, Spezi E, Reynolds M. Dose calculation and plan optimisation including imaging dose from CBCT. Acta Oncol. 2014;53:839–
Iranian Journal of Medical Physics
Volume 23, Issue 1
January and February 2026
Pages 59-68

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 16 August 2024
  • Revise Date: 10 February 2026
  • Accept Date: 14 November 2025

Share

How to cite

Statistics