Radiol Oncol 2022; 56(2): 142-149. doi: 10.2478/raon-2022-0015 142 research article Image reconstruction using small-voxel size improves small lesion detection for positron emission tomography Sebastijan Rep1,2, Petra Tomse1,3, Luka Jensterle1, Leon Jarabek4, Katja Zaletel1,5, Luka Lezaic1,5 1 Department for Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Centre Ljubljana, Slovenia 2 Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia 3 Faculty of Mathematics and Physics, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia 4 Department of Radiology, General Hospital Novo Mesto, Slovenia 5 Faculty of Medicine, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia Radiol Oncol 2022; 56(2): 142-149. Received 1 February 2022 Accepted 16 February 2022 Correspondence to: Luka Ležaić, M.D., Ph.D., Department for Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Centre Ljubljana, Zaloška 7, 1525 Ljubljana, Slovenia. E-mail: luka.lezaic@kclj.si Disclosure: No potential conflicts of interest were disclosed. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). Background. PET/CT imaging is widely used in oncology and provides both metabolic and anatomic information. Because of the relatively poor spatial resolution of PET, the detection of small lesions is limited. The low spatial resolution introduces the partial-volume effect (PVE) which negatively affects images both qualitatively and quantitatively. The aim of the study was to investigate the effect of small-voxel (2 mm in-line pixel size) vs. standard-voxel (4 mm in-line pixel size) reconstruction on lesion detection and image quality in a range of activity ratios. Materials and methods. The National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA) body phantom and the Micro Hollow-Sphere phantom spheres were filled with a solution of [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose ([18F]FDG) in sphere-to-back- ground ratios of 2:1, 3:1, 4:1 and 8:1. In all images reconstructed with 2 mm and 4 mm in-line pixel size the visual lesion delineation, contrast recovery coefficient (CRC) and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) were evaluated. Results. For smaller (≤ 13 mm) phantom spheres, significantly higher CRC and CNR using small-voxel reconstructions were found, also improving visual lesion delineation. CRC did not differ significantly for larger (≥ 17 mm) spheres us- ing 2 mm and 4 mm in-line pixel size, but CNR was significantly lower; however, lower CNR did not affect visual lesion delineation. Conclusions. Small-voxel reconstruction consistently improves precise small lesion delineation, lesion contrast and image quality. Key words: PET/CT; voxel size; contrast recovery coefficient; contrast-to-noise ratio Introduction Positron emission tomography combined with computed tomography (PET/CT) is widely used for staging and tumour response assessment in oncology.1-3 PET/CT provides both metabolic and anatomic information and allows detection, locali- zation and characterization of the lesions.4-5 In the majority of PET/CT scanners image reconstruction is traditionally performed using the 4 mm in-line pixel size (4 x 4 x 4 mm voxel).6-8 This relatively large voxel size affects image quality by limiting the image spatial resolution, which limits the de- tection of small metabolically active lesions.9-11 The poor spatial resolution additionally introduces the partial-volume effect (PVE), negatively affecting images both visually and quantitatively, resulting in the decrease of signal in smaller lesions and im- Radiol Oncol 2022; 56(2): 142-149. Rep S et al. / Small-voxel image reconstruction for PET 143 age smoothing. The PVE can be reduced by using a smaller in-line pixel size and consequently voxel size during image reconstruction. Smaller voxel sizes have already been studied in the preclini- cal as well as clinical setting, demonstrating both qualitative and quantitative improvement in re- constructed images.12-14 However, the majority of previous preclinical studies evaluated the image quality of small-voxel reconstruction using phan- toms with high target/background ratio.13 The goal of our study was to explore the effect of small-voxel reconstruction on the image quality systematically in a set of low-to-high target-to-background ratios reflecting realistic clinical scenarios in focused im- aging for small lesions. Materials and methods Phantom preparation Acquisitions and reconstructions were performed with the National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA) International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) body phantom and the Micro Hollow-Sphere phantom. The NEMA body phan- tom consists of the background compartment with a volume of 9700 ml and six fillable spheres with diameters of 10, 13, 17, 22, 28 and 37 mm. The background compartment was in all instances filled with the specific activity of [18F] fluorodeoxy- glucose ([18F] FDG) solution of 5.3 kBq/mL ± 5%. Filling of the spheres was performed with 42 kBq/ mL (ratio 8:1), 21.2 kBq/mL (ratio 4:1), 16.1 kBq/mL (ratio 3:1) and 10.4 kBq/mL (ratio 2:1). The Micro Hollow-Sphere phantom with background com- partment volume 120 mL and four fillable spheres with diameters of 4, 5, 6 and 8 mm was filled with identical specific activities. Acquisition and reconstruction Phantoms were scanned for each activity ratio on a Siemens Biograph mCT Flow Edge (True V) PET/ CT scanner combining patented lutetium oxyor- thosilicate (LSO) PET system with time-of-flight (TOF) technique and a 128-slice CT. The PET com- ponent of this system consists of four rings of 48 detector blocs with each bloc containing 169 detec- tor elements (detector element dimension of 4 x 4 x 20 mm), PET axial field-of-view (FOV) of 221 mm, coincidence window of 4.1 nsec, system en- ergy resolution ≤ 12 % full width at half maximum (FWHM) and typical system time resolution of 540 psec. The acquisition protocol included a low dose (120 kV; 25 mA) non-enhanced CT scan for the at- tenuation correction, followed by a 10 min single bed position 3D PET acquisition. All PET scans were reconstructed using a Siemens True-X-TOF iterative algorithm (2 itera- tions, 21 subsets) which incorporates point-spread- function (PSF) and TOF correction (SIEMENS ultra HD PET©). Each image was reconstructed using 4 mm and 2 mm in-plane pixel dimensions and zoom factor of 1; 200 x 200 and 400 x 400 matrix size was used for 4 and 2 mm in-plane pixel size reconstruction. Image analysis Quantitative image analysis was performed on SYNGO VIA processing software. For each activ- ity ratio, spherical volumes of interest (VOIs) were manually placed over the hot spheres of the NEMA body and the Micro Hollow-Sphere phantom im- ages, using the known sphere diameter limits. In addition, six spherical background VOIs (diameter of 20 mm) were centred in the same transaxial plane as the hot spheres in the NEMA body phantom and one spherical background VOI (diameter of 40 mm) in a homogeneous region of the background of the Micro Hollow Sphere phantom. Mean and maxi- mum [18F]FDG activity concentrations (CAmmean) and CAmmax) in kilobequerel/mililiter (kBq/ml) were determined for each VOI with SYNGO VIA. All lesions were assessed qualitatively for localiza- tion and delineation. Mean and maximum contrast recovery coef- ficient (CRC) and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) were calculated to quantitatively compare the de- tectability of lesions between different voxel size reconstructions. Mean and maximum CRC for each phan- tom sphere was calculated as the ratio between mean/maximum measured activity concentration (CAmmean and CAmmax) and true activity concen- tration (CAt): CRCmean = CAmmean/CAt; CRCmax = CAmmax/CAt Eq. [A.1] Mean and maximum CNR was calculated as a measure of the signal level in the presence of noise: CNRmean = (CAmmean-CAbg)/SDbg; CNRmax = (CAmmax-CAbg)/SDbg Eq. [A.2] where CAbg is the average measured activity concentration in the background and SDbg is the Radiol Oncol 2022; 56(2): 142-149. Rep S et al. / Small-voxel image reconstruction for PET144 FIGURE 1. NEMA body (A) and the Micro Hollow-Sphere phantom (C), filled in the sphere-to-background radioactivity ratio 2:1, 3:1, 4:1, 8:1, and reconstructed with 2 mm (top row) and 4 mm (bottom row) in-line pixel size. Axial CT images with phantom spheres diameter of NEMA body (B) and the Micro Hollow-Sphere phantom (D). A B C D FIGURE 2. Measurements of contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR)max/mean (top row) and contrast recovery coefficient (CRC)max/mean (bottom row) in all NEMA body and the Micro Hollow-Sphere phantom spheres for all radioactivity concentration ratios with 2 mm and 4 mm in-line pixel size. standard deviation of the activity concentration in the background. CRC and CNR were analyzed independently in three ways: for spheres with diameters ≤ 13 mm (smaller spheres), for spheres with diameters ≥ 17 mm (larger spheres), and for all spheres combined, respectively (13). Only lesions that were visible at both 2 mm and 4 mm in-line pixel sizes reconstruc- tions were analysed. Statistical analysis The normality of the distribution of CRCmean, CRCmax, CNRmean, CNRmax values was assessed us- Radiol Oncol 2022; 56(2): 142-149. Rep S et al. / Small-voxel image reconstruction for PET 145 ing the Shapiro-Wilk test. Median, minimum and maximum for these parameters were calculated. We assessed the differences between 2 mm and 4 mm in-line pixel sizes using the Wilcoxon signed- rank test for paired samples. Statistical analysis was performed using IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, version 25 (IBM Corp., Armonk, N.Y., USA) with p-values < 0.05 consid- ered as statistically significant. GraphPad Prism version 8.0.0 for Windows (GraphPad Software, San Diego, California USA, www.graphpad.com) was used to create the artwork. The study does not include patient data and therefore does not require the approval of the eth- ics committee. Results NEMA body and the Micro Hollow-Sphere phan- tom images reconstructed with 2 mm and 4 mm in-line pixel sizes for all concentration ratios are presented in Figure 1. TABLE 1. Contrast recovery coefficient (CRC)max, CRCmean, of the four Micro Hollow Sphere phantom and the six NEMA body phantom spheres filled with sphere-to-background radioactivity concentration ratios of 2:1, 3:1, 4:1, 8:1 for both 2 mm and 4 mm in-line pixel size reconstructions, including relative changes in % Micro Hollow Sphere phantom - sphere diameter (mm) NEMA body phantom - sphere diameter (mm) Ratio 8:1 4 mm 5 mm 6 mm 8 mm 10 mm 13 mm 17 mm 22 mm 28 mm 37 mm 2 mm max 0.11 0.16 0.24 0.38 0.65 0.92 0.93 0.95 0.89 0.87 4 mm max N/A 0.15 0.21 0.33 0.51 0.84 0.99 0.93 0.92 0.89 % change 2 14 17 26 10 -5 2 -2 -2 2 mm mean 0.10 0.14 0.20 0.25 0.39 0.50 0.57 0.63 0.67 0.71 4 mm mean N/A 0.13 0.19 0.24 0.37 0.49 0.56 0.63 0.67 0.71 % change 4 2 3 6 3 2 0 0 0 Ratio 4:1 4 mm 5 mm 6 mm 8 mm 10 mm 13 mm 17 mm 22 mm 28 mm 37 mm 2 mm max N/A 0.21 0.28 0.40 0.57 0.87 0.98 0.94 0.96 0.96 4 mm max N/A N/A 0.26 0.38 0.53 0.80 1.03 1.00 1.00 0.95 % change 6 5 8 9 -5 -6 -4 2 2 mm mean N/A 0.20 0.26 0.30 0.41 0.55 0.60 0.64 0.70 0.75 4 mm mean N/A N/A 0.26 0.30 0.39 0.52 0.63 0.64 0.70 0.75 % change 0 0 5 6 -4 -1 0 -1 Ratio 3:1 4 mm 5 mm 6 mm 8 mm 10 mm 13 mm 17 mm 22 mm 28 mm 37 mm 2 mm max N/A N/A 0.28 0.38 0.57 0.78 0.94 0.90 0.92 0.91 4 mm max N/A N/A N/A 0.36 0.53 0.71 0.89 0.94 0.93 0.91 % change 7 7 9 6 -1 0 0 2 mm mean N/A N/A 0.26 0.31 0.64 0.54 0.61 0.62 0.67 0.71 4 mm mean N/A N/A N/A 0.31 0.43 0.51 0.60 0.63 0.67 0.71 % change 1 5 5 1 -1 0 0 Ratio 2:1 4 mm 5 mm 6 mm 8 mm 10 mm 13 mm 17 mm 22 mm 28 mm 37 mm 2 mm max N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.57 0.79 0.87 0.94 0.95 0.94 4 mm max N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.53 0.74 0.85 0.93 0.95 0.93 % change 8 6 3 0 0 1 2 mm mean N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.48 0.60 0.61 0.66 0.71 0.75 4 mm mean N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.47 0.58 0.61 0.67 0.71 0.74 % change 2 4 0 -1 0 1 N/A = not applicable Radiol Oncol 2022; 56(2): 142-149. Rep S et al. / Small-voxel image reconstruction for PET146 Visual comparison of the images demonstrates enhanced contrast and delineation of smaller (≤ 13 mm) spheres in images reconstructed with 2 mm compared to 4 mm in-line pixel size. In the sphere- to-background activity ratio of 2:1, the sphere with 10 mm diameter in NEMA body phantom was still visible in the 2 mm in-line pixel size reconstruction, but not in 4 mm in-line pixel size reconstruction. In the sphere-to-background activity ratio 2:1, the spheres in Micro Hollow-Sphere phantom were not visible in both reconstructions. However, in higher sphere-to-background activity ratios, the contrast and delineation of spheres in Micro Hollow-Sphere phantom were clearly superior in the 2 mm in-line pixel size reconstruction; furthermore, in the activ- ity ratio of 4:1, the 5 mm sphere was still visible in the 2 mm in-line pixel size reconstruction, but not in 4 mm in-line pixel size reconstruction. For larger (≥ 17 mm) spheres the delineation was also superior with 2 mm in-line pixel size reconstruc- tion, perhaps with the exception of the highest (8:1) sphere-to-background activity ratio. For quantitative assessment, measurements of CRC and CNR in all phantom spheres of NEMA TABLE 2. Contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR)max, CNRmean, of the four Micro Hollow Sphere phantom and the six NEMA body phantom spheres filled with sphere- to-background radioactivity concentration ratios of 2:1, 3:1, 4:1, 8:1 for both 2 mm and 4 mm voxel size reconstructions, including relative changes in % Micro Hollow Sphere phantom - sphere diameter (mm) NEMA body phantom - sphere diameter (mm) Ratio 8:1 4 mm 5 mm 6 mm 8 mm 10 mm 13 mm 17 mm 22 mm 28 mm 37 mm 2 mm max 12.53 34.82 71.23 134.50 104.68 157.51 159.30 162.70 152.06 148.02 4 mm max N/A 25.58 44.71 84.76 84.32 151.31 181.45 169.86 167.41 161.28 % change 36 59 59 24 4 -12 -4 -9 -8 2 mm mean 11.99 24.84 55.10 75.80 55.69 76.75 89.86 100.92 108.16 115.50 4 mm mean N/A 17.41 40.95 55.58 54.73 78.83 93.99 107.44 116.37 123.83 % change 43 35 36 2 -3 -4 -6 -7 -7 Ratio 4:1 4 mm 5 mm 6 mm 8 mm 10 mm 13 mm 17 mm 22 mm 28 mm 37 mm 2 mm max N/A 6.33 20.19 41.57 31.20 59.06 68.97 65.49 66.91 67.42 4 mm max N/A N/A 17.13 37.28 30.46 57.33 80.41 77.47 76.63 71.95 % change 18 12 2 3 -14 -15 -13 -6 2 mm mean N/A 5.73 16.51 24.55 17.42 29.96 34.68 38.24 43.13 48.28 4 mm mean N/A N/A 16.04 23.93 16.91 29.57 39.95 42.28 47.14 53.26 % change 3 3 3 1 -13 -10 -9 -9 Ratio 3:1 4 mm 5 mm 6 mm 8 mm 10 mm 13 mm 17 mm 22 mm 28 mm 37 mm 2 mm max N/A N/A 7.72 23.53 18.69 32.87 44.04 41.32 42.66 41.87 4 mm max N/A N/A N/A 16.13 18.18 31.84 45.27 49.36 48.04 47.15 % change 46 3 3 -10 -8 -9 -9 2 mm mean N/A N/A 6.11 13.45 11.28 16.93 21.28 22.58 25.55 28.23 4 mm mean N/A N/A N/A 10.66 11.01 16.91 23.39 25.56 28.58 31.47 % change 26 2 0 9 -9 -9 -9 Ratio 2:1 4 mm 5 mm 6 mm 8 mm 10 mm 13 mm 17 mm 22 mm 28 mm 37 mm 2 mm max N/A N/A N/A N/A 5.49 15.68 19.40 22.51 22.90 22.73 4 mm max N/A N/A N/A N/A 4.00 15.08 20.40 24.89 25.48 24.94 % change 37 4 -5 -10 -10 -9 2 mm mean N/A N/A N/A N/A 1.64 6.93 7.59 9.95 11.97 13.85 4 mm mean N/A N/A N/A N/A 1.37 6.54 8.44 11.18 13.32 15.18 % change 20 6 -10 -11 -10 -9 N/A = not applicable Radiol Oncol 2022; 56(2): 142-149. Rep S et al. / Small-voxel image reconstruction for PET 147 body phantom and Micro Hollow-Sphere phantom for all activity ratios are presented in Tables 1 and 2 and graphically in Figure 2. Median, minimum and maximum values for both parameters are pre- sented in Tables 3 and 4. From the combined measurements in both phantoms we found that in the smaller (≤ 13 mm) spheres the CRC values were significantly higher in the images reconstructed using the 2 mm in comparison to the 4 mm in-line pixel size (CRCmax: p = 0.001, CRCmean: p = 0.001). On the other hand, CRC did not differ significantly between the 2 mm and 4 mm in-line pixel sizes for larger (≥ 17 mm) spheres (CRCmax: p = 0.136, CRCmean: p = 0.424). For all spheres combined CRCmax values also did not differ significantly between the two voxel sizes for large spheres (p = 0.058), but were significantly higher for CRCmean (p = 0.014). CNR was found to be significantly higher for re- construction with 2 mm compared to 4 mm in-line pixel size for smaller (≤ 13 mm) spheres (CNRmax, p = 0.001 and CNRmean, p = 0.008). In addition, CNR was elevated in 2 mm reconstructed images when analyzing all spheres in all sphere-to-background radioactivity ratio (CNRmax: p = 0.428, CNRmean: p = 0.079). However, in larger (≥ 17 mm) spheres CNR was significantly lower in 2 mm in-line pixel size images compared to the 4 mm (CNRmax: p = < 0.001, CNRmean: p = < 0.001); nevertheless, as stated above, the visual delineation of larger lesions was not hampered by lower CNR. The comparison of CRCmax/mean and CNRmax/mean between the two in-line pixel sizes is graphically presented in Figure 3. Discussion The aim of the present study was to evaluate the potential advantages of small-voxel reconstruc- tion on PET image quality. While confirming the results of previous preclinical work of similar de- sign13 using high target-to-background ratios, we also found the advantages of small-voxel recon- struction to translate as well towards lower ratios, resembling realistic clinical circumstances when focused imaging is performed for limited body sec- tions in extended duration, such as parathyroid or brain PET.15,16 However, these findings may trans- late to acquisitions typically used for whole-body imaging as well, as recently shown in a preclinical study.17 The 4 mm in-line pixel size reconstruction is routinely used in most PET centres worldwide in clinical practice, resulting in relatively poor spa- tial resolution and consequently limited visualiza- tion and quantification of small lesions. Using the NEMA body and Micro Hollow-Sphere phantom with various target-to-background activity concen- tration ratios we were able to demonstrate that the delineation and quantification of small lesions can be improved if reconstruction with 2 mm in-line pixel size is used. While the use of even smaller (1 mm) in-line pixel size may seem advantageous for the purpose of small lesion detection, the lesion contrast appears to plateau at 2 mm in-line pixel size in comparison to the standard 4 mm in-line pixel size reconstruction.18 Qualitatively, the use of 2 mm in-line pixel re- construction improves the spatial resolution with FIGURE 3. Graphically represented contrast recovery coefficient (CRC)max/mean and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR)max/mean of the 2 mm and 4 mm in-line pixel sizes. Radiol Oncol 2022; 56(2): 142-149. Rep S et al. / Small-voxel image reconstruction for PET148 improved visualization of the smaller (≤ 13 mm) spheres in comparison to the standard approach. The qualitative impression was confirmed with quantitative analysis: across the evaluated activ- ity ratios, improved mean and maximum CRC and CNR were demonstrated for smaller (≤ 13 mm) lesions, suggesting higher lesion detectabil- ity. Increase in CRC directly affects standard up- TABLE 3. Median, minimum and maximum values of contrast recovery coefficient (CRC)max and CRCmean over all for all spheres, spheres ≤ 13 mm and spheres ≥ 17 mm. The values are given for images reconstructed with 2 mm and 4 mm voxel size Number of spheres Median Minimum Maximum CRCmax 2 mm 30 0.88 0.16 0.98 CRCmax 4 mm 30 0.87 0.13 1.03 CRCmean 2 mm 30 0.60 0.14 0.75 CRCmean 4 mm 30 0.59 0.13 0.76 CRCmax 2 mm; ≤ 13 mm 14 0.56 0.16 0.92 CRCmax 4 mm; ≤ 13 mm 14 0.52 0.13 0.84 CRCmean 2 mm; ≤ 13 mm 14 0.40 0.14 0.60 CRCmean 4 mm; ≤ 13 mm 14 0.38 0.13 0.60 CRCmax 2 mm; ≥ 17 mm 16 0.94 0.87 0.98 CRCmax 4 mm; ≥ 17 mm 16 0.94 0.87 1.03 CRCmean 2 mm; ≥ 17 mm 16 0.66 0.57 0.75 CRCmean 4 mm; ≥ 17 mm 16 0.66 0.56 0.76 TABLE 4. Median, minimum and maximum values of contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR)max and CNRmean over all spheres-to-background ratios for all spheres, smaller (≤ 13 mm) spheres and larger (≥ 17 mm) spheres. The values are given for images reconstructed with 2 mm and 4 mm in-line pixel size Number of spheres Median Minimum Maximum CNRmax 2 mm 30 42.26 5.49 162.60 CNRmax4 mm 30 46.21 4.00 181.45 CNRmean 2 mm 30 25.56 1.64 115.50 CNRmean 4 mm 30 27.15 1.37 123.83 CNRmax 2 mm; ≤ 13 mm 14 33.84 5.49 157.51 CNRmax 4 mm; ≤ 13 mm 14 31.15 4.00 151.31 CNRmean 2 mm; ≤ 13 mm 14 20.98 1.64 76.75 CNRmean 4 mm; ≤ 13 mm 14 17.16 1.37 78.73 CNRmax 2 mm; ≥ 17 mm 16 54.76 19.40 162.70 CNRmax 4 mm; ≥ 17 mm 16 60.65 20.40 181.45 CNRmean 2 mm; ≥ 17 mm 16 31.45 7.59 115.50 CNRmean 4 mm; ≥ 17 mm 16 35.71 8.44 123.83 take value (SUV) as the predominant quantitative imaging metric.19 With the use of small voxels, the image noise inevitably statistically increases. However, as again demonstrated for smaller (≤ 13 mm) lesions, the increased noise is compensated through improved CNR. These findings confirm and extend the existing results in the preclinical setting6,13; the likely explanation is the reduction of PVE through the use of small voxels, leading to reduction in averaging and increased activity in smaller lesions.20 Several approaches are increas- ingly being used to reduce the effect of noise on image quality and improve spatial resolution, such as time-of-flight (TOF) and point-spread function (PSF) corrections5,7,8,19,21-24, typically integrated into routine vendor-specific PET reconstruction proto- cols. Small-voxel reconstruction was shown to pro- vide additional improvement in small lesion detec- tion when both approaches are already used19; nev- ertheless, the possibility of introducing artefacts and potential false-positive findings related to PSF modelling and small-voxel reconstruction must be considered.9 The existing literature evaluating the effect of small-voxel reconstruction in the clinical setting is similarly limited and is focused on small lesions. Extending the work from the preclinical setting13, one group was able to demonstrate that the detec- tion and quantitative assessment (standardized uptake values for lesions and target-to-background ratios) significantly improves for metastatic lymph nodes in patients with breast cancer when small- voxel reconstruction with 2 mm in-line pixel size is used.14 In a similar report in patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma, the detection and quantitative assessment of metastatic lymph nodes as well as image quality was improved with larger image matrix size (2 mm in-line pixel size).12 Currently, the existing literature demonstrating improved performance of small-voxel reconstruc- tion in the clinical setting is limited on the evalu- ation of lymph nodes in staging of malignant dis- ease – a typical indication for clinical PET imaging. Nevertheless, in other conditions in which PET im- aging is increasingly being used for evaluation of small lesions (such as preoperative localization of hyperfunctioning parathyroid tissue25, similar ben- efit can be expected. While an important limitation of the present work and other preclinical studies lies in the design with homogenous background activity and known location of the evaluated le- sions, the listed clinical examples demonstrate the potential of small-voxel reconstruction for routine clinical application. Radiol Oncol 2022; 56(2): 142-149. Rep S et al. / Small-voxel image reconstruction for PET 149 Conclusions The use of small-voxel reconstruction in PET im- aging provides consistent improvement in small lesion localization and delineation, lesion contrast and image quality. Authors’ contributions SR: performed the all imaging and analysis of NEMA phantom, and was a major contributor in writing; PT: contributor in writing, review and ed- iting; LJ: writing-analysis of NEMA phantom, re- view and editing; KZ: writing-review and editing; LL: writing-review and editing References 1. Derlin T, Grünwald V, Steinbach J, Wester HJ, Ross TL. Molecular imaging in oncology using positron emission tomography. Dtsch Arztebl Int 2018; 115: 175-81. doi: 10.3238/arztebl.2018.0175 2. Simianu VV, Varghese TK, Flanagan MR, Flum DR, Shankaran V, Oelschlager BK, et al. Positron emission tomography for initial staging of esophageal cancer among medicare beneficiaries. J Gastrointest Oncol 2016; 7: 395- 402. doi: 10.21037/jgo.2015.10.03 3. Juweid ME, Stroobants S, Hoekstra OS, Mottaghy FM, Dietlein M, Guermazi A, et al. Use of positron emission tomography for response assessment of lymphoma: consensus of the Imaging Subcommittee of International Harmonization Project in Lymphoma. J Clin Oncol 2007; 25: 571-8. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2006.08.2305 4. Schöder H, Erdi YE, Larson SM, Yeung HWD. PET/CT: a new imaging technol- ogy in nuclear medicine. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2003; 30: 1419-37. doi: 10.1007/s00259-003-1299-6 5. Townsend DW. Dual-modality imaging: combining anatomy and function. J Nucl Med 2008; 49: 938-55. doi: 10.2967/jnumed.108.051276 6. Kolthammer JA, Su KH, Grover A, Narayanan M, Jordan DW, Muzic RF. Performance evaluation of the Ingenuity TF PET/CT scanner with a focus on high count-rate conditions. Phys Med Biol 2014; 59: 3843-59. doi: 10.1088/0031-9155/59/14/3843 7. Conti M. Focus on time-of-flight PET: the benefits of improved time resolution. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2011; 38: 1147-57. doi: 10.1007/ s00259-010-1711-y 8. Boellaard R, Delgado-Bolton R, Oyen WJG, Giammarile F, Tatsch K, Eschner W, et al. FDG PET/CT: EANM procedure guidelines for tumour imaging: version 2.0. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2015; 42: 328-54. doi: 10.1007/ s00259-014-2961-x 9. van der Vos CS, Koopman D, Rijnsdorp S, Arends AJ, Boellaard R, van Dalen JA, et al. Quantification, improvement, and harmonization of small lesion detection with state-of-the-art PET. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2017; 44(Suppl 1): 4-16. doi: 10.1007/s00259-017-3727-z 10. Fukui MB, Blodgett TM, Meltzer CC. PET/CT imaging in recurrent head and neck cancer. Semin Ultrasound CT MR 2003; 24: 157-63. doi: 10.1016/ s0887-2171(03)90037-0 11. Tarantola G, Zito F, Gerundini P. PET instrumentation and reconstruction algorithms in whole-body applications. J Nucl Med Off Publ Soc Nucl Med 2003; 44: 756-69. PMID: 12732678 12. Li CY, Klohr S, Sadick H, Weiss C, Hoermann K, Schoenberg SO, et al. Effect of time-of-flight technique on the diagnostic performance of 18F-FDG PET/CT for assessment of lymph node metastases in head and neck squa- mous cell carcinoma. J Nucl Med Technol 2014; 42: 181-7. doi: 10.2967/ jnmt.114.141192 13. Koopman D, van Dalen JA, Lagerweij MCM, Arkies H, de Boer J, Oostdijk AHJ, et al. Improving the detection of small lesions using a state-of-the-art time- of-flight PET/CT system and small-voxel reconstructions. J Nucl Med Technol 2015; 43: 21-7. doi: 10.2967/jnmt.114.147215 14. Koopman D, van Dalen JA, Arkies H, Oostdijk AHJ, Francken AB, Bart J, et al. Diagnostic implications of a small-voxel reconstruction for loco-regional lymph node characterization in breast cancer patients using FDG-PET/CT. EJNMMI Res 2018; 8: 3. doi: 10.1186/s13550-018-0359-7 15. Petranović Ovčariček P, Giovanella L, Carrió Gasset I, Hindié E, Huellner MW, Luster M, et al. The EANM practice guidelines for parathyroid imaging. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2021; 48: 2801-22. doi: 10.1007/s00259-021- 05334-y 16. Guedj E, Varrone A, Boellaard R, Albert NL, Barthel H, van Berckel B, et al. EANM procedure guidelines for brain PET imaging using [18F]FDG, version 3. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2022; 49: 632-51. doi: 10.1007/s00259- 021-05603-w 17. Øen SK, Aasheim LB, Eikenes L, Karlberg AM. Image quality and detect- ability in Siemens Biograph PET/MRI and PET/CT systems-a phantom study. EJNMMI Phys 2019; 6: 16. 10.1186/s40658-019-0251-1 18. Adler S, Seidel J, Choyke P, Knopp MV, Binzel K, Zhang J, et al. Minimum le- sion detectability as a measure of PET system performance. EJNMMI Phys 2017; 4: 13. doi: 10.1186/s40658-017-0179-2 19. Jakoby BW, Bercier Y, Conti M, Casey ME, Bendriem B, Townsend DW. Physical and clinical performance of the mCT time-of-flight PET/CT scanner. Phys Med Biol 2011; 56: 2375-89. doi: 10.1088/0031-9155/56/8/004 20. Meechai T, Tepmongkol S, Pluempitiwiriyawej C. Partial-volume effect correction in positron emission tomography brain scan image using super- resolution image reconstruction. Br J Radiol 2015; 88(1046): 20140119. doi: 10.1259/bjr.20140119 21. Lee YS, Kim JS, Kim KM, Kang JH, Lim SM, Kim H-J. Performance meas- urement of PSF modeling reconstruction (True X) on Siemens Biograph TruePoint TrueV PET/CT. Ann Nucl Med 2014; 28: 340-8. doi: 10.1007/ s12149-014-0815-z 22. Lois C, Jakoby BW, Long MJ, Hubner KF, Barker DW, Casey ME, et al. An assessment of the impact of incorporating time-of-flight information into clinical PET/CT imaging. J Nucl Med 2010; 51: 237-45. doi: 10.2967/ jnumed.109.068098 23. Rogasch JM, Steffen IG, Hofheinz F, Großer OS, Furth C, Mohnike K, et al. The association of tumor-to-background ratios and SUVmax deviations related to point spread function and time-of-flight F18-FDG-PET/CT reconstruc- tion in colorectal liver metastases. EJNMMI Res 2015; 5: 31. doi: 10.1186/ s13550-015-0111-5. 24. Akamatsu G, Ishikawa K, Mitsumoto K, Taniguchi T, Ohya N, Baba S, et al. Improvement in PET/CT image quality with a combination of point-spread function and time-of-flight in relation to reconstruction parameters. J Nucl Med 2012; 53: 1716-22. doi: 10.2967/jnumed.112.103861 25. Treglia G, Piccardo A, Imperiale A, Strobel K, Kaufmann PA, Prior JO, et al. Diagnostic performance of choline PET for detection of hyperfunctioning parathyroid glands in hyperparathyroidism: a systematic review and meta- analysis. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2019; 46: 751-65.