The assessment of capsular invasion is an essential but challenging step in the diagnosis of encapsulated follicular thyroid neoplasms. Therefore, interobserver agreement in the assessment of capsular invasion in these tumors was investigated among 11 thyroid pathologists by using virtual slides of 20 cases in which the original diagnosis considered the differential diagnosis of definite capsular invasion versus questionable capsular invasion. The assessment of capsular invasion was divided into three categories: (1) non-invasive, (2) questionable invasive, and (3) clear-cut invasive. The interobserver agreements for clear-cut invasive and non-invasive categories were fair (Kappa value = 0.578 and 0.404, respectively), whereas agreement for the questionable invasion was poor (Kappa value = 0.186). Disagreements in the assessment of invasion resulted in variable final pathological diagnoses. For example, the agreement for a diagnosis of malignancy was only fair (Kappa value = 0.545). Moreover, pathologists did not have a uniform approach for rendering a final diagnosis in cases with questionable capsular invasion, though nine of 11 pathologists did use the follicular tumor of uncertain malignant potential diagnosis as proposed by the World Health Organization classification of endocrine organs published in 2017. In conclusion, this study revealed considerable interobserver variation in the evaluation of capsular invasion, especially in follicular neoplasms with questionable invasion.
Keywords: Borderline tumor; Capsular invasion; Follicular neoplasm; Observer variation; Thyroid.