Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41872362›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2026

Quantitative immunohistochemistry and the use of cellular calibrators for HER2 receptor number determination.

Kevin McKinski, Bin Chen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Kevin McKinskiGSK, Precision Medicine, Biomarker & Bioanalytical Platforms, Collegeville, PA, 19426, USA. Kevin.j.mckinski@gsk.com.
Bin ChenDepartment of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Saint Joseph's University, Philadelphia College of Pharmacy, Philadelphia, PA, 19104, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

It is suggested that high error rates in clinical IHC compared to other laboratory disciplines are due to a lack of traceable analytic standards with quantitative controls. Quantitative controls can be achieved by implementing calibrators into IHC workflows, but recently published approaches offer little discussion about what the ideal calibrator should look like. Here, we detail an IHC method that utilizes cellular calibrators to determine the average number of HER2 receptors in tumor cells of breast cancer tissue. Electrochemiluminescent immunoassay and flow cytometry were used to establish nominal HER2 amounts in the cellular calibrators. The quantitated number of HER2 receptors and associated 4B5 scores from commercially sourced breast cancer tumors were compared. The results were discordant, indicating differences in analytical performance. Cells are ideal calibrators for IHC because the antigens they express are structurally and functionally representative of the endogenous analyte being measured. They can also be stained and analyzed identically to tissues, and are easily cultured, expanded, and manipulated. However, novel methods for labeling cells with fixed amounts of proteins are needed. In addition, standards for validation of quantitative IHC methods should be developed and their clinical utility must be demonstrated.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsErb-b2 Receptor Tyrosine KinasesImmunohistochemistryCalibrationFemaleFlow CytometryHumansERBB2 protein, humanErb-b2 Receptor Tyrosine Kinases

Identifiers

PMID41872362
PMCPMC13153249

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.