[The diagnostic value of version 2.1 prostate imaging reporting and data system for prostate transitional zone lesions].

To compare and analyze the diagnostic value of prostate imaging reporting and data system (PI-RADS) version 2.1 and version 2 for prostate transitional zone lesions. The imaging data of 159 patients with major prostate lesions located in the transitional zone collected by the Department of Radiology of the Second Affiliated Hospital of Suzhou University from January to December 2017 were retrospectively analyzed. Two radiologists used PI-RADS V2.1 and V2 scoring system respectively to perform diagnostic scores on the enrolled cases. The weighted Kappa test was used to evaluate the consistency of PI-RADS V2.1 and V2 scores between the two radiologists. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was used to evaluate and compare the diagnostic efficiency of two radiologists using two scoring systems for transitional zone prostate cancer (PCa) and clinically significant PCa (csPCa). The weighted Kappa values between the scores of all lesions, benign lesions, PCa lesions, and csPCa lesions by the two radiologists using PI-RADS V2.1 and V2 scoring systems were 0.754, 0.643, 0.734, 0.782 and 0.808, 0.738, 0.775, 0.826, respectively. The PI-RADS V2.1 scoring system had a better consistency. There were no statistically significant differences in sensitivity, specificity, area under the ROC curve (AUC) between the PI-RADS V2.1 and V2 scoring system for PCa and csPCa (all 0.05). However, in this set of data, the sensitivity and AUC value of PI-RADS V2.1 scoring system in diagnosing PCa and csPCa were higher than those of P-RADS V2. The diagnostic sensitivity of PI-RADS V2.1 and V2 for PCa were 86.7% and 80.0%, the diagnostic sensitivity for csPCa were 94.4% and 88.9%, the diagnostic AUC for PCa were 0.857 and 0.816, and the diagnostic AUC of csPCa were 0.917 and 0.886, respectively. The consistency of PI-RADS V2.1 in scoring prostate transitional zone lesions was better than PI-RADS V2. The diagnostic efficiency of PI-RADS V2.1 for transitional carcinoma was not lower than or slightly higher than PI-RADS V2.