Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 13, 2026

Reliability of Artificial Intelligence-Based Cone Beam Computed Tomography Integration with Digital Dental Images
Published on: February 23, 2024
Breast patient setup error assessment: comparison of electronic portal image devices and cone-beam computed
Rajko Topolnjak1, Jan-Jakob Sonke, Jasper Nijkamp
1Department of Radiation Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute-Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Purpose:
To quantify the differences in setup errors measured with the cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) and electronic portal image devices (EPID) in breast cancer patients.
Methods And Materials:
Repeat CBCT scan were acquired for routine offline setup verification in 20 breast cancer patients. During the CBCT imaging fractions, EPID images of the treatment beams were recorded. Registrations of the bony anatomy for CBCT to planning CT and EPID to digitally reconstructed-radiographs (DRRs) were compared. In addition, similar measurements of an anthropomorphic thorax phantom were acquired. Bland-Altman and linear regression analysis were performed for clinical and phantom registrations. Systematic and random setup errors were quantified for CBCT and EPID-driven correction protocols in the EPID coordinate system (U, V), with V parallel to the cranial-caudal axis and U perpendicular to V and the central beam axis.
Results:
Bland-Altman analysis of clinical EPID and CBCT registrations yielded 4 to 6-mm limits of agreement, indicating that both methods were not compatible. The EPID-based setup errors were smaller than the CBCT-based setup errors. Phantom measurements showed that CBCT accurately measures setup error whereas EPID underestimates setup errors in the cranial-caudal direction. In the clinical measurements, the residual bony anatomy setup errors after offline CBCT-based corrections were Σ(U) = 1.4 mm, Σ(V) = 1.7 mm, and σ(U) = 2.6 mm, σ(V) = 3.1 mm. Residual setup errors of EPID driven corrections corrected for underestimation were estimated at Σ(U) = 2.2mm, Σ(V) = 3.3 mm, and σ(U) = 2.9 mm, σ(V) = 2.9 mm.
Conclusion:
EPID registration underestimated the actual bony anatomy setup error in breast cancer patients by 20% to 50%. Using CBCT decreased setup uncertainties significantly.
Related Concept Videos
Imaging Studies III: Computed Tomography
Computed Tomography
The technique was invented in the 1970s and is based on the principle that as X-rays pass through the body, they are absorbed or reflected at different levels. In the technique, a patient lies on a motorized platform while a computerized axial tomography (CAT) scanner rotates...

