To perform setup procedures including both positional and dosimetric information, we developed a CT–CT rigid image registration algorithm utilizing water equivalent pathlength (WEPL)-based image registration and compared the resulting dose distribution with those of two other algorithms, intensity-based image registration and target-based image registration, in prostate cancer radiotherapy using the carbon-ion pencil beam scanning technique. We used the data of the carbon ion therapy planning CT and the four-weekly treatment CTs of 19 prostate cancer cases. Three CT–CT registration algorithms were used to register the treatment CTs to the planning CT. Intensity-based image registration uses CT voxel intensity information. Target-based image registration uses target position on the treatment CTs to register it to that on the planning CT. WEPL-based image registration registers the treatment CTs to the planning CT using WEPL values. Initial dose distributions were calculated using the planning CT with the lateral beam angles. The treatment plan parameters were optimized to administer the prescribed dose to the PTV on the planning CT. Weekly dose distributions using the three different algorithms were calculated by applying the treatment plan parameters to the weekly CT data. Dosimetry, including the dose received by 95% of the clinical target volume (CTV-D95), rectal volumes receiving > 20 Gy (RBE) (V20), > 30 Gy (RBE) (V30), and > 40 Gy (RBE) (V40), were calculated. Statistical significance was assessed using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Interfractional CTV displacement over all patients was 6.0 ± 2.7 mm (19.3 mm maximum standard amount). WEPL differences between the planning CT and the treatment CT were 1.2 ± 0.6 mm-H2O (< 3.9 mm-H2O), 1.7 ± 0.9 mm-H2O (< 5.7 mm-H2O) and 1.5 ± 0.7 mm-H2O (< 3.6 mm-H2O maxima) with the intensity-based image registration, target-based image registration, and WEPL-based image registration, respectively. For CTV coverage, the D95 values on the planning CT were > 95% of the prescribed dose in all cases. The mean CTV-D95 values were 95.8 ± 11.5% and 98.8 ± 1.7% with the intensity-based image registration and target-based image registration, respectively. The WEPL-based image registration was CTV-D95 to 99.0 ± 0.4% and rectal Dmax to 51.9 ± 1.9 Gy (RBE) compared to 49.4 ± 9.1 Gy (RBE) with intensity-based image registration and 52.2 ± 1.8 Gy (RBE) with target-based image registration. The WEPL-based image registration algorithm improved the target coverage from the other algorithms and reduced rectal dose from the target-based image registration, even though the magnitude of the interfractional variation was increased.