Clinical assessment of dry laser-processed film versus traditional wet-processed film with computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, and ultrasound.

RATIONALE AND
OBJECTIVES: To compare image quality and diagnostic performance (by using receiver operating characteristic techniques) for laser imaging film from two systems: a traditional wet system that uses chemical processing and a new dry system that is wet-chemistry-free.
METHODS: For three separate studies (computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, and ultrasound), identical images for 40 cases were printed on both the wet and dry imaging systems. Ten radiologists participated in each study, giving a decision confidence rating for lesion present or absent and evaluating image quality.
RESULTS: In all three studies, there were no statistically significant differences in diagnostic performance when reading images that had been wet processed versus those that had been dry processed. Image quality was comparable for wet-and dry-processed films for all three modalities.
CONCLUSION: Dry laser processing produces high-quality radiologic films that are comparable to those currently produced by using wet laser processing. Dry-processed film represents a useful alternative to wet-processed film.