<?xml version="1.0"?>
<metadata xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"><dc:title>PET/CT and MR improve interobserver agreement in primary tumor determination for radiotherapy in esophageal squamous cell cancer</dc:title><dc:creator>Šečerov Ermenc,	Ajra	(Avtor)
	</dc:creator><dc:creator>Peterlin,	Primož	(Avtor)
	</dc:creator><dc:creator>Velenik,	Vaneja	(Avtor)
	</dc:creator><dc:creator>Jeromen,	Ana	(Avtor)
	</dc:creator><dc:creator>But-Hadžić,	Jasna	(Avtor)
	</dc:creator><dc:creator>Anderluh,	Franc	(Avtor)
	</dc:creator><dc:creator>Šegedin,	Barbara	(Avtor)
	</dc:creator><dc:subject>magnetic resonance</dc:subject><dc:subject>positron emission tomography</dc:subject><dc:subject>squamous cell carcinoma</dc:subject><dc:subject>primary tumor</dc:subject><dc:description>The aim of the study was to evaluate interobserver variability in the determination of the primary tumor for radiotherapy treatment planning in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC). Methods: Sixteen patients with locally advanced ESCC were included in the analysis. In all patients positron emission tomography with computed tomography (PETC/CT) and magnetic resonance (MR) scans for radiotherapy planning were performed. Five experienced radiation oncologists delineated the primary tumor based on CT alone, MR alone, PET/CT, CT with fused MR and PET/CT with fused MR. Mean tumor volumes were calculated for each patient and imaging modality. The generalized conformity index (CIgen) was calculated to assess agreement in tumor determination. Results: The mean tumor volumes and CIgen for CT alone, MR alone, PET/CT, CT with fused MR and PET/CT with fused MR were 33.1 cm3, 30.2 cm3, 38.1 cm3, 31.9 cm3, 36.2 cm3 and 0.59, 0.64, 0.66, 0.63, 0.71, respectively. CIgen was significantly higher using PET/CT with fused MR compared to CT (p &lt; 0.001) and PET/CT (p = 0.002) and using PET/CT compared to CT (alone) (p = 0.003). Conclusions: Our study showed higher agreement in primary tumor determination in ESCC using PET/CT compared to CT alone. Higher agreement was also found using PET/CT with fused MR compared to CT alone and PET/CT.</dc:description><dc:publisher>MDPI, Basel, Switzerland</dc:publisher><dc:date>2025</dc:date><dc:date>2025-11-06 03:38:30</dc:date><dc:type>Neznano</dc:type><dc:identifier>24005</dc:identifier><dc:identifier>UDK: 616-006</dc:identifier><dc:identifier>ISSN pri članku: 2075-4418</dc:identifier><dc:identifier>DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics15060690</dc:identifier><dc:identifier>COBISS_ID: 230835203</dc:identifier><dc:source>Basel, Switzerland</dc:source><dc:language>sl</dc:language></metadata>
