qPCR vs IHC for HER2 Status Determination: A Comprehensive Guide for Precision Oncology

Abstract

This article provides a comprehensive comparison between reverse transcription-quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) and immunohistochemistry (IHC) for determining HER2 status in breast cancer. Covering foundational principles, methodological applications, troubleshooting approaches, and validation strategies, we examine how these techniques address the evolving landscape of HER2 classification, including HER2-low and HER2-ultralow categories. With emerging evidence supporting RT-qPCR as a complementary method to IHC, this review synthesizes current concordance data, technological innovations, and clinical implications for researchers, scientists, and drug development professionals working to optimize HER2-targeted therapy selection.

The Evolving Landscape of HER2 Testing: From Binary Classification to Continuous Spectrum

For decades, the assessment of Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2 (HER2) status in breast cancer has followed a binary classification system, categorizing tumors simply as HER2-positive or HER2-negative based on specific thresholds of protein expression or gene amplification [1]. This dichotomous approach has served as a critical determinant for prognostication and treatment selection, fundamentally guiding therapeutic strategies for breast cancer patients worldwide. HER2, a transmembrane tyrosine kinase receptor, promotes cell proliferation and survival when overexpressed, and its presence identifies patients who may benefit from targeted HER2-directed therapies such as trastuzumab [2].

The standard methodology for HER2 evaluation has primarily relied on immunohistochemistry (IHC) to assess protein expression levels, with supplementary in situ hybridization (ISH) techniques for equivocal cases [1]. IHC categorizes tumors into four distinct categories based on the intensity and completeness of membrane staining and the percentage of positive cells: IHC 0, IHC 1+, IHC 2+ (considered equivocal), and IHC 3+. Within the binary framework, IHC 3+ tumors and IHC 2+ tumors with confirmed HER2 gene amplification by ISH are classified as HER2-positive, while IHC 0, IHC 1+, and IHC 2+ without gene amplification are collectively classified as HER2-negative [2]. This review examines the historical context, methodological foundations, and evolving landscape of HER2 classification, with particular emphasis on the comparative analytical performance of traditional IHC versus emerging molecular techniques such as quantitative PCR (qPCR).

Methodological Foundations of Traditional HER2 Testing

Immunohistochemistry (IHC) Protocol and Workflow

The standard IHC protocol for HER2 testing is a multi-step process that requires meticulous attention to pre-analytical and analytical variables to ensure accurate results. The following workflow outlines the core procedure as implemented in diagnostic pathology laboratories:

• Tissue Processing: Formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded (FFPE) breast cancer specimens are sectioned at 4-5μm thickness and mounted on charged slides.
• Deparaffinization and Antigen Retrieval: Slides are deparaffinized in xylene and rehydrated through graded alcohols. Heat-induced epitope retrieval is performed using citrate or EDTA-based buffers at pH 6.0 or 8.0-9.0 to unmask antigenic sites.
• Immunostaining: Sections are incubated with monoclonal anti-HER2 antibodies (e.g., clone 4B5 [2] or similar). This is followed by sequential application of biotinylated secondary antibodies, enzyme conjugates (typically horseradish peroxidase or alkaline phosphatase), and chromogenic substrates (e.g., DAB) to visualize HER2 protein localization.
• Counterstaining and Mounting: Hematoxylin counterstain is applied to visualize cell nuclei, followed by dehydration and mounting for microscopic evaluation.
• Microscopic Evaluation and Scoring: A qualified pathologist assesses staining patterns according to established scoring criteria [1]:
  • IHC 0: No staining or membrane staining in <10% of tumor cells
  • IHC 1+: Faint/barely perceptible membrane staining in >10% of tumor cells
  • IHC 2+: Weak to moderate complete membrane staining in >10% of tumor cells
  • IHC 3+: Strong complete membrane staining in >10% of tumor cells

For IHC 2+ (equivocal) cases, reflex testing using ISH (FISH, CISH, or SISH) is mandated to determine HER2 gene amplification status [2].

Quantitative PCR (qPCR) Methodology

While IHC has dominated routine HER2 testing, quantitative PCR (qPCR) has emerged as a complementary molecular technique for determining HER2 status through quantification of ERBB2 mRNA expression levels. The standard qPCR protocol involves:

• RNA Extraction: Total RNA is isolated from FFPE tissue sections or fine-needle aspiration (FNA) samples using commercial extraction kits with quality control measures (e.g., A260/A280 ratio >1.8, RNA integrity number assessment).
• Reverse Transcription: High-quality RNA is reverse transcribed into complementary DNA (cDNA) using reverse transcriptase enzymes and oligo(dT) or random hexamer primers.
• Quantitative PCR Amplification: cDNA is amplified using ERBB2-specific primers and probes in a real-time PCR instrument. Commonly used reference genes (e.g., GAPDH, ACTB, B2M) are simultaneously amplified for normalization.
• Data Analysis: The comparative Ct (ΔΔCt) method is used to calculate relative ERBB2 expression levels normalized to reference genes. Results are typically reported as normalized expression values relative to a calibrator sample.
• Interpretation: Establishing validated cutoff values is crucial for clinical application. In one validation study, an ERBB2 cutoff of 36.398 demonstrated 97% overall concordance with standard IHC/FISH testing [3].

Figure 1: Comparative Workflows for HER2 Testing Methodologies

Comparative Performance Data: IHC versus qPCR

Concordance Studies and Analytical Performance

Multiple studies have directly compared the performance of IHC and qPCR for HER2 status determination, revealing generally high concordance between these methodologies while highlighting their respective strengths and limitations.

Table 1: Concordance Between qPCR and IHC/FISH for HER2 Status Determination

Study	Sample Type	Sample Size	Concordance	Sensitivity	Specificity	Key Findings
Chen et al. (2022) [4]	FFPE tissues	265	92.8% (HER2)	N/R	N/R	Strong correlation (r=0.762) between HER2 IHC and ERBB2 mRNA
FNAC vs. CNB Study (2016) [3]	FNAC samples	154	97%	96%	98%	qPCR on FNAC samples provides rapid (mean 3.7 days) HER2 assessment
Caselli et al. (2021) [5]	FFPE tissues	116	High overall agreement	N/R	N/R	Highlights IHC variability despite standardized guidelines

N/R = Not Reported; FNAC = Fine Needle Aspiration Cytology; CNB = Core Needle Biopsy

Limitations of Traditional IHC in the Era of HER2-Low Classification

The conventional binary classification system faces significant challenges in the contemporary therapeutic landscape, particularly with the emergence of the HER2-low category, defined as IHC 1+ or IHC 2+ without HER2 gene amplification [1]. This category, representing more than 50% of all breast cancers [1], has demonstrated clinical responsiveness to novel antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) such as trastuzumab deruxtecan (T-DXd) [1].

Key limitations of traditional IHC in this context include:

• Interobserver Variability: Subjective interpretation of IHC staining, particularly distinguishing IHC 0 from IHC 1+, leads to substantial diagnostic inconsistency [6]. Meta-analyses indicate that concordance between pathologists is lowest for IHC 1+ cases (88%) compared to higher scores [6].

• Tumor Heterogeneity: Significant intertumoral heterogeneity in HER2 expression occurs in multifocal/multicentric breast cancers (MMBC). Current guidelines testing only the main focus may miss HER2-low expression in minor foci, potentially affecting treatment eligibility [2].

• Technical Variability: Pre-analytical factors (fixation time, tissue processing) and analytical factors (antibody selection, staining platforms) considerably impact IHC results [5].

Table 2: Performance of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in HER2 IHC Scoring

HER2 Score	Sensitivity	Specificity	Concordance with Pathologists
1+	0.69 [95% CI 0.57-0.79]	0.94 [95% CI 0.90-0.96]	88% [95% CI 86-90%]
2+	0.89 [95% CI 0.84-0.93]	0.96 [95% CI 0.93-0.97]	N/R
3+	0.97 [95% CI 0.96-0.99]	0.99 [95% CI 0.97-0.99]	97% [95% CI 96-98%]

N/R = Not Reported; Data from systematic review and meta-analysis [6]

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Platforms

Table 3: Key Research Reagents and Platforms for HER2 Status Determination

Reagent/Platform	Function	Application Context
Anti-HER2 Antibodies (Clone 4B5)	Primary antibody for IHC detection of HER2 protein	IHC staining on FFPE tissue sections [2]
BenchMark XT Staining System	Automated IHC staining platform	Standardized HER2 IHC processing [2]
PathVysion HER2 DNA Probe Kit	FISH assay for HER2 gene amplification	Reflex testing for IHC 2+ equivocal cases [2]
MammaTyper RT-qPCR Kit	mRNA-based molecular subtyping kit	Simultaneous quantification of ERBB2, ESR1, PGR, MKi67 mRNA [5]
TRIzol Reagent	Monophasic RNA isolation reagent	RNA extraction from FFPE tissues or fresh frozen samples
TaqMan PCR Assays	Fluorogenic 5' nuclease chemistry for qPCR	Quantitative ERBB2 mRNA detection with high specificity [3]

Emerging Technologies and Future Directions

Transcriptomic Approaches for HER2 Quantification

Recent advances in transcriptomic analysis demonstrate superior sensitivity for detecting low-level HER2 expression compared to traditional IHC. Studies analyzing 3,182 breast tumors found detectable ERBB2 mRNA in 86% of cases classified as IHC 0 by standard methods [7]. This quantitative continuum of HER2 expression more accurately reflects biological reality than the artificial categorical divisions imposed by IHC scoring systems.

RNA sequencing (RNA-Seq) and microarray platforms enable comprehensive ERBB2 mRNA quantification, offering objective, reproducible measurements that circumvent the pre-analytical and interpretative limitations of IHC [7]. These molecular approaches show particular promise for identifying patients with HER2-low breast cancer who might benefit from ADC therapy but could be missed by conventional IHC assessment.

Artificial Intelligence in HER2 Scoring

Deep learning-based AI systems are emerging as powerful tools to address the interobserver variability inherent in visual IHC scoring. These systems utilize convolutional neural networks (CNNs) to analyze whole-slide images, demonstrating high accuracy in HER2 scoring, particularly for distinguishing IHC 2+ and 3+ cases [6].

AI algorithms achieve pooled sensitivity of 0.97 and specificity of 0.82 in identifying patients potentially eligible for HER2-targeted therapy (scores 1+/2+/3+ versus 0) [6]. Meta-regression analyses indicate superior performance with deep learning and patch-based analysis approaches compared to traditional image analysis methods [6].

Figure 2: Evolution of HER2 Testing Frameworks and Therapeutic Drivers

The historical framework of HER2 binary classification, while foundational to breast cancer diagnostics and treatment selection for decades, is undergoing substantial redefinition. Traditional IHC-based approaches, despite their widespread implementation and standardization, face significant challenges in reproducibility, sensitivity for low-level expression, and accurate identification of patients who may benefit from novel HER2-directed therapies.

Molecular methodologies, particularly qPCR and transcriptomic platforms, offer complementary approaches that provide quantitative, objective measurements of HER2 expression along a continuous scale rather than artificial categorical boundaries. These techniques demonstrate high concordance with traditional IHC/FISH while potentially overcoming their limitations in detecting the HER2-low expression category now recognized as therapeutically relevant.

The integration of artificial intelligence for IHC scoring and the continued refinement of molecular assays promise to enhance the precision and reproducibility of HER2 status determination. As breast cancer treatment evolves toward increasingly targeted approaches, HER2 testing methodologies must similarly advance beyond the traditional binary paradigm to embrace more nuanced, quantitative classification systems that better reflect biological complexity and optimize patient selection for emerging therapeutic agents.

The classification of Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2 (HER2) status in breast cancer has undergone a fundamental transformation, evolving from a simple binary paradigm to a complex continuum of expression. Historically, HER2 status was categorically defined as either positive (IHC 3+ or IHC 2+ with FISH amplification) or negative (IHC 0 or 1+) for therapeutic decision-making. This binary classification system has been challenged by the emergence of antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs), which demonstrate significant efficacy against tumors with lower levels of HER2 expression. The landmark DESTINY-Breast04 trial established HER2-low as a clinically relevant category, and the more recent DESTINY-Breast06 trial has further extended benefits to patients with HER2-ultralow expression, creating an urgent need for precise diagnostic classification [1] [8].

This paradigm shift necessitates a critical evaluation of our diagnostic methodologies. Immunohistochemistry (IHC), the long-standing gold standard for HER2 protein assessment, faces substantial challenges in reproducibly distinguishing between these subtle expression categories due to inherent interobserver variability and technical limitations [9] [10]. Concurrently, quantitative molecular techniques, particularly quantitative PCR (qPCR) and RNA sequencing, are emerging as promising tools capable of detecting HER2 expression across a continuous spectrum. This guide objectively compares the performance of traditional IHC against evolving transcriptomic methods in defining HER2-low and HER2-ultralow breast cancer, providing researchers and drug development professionals with experimental data and protocols to inform diagnostic strategies and clinical trial design.

Defining the New HER2 Spectrum: From Null to Positive

The contemporary classification of HER2 status in breast cancer now encompasses four distinct categories based on protein expression levels detected via IHC and, when necessary, confirmed by in situ hybridization (ISH). The table below summarizes the definitive criteria for each category.

Table 1: Classification of HER2 Status in Breast Cancer

Category	IHC Score	ISH Status	Definition
HER2-Positive	3+	Not required	Strong complete, basolateral, or lateral membranous staining in >10% of tumor cells [1]
HER2-Positive	2+ (Equivocal)	Positive (Amplified)	Weak to moderate complete membranous staining in >10% of tumor cells with HER2 gene amplification [1]
HER2-Low	2+	Negative (Not amplified)	Weak to moderate complete membranous staining in >10% of tumor cells without HER2 gene amplification [1] [10]
HER2-Low	1+	Not required	Faint/barely perceptible incomplete membranous staining in >10% of tumor cells [1] [10]
HER2-Ultralow	0 (with staining)	Not required	Faint/weak incomplete membranous staining in ≤10% of tumor cells [1] [11]
HER2-Null	0 (no staining)	Not required	No observable membranous staining in tumor cells [1]

The clinical significance of these categories is profound. HER2-low breast cancer constitutes more than 50% of all breast cancers and is more prevalent in hormone receptor (HR)-positive subtypes compared to triple-negative phenotypes [1]. HER2-ultralow expression is found in approximately 29% of breast cancer cases, with about 55% of tumors initially classified as IHC 0 being re-categorized as ultralow upon careful re-review [11]. This reclassification is critical, as patients within these categories now show significant clinical benefits from novel ADCs like trastuzumab deruxtecan (T-DXd), as demonstrated in the DESTINY-Breast04 and DESTINY-Breast06 trials [1] [8].

Figure 1: Diagnostic Pathway for HER2 Status Classification. This workflow outlines the process for categorizing breast cancer based on IHC and ISH testing, following current ASCO/CAP guidelines.

Comparative Methodologies: IHC vs. Transcriptomic Analysis

The accurate classification of HER2 expression levels directly impacts patient eligibility for targeted therapies. This section provides a performance comparison between traditional IHC and transcriptomic methods, supplemented by emerging artificial intelligence (AI) tools.

Performance Characteristics and Clinical Validity

Table 2: Methodological Comparison for HER2 Status Determination

Method	Principle	Key Performance Metrics	Advantages	Limitations
Immunohistochemistry (IHC)	Visual semi-quantitative scoring of HER2 protein expression on cell membrane [1]	- Inter-observer variability high for low expressions (IHC 0 vs 1+: 58.6% disagreement rate) [9]- 26.4% concordance across 35 labs for manual interpretation [9]	- Fast, economical, widely available [1]- FDA-approved companion diagnostics available [8]	- Subjective interpretation, especially for low expressions [9]- Challenging distinction between HER2-ultralow and null [10]
Transcriptomics (qPCR/RNA-Seq)	Quantitative measurement of ERBB2 mRNA expression levels [7]	- Detects ERBB2 mRNA in 86% of IHC 0 cases [7]- AUC ≥0.75 for distinguishing HER2-low from HER2-zero [7]	- Objective, quantitative measurement [7]- High sensitivity for low-level expression [7]- Captures continuous nature of HER2 expression [7]	- Higher cost and complexity [7]- Does not assess protein localization- Limited standardized clinical cut-offs
AI-Assisted IHC	Digital image analysis with machine learning algorithms [6]	- Pooled sensitivity: 0.97, specificity: 0.82 for identifying HER2-low [6]- Improves pathologist agreement with reference standard by 13% (to 89.6%) [10]	- Reduces misclassification of HER2-ultralow as null by >25% [10]- High reproducibility [6] [9]	- Requires digital pathology infrastructure- "Black-box" concern for some deep learning models [9]

Clinical Trial Validation and Predictive Value

The predictive capacity of these methodologies is best demonstrated through their association with treatment outcomes in clinical trials. The HER2DX genomic test, which incorporates an ERBB2 signature score, was significantly associated with time to next treatment in patients receiving T-DXd. When stratified into tertiles, patients in the highest tertile had a median time to next treatment of 12.03 months compared to 4.7 months in the lowest tertile (p=0.02) [12]. This demonstrates the potential of quantitative genomic tools to stratify patients for ADC therapy beyond traditional IHC categories.

In the neoadjuvant setting, the HER2DX pCR score successfully identified tumors more likely to respond to dual HER2 blockade with a single taxane. In the BionHER trial, patients classified by HER2DX pCR score into low, medium, and high groups had increasing pCR rates of 13.3%, 51.6%, and 81.8%, respectively, outperforming traditional biomarkers like ER status and Ki-67 [12].

Experimental Protocols for HER2 Status Determination

Standard IHC Protocol with AI Assistance

The following protocol details the methodology for HER2 IHC assessment with AI assistance, as validated in multi-laboratory studies [9]:

• Tissue Preparation: Formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded (FFPE) breast cancer tissue sections cut at 4-5μm. Use cell line controls (with IHC scores of 0, 1+, 2+, and 3+) on each slide for quality control.
• IHC Staining: Perform automated IHC staining using BenchMark System (Roche Diagnostics) with PATHWAY HER2 (4B5) Rabbit Monoclonal Primary Antibody according to manufacturer's specifications [8] [9].
• Digital Imaging: Scan stained slides using a high-resolution digital slide scanner (e.g., Aperio, Philips, or similar) at 40x magnification. Capture at least five representative zones per case.
• AI-Assisted Analysis: Process digital images through validated AI software (e.g., ClinicPath AIM). The algorithm will:
  • Fragment images into smaller patches and select regions of interest containing tumor tissue
  • Quantify staining intensity and completeness of membrane staining
  • Calculate the percentage of tumor cells at each staining intensity level
  • Generate an aggregated HER2 IHC score based on established guidelines [6] [9]
• Pathologist Review: Pathologists review AI-generated scores alongside digital images for final confirmation, focusing on areas of discrepancy or challenging morphology.

Transcriptomic Analysis Protocol for ERBB2 Quantification

This protocol outlines the methodology for ERBB2 mRNA quantification as described in the Copenhagen Breast Cancer Genomics Study [7]:

• RNA Extraction: Isolate total RNA from fresh tumor biopsies using silica-membrane column-based methods. Assess RNA quality and integrity using methods such as the RNA Integrity Number (RIN).
• Library Preparation:
  • For RNA-Seq: Convert total RNA to cDNA, followed by library preparation using Illumina-compatible kits. Perform paired-end sequencing (2x150 bp) on Illumina NovaSeq or HiSeq2500 platforms.
  • For Microarray: Hybridize cDNA to Human Genome U133 Plus 2.0 Array (Affymetrix) following manufacturer's protocols.
• Computational Data Preprocessing:
  • RNA-Seq: Map fastq files to the human reference genome (GRCh38) using Spliced Transcripts Alignment to a Reference (STAR) aligner. Quantify gene-level counts using featureCounts.
  • Microarray: Process raw intensity .CEL files using robust multi-array average (RMA) normalization with the affy package in R.
• ERBB2 Expression Quantification:
  • Normalize ERBB2 read counts using transcripts per million (TPM) or similar normalization method.
  • Divide expression values into quantile-based classes ("very low", "low", "intermediate", "high", and "very high") using established cut-offs (e.g., 0.05, 0.25, 0.75, 0.95 quantiles) [7].
  • Correlate expression classes with IHC scores and clinical outcomes.

Figure 2: Mechanism of Action of HER2-Targeted Antibody-Drug Conjugates. ADCs bind to HER2 receptors on cancer cells, leading to internalization and release of cytotoxic payloads that cause cell death [1].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Platforms

Table 3: Key Research Reagents and Platforms for HER2 Status Investigation

Reagent/Platform	Specific Product Examples	Research Application	Function
HER2 IHC Antibody	PATHWAY anti-HER2/neu (4B5) Rabbit Monoclonal Primary Antibody [8] [9]	Protein expression detection on FFPE tissue	Specifically binds to HER2 protein for visual detection and scoring
Automated IHC Stainer	BenchMark System (Roche Diagnostics) [9]	Standardized IHC staining	Automates staining process to reduce variability and human error
Digital Slide Scanner	Aperio, Philips Ultra-Fast Scanner	Whole slide imaging	Converts glass slides to high-resolution digital images for analysis
AI Analysis Software	ClinicPath AIM, Deep learning-based algorithms [6] [9]	Digital pathology quantification	Automates HER2 scoring, reduces inter-observer variability
RNA Sequencing Platform	Illumina NovaSeq, HiSeq2500 [7]	Transcriptome-wide expression analysis	Quantifies ERBB2 mRNA and other transcriptomic features
Microarray Platform	Human Genome U133 Plus 2.0 Array (Affymetrix) [7]	Gene expression profiling	Measures ERBB2 mRNA expression levels
Genomic Test	HER2DX [12]	Prognostic and predictive profiling	Integrates genomic data to predict response and prognosis in HER2+ breast cancer

The evolution of HER2 classification from a binary to a spectrum-based model represents a fundamental shift in breast cancer diagnostics and therapeutics. While IHC remains the established clinical standard, particularly with FDA-approved companion diagnostics now available for HER2-ultralow classification [8], its limitations in reproducibility and subjective interpretation for low-expression categories are increasingly apparent. Transcriptomic analyses and AI-assisted tools offer complementary approaches that provide quantitative, objective measurements of HER2 expression, potentially enabling more precise patient selection for novel ADC therapies.

The future of HER2 status determination lies not in the replacement of one methodology with another, but in their intelligent integration. Each method provides unique and valuable information: IHC reveals protein localization and cellular context, transcriptomics offers sensitive quantitative measurement across a continuum, and AI brings standardization and reproducibility to image analysis. For researchers and drug development professionals, the strategic combination of these technologies will be essential for optimizing clinical trial design, developing robust biomarkers, and ultimately delivering on the promise of precision oncology for all breast cancer patients across the HER2 expression spectrum.

The immunohistochemistry (IHC) scoring system for Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2 (HER2) represents a critical standardized method for classifying HER2 protein expression levels in breast cancer tissue. This semi-quantitative system categorizes results as 0, 1+, 2+, or 3+ based on the intensity and completeness of membrane staining observed under microscopy [13]. Historically, this classification served primarily to distinguish HER2-positive cancers (IHC 3+ or IHC 2+ with gene amplification) eligible for targeted therapies from HER2-negative cancers (IHC 0 or 1+) that were not. However, the development of novel antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs), particularly trastuzumab deruxtecan (T-DXd), has fundamentally transformed the clinical relevance of lower HER2 expression levels, necessitating more precise scoring practices and updated guidelines from the College of American Pathologists (CAP) and the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) [13] [14].

The traditional binary view of HER2 status has evolved into a spectrum-based model, where accurate discrimination between IHC 0, 1+, and 2+ without gene amplification has gained paramount importance for treatment selection in metastatic breast cancer [15]. This guide provides a comprehensive comparison of the HER2 IHC scoring system against molecular alternatives like quantitative PCR (qPCR), framed within the context of updated CAP/ASCO guidelines and the growing need for precise biomarker quantification in modern oncology.

Current CAP/ASCO HER2 IHC Scoring Guidelines

The 2023 CAP/ASCO guideline update reaffirmed the essential principles of the 2018 focused update while addressing the emerging clinical implications of lower HER2 expression levels [13]. A key reinforcement is that the guideline does not formally endorse the use of a "HER2-Low" interpretive category as a distinct diagnostic entity. This position is based on the understanding that the DESTINY-Breast04 trial, which demonstrated the efficacy of T-DXd in metastatic breast cancer with IHC 1+ or 2+/ISH- results, did not include patients with HER2 IHC 0 results for comparison [13]. Thus, the FDA's expanded approval for T-DXd was based on clinical trial eligibility criteria rather than validation of a new predictive threshold for HER2 testing.

The following table summarizes the current interpretive categories and their clinical significance:

Table: CAP/ASCO HER2 IHC Scoring Categories and Clinical Interpretation

IHC Score	Staining Pattern Description	Interpretation	Clinical Significance per 2023 Guidelines
0	No staining or membrane staining in ≤10% of tumor cells	Negative	Distinction between absent staining (IHC 0) and faint staining (IHC 0+) is now critical for identifying HER2-ultralow disease [14].
1+	Faint/barely perceptible incomplete membrane staining in >10% of tumor cells	Negative	Patients with metastatic breast cancer and this result are eligible for T-DXd [13].
2+	Weak to moderate complete membrane staining in >10% of tumor cells	Equivocal	Requires reflex ISH testing; if ISH-negative, metastatic patients are eligible for T-DXd [13].
3+	Strong complete membrane staining in >10% of tumor cells	Positive	Eligible for traditional HER2-targeted therapies and T-DXd [13].

The CAP/ASCO guidelines emphasize that the IHC assay was originally designed and validated to distinguish high-level protein overexpression (due to gene amplification) from its absence, not to accurately quantify low-end expression levels [13]. This fundamental characteristic explains the challenges in achieving reproducible discrimination between IHC 0 and 1+ categories. To address this, the guidelines recommend specific best practices: using recommended scoring criteria, reviewing slides at 40x magnification to detect faint/focal staining, implementing second reviews for borderline cases, and utilizing controls with a range of protein expression [13].

The most recent CAP biomarker reporting template (updated March 2025) now explicitly recommends distinguishing between IHC 0 with complete absence of membrane staining (HER2-null) and IHC 0 with faint, incomplete staining in ≤10% of tumor cells (HER2-ultralow) [14] [15]. This refinement acknowledges the emerging clinical data from the DESTINY-Breast06 trial, which demonstrated efficacy of T-DXd in patients with HER2-ultralow metastatic breast cancer, further necessitating precise scoring at the lowest end of the expression spectrum [15].

IHC vs. RT-qPCR for HER2 Biomarker Testing

While IHC remains the standard initial method for HER2 protein expression assessment, reverse transcription quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) offers an alternative approach by measuring ERBB2 mRNA expression levels. Multiple studies have directly compared these methodologies for biomarker testing in breast cancer, with implications for research and clinical practice.

Table: Methodological Comparison of IHC and RT-qPCR for HER2/ERBB2 Testing

Parameter	Immunohistochemistry (IHC)	RT-qPCR
Analytical Target	HER2 protein expression on cell membrane	ERBB2 mRNA expression levels
Output	Semi-quantitative (0, 1+, 2+, 3+) based on staining pattern	Continuous numerical value (CT or normalized expression)
Tissue Requirements	Formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tissue sections	RNA extracted from fresh frozen or FFPE tissue
Turnaround Time	~1-2 days	~1-2 days (including RNA extraction)
Automation Potential	Moderate (staining can be automated, interpretation manual)	High (extraction and analysis can be fully automated)
Key Advantages	Direct visualization of protein in tissue architecture, established guidelines	Objective quantitative result, reduced observer variability, potential for multiplexing
Major Limitations	Inter-observer variability, especially for IHC 0 vs 1+ [15]	No spatial context, mRNA levels may not always correlate with functional protein

A 2022 study by Chen et al. directly compared IHC and RT-qPCR for assessing breast cancer biomarkers, including HER2/ERBB2. The researchers reported a Spearman correlation coefficient of 0.762 between HER2 IHC scores and ERBB2 mRNA levels measured by RT-qPCR, indicating a strong positive relationship [4]. The overall percent agreement (OPA) between methods for HER2/ERBB2 status was 92.80%, demonstrating high concordance [4]. This study established an optimal cutoff value for ERBB2 RT-qPCR at 36.398 (normalized expression) to correspond with IHC-positive status, with 84.53% of specimens showing concordant breast cancer subtype classification between the two methods [4].

An earlier study from 2009 further supports the performance characteristics of qPCR methodology, reporting 91% specificity and 78% sensitivity for QPCR in determining HER2 status compared to standard methods, outperforming the serum HER2 protein immunoassay which showed 95% specificity but only 59% sensitivity [16]. This highlights the potential utility of molecular approaches for objective HER2 status assessment.

Experimental Protocol for HER2 IHC and RT-qPCR Comparison

The methodology from Chen et al. provides a robust framework for direct comparison between IHC and RT-qPCR:

IHC Testing Protocol:

• Tissue Processing: Formalin-fixation and paraffin-embedding of breast cancer specimens with strict adherence to fixation duration (6-72 hours) [13].
• Sectioning: Cut 4-5μm sections and mount on charged slides.
• Staining: Perform automated IHC staining using FDA-approved anti-HER2 antibodies with appropriate positive and negative controls.
• Scoring: Two qualified pathologists independently evaluate staining intensity and pattern using CAP/ASCO criteria [4]. Discrepant cases undergo third pathologist review for consensus.

RT-qPCR Testing Protocol:

• RNA Extraction: Isolve total RNA from mirror tissue sections (FFPE or fresh frozen) using commercial extraction kits with DNase treatment.
• Quality Assessment: Determine RNA purity and integrity using spectrophotometry (A260/A280 ratio) and agarose gel electrophoresis.
• Reverse Transcription: Synthesize cDNA using reverse transcriptase with oligo(dT) and random primers.
• Quantitative PCR: Amplify ERBB2 and reference genes (e.g., ACTB, GAPDH) using TaqMan chemistry on real-time PCR platform.
• Data Analysis: Calculate normalized expression values using the 2^(-ΔΔCT) method relative to reference genes [4].

Concordance Assessment:

• Statistical analysis using Spearman correlation for continuous variables
• Calculate overall percent agreement (OPA) for categorical classifications
• Establish optimal RT-qPCR cutoff values using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis against IHC as reference standard [4]

Diagram: Parallel Testing Workflow for HER2 Assessment. While IHC results directly guide clinical decisions, RT-qPCR provides complementary molecular data. Solid arrows represent primary clinical pathways; dashed arrows indicate supportive or correlative relationships.

Research Reagent Solutions for HER2 Biomarker Studies

Table: Essential Research Reagents for HER2 IHC and Molecular Studies

Reagent/Category	Specific Examples	Research Application
Primary Antibodies for IHC	FDA-approved anti-HER2 clones (e.g., 4B5, A0485)	Detection of HER2 protein in FFPE tissue sections; required for clinical scoring [13].
IHC Detection Systems	Polymer-based detection with chromogens (DAB)	Signal amplification and visualization of HER2-antibody binding [13].
RNA Extraction Kits	Commercial FFPE RNA extraction kits	Isolation of high-quality RNA from archived tissue specimens for RT-qPCR [4].
qPCR Master Mixes	TaqMan Gene Expression Master Mix, SYBR Green kits	Fluorescence-based detection of amplified ERBB2 DNA in real-time PCR [4] [16].
Reference Genes	ACTB, GAPDH, B2M	Housekeeping genes for normalization of ERBB2 expression in RT-qPCR [4].
Positive Control Tissues	Cell line blocks with known HER2 expression levels	Assay validation and quality control for both IHC and RT-qPCR [13].

Real-World Testing Practices and Challenges

Recent surveys of practicing pathologists reveal significant implementation challenges in the era of refined HER2 scoring. A 2025 study analyzing responses from community-based pathologists found that while 93% reported discrete IHC scoring on pathology reports, approximately 16% reported difficulty distinguishing between IHC 0 and IHC 1+ [15]. Key barriers identified included inadequate standards for low-end discrimination, increased interpretation time, and workflow disruptions [15].

The same study documented the distribution of HER2 IHC scores in a real-world cohort of 13,100 patients with HER2-negative breast cancer. The results showed IHC 0 in 31.5%, IHC 1+ in 35.2%, and IHC 2+ in 17.5% of cases, with 14.7% lacking specific IHC score documentation despite HER2-negative status [15]. This distribution underscores the substantial proportion of patients potentially affected by scoring variability in the low-expression range.

Digital pathology emerges as a promising tool to address these challenges, with 39% of pathologists reporting its use in practice. Those utilizing digital platforms cited improved accuracy, higher efficiency, and reduced subjectivity as advantages, while identifying high costs and lack of practice standards as adoption barriers [15].

Diagram: HER2 Testing Challenges and Solutions. Current scoring difficulties drive implementation of improved methods and guidelines to achieve better patient outcomes.

The HER2 IHC scoring system remains the cornerstone of clinical decision-making for HER2-targeted therapies, with updated CAP/ASCO guidelines emphasizing precise discrimination across the entire expression spectrum. While IHC provides essential protein localization data, RT-qPCR offers an objective quantitative complement with strong concordance (92.80% OPA) to IHC results [4]. The evolution of HER2-low and HER2-ultralow as clinically relevant categories necessitates ongoing refinement of scoring practices, potential integration of digital pathology solutions, and consideration of molecular methods like RT-qPCR for ambiguous cases.

Future developments will likely be shaped by emerging clinical trial data, including the full results from DESTINY-Breast06 which includes patients with HER2-ultralow expression [13] [15]. The research community should prioritize developing standardized controls for low-end expression, validating integrated scoring approaches that incorporate both protein and mRNA measurements, and establishing robust computational pathology methods to minimize inter-observer variability. These advances will ensure optimal identification of patients who may benefit from the expanding arsenal of HER2-directed therapies across the expression spectrum.

The accurate determination of Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2 (HER2) status is a critical component in the diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer and other solid tumors. HER2, encoded by the ERBB2 gene, is a well-established prognostic and predictive biomarker, guiding the use of targeted therapies such as trastuzumab and newer antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) like trastuzumab deruxtecan (T-DXd) [14] [13]. The evolution of therapeutic paradigms, particularly the efficacy of ADCs in tumors with low HER2 expression, has intensified the need for precise and quantitative assessment methods [17] [13]. This guide provides an objective comparison between the established method of protein detection via immunohistochemistry (IHC) and gene expression measurement via quantitative PCR (qPCR) and related molecular techniques, framing this comparison within the broader thesis of their roles in HER2 status determination for researchers and drug development professionals.

Technical Comparison of Methodologies

Fundamental Principles and Workflows

Immunohistochemistry (IHC) is a morphology-based technique that visualizes HER2 protein expression directly on formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tissue sections. It uses antibodies specific to the HER2 protein, followed by chromogenic detection, allowing pathologists to score protein expression levels semi-quantitatively based on membrane staining intensity and completeness [13] [18]. The standard scoring system is: 0 (negative), 1+ (negative), 2+ (equivocal), and 3+ (positive) [13].

Quantitative PCR (qPCR) and Reverse Transcription qPCR (RT-qPCR) are nucleic acid-based techniques that quantify gene expression levels. qPCR typically targets genomic DNA to assess ERBB2 gene copy number, while RT-qPCR measures ERBB2 mRNA transcript levels, reflecting transcriptional activity [19] [18]. These methods require nucleic acid extraction from tumor tissue, which may involve macrodissection or laser capture microdissection to ensure sufficient tumor cellularity (often ≥70%) [18].

The following diagram illustrates the core workflows and decision pathways for these two primary methodologies:

Performance Characteristics and Concordance Data

Multiple studies have directly compared the performance of IHC and PCR-based methods against the historical gold standard of Fluorescence In Situ Hybridization (FISH). The table below summarizes key quantitative performance data from recent clinical studies:

Table 1: Comparative Performance of HER2 Testing Methodologies

Study & Reference	Method Comparison	Concordance Metric	Result	Clinical Context
Tse et al. 2005 [19]	qPCR vs. IHCqPCR vs. FISH	Kappa (κ)	κ = 0.81 (95% CI: 0.64-0.99)κ = 0.77 (95% CI: 0.58-0.96)	52 metastatic breast cancer cases
Chen et al. 2022 [4]	RT-qPCR vs. IHC (ERBB2/HER2)	Overall Percent Agreement (OPA)	92.80%	265 breast cancer cases
Unpublished (Cited in [18])	qPCR vs. FISHRT-qPCR vs. FISH	Overall AgreementSensitivity/Specificity	94.1% (κ=0.87)86.1%/99.0%	153 breast cancer cases, enriched for positives
Chen et al. 2022 [4]	RT-qPCR vs. IHC (Subtyping)	Concordance for Molecular Subtypes	84.53%	265 breast cancer cases

For the challenging low-expression spectrum, transcriptomic methods show particular promise. A 2025 study analyzing 3,182 breast tumors found that 86% of samples classified as IHC 0 showed detectable ERBB2 mRNA levels, with 41% classified as "low," 42% as "intermediate," and 4% as "high" by quantitative transcriptomics [7]. This highlights the superior sensitivity of molecular techniques in detecting HER2 expression at levels below the reliable detection threshold of IHC.

Detailed Experimental Protocols

Standardized IHC Protocol for HER2 Detection

The following protocol is synthesized from current guidelines and research practices [14] [13] [18]:

• Tissue Preparation: Cut 4-5 µm sections from FFPE tissue blocks. Mount on charged slides and dry.
• Deparaffinization and Rehydration: Immerse slides in xylene (or substitute), followed by graded ethanol series (100%, 95%, 70%) to water.
• Antigen Retrieval: Use heat-induced epitope retrieval (HIER) in citrate or EDTA-based buffer (pH 6.0 or 9.0) using a pressure cooker or water bath (95-100°C) for 20-40 minutes.
• Blocking: Block endogenous peroxidase activity with 3% hydrogen peroxide for 10 minutes. Block non-specific protein binding with 5% normal serum or protein block for 20 minutes.
• Primary Antibody Incubation: Apply validated anti-HER2 monoclonal antibody (e.g., Ventana 4B5 or HercepTest kit). Incubate at room temperature for 30-60 minutes or overnight at 4°C.
• Detection: Use a polymer-based detection system with horseradish peroxidase (HRP) or alkaline phosphatase (AP) and chromogenic substrates (e.g., DAB).
• Counterstaining and Mounting: Counterstain with hematoxylin, dehydrate, clear, and mount with a permanent mounting medium.
• Scoring: Evaluate by a certified pathologist using a bright-field microscope. Score according to ASCO/CAP guidelines based on membrane staining intensity, completeness, and percentage of positive tumor cells [13].

Nucleic Acid-Based Quantification Protocols

DNA qPCR for Gene Copy Number Variation [20] [18]:

• DNA Extraction: Isolate genomic DNA from FFPE tissue sections using a commercial kit (e.g., QIAamp DNA FFPE Tissue Kit). Assess DNA quality and concentration using spectrophotometry (NanoDrop) or fluorometry (Qubit).
• PCR Reaction Setup:
  • Primers: Use primers specific for the HER2 gene and a reference gene (e.g., IFNG or APP) with no reported copy number variations.
  • Reaction Mix: Prepare a 25 µL reaction containing ~50-100 ng DNA, primers (300 nM each), probes (200 nM), and master mix (e.g., iQ SYBR Green Supermix or TaqMan).
• Amplification: Perform on a real-time PCR system (e.g., LightCycler 96 or 7900HT). Typical cycling conditions: initial denaturation at 95°C for 10 min, followed by 40 cycles of 95°C for 15 sec and 60°C for 1 min.
• Data Analysis: Calculate the HER2/Reference gene ratio using the ΔΔCq method or the Pfaffl equation [20]. Establish a validated cut-off ratio (e.g., Meancontrol + 2-3 * SD) to determine amplification status.

RT-qPCR for mRNA Expression [18] [21]:

• RNA Extraction and QC: Isolate total RNA from FFPE tissue using a Paradise or similar kit, including a DNase I digestion step. Assess RNA quantity and quality.
• cDNA Synthesis: Reverse transcribe 50-200 ng of total RNA to cDNA using random hexamers and a High-Capacity cDNA Archive Kit.
• Target Preamplification (Optional): Perform limited-cycle (e.g., 14 cycles) preamplification of HER2 and reference gene (e.g., RPLP0) assays to enhance sensitivity for low-abundance targets.
• Quantitative PCR: Amplify preamplified cDNA using TaqMan assays for HER2 (ERBB2) and reference genes. Use standard qPCR cycling conditions.
• Analysis: Normalize HER2 expression to reference genes (ΔCq). Convert to a continuous score or classify based on validated cut-offs (e.g., Oncotype DX HER2 score < 35.539 for negative status) [4] [21].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

Successful implementation of HER2 testing methodologies requires specific, validated reagents. The following table details essential research solutions for the featured experiments.

Table 2: Key Research Reagent Solutions for HER2 Detection

Reagent / Kit	Function / Application	Example Product / Clone
Anti-HER2 Primary Antibody	Binds specifically to HER2 protein for IHC detection.	Ventana anti-HER2/neu (4B5); HercepTest [18]
FFPE DNA/RNA Extraction Kit	Isols high-quality nucleic acids from archived FFPE tissues.	QIAamp DNA FFPE Tissue Kit; Paradise Reagent System [18]
ERBB2/HER2 Primers & Probes	Amplifies and detects HER2 DNA or mRNA sequence in qPCR/RT-qPCR.	Sequences from Lehman et al. or commercial assays [18]
Reference Gene Assays	Provides stable internal control for nucleic acid quantification.	IFNG (DNA), APP (DNA), RPLP0 (RNA) [20] [18]
qPCR Master Mix	Contains enzymes, dNTPs, and buffer for efficient PCR amplification.	iQ SYBR Green Supermix; TaqMan Universal Master Mix [20] [18]
Cell Line Controls	Serves as positive/negative controls for assay validation.	SKBR-3 (HER2+), BT-474 (HER2+), Caco-2 (HER2-) [20] [18]

Emerging Applications and Clinical Relevance

Addressing HER2-Low and Heterogeneity

The paradigm of HER2 as a binary biomarker is evolving. The recognition of HER2-low (IHC 1+ or IHC 2+/ISH-negative) and HER2-ultralow (IHC 0 with faint staining) as therapeutically relevant categories for ADCs like T-DXd presents a major challenge for traditional IHC [14] [13]. IHC has substantial inter-observer variability in distinguishing IHC 0 from 1+, and its dynamic range is insufficient to capture the continuum of HER2 expression [14] [7]. Quantitative PCR and transcriptomic methods naturally address this continuum, providing a continuous numerical output that may better stratify patients for novel therapies [21] [7]. A 2024 case report demonstrated this principle by using a CLIA-certified reverse-phase protein array (RPPA) proteomic assay, which identified moderate HER2 protein expression and activation in a patient with HER2 IHC 0 triple-negative breast cancer; this patient subsequently achieved a complete response to T-DXd [17].

Technical Advantages and Limitations in Context

The relationship between technical capabilities and clinical challenges in HER2 testing is complex. The following diagram maps key methodological features against the evolving diagnostic and therapeutic landscape:

Both IHC and PCR-based methods provide valuable, complementary data for determining HER2 status. IHC remains the foundational clinical method, providing essential morphological context and established, guideline-driven scoring. However, qPCR and RT-qPCR offer significant advantages as research and potential supplementary tools: they provide objective, quantitative data, demonstrate high reproducibility (CVs <10%), and show excellent concordance with IHC and FISH [19] [4]. Most importantly, their quantitative nature and superior sensitivity make them particularly suited for investigating the emerging HER2-low continuum and tumor heterogeneity, which are critical for the next generation of targeted therapies [21] [7]. The future of HER2 testing in both clinical and research settings likely lies not in choosing one method over the other, but in strategically integrating morphological and quantitative molecular data to fully characterize the molecular basis of HER2 expression.

The classification of Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2 (HER2) status in breast cancer has undergone a profound transformation, moving from a simple binary paradigm to a complex spectrum with critical therapeutic implications. Historically, HER2 status was categorized merely as positive or negative, determining eligibility for HER2-targeted therapies. This binary classification is now obsolete with the recognition of HER2-low and HER2-ultralow subsets, which demonstrate significant response to novel antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) like trastuzumab deruxtecan (T-DXd) [15] [14]. This evolution has created a clinical imperative for more precise diagnostic approaches that can reliably stratify patients across the HER2 expression continuum.

The limitations of conventional immunohistochemistry (IHC) have become increasingly apparent in this new era. IHC suffers from substantial interobserver variability and methodological inconsistencies that challenge accurate classification, particularly within the lower expression ranges [15] [4]. Meanwhile, reverse transcription quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) has emerged as a highly objective molecular method for quantifying HER2 expression. This comparison guide provides a comprehensive analysis of these competing methodologies, examining their performance characteristics, technical requirements, and clinical utility in the context of modern HER2-directed treatment paradigms.

Methodological Comparison: IHC Versus RT-qPCR

Immunohistochemistry (IHC): Traditional Workhorse with Inherent Limitations

IHC remains the cornerstone of HER2 testing in most pathology laboratories worldwide. This method utilizes enzymatic reactions and chemical dyes to visually detect HER2 protein expression on the surface of cancer cells in formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tissue sections [22]. The results are semi-quantitative, generating a score of 0, 1+, 2+, or 3+ based on microscopic evaluation of staining intensity and completeness of membrane staining [22].

The IHC workflow involves multiple complex steps: tissue fixation and processing, antigen retrieval, primary antibody application, detection system development, and counterstaining. Each step introduces potential variability that can impact results. Critical limitations include susceptibility to pre-analytical factors (ischemia time, fixation duration, processing conditions), subjective interpretation by pathologists, and significant interobserver variability, particularly for borderline cases (IHC 2+) and the distinction between IHC 0 and 1+ [15] [4] [5]. One recent survey of community-based pathologists found that 16% reported difficulty assigning scores between IHC 0 and IHC 1+, with barriers including inadequate standards, increased interpretation time, and workflow disruptions [15].

RT-qPCR: Molecular Precision for Quantitative Assessment

RT-qPCR offers a fundamentally different approach by directly quantifying the messenger RNA (mRNA) expression of the ERBB2 gene (which encodes the HER2 protein) extracted from tumor tissue. This method begins with RNA extraction from FFPE samples, followed by reverse transcription to complementary DNA (cDNA), and quantitative PCR amplification using sequence-specific primers and fluorescent probes [4] [5].

The key advantages of RT-qPCR include its high objectivity, quantitative results (expressed as normalized numerical values), minimal subjectivity in interpretation, and excellent analytical reproducibility [4] [3]. The methodology also demonstrates remarkable versatility, working effectively with various sample types including core needle biopsies, surgical specimens, and even fine needle aspiration cytology samples [3]. One study demonstrated that RT-qPCR could determine HER2 status from fine-needle aspiration samples in a mean of 3.7 days with 97% overall concordance to standard IHC and FISH testing [3].

Table 1: Core Methodological Characteristics of IHC versus RT-qPCR

Characteristic	Immunohistochemistry (IHC)	RT-qPCR
Analytical Target	HER2 protein on cell membrane	ERBB2 mRNA expression
Output	Semi-quantitative (0, 1+, 2+, 3+)	Continuous numerical value
Tissue Requirements	FFPE tissue sections	RNA extracted from FFPE or fresh tissue
Turnaround Time	1-3 days	1-2 days (after RNA extraction)
Automation Potential	Moderate (staining can be automated, interpretation manual)	High (full process automation possible)
Major Sources of Variability	Pre-analytical factors, subjective interpretation, antibody performance	RNA quality, extraction efficiency, amplification efficiency
Sample Versatility	Standard sections from FFPE blocks	FFPE blocks, core biopsies, fine needle aspirates [3]

Experimental Protocols for HER2 Assessment

Standard IHC Protocol for HER2 Testing: Tissue sections (4-5μm) are mounted on charged slides, deparaffinized, and rehydrated. Heat-induced epitope retrieval is performed using citrate or EDTA buffer at pH 6.0 or 9.0. After peroxidase blocking, slides are incubated with anti-HER2 primary antibodies (typically clone 4B5 or SP3) for 30-60 minutes at room temperature. Detection systems (e.g., polymer-based systems) are applied followed by chromogenic substrates (DAB). Slides are counterstained with hematoxylin, dehydrated, cleared, and mounted. Interpretation follows ASCO/CAP guidelines: 0 (no staining or ≤10% faint staining), 1+ (faint/barely perceptible staining in >10% of cells), 2+ (circumferential membrane staining that is incomplete and/or weak/moderate in >10% of cells), or 3+ (circumferential membrane staining that is complete and intense in >10% of cells) [14] [22].

RT-qPCR Protocol for ERBB2 Quantification: RNA is extracted from macrodissected tumor areas of FFPE sections (ensuring >50% tumor content) using commercial kits with DNase treatment. RNA quality and concentration are assessed spectrophotometrically. Reverse transcription is performed using random hexamers and/or oligo-dT primers. Quantitative PCR is run with ERBB2-specific primers/probes alongside reference genes (e.g., PGK1, CALM2, ACTB) for normalization. The MammaTyper assay specifically targets ERBB2, ESR1, PGR, and MKI67 mRNA with defined cutoffs [5]. Amplification curves are analyzed using the ΔΔCt method with results expressed as normalized copies/μL. Validated cutoffs for HER2 positivity must be established for each laboratory [4] [5].

Performance Comparison: Analytical and Clinical Validation

Concordance Studies and Diagnostic Accuracy

Multiple studies have directly compared the performance of IHC and RT-qPCR for HER2 status assessment. The correlation between these methods is generally strong, though significant discordance exists in borderline cases and across the lower expression ranges that have gained new therapeutic relevance.

A 2022 study by Chen et al. comparing IHC and RT-qPCR across 265 breast cancer cases reported a Spearman correlation coefficient of 0.762 for HER2/ERBB2, indicating strong overall correlation [4]. The overall percent agreement (OPA) between methods was 92.80% for HER2/ERBB2 status, higher than for progesterone receptor (73.68%) or Ki67 (74.44%) [4]. Another study by Caselli et al. found that RT-qPCR demonstrated high concordance with IHC, particularly for estrogen receptor and HER2 status, while revealing significant limitations in IHC reproducibility for Ki67 assessment [5].

The high accuracy of RT-qPCR for HER2 status determination extends to unconventional sample types. A 2016 study demonstrated that RT-qPCR performed on fine needle aspiration cytology samples achieved 97% overall concordance with standard IHC and FISH testing on core needle biopsies or surgical specimens, with sensitivity of 96% and specificity of 98% [3]. This suggests RT-qPCR may offer reliable HER2 stratification even when tissue is limited.

Table 2: Comparative Performance Metrics of IHC Versus RT-qPCR for HER2 Assessment

Performance Metric	IHC	RT-qPCR	Study References
Interobserver Variability	High (especially for IHC 0 vs 1+)	Minimal	[15] [4]
Correlation with mRNA Expression	0.762 (Spearman coefficient)	N/A (reference method)	[4]
Overall Percent Agreement	N/A (reference method)	92.80% vs IHC	[4]
Concordance in FNA Samples	Limited by tissue architecture requirements	97% with standard testing	[3]
Testing Turnaround Time	1-3 days	1-2 days after RNA extraction	[3]
Impact of Pre-analytical Factors	High (fixation, processing)	Moderate (RNA quality dependent)	[5]

Clinical Impact on Treatment Decision-Making

Accurate HER2 stratification directly impacts therapeutic decisions across the breast cancer continuum. In the early disease setting, the HER2DX genomic test (which incorporates RT-qPCR-based assessment of ERBB2 expression alongside other genes) has demonstrated significant utility for predicting response to HER2-targeted therapies [23]. In the CompassHER2 pCR trial involving 569 patients, the HER2DX pCR score significantly predicted pathological complete response to neoadjuvant therapy with taxane, trastuzumab, and pertuzumab (THP), with pCR rates increasing from 13.3% in the low-score group to 81.8% in the high-score group [23].

Similarly, in the metastatic setting, the HER2DX ERBB2 signature score was significantly associated with survival outcomes following trastuzumab deruxtecan (T-DXd) treatment [23]. A Dana-Farber Cancer Institute study found that metastatic breast cancer patients in the highest tertile of HER2DX ERBB2 expression had a median time to next treatment of 12.03 months compared to 4.7 months in the lowest tertile [23]. These findings highlight how quantitative HER2 assessment can inform expectations for ADC efficacy.

The critical importance of distinguishing subtle differences in HER2 expression is underscored by recent therapeutic advances. The DESTINY-Breast04 and DESTINY-Breast06 trials demonstrated that T-DXd improves outcomes not only in HER2-low metastatic breast cancer (IHC 1+ or IHC 2+/ISH-negative) but also in the HER2-ultralow population (IHC 0 with faint membrane staining) [15] [14]. This expansion of the therapeutic landscape creates unprecedented demands on diagnostic precision that challenge the limitations of conventional IHC.

Research Reagent Solutions for HER2 Stratification

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents for HER2 Assessment Methodologies

Reagent Category	Specific Examples	Function and Application	Considerations for Use
IHC Primary Antibodies	Clone 4B5 (Ventana), SP3, HercepTest (Dako)	Bind specifically to HER2 protein extracellular domain	Clone selection affects sensitivity; require rigorous validation
IHC Detection Systems	Polymer-based systems, HRP-conjugated polymers	Amplify signal from primary antibody binding	Reduce background vs older avidin-biotin systems
RNA Extraction Kits	Qiagen RNeasy FFPE, Maxwell RSC RNA FFPE	Isolve and purify RNA from FFPE tissues	Must handle cross-linked RNA from FFPE; include DNase step
Reverse Transcription Kits	High-Capacity cDNA Reverse Transcription	Convert RNA to stable cDNA	Random hexamers vs oligo-dT primers impact representation
qPCR Assay Kits	MammaTyper, TaqMan Gene Expression Assays	Quantify ERBB2 mRNA with specific primers/probes	Require validation of reference genes for normalization
Reference Genes	PGK1, CALM2, ACTB	Normalize for RNA input and quality	Should be validated for stability in breast cancer samples

Visualizing HER2 Signaling and Testing Pathways

HER2 Biology and Testing Methods

This diagram illustrates the central dogma of HER2 biology and the corresponding detection methodologies. IHC detects the final protein product, RT-qPCR quantifies the intermediate mRNA transcript, and FISH identifies gene-level amplification. Each method interrogates a different level of biological expression, explaining their complementary nature in clinical practice.

Methodology Workflow Comparison

This workflow diagram highlights the fundamental differences between IHC and RT-qPCR methodologies. The IHC pathway culminates in subjective interpretation and semi-quantitative scoring, while the RT-qPCR pathway results in objective quantification and mathematical normalization, reflecting their distinct approaches to biomarker assessment.

The evolving therapeutic landscape for HER2-expressing breast cancers demands increasingly sophisticated diagnostic approaches. While IHC remains the established workhorse for initial HER2 assessment, its limitations in reproducibility, subjectivity, and precise quantification at lower expression ranges present significant challenges in the era of HER2-low and ultralow targeting therapies.

RT-qPCR offers compelling advantages as either a complementary or alternative methodology, providing objective quantification, superior reproducibility, and compatibility with limited tissue samples. The high concordance with traditional methods, coupled with the ability to generate continuous numerical data, positions RT-qPCR as a valuable tool for precision oncology initiatives.

The optimal approach likely involves a synergistic diagnostic strategy that leverages the strengths of both methodologies. IHC provides valuable spatial context and protein-level localization, while RT-qPCR delivers precise quantification essential for borderline cases and response prediction. As treatment paradigms continue to evolve toward targeting increasingly minimal HER2 expression, the clinical imperative will increasingly favor quantitative, reproducible methods like RT-qPCR that can reliably guide therapeutic decisions across the entire HER2 expression spectrum.

Methodological Deep Dive: IHC and qPCR Workflows for HER2 Detection

Immunohistochemistry (IHC) is a cornerstone technique that uses antibody-epitope interactions to selectively label and visualize specific proteins, such as the HER2 receptor, within tissue samples. Its unique value lies in its ability to detect protein distribution, subcellular localization, and abundance without destroying the histological architecture of the tissue [24] [25]. This allows pathologists and researchers to assess biomarker expression within its precise cellular and microenvironmental context, information that is crucial for both diagnostic classification and research into new therapeutic targets [25].

The determination of HER2 status in breast cancer is a critical diagnostic application of IHC. The technique is central to identifying patients who may benefit from HER2-targeted therapies. However, the established IHC workflow, from tissue acquisition to final scoring, is multi-faceted, and each step must be meticulously controlled to ensure a reliable and accurate result. This guide will objectively detail this technical workflow, provide supporting experimental data, and frame it within the broader context of methodological comparisons, particularly with quantitative PCR (qPCR), in HER2 status determination research.

The IHC Technical Workflow: A Step-by-Step Guide

The journey of a tissue sample from a patient to a diagnostically readable IHC slide is a rigorous process. The following sections and corresponding workflow diagram break down this procedure into its essential steps.

Tissue Acquisition and Processing

Before any staining can occur, the tissue must be preserved and prepared to maintain its morphology and antigenicity.

• Fixation: Immediately after dissection, tissue is fixed to prevent degradation. 10% Neutral Buffered Formalin (NBF) is the most common fixative, preserving tissue through the creation of protein cross-links. The fixation time is critical; under-fixation can lead to proteolytic degradation, while over-fixation can mask epitopes, making them undetectable by antibodies. The recommended fixation in NBF is typically 24 hours at room temperature [25] [26]. Alternative fixatives include precipitative agents like methanol or ethanol, but these may not be compatible with all antibodies and can compromise morphology [24].
• Tissue Processing for Paraffin Embedding: To create thin sections, the fixed tissue is infiltrated with a solid support medium, typically paraffin wax. This involves:
  • Dehydration: Removing all water from the tissue using a series of increasing concentrations of ethanol [27] [26].
  • Clearing: Removing the alcohol with a solvent like xylene, which is miscible with both alcohol and paraffin [27] [26].
  • Infiltration and Embedding: The tissue is immersed in molten paraffin wax, which replaces the xylene. It is then oriented in a mold with more wax and cooled to form a solid block [27] [26]. This paraffin-embedded (FFPE) block can be stored stably for years, creating a valuable archival resource.

The following diagram illustrates the complete IHC workflow from sample to score:

The Staining Procedure

Once thin sections are mounted on slides, the core immunostaining process begins.

• Antigen Retrieval: Formalin fixation creates cross-links that can mask the target epitope. An Antigen Retrieval step is often required to "unmask" these epitopes. Heat-Induced Epitope Retrieval (HIER) using a microwave, steamer, or pressure cooker in a buffer (pH 6-10) is the most common method. The optimal condition (pH, time, temperature) must be determined empirically for each antigen-antibody pair [24] [25].
• Blocking: To reduce non-specific background staining, the tissue is treated with a protein block (e.g., normal serum or bovine serum albumin) to occupy reactive sites. When using peroxidase-based detection systems, endogenous peroxidase activity must also be blocked with hydrogen peroxide to prevent false-positive signals [28] [25].
• Antibody Incubation and Detection:
  • Primary Antibody: A species-specific antibody that binds directly to the target antigen (e.g., HER2) is applied. Incubation times and optimal antibody dilution (titer) must be validated [28] [25].
  • Detection System: For increased sensitivity, an indirect method is used. A labeled secondary antibody that recognizes the primary antibody is applied. This is often conjugated to an enzyme like Horseradish Peroxidase (HRP). Further amplification can be achieved using systems that build large complexes of enzyme molecules [28].
• Visualization and Counterstaining: The enzyme (e.g., HRP) catalyzes a reaction with a chromogen substrate, such as Diaminobenzidine (DAB), producing an insoluble brown precipitate at the site of the target antigen. The tissue is then counterstained with hematoxylin, which stains nuclei blue, providing contrast and allowing visualization of the underlying tissue morphology [28] [25].

Essential Reagents for IHC

The table below details key reagents and their critical functions in a typical IHC protocol.

Table 1: Key Research Reagent Solutions for IHC

Reagent	Function	Key Considerations
Formalin (10% NBF)	Fixative; preserves tissue morphology & antigenicity by creating protein cross-links [25] [26]	Fixation time is critical; over/under-fixation negatively impacts results [24].
Primary Antibody	Binds specifically to the target protein (e.g., HER2) [28]	Specificity, sensitivity, and optimal dilution (titer) must be validated. Monoclonal vs. polyclonal can affect specificity [28] [25].
Detection System	Visualizes primary antibody binding (e.g., HRP-polymer systems) [28]	Amplifies signal. Choice affects sensitivity and specificity. Requires blocking of endogenous enzyme activity [28] [25].
Chromogen (DAB)	Enzyme substrate producing an insoluble colored precipitate at the antigen site [28] [25]	DAB (brown) is common and permanent. Allows visualization with a brightfield microscope.
Antigen Retrieval Buffer	Unmasks epitopes cross-linked by formalin fixation [25]	Critical for many antibodies in FFPE tissue. HIER method (pH, temperature, time) requires optimization [24] [25].
Hematoxylin	Counterstain; labels cell nuclei [28]	Provides structural context and contrast to the chromogen stain.

IHC vs. qPCR: A Comparative Analysis for HER2 Status

While IHC visualizes protein expression in situ, quantitative PCR (qPCR) measures gene expression or copy number at the nucleic acid level. The following table summarizes a core methodological comparison, with specific data from studies comparing these techniques for HER2 determination.

Table 2: Comparative Analysis: IHC vs. qPCR for HER2 Status Determination

Parameter	Immunohistochemistry (IHC)	Quantitative PCR (qPCR)
Target Analyte	Protein (HER2 receptor)	Nucleic Acids (HER2/ERBB2 mRNA or DNA)
Output	Semi-quantitative (IHC score: 0, 1+, 2+, 3+) [21]	Quantitative (Continuous numerical value: gene copy number or mRNA expression level) [29] [21]
Tissue Context	Preserved; allows assessment in morphological context [25]	Destroyed; analysis is performed on homogenized tissue lysate
Therapeutic Correlation	Directly assesses target protein for monoclonal antibody therapies (e.g., Trastuzumab)	Correlation with protein expression may not be perfect due to post-translational regulation
Key Advantages	Visual, in-situ data; standard in clinical diagnostics; identifies heterogeneity [25]	Objective, quantitative data; high sensitivity; potentially less demanding on tumor cell percentage (as low as 5%) [29]; higher throughput
Key Limitations	Semi-quantitative; subjective scoring; antigen integrity dependent on fixation [25] [21]	Loses spatial and morphological information; requires DNA/RNA extraction; risk of PCR inhibitors in FFPE samples [29]
Reported Concordance	Benchmark method	Studies show high but not perfect concordance with IHC/FISH (e.g., 94.4% in one study [29])
Data from Comparison Studies	HER2 mRNA levels (Oncotype DX) increase with IHC score (0+: 9.07; 1+: 9.25; 2+: 9.51) but with wide dispersion and overlap between categories [21].	qPCR can reclassify a small proportion of IHC-positive/FISH-negative cases, potentially impacting therapy selection [29].

The relationship between these two methodologies in the diagnostic and research landscape can be conceptualized as follows:

Detailed Experimental Protocol for HER2 IHC

For researchers seeking to establish or validate an IHC assay for HER2, the following detailed protocol, compiled from the search results, provides a robust starting point. It is essential to optimize steps like antigen retrieval and primary antibody dilution for your specific laboratory conditions.

Table 3: Detailed Manual IHC Staining Protocol for HER2

Step	Protocol Details	Purpose & Critical Notes
1. Sectioning	Cut paraffin sections at 4μm thickness and mount on charged slides. Use freshly cut sections for best results.	Thin sections reduce background. Aged sections can lead to loss of antigenicity [25].
2. Deparaffinization & Rehydration	Incubate at 60°C, then pass through xylene and graded alcohols (100%, 90%, 70%) to water [25].	Removes paraffin and rehydrates the tissue for aqueous-based reagents.
3. Antigen Retrieval	Perform Heat-Induced Epitope Retrieval (HIER). A typical condition: pH 9 buffer, 100°C for 30 minutes, then cool slowly [25].	Unmasks epitopes cross-linked by formalin. Condition must be optimized for the specific HER2 antibody clone used.
4. Blocking	a) Endogenous Peroxidase: 3% H₂O₂, 10 min.\nb) Protein Block: 5-10% normal serum, 30 min [25].	Reduces non-specific background staining and false-positive signals.
5. Primary Antibody	Apply anti-HER2 primary antibody diluted in buffer. Incubate for 30-60 minutes at room temperature (or overnight at 4°C for some antibodies) [25].	Binds specifically to the HER2 target. Antibody dilution is critical and must be validated.
6. Washing	Wash with Tris-buffered saline with Tween 20 (TBS-T), 3 times for 5 minutes each [25].	Removes unbound antibody to reduce background. Standardized washing is key to consistency [28].
7. Detection	Apply HRP-labeled polymer secondary antibody for 30-60 minutes at room temperature [25].	Binds to primary antibody. Polymer systems provide high sensitivity through signal amplification [28].
8. Visualization	Apply DAB substrate for 1-3 minutes. Monitor development under a microscope [25].	Produces an insoluble brown precipitate at the site of HER2 expression.
9. Counterstaining	Apply hematoxylin for ~1 minute, then "blue" in running tap water [25].	Stains nuclei blue, providing cellular and morphological context.
10. Scoring	Score according to ASCO/CAP guidelines based on membrane staining intensity, completeness, and percentage of tumor cells [21].	IHC scoring has inherent subjectivity; rigorous training and the use of controls are essential.

The IHC technical workflow is a complex but powerful process, enabling the visualization of protein expression within its native tissue environment. For HER2 status determination, it remains a foundational clinical tool. However, as the comparative data shows, IHC has inherent limitations as a semi-quantitative method, with scoring subjectivity and pre-analytical variables affecting reproducibility.

The emergence of qPCR offers a complementary, quantitative approach that can provide a more objective measure of HER2 status at the gene level. While it loses the valuable spatial context of IHC, its quantitative nature makes it particularly useful for resolving equivocal cases or for research applications requiring precise measurement. The future of biomarker analysis, especially with the advent of therapies targeting lower levels of HER2 expression ("HER2-low"), likely lies in a multi-modal approach. Integrating the morphological strengths of IHC with the quantitative power of molecular techniques like qPCR will provide the most robust and comprehensive data to drive accurate diagnosis and personalized treatment decisions in breast cancer and beyond.

The precise determination of Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2 (HER2) status in breast cancer has undergone a significant paradigm shift with the recognition of HER2-low and HER2-ultralow categories, which demonstrate clinical relevance for novel antibody-drug conjugates like trastuzumab deruxtecan (T-DXd) [14]. This evolution has exposed critical limitations in traditional immunohistochemistry (IHC) methods, particularly in distinguishing the subtle expression differences between IHC 0 (null), IHC 0+ (ultralow), and IHC 1+ (low) cases [7] [30]. While IHC remains the most commonly applied method for breast cancer subtyping, it suffers from substantial intraobserver and interobserver variability that can impact therapeutic decisions [4] [31].

Quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) methodology offers a molecular alternative that may improve diagnostic objectivity through quantitative measurement of gene expression. Reverse transcription-quantitative PCR (RT-qPCR) assays target the messenger RNA (mRNA) of biomarkers—ESR1 for estrogen receptor (ER), PGR for progesterone receptor (PR), ERBB2 for HER2, and MKi67 for Ki67—providing a complementary approach to protein-level detection by IHC [4]. This guide provides a comprehensive comparison of qPCR methodology against IHC for HER2 status determination, presenting experimental protocols, performance data, and technical considerations to inform researchers, scientists, and drug development professionals.

Methodological Comparison: qPCR versus Immunohistochemistry

Fundamental Principles and Workflows

The core distinction between these methodologies lies in their analytical targets: IHC detects protein expression at the cellular level, while RT-qPCR quantifies gene expression at the mRNA level. IHC involves antibody-binding to target proteins in tissue sections, visualized through chromogenic reactions, with scoring based on membrane staining intensity and distribution patterns [32]. In contrast, RT-qPCR utilizes sequence-specific primers to amplify and quantify target mRNA transcripts extracted from tumor tissue, providing continuous numerical data rather than categorical scores [29].

Table 1: Fundamental Methodological Differences Between IHC and RT-qPCR

Parameter	Immunohistochemistry (IHC)	RT-qPCR Methodology
Analytical Target	Protein expression and localization	mRNA expression level
Output Format	Semi-quantitative categorical scores (0, 1+, 2+, 3+)	Continuous numerical values (Ct values or normalized ratios)
Key Process Steps	Antigen retrieval, antibody binding, chromogenic detection	RNA extraction, reverse transcription, quantitative PCR amplification
Tissue Requirements	Formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tissue sections	Extracted nucleic acids from FFPE or fresh frozen tissue
Result Interpretation	Visual assessment of staining patterns	Calculation based on amplification curves and reference genes
Automation Potential	Moderate (staining automation available)	High (full process automation possible)

Experimental Protocols

RNA Extraction and Quality Control

For RT-qPCR analysis of HER2 status, RNA is typically isolated from formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded (FFPE) breast cancer tumor samples. The process begins with deparaffinization of 3-5 microtome sections (5μm thickness) using xylene or commercial deparaffinization solutions [29]. Subsequent RNA extraction can be performed using specialized kits such as the QIAamp DNA mini kit (Qiagen) or Agilent FFPE extraction kits, followed by quality assessment through spectrophotometry or microfluidic electrophoresis [29] [32]. For long-term archived FFPE blocks, treatment with DNA repair enzymes (e.g., FFPE repair mix, New England BioLab) may be necessary to address formalin-induced damage [29].

Reverse Transcription and qPCR Amplification

The reverse transcription process converts extracted RNA into complementary DNA (cDNA) using reverse transcriptase enzymes with random hexamers or gene-specific primers. For HER2 status determination, quantitative PCR amplification targets the ERBB2 transcript alongside reference genes for normalization. The MammaTyper assay (Cerca Biotech GmbH), for instance, uses RT-qPCR to measure ERBB2, ESR1, PGR, and MKI67 mRNA expression simultaneously for comprehensive breast cancer subtyping [33].

A typical qPCR reaction mixture includes:

• Template cDNA
• Sequence-specific primers and probes
• PCR master mix (containing DNA polymerase, dNTPs, and buffer components)
• Fluorescent detection chemistry (SYBR Green or TaqMan probes)

Amplification protocols generally follow this profile: initial denaturation at 95°C for 10 minutes, followed by 40-50 cycles of denaturation (95°C for 10 seconds), annealing (60°C for 10-30 seconds), and extension (72°C for 10-30 seconds) [29] [32]. The ERBB2 expression is typically normalized to reference genes such as APP (located at 21q21) or RPL23, which demonstrate stable expression in breast cancer tissue and similar amplification efficiency to ERBB2 [29].

The following diagram illustrates the complete RT-qPCR workflow for HER2 testing:

Immunohistochemistry Protocol

For comparative purposes, standard IHC protocols for HER2 detection begin with FFPE tissue sections mounted on slides. These undergo deparaffinization and antigen retrieval using heat-induced epitope retrieval methods in citrate or EDTA buffers [32]. Primary antibody incubation utilizes HER2-specific monoclonal antibodies (e.g., HerceptTest from DakoCytomation or Ventana anti-Her2/neu from Roche Diagnostics), followed by visualization with chromogenic substrates like DAB [32]. Scoring follows ASCO/CAP guidelines: 0 (no staining or <10% tumor cells), 1+ (faint/barely perceptible staining in >10%), 2+ (weak to moderate complete membrane staining in >10%), or 3+ (strong complete membrane staining in >10%) [32] [6].

Comparative Performance Data

Concordance Studies Between Methodologies

Multiple studies have directly compared the performance of RT-qPCR and IHC for breast cancer biomarker assessment. A 2022 study by Chen et al. analyzing 265 breast cancer cases demonstrated strong correlation between the methodologies for key biomarkers [4] [31].

Table 2: Concordance Between IHC and RT-qPCR for Breast Cancer Biomarkers

Biomarker	Spearman Correlation Coefficient	Overall Percent Agreement (OPA)	Positive Percent Agreement (PPA)	Negative Percent Agreement (NPA)
ER/ESR1	0.768	92.48%	95.24%	85.71%
PR/PGR	0.699	73.68%	74.07%	72.97%
HER2/ERBB2	0.762	92.80%	76.92%	95.52%
Ki67/MKI67	0.387	74.44%	71.43%	76.92%

For HER2 status specifically, the high overall agreement (92.80%) between IHC and RT-qPCR demonstrates the reliability of molecular methods, though the lower positive percent agreement (76.92%) suggests some discordance in positive cases that may require additional verification [4]. This discordance highlights scenarios where mRNA and protein expression may not perfectly correlate due to post-transcriptional regulation or methodological factors.

Advantages of qPCR in Detecting Low HER2 Expression

The emergence of HER2-low as a therapeutic category has highlighted limitations in IHC's ability to reliably distinguish between IHC 0 and IHC 1+ cases. A 2025 transcriptomics study of 3,182 breast tumors revealed that 86% of samples classified as IHC 0 showed detectable ERBB2 mRNA expression, with 41% classified as "low," 42% as "intermediate," and 4% as "high" by quantitative transcriptomic analysis [7]. This demonstrates the superior sensitivity of molecular methods in detecting low-level HER2 expression that may have therapeutic implications.

Further supporting this finding, a 2025 study on molecular biological determination of HER2 status reported that qPCR methods could detect HER2 amplification in samples with as little as 5% tumor cells, making them less demanding on tumor content than traditional methods [29]. The same study identified instances where IHC-positive cases were negative by FISH but positive by qPCR, suggesting potential utility in resolving equivocal cases [29].

Predictive Value for Treatment Response

The clinical utility of any diagnostic method ultimately depends on its ability to predict treatment response. A study investigating the MammaTyper RT-qPCR assay for predicting response to anti-HER2 therapy found that ERBB2 mRNA status effectively stratified patient outcomes [33]. Patients classified as ERBB2-positive by RT-qPCR who received anti-HER2 therapy showed significantly prolonged 5-year disease-free survival (hazard ratio=0.56, P=.003) and distant metastasis-free survival (hazard ratio=0.62, P=.023) compared to those treated with chemotherapy alone [33].

Notably, the study identified that 25 of 287 cases (8.7%) initially classified as HER2-positive by standard protocols were potentially false positives when assessed by RT-qPCR, as these ERBB2-negative cases showed no survival benefit from anti-HER2 therapy [33]. This suggests complementary use of RT-qPCR with IHC could improve patient selection for targeted therapies.

Technical Considerations and Methodological Limitations

qPCR Methodological Challenges

While RT-qPCR offers objective quantification, several technical challenges require consideration. Nucleic acids extracted from FFPE tissue may suffer from fragmentation and chemical modifications due to formalin fixation, potentially impacting amplification efficiency [29]. This can be mitigated through pre-analytical treatments such as high-temperature incubation or repair enzyme cocktails [29]. The presence of PCR inhibitors in nucleic acid extracts represents another challenge, addressable through inhibitor removal columns (e.g., OneStep PCR Inhibitor Removal Kit, ZymoResearch) and careful primer/probe design to generate short amplicons (<100 bp) compatible with degraded RNA [29].

The selection of appropriate reference genes for normalization represents another critical consideration. Ideal reference genes should demonstrate stable expression across breast cancer subtypes and show minimal variance between tumor and normal tissue [29]. The APP gene (located on chromosome 21q21) has been utilized successfully as it rarely shows alterations in breast cancer and exhibits similar amplification efficiency to ERBB2 [29].

Comparison with Emerging Technologies

Recent advancements in diagnostic methodologies provide additional context for evaluating RT-qPCR applications. Artificial intelligence (AI) approaches for classifying HER2 IHC images have demonstrated impressive performance, with a meta-analysis reporting pooled sensitivity of 0.97 and specificity of 0.82 for distinguishing HER2-positive from negative cases [6]. Deep learning models particularly excel in classifying higher HER2 expression levels (2+ and 3+), with area under the curve (AUC) values of 0.98 and 1.00, respectively [6].

Similarly, deep learning approaches applied directly to IHC images can predict FISH results with AUC of 0.84, potentially reducing the need for reflexive testing [34]. However, these approaches still depend on initial IHC staining quality and have shown lower sensitivity (0.37) despite high specificity (0.96) for FISH prediction [34].

The following diagram illustrates the decision pathways for HER2 testing, highlighting where qPCR integrates with established methods:

Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents for HER2 RT-qPCR Analysis

Reagent Category	Specific Examples	Function and Application Notes
Nucleic Acid Extraction	QIAamp DNA/RNA Mini Kits (Qiagen), Agilent FFPE Extraction Kits	Isolation of high-quality nucleic acids from FFPE tissue; critical for reproducible results
Reverse Transcription	Reverse transcriptase enzymes with random hexamers or gene-specific primers	cDNA synthesis from RNA templates; random hexamers preferred for degraded RNA
qPCR Master Mixes	SYBR Green or TaqMan probe-based chemistries	Fluorescent detection of amplification; probe chemistries offer higher specificity
Reference Genes	APP, RPL23	Normalization genes with stable expression in breast cancer; essential for quantitative accuracy
Positive Controls	Control Genomic Human DNA (Thermo Fisher, cat. no. 4312660)	Calibration standards for copy number determination and assay validation
Inhibitor Removal	OneStep PCR Inhibitor Removal Kit (ZymoResearch)	Elimination of contaminants from FFPE samples that may suppress amplification

The comparison between qPCR methodology and immunohistochemistry for HER2 status determination reveals complementary strengths that can be leveraged for precision oncology. While IHC provides valuable spatial protein expression information and remains the established clinical standard, RT-qPCR offers superior quantitative objectivity, sensitivity for low-level expression detection, and reduced interobserver variability. The emerging clinical recognition of HER2-low and HER2-ultralow breast cancer subtypes further emphasizes the need for quantitative approaches that can reliably detect expression gradients below traditional IHC thresholds.

For researchers and drug development professionals, RT-qPCR represents a valuable supplementary tool that can enhance HER2 testing accuracy, particularly in equivocal cases or when assessing response to novel antibody-drug conjugates. The methodology's ability to provide continuous numerical data rather than categorical scores makes it particularly suitable for tracking expression changes in research settings and clinical trials. As therapeutic options continue to evolve for patients with low HER2 expression, integrating molecular methodologies like RT-qPCR with traditional IHC may optimize patient selection and ultimately improve treatment outcomes in breast cancer.

The accurate determination of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) status is a critical component in the management of breast cancer, directly influencing therapeutic decisions and patient outcomes. The establishment of precise, validated cutoff values represents a fundamental challenge in diagnostic pathology, particularly as new antibody-drug conjugates demonstrate efficacy in tumors with progressively lower HER2 expression levels. This guide provides a comprehensive comparison of two principal methodological approaches for HER2 status assessment—quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) and immunohistochemistry (IHC)—focusing on their respective workflows, performance metrics established through Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) analysis, and subsequent clinical validation.

Methodological Comparison: Experimental Protocols

The fundamental difference between IHC and RT-qPCR lies in their analytical targets: IHC detects protein expression on the cell membrane, while RT-qPCR quantifies mRNA transcript levels. The experimental protocols for each method are detailed below.

Immunohistochemistry (IHC) Protocol

IHC remains the most widely used initial test for HER2 protein expression in clinical practice globally [15]. The standard protocol involves:

• Tissue Preparation: Formalin-Fixed, Paraffin-Embedded (FFPE) tissue sections are cut to a thickness of 4–5 μm.
• Antigen Retrieval: Slides are treated with heat and a retrieval solution to unmask epitopes altered by formalin fixation.
• Blocking and Antibody Incubation: Endogenous peroxidases are blocked, followed by application of a primary anti-HER2 antibody (e.g., VENTANA anti-HER2/neu (4B5) Rabbit Monoclonal Primary Antibody) [18] [35].
• Detection and Visualization: A detection system using chromogens like 3,3'-Diaminobenzidine (DAB) is applied to visualize antibody binding.
• Scoring: A pathologist semi-quantitatively scores the stained slides based on membrane completeness and intensity: 0 (negative), 1+ (faint/barely perceptible), 2+ (weak to moderate complete membrane staining), or 3+ (strong complete membrane staining) [36] [15]. A score of 2+ is considered equivocal and requires reflex testing with in situ hybridization (ISH) [37].

Reverse Transcription Quantitative PCR (RT-qPCR) Protocol

RT-qPCR offers a quantitative and objective measurement of ERBB2 (HER2) mRNA levels. A typical one-step protocol is as follows [35]:

• RNA Extraction: Total RNA is isolated from macro-dissected or micro-dissected FFPE tumor samples to ensure a high percentage of tumor cells (e.g., ≥70%) [18]. Commercial kits, such as the PureLink FFPE RNA Isolation Kit, are commonly used.
• Reverse Transcription and Amplification: In a one-step reaction, RNA is reverse transcribed into complementary DNA (cDNA) and subsequently amplified in a quantitative PCR using sequence-specific primers and probes for the ERBB2 gene.
• Normalization and Quantification: The expression level of ERBB2 is normalized to reference genes (e.g., RPL30, RPL37) to control for variations in RNA input and quality. The resulting normalized value (often expressed as ∆Cq or normalized copies/μL) provides a continuous measure of ERBB2 expression [35].
• Interpretation: Results are interpreted by applying a predefined mRNA expression cutoff value, which classifies samples as positive or negative.

The following diagram illustrates the key steps and decision points in the combined diagnostic workflow for HER2 testing, highlighting where RT-qPCR and IHC are typically applied.

Establishing Cutoffs: ROC Analysis and Performance Data

The diagnostic accuracy of a quantitative test like RT-qPCR is contingent on the robust establishment of a cutoff value, typically achieved through ROC analysis. This statistical method evaluates the test's ability to discriminate between two defined states (e.g., HER2-positive vs. HER2-negative) by plotting sensitivity against 1-specificity across all possible cutoff values. The point on the curve that optimizes both parameters, often the Youden's index, is selected as the optimal cutoff.

Table 1: Performance Metrics of RT-qPCR for HER2 Status Determination

Study Cohort	Sample Size (n)	Optimal mRNA Cutoff Value	Area Under Curve (AUC)	Sensitivity (%)	Specificity (%)	Overall Concordance with IHC/FISH
Prospective Validation (2024) [35]	275	11.95	0.96	93.4	100.0	100% with FISH; Kappa=0.86 with IHC
Training Cohort (2022) [4]	265	36.40 (for ERBB2)	-	-	-	92.8% (HER2/ERBB2)
HER2 IHC 0 vs 1+ (2023) [36]	136	-	-	-	-	Significant difference in mRNA levels (p<0.001)

The data from these studies demonstrate that RT-qPCR can achieve high diagnostic accuracy. The 2024 prospective validation study reported an AUC of 0.96, indicating excellent ability to distinguish HER2-positive from HER2-negative cases [35]. The overall percent agreement (OPA) between IHC and RT-qPCR for HER2/ERBB2 has been reported as high as 92.8% [4]. Furthermore, RT-qPCR shows significant ability to differentiate between IHC 0 and IHC 1+ groups based on mRNA levels, a distinction that is notoriously challenging with IHC alone [36].

Clinical Validation and Utility

Beyond statistical performance, the true value of a diagnostic test is measured by its clinical utility in predicting patient outcomes and guiding therapy.

Table 2: Clinical Validation of RT-qPCR and Emerging Technologies

Assay/Technology	Clinical Context	Key Finding	Implication
HER2DX (Genomic Test)	Neoadjuvant setting (CompassHER2 pCR trial) [12]	HER2DX pCR score identified tumors more likely to achieve pCR with taxane + dual HER2 blockade.	Predicts response to de-escalated chemotherapy regimens.
HER2DX (Genomic Test)	Adjuvant setting (RESPECT trial) [12]	HER2DX risk score stratified 10-year relapse-free survival in older patients (70-80 years).	Provides prognostic information and predicts chemotherapy benefit.
Transcriptomics (RNA-Seq)	Metastatic setting [7]	86% of IHC 0 tumors showed detectable ERBB2 mRNA; levels stratified pCR rates in anti-HER2 treated patients.	Offers sensitive detection of HER2 expression continuum, potentially identifying ADC candidates.
RT-qPCR	HER2-low detection [36]	mRNA-based reclassification of IHC 0/1+ groups revealed significant differences in histologic grade, ER, PR, and TILs.	Serves as a complementary tool to refine HER2-low categorization.

The evidence indicates that quantitative mRNA-based assays provide significant clinical insights. The HER2DX test, which incorporates an ERBB2 signature score, has been validated across multiple trials to predict pathological complete response (pCR) and long-term survival outcomes [12]. In the metastatic setting, the HER2DX ERBB2 signature was significantly associated with time to next treatment in patients receiving trastuzumab deruxtecan [12]. A large transcriptomic study further reinforced that mRNA profiling can sensitively detect HER2 expression in a majority of IHC 0 cases, effectively capturing a biological continuum that IHC's semi-quantitative categories cannot [7].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

Successful implementation of HER2 testing protocols relies on a suite of specific reagents and tools.

Table 3: Key Research Reagent Solutions for HER2 Testing

Reagent / Tool	Function / Application	Example Product / Kit
Anti-HER2 IHC Antibody	Primary antibody for detecting HER2 protein in IHC.	VENTANA anti-HER2/neu (4B5) Rabbit Monoclonal Primary Antibody [18] [35]
FISH Probe Kit	Detects ERBB2 gene amplification in equivocal (IHC 2+) cases.	HER2 FISH pharmDx Kit (Dako); PathVysion HER2 DNA Probe Kit (Abbott) [18]
FFPE RNA Isolation Kit	Extracts high-quality RNA from archived FFPE tissue blocks for downstream molecular analysis.	PureLink FFPE RNA Isolation Kit (Invitrogen); Paradise Reagent System (Arcturus) [18] [35]
One-Step RT-qPCR Kit	Integrates reverse transcription and quantitative PCR in a single reaction for efficient mRNA quantification.	Not specified in results, but numerous commercial options are available.
Reference Genes	Endogenous controls for normalizing target gene expression (e.g., ERBB2) in RT-qPCR to control for technical variability.	RPL30, RPL37 [35]
Cell Line Controls	Positive and negative controls for assay validation and calibration.	SKBR3 (HER2-high) and MCF-7 (HER2-low) cells [35]

The establishment of cutoff values via ROC analysis and their subsequent clinical validation is paramount for translating diagnostic assays into clinically actionable tools. While IHC remains a foundational, accessible method for HER2 testing, its semi-quantitative nature and subjectivity in scoring, particularly in the HER2-low range, present significant limitations [15]. Quantitative RT-qPCR and related transcriptomic methods offer a highly objective, reproducible, and continuous measurement of HER2 expression. Data from recent studies confirm that mRNA-based testing demonstrates high concordance with IHC/FISH, provides critical prognostic and predictive information, and shows particular utility in refining the classification of HER2-low and HER2-zero breast cancers [4] [36] [7]. For researchers and drug developers, the integration of these quantitative molecular techniques is essential for the precise patient stratification required in the era of novel antibody-drug conjugates.

The accurate determination of Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2 (HER2) status is a critical component in the management of breast cancer, directly influencing therapeutic decisions and patient outcomes. The established standard for HER2 assessment has traditionally been immunohistochemistry (IHC) for protein expression and in situ hybridization (ISH) for gene amplification [1]. However, the diagnostic landscape is evolving with the emergence of quantitative molecular techniques, particularly reverse transcription quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR). This evolution, coupled with the recent clinical recognition of HER2-low breast cancer (IHC 1+ or IHC 2+/ISH-negative) as a therapeutically relevant category, has placed unprecedented emphasis on the quality, precision, and standardization of testing methods [6] [1]. This guide objectively compares the quality control measures, internal controls, and standardization protocols for IHC and RT-qPCR, providing researchers and drug development professionals with the experimental data necessary to evaluate each platform's performance.

Technical Principles and Workflows

Understanding the fundamental differences in how IHC and RT-qPCR measure HER2 status is essential for appreciating their respective quality control challenges. The following diagram illustrates the core workflows for each technique.

• IHC is a semi-quantitative method that visualizes HER2 protein on the surface of tumor cells in formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tissue sections. The process involves antibody binding, chromogenic detection, and visual scoring by a pathologist based on the intensity and completeness of membrane staining, resulting in a score of 0, 1+, 2+, or 3+ [38] [1]. Its quality control is heavily reliant on slide-based controls and pathologist training.

• RT-qPCR is a quantitative method that measures the abundance of ERBB2 (HER2) messenger RNA (mRNA). The process involves extracting RNA from FFPE tissue, converting it to complementary DNA (cDNA), and then amplifying ERBB2 alongside reference genes in a real-time PCR instrument [39] [40]. The output is a continuous, numerical value (e.g., normalized copy number or Cq value). Its standardization is achieved through calibrated instruments, reference genes, and validated cut-off values.

Comparative Performance Data

The following tables summarize key experimental data from published studies, comparing the performance of IHC and RT-qPCR in HER2 status assessment.

Table 1: Concordance Rates Between IHC and RT-qPCR for Biomarker Assessment

Biomarker	Correlation Coefficient (Spearman's r)	Overall Percent Agreement (OPA)	Study Details
HER2/ERBB2	0.762 [4]	92.80% [4]	265 breast cancer cases [4]
ER/ESR1	0.768 [4]	92.48% [4]	265 breast cancer cases [4]
PR/PGR	0.699 [4]	73.68% [4]	265 breast cancer cases [4]
Ki67/MKI67	0.387 [4]	74.44% [4]	265 breast cancer cases [4]

Table 2: Performance of RT-qPCR in Predicting Response to Anti-HER2 Therapy

Study Parameter	Findings	Clinical Implication
Predicting Therapy Benefit	HER2-positive patients by RT-qPCR (MammaTyper assay) treated with trastuzumab had significantly prolonged 5-year disease-free survival (HR=0.56, p=0.003) [33].	RT-qPCR can identify patients most likely to benefit from anti-HER2 therapy.
Handling Equivocal Cases	In cases with discordant IHC/FISH and RT-qPCR results, HER2 protein analysis suggested qRT-PCR correlated better with HER2 protein levels than FISH [40].	RT-qPCR may serve as a reliable adjunct for cases with indeterminate FISH results.
Subtype Classification	The MammaTyper-defined HER2-enriched subtype showed a better response to anti-HER2 therapy compared with IHC-defined subtypes [33].	mRNA-based subtyping may offer superior predictive power.

Detailed Experimental Protocols

To ensure the reproducibility of the data presented in the comparison tables, the following outlines the core methodologies employed in the cited studies.

Standard IHC Protocol for HER2

• Tissue Preparation: Consecutive 4μm sections are cut from FFPE tissue blocks. The use of charged slides is recommended to prevent tissue detachment [38].
• Antibody Staining: Slides are stained using automated immunostainers (e.g., Benchmark XT or Discovery from Roche/Ventana) with FDA-approved antibodies such as the rabbit monoclonal anti-HER2/neu (4B5) or the monoclonal CB11 antibody [38] [40].
• Visualization: Detection is achieved using enzyme-conjugated secondary antibodies and chromogenic substrates (e.g., DAB) to generate a visible stain [38].
• Pathologist Scoring: A certified pathologist scores the slides according to ASCO/CAP guidelines:
  • 0: No staining or faint staining in ≤10% of cells.
  • 1+: Faint/barely perceptible incomplete membrane staining in >10% of cells.
  • 2+: Weak to moderate complete membrane staining in >10% of cells.
  • 3+: Intense complete membrane staining in >10% of cells [38] [1].
• Internal Controls: Each run must include on-slide controls, such as known HER2-positive and HER2-negative tissue sections, to validate the staining procedure [38].

Standard RT-qPCR Protocol for ERBB2

• RNA Extraction: RNA is extracted from macro-dissected or micro-dissected FFPE tissue sections (e.g., 10μm curls) to ensure a high tumor cell content (typically >70%). Commercial kits like RNXtract or Paradise Reagent System are used, often incorporating a DNase digestion step to remove genomic DNA contamination [39] [40].
• Reverse Transcription: High-quality RNA is reverse-transcribed into cDNA using random hexamers and a High-Capacity cDNA Archive Kit. This step is critical for converting the mRNA target into an amplifiable template [40] [33].
• Quantitative PCR: The cDNA is amplified in a real-time PCR instrument (e.g., LightCycler or 7900HT Fast System) using assays specific for ERBB2 and reference genes (e.g., B2M, CALM2, RPLP0). The MammaTyper kit, for example, uses a multiplexed approach to simultaneously assess ERBB2, ESR1, PGR, and MKI67 [39] [33].
• Data Analysis: The quantification cycle (Cq) is determined for each target. The ERBB2 mRNA level is normalized to the reference genes to calculate a normalized expression value. This value is compared against a pre-defined, validated cut-off (e.g., 29.176 for MKI67 as a proliferation marker) to determine positive or negative status [4] [39].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Essential Reagents and Kits for HER2 Status Determination

Reagent/Kits	Function	Example Products
FDA-Approved IHC Antibodies	Bind specifically to the HER2 protein on the cell membrane for visual detection.	Ventana anti-HER2/neu (4B5), CB11 (Novocastra), A0485 (Dako) [38] [40].
RNA Extraction Kits	Isolate high-quality, amplifiable total RNA from FFPE tissue samples.	RNXtract Kit (BioNTech), Paradise Reagent System (Arcturus), QIAamp DNA FFPE Tissue Kit (Qiagen) [39] [40].
RT-qPCR Assay Kits	Provide optimized primers, probes, and master mixes for quantitative gene expression analysis.	MammaTyper (Cerca Biotech), TaqMan Assays (Applied Biosystems) [39] [33].
In Situ Hybridization Kits	Determine HER2 gene amplification status using DNA probes (used for equivocal IHC cases).	PathVysion HER2 DNA Probe Kit (Abbott) for FISH [40].

HER2 Signaling and Test Discordance Analysis

A primary challenge in HER2 testing is reconciling discordant results between IHC and molecular methods. The following diagram maps the biological and technical factors that contribute to such discordance, which is crucial for quality control.

The pathways to discordance highlight critical points for quality intervention. For IHC, inter-observer variability is a major issue, with studies showing significant inconsistency in scoring, particularly for the HER2-low (0 vs. 1+) category [4] [6]. For RT-qPCR, the primary pre-analytical challenge is ensuring RNA integrity and tumor cell purity; without microdissection, dilution by non-tumor cells can lead to false-negative results [38] [40]. Biologically, the discovery of tumors with HER2 protein overexpression in the absence of gene amplification suggests a mechanism that RT-qPCR (measuring mRNA) may detect more reliably than ISH [40].

The choice between IHC and RT-qPCR for HER2 status determination is not a simple binary decision but rather a strategic one based on the specific needs of a research program or drug development pipeline. IHC offers the advantage of spatial context and is entrenched in clinical practice, but it is susceptible to subjective interpretation and has a limited dynamic range, especially critical in the era of HER2-low therapeutics. RT-qPCR provides an objective, quantitative measure of ERBB2 expression with a broader dynamic range, potentially offering superior precision for identifying subtle differences in expression levels and predicting response to therapy.

Robust quality control measures are the foundation of reliable data. For IHC, this means stringent standardization of pre-analytical conditions, the use of validated controls, and continuous pathologist training to reduce scoring variability. For RT-qPCR, the focus must be on RNA quality control, efficient tumor enrichment, and the use of validated, stable reference genes. The emerging evidence suggests that a complementary approach, utilizing both methods or integrating mRNA-based assessment into ambiguous cases, may provide the most comprehensive and accurate picture of HER2 status, ultimately ensuring that patients are correctly stratified for increasingly targeted and effective therapies.

The accurate determination of Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2 (HER2) status represents a critical predictive biomarker in breast cancer management, directly influencing therapeutic decisions and patient outcomes. Traditionally, immunohistochemistry (IHC) and fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) have served as the cornerstone methodologies for HER2 assessment in diagnostic pathology laboratories. However, these techniques present significant challenges in high-throughput environments, including substantial inter-observer variability, technical artifacts, and limitations in standardization across multiple testing sites. The emergence of quantitative PCR (qPCR) platforms offers a potential pathway toward automated, standardized HER2 assessment, particularly appealing for laboratories processing large specimen volumes. This comparison guide objectively evaluates the performance characteristics of qPCR-based approaches against conventional IHC for HER2 status determination, providing researchers and drug development professionals with experimental data to inform platform selection and implementation strategies.

Methodological Comparison: Technical Foundations and Workflows

Immunohistochemistry (IHC) Workflow and Implementation

The conventional IHC pathway for HER2 testing involves multiple manual or semi-automated steps, beginning with tissue fixation, processing, and sectioning, followed by antigen retrieval, antibody incubation, staining, and finally, microscopic evaluation by a qualified pathologist. The scoring system follows the ASCO/CAP guidelines, which categorize results as 0, 1+, 2+ (equivocal), or 3+ (positive) based on membrane staining intensity and completeness. A key challenge in high-throughput environments is the subjective interpretation component, which requires extensive pathologist training and quality control measures to maintain consistency. The recent recognition of HER2-low (IHC 1+ or 2+/ISH negative) and HER2-ultralow (faint staining in >0% to ≤10% of cells) categories has further increased the technical demands on IHC interpretation, requiring even more precise discrimination at the lower end of the expression spectrum [14]. For IHC 2+ equivocal cases, reflex testing using in situ hybridization (ISH) is mandated, adding additional procedural steps, costs, and turnaround time.

Quantitative PCR (qPCR) Workflow and Automation Potential

qPCR methodologies for HER2 assessment detect and quantify the expression of the ERBB2 gene (which encodes the HER2 protein) at the mRNA level. The process begins with RNA extraction from formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tissue specimens, followed by reverse transcription to generate complementary DNA (cDNA). This cDNA is then amplified using sequence-specific primers and probes in a real-time PCR instrument that monitors fluorescence accumulation at each cycle, allowing for precise quantification. The entire process, from nucleic acid extraction to amplification and data analysis, can be fully automated using robotic liquid handling systems and integrated software, significantly reducing hands-on time and variability. The output is a continuous numerical value (such as a ratio normalized to reference genes) rather than a categorical score, providing an objective measurement that is readily integrated into laboratory information systems [18] [41].

Table 1: Core Methodological Characteristics of IHC and qPCR for HER2 Testing

Characteristic	Immunohistochemistry (IHC)	Quantitative PCR (qPCR)
Analytical Target	HER2 protein expression on cell membrane	ERBB2 mRNA transcript levels
Output Format	Semi-quantitative categorical score (0, 1+, 2+, 3+)	Continuous numerical value (e.g., normalized ratio)
Automation Potential	Semi-automated (staining); interpretation is manual	High (full workflow automation possible)
Throughput Capacity	Moderate (batch processing, limited by evaluation time)	High (96- or 384-well plates, automated analysis)
Turnaround Time	1-3 days (longer if reflex ISH needed)	1-2 days (single test protocol)
Key Technical Variability	Pre-analytical (fixation), staining, and interpretive	Pre-analytical (RNA quality), extraction efficiency

Visualizing the Methodological Divide

The fundamental differences between IHC and qPCR workflows, from sample input to result interpretation, can be visualized in the following diagram. The qPCR pathway demonstrates a more linear and automatable process compared to the branched, decision-heavy IHC pathway.

Performance Comparison: Quantitative Data Analysis

Concordance Rates and Diagnostic Accuracy

Multiple studies have directly compared the performance of qPCR and IHC for HER2 status determination, with most reporting high concordance rates. A 2022 study by Chen et al. that compared IHC and RT-qPCR for multiple breast cancer biomarkers found a high overall percent agreement (OPA) of 92.80% for HER2/ERBB2 between the two methods [4]. A more recent 2024 prospective validation study of a one-step RT-qPCR test demonstrated remarkable performance, showing 100% concordance with FISH and a Kappa coefficient of 0.863 indicating strong agreement with IHC. This study reported an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.955 for the qPCR assay, with sensitivity of 93.4% and specificity of 100% at a predetermined cut-off value [41]. Another investigation focusing specifically on HER2 assessment found that while the overall agreement between FISH and qRT-PCR was 90.8%, the disagreement was mostly restricted to equivocal cases. Importantly, HER2 protein analysis in this study suggested that qRT-PCR correlated better than FISH with actual HER2 protein levels, particularly in cases where FISH provided inconclusive results [18].

Technical Performance and Operational Metrics

Beyond diagnostic accuracy, operational metrics are crucial for high-throughput laboratory implementation. qPCR demonstrates a significantly broader dynamic range compared to the semi-quantitative nature of IHC scoring, potentially allowing for more precise quantification of HER2 expression levels across the entire spectrum [39]. This characteristic becomes particularly relevant with the emerging clinical importance of HER2-low and ultralow categories. While IHC suffers from well-documented inter-observer variability, qPCR offers objective, numerical results that are not subject to interpretive differences. In terms of throughput, a single qPCR instrument can typically process hundreds of samples in a single run with minimal hands-on time, especially when integrated with automated RNA extraction systems. IHC throughput is ultimately limited by pathologist evaluation time, creating a significant bottleneck in high-volume settings.

Table 2: Experimental Performance Data: qPCR vs. IHC/FISH Standards

Performance Metric	qPCR Performance vs. Standard	Study/Reference
Overall Agreement with IHC	92.80%	Chen et al. 2022 [4]
Concordance with FISH	100%	Albanyahyati et al. 2024 [41]
Area Under Curve (AUC)	0.955	Albanyahyati et al. 2024 [41]
Sensitivity	93.4%	Albanyahyati et al. 2024 [41]
Specificity	100%	Albanyahyati et al. 2024 [41]
Kappa Coefficient (vs IHC)	0.863 (Strong Agreement)	Albanyahyati et al. 2024 [41]
Correlation with Protein Level	Outperformed FISH in equivocal cases	PMC-5412048 Study [18]

Experimental Protocols for HER2 Assessment

Detailed qPCR Methodology for HER2 mRNA Quantification

The following protocol, adapted from validation studies, provides a reliable framework for implementing HER2 testing via qPCR in a diagnostic setting [18] [41]:

• RNA Extraction from FFPE Tissue: Cut 2-4 sections of 5-10μm thickness from FFPE tissue blocks. For samples with tumor cellularity below 70%, perform macro- or micro-dissection to enrich tumor content. Extract RNA using a commercially available bead-based extraction kit (e.g., RNXtract or equivalent). Include a DNase I treatment step to eliminate genomic DNA contamination. Quantify RNA using both spectrophotometric (NanoDrop) and fluorimetric (Qubit) methods to assess concentration and quality.

• Reverse Transcription and Preamplification: Convert variable amounts (50-200 ng) of total RNA to cDNA using a High Capacity cDNA Archive Kit with random hexamers. To enhance the signal from limited FFPE-derived RNA, a preamplification step is recommended. Mix 12.5 μL of cDNA with 25 μL of TaqMan PreAmp Master Mix and 12.5 μL of an assay pool containing primers for ERBB2 (e.g., Hs00170433) and reference genes (e.g., RPLP0, B2M, CALM2). Perform 14 cycles of amplification following the manufacturer's protocol. This step linearly amplifies the target sequences without significantly distorting relative mRNA levels.

• Quantitative PCR Setup and Execution: Perform qPCR reactions in 96- or 384-well plates using a fast real-time PCR system (e.g., 7900HT Fast Real-Time PCR System). The reaction mixture should contain the preamplified cDNA, TaqMan Universal Master Mix, and sequence-specific primers and probes for ERBB2 and reference genes (e.g., RPL30, RPL37). Run samples in duplicate or triplicate. Standard cycling conditions are: initial denaturation at 95°C for 10 min, followed by 40 cycles of 95°C for 15 sec and 60°C for 1 min. Include appropriate controls: no-template controls (NTC), positive controls (e.g., cDNA from SKBR3 cell line), and inter-run calibrators.

• Data Analysis and Cut-off Application: Calculate the quantification cycle (Cq) for each replicate. Normalize the ERBB2 Cq values to the reference genes using the ΔΔCq or a similar relative quantification method, generating a normalized HER2 expression value. Apply a validated cut-off to determine HER2 status. For example, Albanyahyati et al. established a cut-off value of 11.954 for their normalized ratio, which maximized sensitivity and specificity [41]. Results above the cut-off are classified as HER2-positive.

Essential Research Reagent Solutions

Successful implementation of qPCR-based HER2 testing relies on a standardized set of reagents and tools. The following table details key solutions required for the experimental workflow.

Table 3: Essential Research Reagent Solutions for qPCR-based HER2 Testing

Reagent / Solution	Function / Application	Specific Examples / Notes
Bead-Based RNA Extraction Kit	Isolation of high-quality RNA from FFPE tissue	RNXtract kit; includes proteinase K for tissue lysis and DNase I treatment [39]
High-Capacity cDNA Kit	Reverse transcription of RNA to stable cDNA	Utilizes random hexamers for comprehensive cDNA synthesis [18]
TaqMan PreAmp Master Mix	Limited-cycle preamplification of target genes	Increases signal from low-abundance targets in FFPE-derived RNA [18]
ERBB2 & Reference Gene Assays	Sequence-specific detection and quantification	TaqMan assays: Hs00170433 (ERBB2), Hs99999902 (RPLP0) [18]; RPL30, RPL37 [41]
qPCR Master Mix	Enzymatic amplification with fluorescent detection	iTaq SYBR Green or TaqMan Universal Master Mix [20]
Positive Control Cell Line RNA	Assay quality control and run validation	RNA from SKBR3 (high HER2) and BT-474 cells [18] [20]

Implementation in High-Throughput Diagnostic Laboratories

Integration Strategies and Automation Platforms

For diagnostic laboratories seeking to implement high-throughput HER2 testing via qPCR, several integration strategies prove effective. Robotic liquid handling systems (e.g., from Hamilton, Tecan, or PerkinElmer) can be deployed to automate the entire pre-PCR workflow, including RNA extraction, cDNA synthesis, preamplification, and PCR plate setup. This not only increases throughput but also dramatically reduces the risk of cross-contamination and manual pipetting errors. Creating batch-processing pipelines where samples are grouped and processed in coordinated runs (e.g., 96 samples per batch) optimizes reagent use and instrument time. Furthermore, middleware software solutions that directly link the qPCR instrument output to the Laboratory Information System (LIS) can automate the final step of data transfer and result reporting, minimizing transcription errors and streamlining the pathologist sign-out process.

Quality Assurance and Validation Considerations

Maintaining rigorous quality assurance is paramount when implementing an automated qPCR platform. The College of American Pathologists (CAP) requires laboratories performing HER2 testing to participate in proficiency testing (PT) or alternative performance assessment (APA) at least semiannually [13]. For qPCR assays, this includes monitoring multiple quality metrics: amplification efficiency (typically 90-110%), correlation coefficients of standard curves (>0.98), and tight reproducibility between replicate samples. The use of robust internal controls is critical; this includes incorporating multiple reference genes (e.g., B2M, CALM2, RPL30, RPL37) to ensure accurate normalization and including external control materials with known HER2 status in each run [39] [41]. Before clinical implementation, laboratories must perform a thorough validation against the existing standard of care (IHC/FISH) on a sufficient number of samples representing all HER2 categories (negative, low, positive) to establish laboratory-specific concordance rates and cut-off values.

The objective comparison of qPCR and IHC for HER2 status determination reveals a compelling case for the integration of qPCR platforms in high-throughput diagnostic laboratories. While IHC remains the established standard with the advantage of visualizing tissue morphology and protein localization, qPCR offers significant benefits in terms of objectivity, throughput potential, automation compatibility, and quantitative precision. The high concordance rates with IHC/FISH, particularly in recent prospective validation studies, confirm the diagnostic robustness of well-validated qPCR assays [41].

The evolving treatment landscape for breast cancer, particularly the emergence of antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) effective in HER2-low and ultralow cancers, places new demands on diagnostic precision at the lower end of the HER2 expression spectrum [14]. The continuous numerical data generated by qPCR may offer a more nuanced and reproducible means of stratifying these patient populations compared to the semi-quantitative IHC scoring system. For research scientists and drug development professionals, qPCR platforms provide a powerful tool for consistent biomarker assessment across large, multi-center clinical trials. The future of HER2 testing in high-volume settings likely lies in a complementary approach, leveraging the strengths of both morphological and molecular techniques, or in the development of fully integrated automated systems that can deliver rapid, reproducible, and clinically actionable results.

Overcoming Technical Challenges: Optimization Strategies for Both Methods

The accurate determination of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) status is a critical component in the management of breast cancer, directly influencing therapeutic decisions and patient outcomes. For decades, immunohistochemistry (IHC) has served as a cornerstone methodology for assessing HER2 protein expression in clinical practice. However, the established limitations of IHC—particularly significant interobserver variability and susceptibility to pre-analytical factors—have prompted the exploration of more objective, quantitative molecular techniques such as real-time quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR). This guide provides a comprehensive, evidence-based comparison of these methodologies within the context of HER2 status determination, offering researchers and drug development professionals a detailed analysis of their relative performances, technical considerations, and clinical applications.

The Interobserver Variability Challenge in IHC

A substantial body of evidence highlights concerning levels of interobserver variability in HER2 IHC scoring, which presents a significant challenge for both clinical practice and research consistency.

Evidence of Diagnostic Discordance

A recent 2025 investigation specifically examined interobserver variation in HER2 IHC analysis following the advent of the HER2-low category. In this study, 209 slides were independently reviewed by multiple pathologists, revealing that the three observers demonstrated concordant diagnoses for only 20.3% of patients. The agreement rates between individual reviewers ranged from 62.5% to 75.8%, representing only moderate to good concordance (kappa statistics). Particularly problematic was the reclassification of 14 slides originally diagnosed as score 0 to 1+ upon review, directly impacting patient eligibility for novel antibody-drug conjugates like trastuzumab-deruxtecan (T-DXd) [42].

This variability is especially critical in the context of "HER2-low" breast cancer (defined as IHC 1+ or IHC 2+/ISH-negative), where subtle distinctions in membrane staining determine therapeutic eligibility. The introduction of this category has heightened the clinical significance of precise scoring, as the narrow morphological threshold distinguishing IHC 0 from IHC 1+ now directly impacts treatment algorithms [42].

Implications for Research and Clinical Practice

The documented variability in IHC interpretation poses substantial challenges for:

• Clinical Trial Integrity: Inconsistent biomarker assessment can compromise patient stratification and trial outcomes.
• Treatment Access: Patients may be inappropriately excluded from targeted therapies based on subjective scoring.
• Longitudinal Studies: Tracking disease progression or treatment response becomes less reliable when using subjective measures.

Pre-Analytical Factors Affecting IHC Reliability

The reliability of IHC results is vulnerable to numerous pre-analytical variables throughout the specimen handling process, introducing potential artifacts and compromising result reproducibility.

Critical Pre-Analytical Variables

Table 1: Key Pre-Analytical Factors Affecting IHC Results

Factor Category	Specific Variables	Potential Impact on HER2 Results
Tissue Collection	Cold ischemic time, specimen size	Protein degradation, altered antigenicity
Fixation	Fixative type, concentration, duration, pH	Epitope masking, over-fixation artifacts
Processing	Embedding method, storage conditions	Molecular degradation, structural damage
Sectioning	Section thickness, mounting techniques	Inconsistent antibody penetration
Antigen Retrieval	Method (HIER/PIER), buffer composition	Variable epitope recovery

Technical Considerations

Preanalytical factors introduce substantial variability in molecular and proteomic profiling. Cold ischemic time (delay to formalin fixation) represents a particularly critical factor, with most studies suggesting ≤12 hours as optimal for IHC, though this varies by specific protein and biospecimen characteristics. Formalin fixation itself can cause epitope masking through methylene bridge formation, often necessitating additional antigen retrieval steps that introduce another variable into the analytical process [43].

The IHC technique involves multiple complex steps including tissue fixation, processing, sectioning, antigen retrieval, permeabilization, and blocking—each representing a potential source of variability. For instance, fixation duration requires precise optimization as insufficient fixation compromises tissue morphology while prolonged fixation can mask antigens [44].

qPCR as a Complementary Methodology

Quantitative PCR offers a molecular approach to HER2 assessment by measuring gene expression levels, potentially mitigating several limitations inherent to IHC.

Technical Foundation

qPCR for HER2 status determination typically involves:

• RNA Extraction from tumor samples, often with microdissection to ensure adequate tumor cellularity
• Reverse Transcription to generate complementary DNA (cDNA)
• Quantitative Amplification using HER2-specific primers and probes
• Normalization to reference genes to account for technical variations

This methodology allows for precise quantification of HER2 expression at the transcript level, providing a continuous numerical output rather than the categorical scoring system (0, 1+, 2+, 3+) used in IHC [18].

Performance Advantages in HER2 Assessment

Table 2: Comparative Performance of qPCR Versus IHC and EIA for HER2 Assessment

Performance Metric	qPCR Methodology	IHC/FISH Methodology	EIA Methodology
Sensitivity	78% (CI95%: 68%-88%) [16]	55% (CI95%: 44%-66%) [16]	59% (CI95%: 48%-70%) [16]
Specificity	91% (CI95%: 84%-98%) [16]	86% (CI95%: 79%-93%) [16]	95% (CI95%: 90%-100%) [16]
Concordance with Standard Methods	89.4%-90.8% [18] [45]	Reference standard	N/A
Optimal Cut-off Value	4.74 [16]	Binary scoring system	22 ng/ml [16]

A 2023 study further validated the strong concordance between RT-qPCR and IHC for HER2 status determination, reporting 89.4% agreement in a training set and 80.4% in a validation set. The area under the curve (AUC) analysis demonstrated robust discriminatory power, with an optimal mRNA expression cutoff of 0.161 providing the best balance between sensitivity and specificity [45].

Comparative Experimental Data

Concordance Studies

Research directly comparing methodologies has revealed important insights into their relative strengths. One investigation found an overall agreement of 94.1% between FISH and quantitative PCR (Q-PCR) on DNA (k-value=0.87), with Q-PCR demonstrating 86.1% sensitivity and 99.0% specificity when assuming FISH as the reference standard. The agreement between FISH and qRT-PCR was slightly lower at 90.8% (k-value=0.81), with disagreements predominantly restricted to equivocal cases [18].

Notably, HER2 protein analysis in discordant cases suggested that qRT-PCR may correlate better with actual HER2 protein levels than FISH, particularly in cases where FISH provides inconclusive results. This finding challenges the conventional hierarchy of HER2 testing methodologies and suggests that qRT-PCR may potentially outperform FISH in identifying patients overexpressing HER2 protein [18].

Methodological Workflows

The experimental workflow for comparative studies typically involves parallel assessment of the same tumor samples using multiple methodologies. Specimen preparation requires careful attention to tumor cellularity, with samples below 70% cellularity often undergoing macro- or micro-dissection to ensure accurate representation of tumor biology [18].

Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents for HER2 Detection Methodologies

Reagent Category	Specific Examples	Research Application
IHC Primary Antibodies	VENTANA anti-HER2/neu (4B5); SP3 rabbit monoclonal antibody	HER2 protein detection in FFPE tissues
IHC Detection Systems	3,3'-diaminobenzidine (DAB) chromogen; peroxidase blocking reagent	Visual signal generation and development
Nucleic Acid Extraction Kits	QIAamp DNA FFPE Tissue Kit; Paradise Reagent System	Isolation of quality DNA/RNA from archived samples
PCR Reagents	High Capacity cDNA Archive Kit; TaqMan PreAmp Master Mix	cDNA synthesis and target amplification
Probes & Primers	HER2-specific primers/probes; reference gene assays (ACTB, RPLP0)	Target-specific quantification in qPCR
Control Materials	SKBR3 cell line DNA/RNA; HER2 3+ breast tissue controls	Assay validation and run quality control

Integration in Research and Clinical Practice

The complementary use of IHC and qPCR methodologies provides a robust framework for HER2 status determination in research settings. While IHC offers spatial context and visual confirmation of protein expression patterns, qPCR delivers objective, quantitative data that can resolve equivocal cases.

For drug development professionals, understanding these methodological distinctions is crucial for proper patient stratification in clinical trials and accurate assessment of treatment response. The emergence of HER2-low as a therapeutically relevant category further emphasizes the need for precise, reproducible HER2 assessment that may benefit from a multimodal approach.

Recent evidence suggests that qPCR performs better than enzyme immunoassay (EIA) in determining HER2 status in breast cancer patients and could be particularly useful in monitoring disease progression during follow-up [16]. Additionally, molecular subtyping using RT-qPCR has demonstrated prognostic stratification similar to IHC, with 5-year recurrence-free interval rates of 88% for luminal, 82% for HER2-enriched, and 58% for triple-negative subtypes—closely mirroring IHC-based classifications [45].

The comprehensive comparison between IHC and qPCR for HER2 status determination reveals a nuanced landscape where each methodology offers distinct advantages and limitations. IHC provides valuable protein localization information but suffers from significant interobserver variability and susceptibility to pre-analytical factors. qPCR delivers objective, quantitative data with potentially superior sensitivity but lacks spatial context and requires rigorous RNA quality control.

For researchers and drug development professionals, the optimal approach may involve leveraging the complementary strengths of both methodologies—using IHC for initial screening with qPCR resolution of equivocal cases. As therapeutic paradigms evolve to include HER2-low categories, the implementation of standardized, quantitative approaches with minimal interobserver variability will become increasingly critical for both clinical practice and translational research.

Quantitative real-time PCR (qPCR) serves as a cornerstone technique in molecular biology, especially in sensitive applications like determining HER2 status in breast cancer. However, its reliability is heavily dependent on overcoming several technical pitfalls. In the critical context of HER2 status determination—which directly influences patient eligibility for targeted therapies—methodological rigor is not optional. This guide objectively compares the performance of qPCR against the established standard of immunohistochemistry (IHC), framing the discussion within the common pitfalls of RNA quality, normalization genes, and amplification efficiency. The supporting data, drawn from current research, underscores why qPCR is increasingly seen as a valuable complementary, and sometimes more objective, method for HER2 assessment [46].

Section 1: Core qPCR Pitfalls and Impact on HER2 Analysis

RNA Quality and Integrity

The quality of input RNA is the foundational step upon which all subsequent qPCR data relies. Degraded or impure RNA can severely limit the efficiency of the reverse transcription reaction, leading to reduced cDNA yield and inaccurate quantification of gene expression [47].

• Impact on HER2 Testing: For HER2 status determination, using partially degraded RNA may not provide an accurate representation of the true ERBB2 mRNA expression levels, potentially leading to misclassification of a patient's HER2-low status [47] [21]. While ideally, RNA should be prepared from fresh or stabilized tissue, designing PCR primers to anneal to an internal region of the ERBB2 mRNA transcript can help mitigate the effects of partial RNA degradation [47].

Data Normalization and Reference Gene Selection

Normalization is a critical process used to minimize technical variability introduced during sample processing, and the choice of normalizer is paramount for generating reliable data [48]. The most common strategy involves using internal reference genes (RGs), which should be stably expressed across all samples and conditions analyzed [48].

• Impact on HER2 Testing: The use of unvalidated or unstable reference genes, such as a single "housekeeping" gene like GAPDH or ACTB, can skew normalized data and lead to a significant bias in the results [48] [49]. This is especially critical in HER2 testing, where accurately categorizing expression levels is essential for clinical decision-making. A 2025 study on canine tissues highlighted that the global mean (GM) of the expression of all tested genes can be a superior normalisation method when profiling large sets of genes, outperforming strategies using even multiple stable RGs [48]. For smaller gene sets, the same study found that three reference genes (RPS5, RPL8, and HMBS) provided stable normalization across different pathological conditions [48].

Amplification Efficiency and Assay Validation

The efficiency (Eff) of the qPCR reaction, calculated by the equation Eff = 10^(–1/slope) – 1, should ideally be between 90–110% [47]. A number of variables can affect PCR efficiency, including amplicon length, secondary structure, and primer design [47].

• Impact on HER2 Testing: Assuming amplification efficiency instead of properly measuring it for each assay is a fundamental methodological failure [49]. For precise ERBB2 mRNA quantification, standard curves should be prepared to verify reaction efficiencies [47]. Furthermore, the widespread reliance on the 2−ΔΔCT method often overlooks variability in amplification efficiency. Alternative statistical approaches like ANCOVA (Analysis of Covariance) offer greater statistical power and robustness, as their P-values are not affected by such variability [50].

The following workflow diagram illustrates a robust qPCR process incorporating strategies to mitigate these key pitfalls, specifically for HER2 status analysis.

Section 2: qPCR vs. IHC for HER2 Status Determination - A Data-Driven Comparison

The following tables synthesize quantitative data from recent studies to objectively compare the performance of qPCR and IHC in HER2 status classification.

Table 1: Concordance Study between qPCR and IHC for HER2 Classification

Study (Year)	Method / Assay	Sample Size	Key Finding on Concordance	Reference
Baez-Navarro et al. (2025)	RT-qPCR (MammaTyper) vs. IHC	88 non-amplified cases	58.8% (10/17) of IHC HER2 0/ultralow cases classified as HER2-low by qPCR	[46]
Anonymous (2025)	HER2 mRNA (Oncotype DX) vs. IHC	500 HR+/HER2- cases	mRNA levels increased with IHC category, but with significant overlap and dispersion	[21]
Prediction of Response (2025)	RT-qPCR (MammaTyper) vs. IHC/ISH	287 HER2-positive cases	87.5% concordance; qPCR better predicted therapy response than IHC	[33]

Table 2: Performance Metrics of HER2 Testing Modalities

Testing Modality	Sensitivity (Pooled)	Specificity (Pooled)	Key Strengths	Key Limitations
IHC (Pathologist Visual Score)	N/A	N/A	Standard of care; accessible	Labour-intensive; subjective (high inter-observer variability) [46] [6]
AI-Assisted IHC Analysis	0.97 [0.96-0.98]*	0.82 [0.73-0.88]*	Reduces subjectivity; high throughput	Performance depends on algorithm and validation [6]
qPCR (mRNA Quantification)	76% (vs. IHC/FISH) [16]	78% (vs. IHC/FISH) [16]	Quantitative; objective; high reproducibility [21]	Requires high-quality RNA; potential discordance with protein level [46]

*AI performance in distinguishing IHC scores 1+/2+/3+ from score 0 [6].

Section 3: Experimental Protocols for HER2 Analysis

Protocol: HER2 Status Determination by RT-qPCR

This protocol is based on methodologies described in the cited studies using the MammaTyper and Oncotype DX assays [21] [33].

• Sample Collection and RNA Stabilization: Obtain breast cancer tissue via core needle biopsy or surgical resection. Immediately preserve tissue in RNAlater or flash-freeze in liquid nitrogen to prevent RNA degradation.
• RNA Extraction: Isolate total RNA from microdissected invasive tumor cells using a commercial kit (e.g., silica-membrane based spin columns) to ensure purity and integrity. Quantify RNA spectrophotometrically and assess integrity using an instrument like Agilent Bioanalyzer (RIN > 7.0 is recommended).
• cDNA Synthesis: Perform reverse transcription using a high-capacity cDNA reverse transcription kit with random hexamers. Include a "No Reverse Transcriptase" control (-RT control) to rule out genomic DNA contamination [47].
• qPCR Assay:
  • Primers/Probes: Use validated primer pairs and probes specific for the ERBB2 gene and reference genes (e.g., RPS5, RPL8, HMBS). Amplicons should be designed to span exon-exon junctions to prevent amplification of genomic DNA [47].
  • Reaction Setup: Prepare a master mix containing the qPCR reagents, including a reference dye (like ROX), to minimize well-to-well variation [47]. Load samples, including a standard curve (for efficiency calculation) and a No Template Control (NTC).
  • Cycling Conditions: Standard cycling conditions are used: initial denaturation (95°C for 10 min), followed by 40-50 cycles of denaturation (95°C for 15 sec) and annealing/extension (60°C for 1 min).
• Data Analysis:
  • Calculate PCR efficiency from the standard curve.
  • Normalize ERBB2 Cq values using the global mean method (if a large gene panel is used) or the geometric mean of multiple stable reference genes [48] [50].
  • Classify HER2 status based on pre-defined mRNA expression cut-offs.

Protocol: Artificial Intelligence (AI) Assisted IHC Scoring

This protocol summarizes the AI workflow for HER2 IHC scoring as evaluated in recent meta-analyses [6].

• Slide Digitization: Stain breast cancer tissue sections for HER2 via standard IHC protocols. Scan the slides using a high-resolution whole-slide scanner to create digital images (WSIs).
• Image Pre-processing: Fragment the WSIs into smaller, manageable patches (typically square, e.g., 256x256 pixels). Select a region of interest (ROI) containing invasive carcinoma, either manually by a pathologist or through automated tissue detection.
• Algorithm Training and Validation:
  • Training Subset: A set of patches with ground-truth HER2 scores (determined by consensus of expert pathologists) is used to train a deep learning algorithm, typically a Convolutional Neural Network (CNN).
  • Testing Subset: A separate, held-out set of patches is used to evaluate the algorithm's performance.
  • External Validation: The model's generalizability is tested using an independent external dataset from a different institution.
• Score Aggregation and Prediction: The algorithm's predictions for individual patches are aggregated to determine an overall HER2 score (0, 1+, 2+, 3+) for the entire WSI.

Section 4: The Scientist's Toolkit

Table 3: Essential Research Reagent Solutions for qPCR-based HER2 Analysis

Item	Function in the Workflow
RNAlater Stabilization Solution	Preserves RNA integrity in fresh tissue samples immediately after collection, preventing degradation prior to RNA extraction [47].
DNAzap or similar DNA Decontamination Solution	Destroys contaminating amplicons and genomic DNA on work surfaces and equipment to prevent false positives [47].
High-Capacity cDNA Reverse Transcription Kit	Provides all components for efficient and consistent synthesis of cDNA from RNA templates, including controls for genomic DNA.
Validated ERBB2 & Reference Gene Assay	Pre-designed, efficiency-verified primer and probe sets for specific and accurate quantification of ERBB2 mRNA and stable reference genes [33].
ROX Passive Reference Dye	Included in the qPCR master mix to normalize for non-PCR-related fluorescence fluctuations between wells, improving well-to-well reproducibility [47].

The determination of HER2 status is evolving from a purely protein-based, semi-quantitative assessment to one that can incorporate quantitative mRNA analysis. While qPCR presents distinct advantages in objectivity and reproducibility, its reliability is contingent upon rigorous attention to RNA quality, validated normalization strategies, and controlled amplification efficiency. The experimental data shows that qPCR can not only correlate with IHC results but also potentially refine patient stratification for targeted therapies. For the future of HER2 testing, a combined approach utilizing both IHC and mRNA quantification may offer the most robust framework for accurate clinical decision-making.

The accurate assessment of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) status represents a critical determinant in the prognostic stratification and therapeutic management of breast cancer patients. As a predictive biomarker, HER2 guides the application of targeted therapies such as trastuzumab, with its overexpression observed in 10-30% of breast cancer cases [51]. The American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists (ASCO/CAP) guidelines endorse immunohistochemistry (IHC) and in situ hybridization (ISH) techniques as standard methodologies for HER2 evaluation in clinical practice [51] [38]. However, these conventional approaches present significant challenges, including interobserver variability, technical complexities, and susceptibility to pre-analytical factors [5]. Consequently, discrepancies between testing methods can lead to clinical misclassification, potentially depriving eligible patients of beneficial targeted treatments or subjecting others to unnecessary therapeutic interventions and associated toxicities.

The emergence of quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) technologies offers a complementary approach to traditional HER2 testing, promising enhanced objectivity, reproducibility, and throughput [3] [40]. This guide systematically compares the performance characteristics of qPCR and IHC methodologies for HER2 status determination, providing researchers and drug development professionals with experimental data, standardized protocols, and analytical frameworks to resolve discordant results and optimize testing algorithms.

Methodological Comparison: Technical Foundations and Performance Characteristics

Fundamental Principles of HER2 Detection Methods

Immunohistochemistry (IHC) operates on the principle of antigen-antibody recognition to detect HER2 protein expression on the cell membrane. The technique employs a semi-quantitative scoring system ranging from 0 (negative) to 3+ (strongly positive) based on staining intensity and completeness of membrane staining [51] [38]. IHC remains economically accessible and widely implemented but suffers from subjectivity in interpretation, susceptibility to pre-analytical variables (particularly tissue fixation conditions), and limited dynamic range for quantification [5].

Quantitative PCR (qPCR) methodologies encompass both DNA-based approaches to assess HER2 gene amplification and RNA-based techniques (qRT-PCR) to quantify HER2 mRNA expression levels. DNA-qPCR measures gene copy number variations (CNV) through comparative threshold cycle (ΔΔCt) analysis relative to reference genes [51], while qRT-PCR evaluates transcript abundance, potentially detecting overexpression mechanisms independent of gene amplification [40]. PCR-based methods provide objective, numerical data with wide dynamic range but require rigorous nucleic acid quality control and tumor content assessment to prevent false negatives due to dilution effects [38].

Comparative Performance Data Across Studies

Numerous investigations have directly compared the concordance between qPCR-based methods and standard IHC/FISH testing for HER2 status determination. The table below summarizes key performance metrics from recent clinical studies:

Table 1: Concordance Rates Between qPCR and Standard Methods for HER2 Assessment

Study	Sample Type	Sample Size	Comparison Method	Concordance Rate	Sensitivity	Specificity
Baez-Navarro et al, 2025 [46]	FFPE biopsies	88	IHC (HER2-low)	Strong agreement (P < 0.001)	N/R	N/R
Caselli et al, 2023 [45]	FFPE tissues	323	IHC	89.4% (HER2)	N/R	N/R
Fine Needle Aspiration Study, 2016 [3]	FNAC samples	154	IHC/FISH	97%	96%	98%
PMC Study, 2015 [51]	FFPE specimens	71	IHC/FISH	Complete concordance	N/R	N/R
Canino et al, 2017 [40]	FFPE tissues	153	FISH (qRT-PCR)	90.8%	N/R	N/R

N/R = Not Reported

Beyond these concordance metrics, research demonstrates that qPCR offers particular advantages in specific challenging scenarios. One investigation reported that qPCR successfully determined HER2 status in 69.2% of cases where FISH yielded indeterminate results [52]. Additionally, studies examining delayed formalin fixation—a common pre-analytical challenge—found that while HER2 FISH signals decayed significantly after 1 hour, qPCR maintained reliability for up to 12 hours post-resection [51].

Experimental Protocols: Standardized Methodologies for Method Comparison

Nucleic Acid Extraction and Quality Control

The reliability of qPCR-based HER2 testing fundamentally depends on nucleic acid quality and purity. For DNA extraction from formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tissues, the following protocol is recommended:

• Cut 4-10 μm sections from FFPE blocks and mount on slides
• Deparaffinize using xylene and rehydrate through graded ethanol series
• Extract DNA using phenol-chloroform method or commercial FFPE kits [51]
• Assess DNA purity spectrophotometrically (OD 260/280 ratio ~1.8-2.0)
• Evaluate DNA integrity through amplification of control genes

For RNA extraction, particularly when assessing HER2 mRNA expression:

• Use microdissected invasive tumor cells when possible to enrich tumor content [46]
• Employ bead-based extraction methods specifically validated for FFPE tissue [53]
• Include DNase I treatment step to eliminate genomic DNA contamination [40]
• Assess RNA quality using fluorimetric analysis rather than spectrophotometry alone [40]

qPCR Amplification and Analysis

The qPCR workflow for HER2 assessment requires meticulous assay design and validation:

Table 2: Essential Components for HER2 qPCR Analysis

Component	Specifications	Function
Primer/Probe Sets	HER2-specific primers flanking short sequences (<100 bp) [51]	Targets fragmented FFPE DNA
Reference Genes	3+ housekeeping genes (e.g., ACTB, TFRC, GAPDH, APP) [51] [40]	Normalizes sample input variations
Control Samples	Known HER2+ (SK-BR-3, BT-474) and HER2- cell lines (MCF-7, MDA-MB-231) [51]	Assay validation and calibration
PCR Master Mix	SYBR Green or probe-based chemistry with optimized buffers	Enables quantitative amplification
qPCR Instrument	Real-time thermal cycler with multiplex detection capability	Precise Ct value determination

For DNA-based HER2 CNV analysis:

• Prepare reaction mixtures according to optimized protocols (e.g., Bio-Rad SsoFast Evagreen) [51]
• Perform amplifications with conditions: 98°C for 2 minutes, then 39 cycles of 98°C for 15s and 60°C for 15s [51]
• Calculate CNV using the comparative Ct method: CNV = 2^(-ΔΔCt), where ΔΔCt = (Ct,HER2 - Ct,reference)sample - (Ct,HER2 - Ct,reference)normal [51]

For RNA-based HER2 expression analysis:

• Conduct reverse transcription using random hexamers with validated kits (e.g., High Capacity cDNA Archive Kit) [40]
• Consider preamplification for limited samples (14 cycles) to enhance detection sensitivity [40]
• Normalize HER2 expression to multiple reference genes (e.g., B2M, CALM2, RPLP0) [45] [53]

IHC Staining and Interpretation

Standardized IHC protocols are essential for meaningful method comparisons:

• Use validated anti-HER2 antibodies (e.g., CB11, A0485, 4B5) [38] [5]
• Employ automated stainers with calibrated positive controls to minimize inter-run variability [38]
• Evaluate staining according to ASCO/CAP guidelines by at least two independent pathologists blinded to qPCR results [51] [38]
• Implement digital image analysis for objective quantification when possible [5]

Figure 1: Experimental workflow for qPCR-based HER2 testing incorporating quality control steps

Resolution of Discordant Results: Analytical Frameworks and Technical Considerations

Discordances between IHC and qPCR results typically stem from methodological limitations or biological phenomena. The following table outlines common discordance scenarios and recommended resolution strategies:

Table 3: Troubleshooting Discordant HER2 Results Between IHC and qPCR

Discordance Pattern	Potential Causes	Resolution Strategies
IHC Positive/qPCR Negative	Focal amplification missed in sampling [38]	Microdissection of tumor areasRepeat testing on different tumor sections
	HER2 overexpression without gene amplification [40]	Perform qRT-PCR for mRNA expressionValidate with Western blot for protein [40]
	Polysomy 17 without specific HER2 amplification [38]	Use dual-probe FISH (HER2/CEP17 ratio)Employ alternative reference genes
IHC Negative/qPCR Positive	Tumor heterogeneity with amplified subclones [38]	Multi-region samplingCorrelate with histopathological review
	Low tumor cellularity in sample [38] [3]	Microdissection to enrich tumor contentAssess tumor percentage pre-extraction
	Non-specific IHC staining or antigen loss [5]	Repeat IHC with different antibodiesValidate with alternative method (SISH, CISH)
Borderline/Equivocal Results	Technical variability near cut-offs [45]	Repeat testing in duplicate/triplicateEmploy orthogonal validation method
	Biological heterogeneity [38]	Comprehensive samplingIntegrated scoring approach

Impact of Pre-Analytical Variables

Pre-analytical factors substantially influence both IHC and qPCR results, with fixation conditions representing a particularly critical variable. Studies demonstrate that delayed formalin fixation (>1 hour post-resection) significantly compromises FISH signal quality while affecting qPCR reliability to a lesser extent [51]. For optimal results:

• Ensure prompt tissue fixation (within 1 hour of resection) according to ASCO/CAP guidelines [51]
• Standardize fixation duration (6-72 hours for most fixatives)
• Use neutral buffered formalin rather than unbuffered alternatives
• Document ischemic time and fixation conditions for troubleshooting

Tumor Heterogeneity and Sampling Considerations

Intratumoral heterogeneity represents a biological challenge for HER2 assessment, with potential implications for method discordance. Research has documented cases containing distinct HER2-amplified and non-amplified subclones within individual tumors [38]. When encountering discordant results:

• Review histopathology to assess tumor heterogeneity
• Consider multi-region sampling for large or heterogeneous tumors
• Correlate molecular findings with morphological patterns
• For biopsy specimens, acknowledge potential sampling limitations

Integrated Testing Algorithms and Future Directions

Complementary Roles in Comprehensive HER2 Assessment

Rather than positioning qPCR and IHC as mutually exclusive alternatives, emerging data supports their complementary implementation within integrated testing algorithms. qPCR offers particular value in:

• Resolving equivocal IHC (2+) cases without reflex FISH testing [52]
• Determining HER2 status in samples with indeterminate FISH results [52]
• Providing objective quantification for clinical trials and research applications
• Enabling high-throughput screening in molecular profiling pipelines

The development of standardized mRNA expression cut-offs for HER2 status classification continues to evolve, with commercial assays like MammaTyper demonstrating high concordance with IHC for ER (94.4%), PR (88.0%), and HER2 (89.4%) [45]. Recent investigations into HER2-low breast cancers further highlight the potential for mRNA quantification to complement traditional IHC categorization, though concordance challenges remain [46] [21].

Figure 2: Integrated testing algorithm incorporating qPCR for resolving challenging HER2 cases

Research Reagent Solutions for HER2 Testing

Table 4: Essential Research Reagents for HER2 Method Comparison Studies

Reagent Category	Specific Examples	Research Application
DNA Extraction Kits	QIAamp DNA FFPE Tissue Kit [40]	Isolation of high-quality DNA from archived specimens
RNA Extraction Systems	Paradise Reagent System, RNXtract [40] [53]	RNA preservation and extraction from FFPE tissues
qPCR Master Mixes	SsoFast Evagreen, TaqMan PreAmp Master Mix [51] [40]	Sensitive detection and amplification of targets
Reference Assays	APP, ACTB, TFRC, GAPDH, B2M, CALM2 [51] [45] [53]	Sample normalization and quality control
Control Materials	SK-BR-3, BT-474 (positive); MCF-7, MDA-MB-231 (negative) [51]	Assay validation and run-to-run calibration
IHC Antibodies	CB11, A0485, 4B5 [38] [5]	Protein detection and comparative method analysis

The resolution of discrepant HER2 testing results requires a comprehensive understanding of the methodological strengths and limitations inherent to both IHC and qPCR approaches. While IHC provides valuable morphological context and protein localization information, qPCR offers objective quantification, superior dynamic range, and reduced interobserver variability. Evidence from multiple studies indicates concordance rates generally exceeding 90% between properly validated implementations of these techniques [45] [3].

Strategic application of qPCR methodology proves particularly valuable in scenarios involving equivocal IHC/FISH results, suboptimal sample fixation, clinical trial eligibility determination, and high-throughput molecular profiling. The integration of both approaches within complementary testing algorithms—supplemented by careful attention to pre-analytical variables, tumor heterogeneity, and appropriate controls—provides a robust framework for resolving discordant findings and optimizing HER2 status determination for both clinical management and drug development applications.

As therapeutic paradigms evolve to include HER2-low populations and novel antibody-drug conjugates, the precision offered by quantitative molecular methods like qPCR may assume increasing importance in patient selection and biomarker validation. Future standardization efforts and clinical outcome correlations will further refine the optimal roles for each methodology in the evolving landscape of HER2-directed therapeutics.

The classification of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) status in breast cancer has undergone a significant paradigm shift. Traditionally, breast cancer was categorized as either HER2-positive or HER2-negative. However, the advent of novel antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs), demonstrated by trials such as DESTINY-Breast04 and DESTINY-Breast06, has established HER2-low (IHC 1+ or IHC 2+/ISH-negative) and HER2-ultralow (IHC 0 with faint membrane staining) as clinically relevant subtypes [54]. These subgroups collectively account for approximately 65% of breast cancers once classified simply as HER2-negative [55] [56]. This redefinition demands unprecedented precision in immunohistochemistry (IHC) scoring, as the decision to administer highly effective ADCs now hinges on accurately distinguishing between scores of 0, 1+, and 2+.

This task is challenging for conventional visual scoring, which is prone to substantial inter-observer variability, especially at lower expression levels [6] [9]. In this context, digital pathology and artificial intelligence (AI) have emerged as transformative technologies. This guide provides an objective comparison of AI-assisted HER2 IHC scoring solutions, detailing their performance against manual methods and traditional molecular techniques like quantitative PCR (qPCR), with a focus on their application in research and drug development.

Performance Comparison: AI vs. Manual Scoring & Molecular Methods

Extensive research has quantified the performance gains offered by AI in HER2 IHC analysis. The data below compares AI's diagnostic accuracy against manual pathologist assessment and positions it relative to qPCR-based methods.

Table 1: Performance Comparison of HER2 Assessment Modalities

Assessment Method	Reported Accuracy/Area	Key Strengths	Key Limitations
AI-Assisted IHC Scoring	Pooled AUC: 0.98 (for distinguishing 1+/2+/3+ from 0) [6]	High accuracy in classifying 2+ and 3+ scores; improves inter-observer concordance [6] [56]	Performance declines in externally validated and commercial algorithms [6]
Manual IHC Scoring (without AI)	Accuracy: ~76% (vs. central reference) [56]	Established, standard practice; requires no specialized digital equipment	High inter-observer variability; low sensitivity for HER2-low/ultralow [9] [55]
qPCR (e.g., Oncotype DX HER2 mRNA Score)	AUC: 0.76 (distinguishing HER2-0 from HER2-low) [57]	Fully quantitative; high-throughput potential	Prominent overlap between IHC subgroups; not yet a standard for HER2 status [57]

Table 2: AI Performance Across HER2 IHC Scores (Meta-Analysis Data) [6]

HER2 IHC Score	Pooled Sensitivity	Pooled Specificity	Area Under the Curve (AUC)	Concordance with Pathologists
1+	0.69 [95% CI 0.57–0.79]	0.94 [95% CI 0.90–0.96]	0.92 [95% CI 0.90–0.94]	88% [95% CI 86–90%]
2+	0.89 [95% CI 0.84–0.93]	0.96 [95% CI 0.93–0.97]	0.98 [95% CI 0.96–0.99]	-
3+	0.97 [95% CI 0.96–0.99]	0.99 [95% CI 0.97–0.99]	1.00 [95% CI 0.99–1.00]	97% [95% CI 96–98%]

A large meta-analysis confirmed that AI demonstrates high overall accuracy in predicting eligibility for ADCs like trastuzumab deruxtecan (T-DXd), with a pooled sensitivity of 0.97 and specificity of 0.82 [6]. The performance is notably superior for higher HER2 scores (IHC 2+ and 3+), while remaining very strong for the critical IHC 1+ category. AI's most significant impact may be in improving consistency. A multinational study of 105 pathologists found that AI assistance boosted their agreement with a central reference standard from 76.3% to 89.6% and reduced the misclassification of HER2-ultralow cases as HER2-null by over 25% [56]. This directly addresses a major diagnostic gap that can impact patient eligibility for targeted therapies.

When compared to qPCR, the two methods offer complementary insights. The HER2 mRNA score (HS) from the qPCR-based Oncotype DX test shows a statistically significant increase across IHC-defined subgroups (HER2-0, ultralow, low) and demonstrates acceptable utility in distinguishing them (AUC=0.76-0.81) [57]. However, the overlap between subgroups is prominent, suggesting that mRNA quantification and protein detection by IHC capture different biological dimensions. AI-enhanced IHC scoring provides a direct, morphologically contextual analysis of protein expression at the cell level, which aligns with the established IHC-based clinical guidelines.

Experimental Protocols & Benchmarking Studies

The Digital PATH Project: A Multi-Platform Benchmarking Study

Objective: To assess the performance and variability of 10 different AI-powered digital pathology tools in evaluating HER2 expression from a common set of ~1,100 breast cancer samples [58].

Methodology:

• Sample Preparation: A single set of breast cancer biopsies was stained with both H&E and for HER2 expression (IHC). The slides were digitized using specialized scanners to create Whole Slide Images (WSIs).
• AI Analysis: The WSIs were distributed to 10 different technology partners (including entities like BostonGene, PathAI, and Lunit). Each partner analyzed the images using their proprietary algorithm to quantify HER2 expression.
• Ground Truth: Results from each AI platform were compared against the evaluations of expert human pathologists.

Key Findings: The study found a high level of agreement between the AI tools and expert pathologists, particularly for tumors with high HER2 expression. The most significant variability across platforms was observed at the non- and low (1+) expression levels. This highlights that while AI tools are robust for classic HER2-positive cases, their performance in the newly critical HER2-low category can vary, underscoring the need for transparency and rigorous validation of these technologies [58].

Protocol: Multinational Validation of an AI-Assisted Training Platform

Objective: To evaluate whether AI assistance can improve pathologists' accuracy in HER2 IHC scoring, especially for low and ultralow expressions [55] [56].

Methodology:

• Participants: 105 pathologists from 10 countries.
• Test Design: Pathologists performed 1,940 readings of 20 digital breast cancer HER2 IHC cases across three exams. AI assistance was provided only during the third exam. Between exams, participants received traditional training (lectures and discussion).
• AI Assistance: The AI-integrated platform (ComPath Academy) displayed for each case: a categorization for every neoplastic cell, total tumor cell count, percentage of each cell class, and a suggested HER2 clinical category.
• Ground Truth: All readings were compared against consensus scores from a central reference center of multiple expert pathologists.

Key Findings: This study demonstrated that AI assistance is not just a tool for automated scoring but also a powerful decision-support and training system. It directly improved the diagnostic capabilities of practicing pathologists, reducing human error in the most challenging low-expression cases.

Signaling Pathways and Experimental Workflows

The following diagrams illustrate the pivotal role of AI-assisted IHC in the modern HER2 testing workflow and how it compares to the qPCR-based method within the broader diagnostic and research context.

HER2 Testing and Therapeutic Decision Pathway

AI-Assisted IHC Scoring Workflow

The Scientist's Toolkit: Key Research Reagents & Materials

Table 3: Essential Reagents and Materials for AI-Based HER2 IHC Research

Item	Function / Role in the Workflow	Examples / Notes
HER2 IHC Assay Kits	Standardized staining of HER2 protein in FFPE tissue sections.	PATHWAY anti-HER2 4B5 (Roche/Ventana); HercepTest (Dako) [9] [57]
Tissue Microarray (TMA)	Allows high-throughput analysis of hundreds of tumor samples on a single slide, ideal for algorithm training and validation.	Constructed from annotated FFPE blocks; includes controls [9]
Whole Slide Scanners	Converts physical glass slides into high-resolution digital images for computational analysis.	Scanners from Philips, Leica, 3DHistech, and Roche [59]
AI Software Platforms	Provides the algorithmic backbone for image analysis, cell classification, and score prediction.	Commercial (e.g., ClinicPath AIM [9]) and research-grade platforms (e.g., from PathAI, Lunit [58])
Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) Models	The deep learning architecture most commonly used for analyzing image patches and identifying staining patterns.	Custom or pre-trained models (e.g., ResNet, VGG) adapted for pathology images [6] [59]
Fluorescence In Situ Hybridization (FISH)	The gold standard for determining HER2 gene amplification, used as a reflex test for IHC 2+ cases and for ground-truth validation.	Dual-probe ISH assays are standard [54]
qPCR Assays for ERBB2	Quantifies HER2 mRNA levels, providing a complementary, quantitative data point for research comparisons.	Component of multi-gene tests like Oncotype DX [57]

The accurate determination of Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2 (HER2) status in breast cancer is a critical diagnostic and predictive biomarker essential for guiding targeted therapies. The standardization of HER2 testing methodologies remains a significant challenge in clinical practice and research. International proficiency testing and consensus guidelines have evolved to address the interlaboratory variability inherent in traditional testing methods like immunohistochemistry (IHC) and fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH). Within this landscape, quantitative PCR (qPCR) and quantitative reverse transcription PCR (qRT-PCR) have emerged as complementary technologies offering potential solutions to standardization challenges. This review examines international standardization efforts, proficiency testing outcomes, and the evolving role of PCR-based methods within the broader context of HER2 testing harmonization, providing researchers and drug development professionals with evidence-based comparisons of these technological approaches.

International Proficiency Testing: Revealing Variability Challenges

International proficiency testing programs have systematically documented the variability in HER2 testing across laboratories, highlighting the pressing need for standardized approaches. A landmark international ring study involving five reference pathology centers demonstrated that while diagnostic decisions (positive/negative) showed consistency, specific scoring exhibited considerable interlaboratory variation [60]. The study found that among 20 specimens evaluated via IHC, only 9 (45%) received consistent scores across all centers, while 11 (55%) yielded equivocal or discordant results [60]. Similarly, FISH analysis achieved consensus in only 16 of 20 (80%) specimens, with all discordant cases displaying HER2/CEP17 ratios within the borderline range of 1.7-2.3 [60].

A more recent large-scale proficiency testing study conducted in China (2024) involving 169 laboratories confirmed these challenges persist despite years of standardization efforts [61]. While overall agreement was substantial to almost perfect (Fleiss' kappa: 0.765-0.911), cases near critical cutoff values or exhibiting genetic heterogeneity showed significantly lower congruence (Fleiss' kappa: 0.582) [61]. The study identified critical operational gaps contributing to variability: 52.2% of participating laboratories did not perform validation after updating procedures, and 75.6% lacked standard interpretation procedures, both significantly impacting performance (p < 0.05) [61].

Table 1: Key Findings from International Proficiency Testing Studies

Study Characteristic	International Ring Study (2007) [60]	Multicenter Study in China (2024) [61]
Number of Laboratories	5 reference centers	169 laboratories
IHC Concordance	45% complete scoring consensus	Not specifically measured
FISH Consensus	80% (16/20 specimens)	Substantial to almost perfect (κ: 0.765-0.911)
Problematic Cases	Borderline ratios (1.7-2.3); Equivocal IHC	Cases near cutoff; Genetic heterogeneity (κ: 0.582)
Major Quality Issues	Subjective interpretation	Lack of validation (52.2%); No standard procedures (75.6%)

Methodological Comparisons: IHC, FISH, and PCR-Based Approaches

Performance Characteristics of HER2 Testing Methods

The comparison between traditional HER2 testing methods and PCR-based approaches reveals distinct advantages and limitations for each technology. A 2017 study comparing IHC, FISH, qPCR, and qRT-PCR in 153 breast cancer patients demonstrated that qRT-PCR showed 90.8% overall agreement with FISH (κ=0.81), while DNA-based qPCR showed 94.1% agreement (κ=0.87) [18]. Importantly, the disagreement between FISH and qRT-PCR was mostly restricted to equivocal cases, and HER2 protein analysis suggested qRT-PCR correlated better with actual HER2 protein levels than FISH, particularly in cases where FISH provided inconclusive results [18].

A 2024 prospective validation study of a one-step RT-qPCR test demonstrated exceptional performance characteristics, with sensitivity of 93.4%, specificity of 100%, positive predictive value of 100%, and negative predictive value of 89.4% compared to standard IHC/FISH paradigms [35]. The area under the curve (AUC) for this RT-qPCR test reached 0.955, indicating high diagnostic accuracy [35]. Another study analyzing 466 breast tumors found 97.3% concordance between qRT-PCR and non-equivocal IHC, with discordances in only 3% of cases [38].

Table 2: Performance Comparison of HER2 Testing Methodologies

Method	Concordance with Standards	Key Strengths	Major Limitations
IHC	Reference standard	Accessibility; Cost-effectiveness; Protein localization	Inter-observer variability; Semi-quantitative [35] [38]
FISH	Gold standard for amplification	High sensitivity; Visual gene mapping	Cost; Technical complexity; Borderline interpretation [35] [60]
qPCR (DNA-based)	94.1% with FISH (κ=0.87) [18]	High specificity (99.0%); Quantitative gene copy number	Does not assess protein expression [18]
qRT-PCR (RNA-based)	90.8% with FISH (κ=0.81); Correlates with protein levels [18]	Quantitative; Automated; High throughput (AUC=0.955) [35]	RNA stability concerns; Requires tumor enrichment [38]

Special Considerations for HER2-Low Detection

The emergence of HER2-low as a therapeutically relevant category has introduced additional standardization challenges. Visual IHC scoring demonstrates particularly poor consistency in distinguishing between 0 and 1+ cases [62] [36]. A recent Australian concordance study found that even among experienced breast pathologists, individual accuracy in matching consensus HER2-low scores ranged from 73.3% to 91.67% (mean: 80.74%) [62]. Notably, 41.2% of cases originally reported as HER2 0 were reclassified as HER2-low upon expert consensus review, while 21.8% of local 1+ scores were reclassified as ultralow or null [62].

In this context, RT-qPCR has demonstrated particular utility for distinguishing subtle expression differences. A 2023 study found mRNA levels significantly differed between IHC 0 and 1+ groups (p<0.001), allowing refined categorization that revealed significant differences in histological grade, ER/PR status, and tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) [36]. Artificial intelligence (AI) has also emerged as a promising tool for standardization, with a 2025 meta-analysis demonstrating pooled sensitivity of 0.97 and specificity of 0.82 for distinguishing HER2-low/positive cases from true negatives, with performance improving significantly at higher HER2 expression levels [6].

Experimental Protocols for HER2 Testing

Standard IHC and FISH Methodologies

For IHC detection, the recommended protocol involves using validated anti-HER2 antibodies such as VENTANA anti-HER2/neu (4B5) or CB11 [18] [38]. Staining should be performed on formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tissue sections of 4-5μm thickness using automated stainers with appropriate controls [38] [62]. Scoring follows ASCO/CAP guidelines: 0 (no staining), 1+ (faint/barely perceptible membrane staining), 2+ (weak to moderate complete membrane staining), and 3+ (strong complete membrane staining) [38]. For FISH analysis, the PathVysion HER2 DNA Probe Kit is commonly employed on 3μm FFPE sections [18] [61]. Signal enumeration should include at least 20-80 non-overlapping tumor cell nuclei, with interpretation based on HER2/CEP17 ratio (<1.8: negative; 1.8-2.2: equivocal; >2.2: amplified) and average HER2 signals per cell [38] [61].

PCR-Based Testing Protocols

Nucleic Acid Extraction: DNA and RNA are extracted from FFPE tissues using specialized kits (e.g., QIAamp DNA FFPE Tissue Kit, Paradise Reagent System) [18]. For RNA, DNase I treatment is essential to remove genomic DNA contamination [18]. Tumor enrichment through macrodissection or laser capture microdissection is critical for samples with <70% tumor cellularity [18]. Nucleic acid quantification should employ fluorometric methods (e.g., Qubit Fluorimeter) for superior accuracy over spectrophotometry [18].

qPCR Amplification: Quantitative PCR for HER2 gene copy number assessment utilizes primers and probes specific to the HER2 gene, with reference genes (e.g., APP on chromosome 21) for normalization [18]. Reactions typically employ 30-50ng DNA in 25μL volumes with thermal cycling conditions: 95°C for 10min, followed by 40 cycles of 95°C for 15s and 60°C for 1min [18]. The HER2-amplified cell line SKBR3 serves as a positive control [18].

qRT-PCR for Gene Expression: For mRNA expression analysis, reverse transcription of 50-200ng total RNA using random hexamers is performed [18]. Preamplification of cDNA (14 cycles) may be incorporated to enhance sensitivity [18]. qRT-PCR utilizes TaqMan assays (e.g., Hs00170433-ERBB2) with reference genes (RPLP0, RPL30, or RPL37) for normalization [18] [35]. The 2024 validation study established a validated cut-off value of 11.954 for HER2 positivity, corresponding to optimal sensitivity and specificity [35].

Diagram 1: Experimental workflow for PCR-based HER2 testing, highlighting parallel DNA and RNA analysis pathways.

Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents for HER2 Testing

Reagent/Category	Specific Examples	Research Function
IHC Antibodies	VENTANA anti-HER2/neu (4B5); CB11; A0485	HER2 protein detection and localization [18] [38]
FISH Probes	PathVysion HER2 DNA Probe Kit; HER2 FISH pharmDx	Gene amplification visualization [18] [61]
Nucleic Acid Extraction	QIAamp DNA FFPE Tissue Kit; PureLink FFPE RNA Kit	DNA/RNA isolation from archived samples [18] [35]
qPCR Reagents	TaqMan assays; Universal Master Mix; LightCycler systems	Gene copy number quantification [18] [38]
Reference Genes	APP (DNA); RPLP0, RPL30, RPL37 (RNA)	Data normalization controls [18] [35]
Cell Line Controls	SKBR3 (HER2+); MCF-7 (HER2 low)	Process controls and standardization [18] [35]

International standardization efforts for HER2 testing continue to evolve in response to persistent challenges in proficiency testing and the emergence of new therapeutic categories like HER2-low. While IHC and FISH remain foundational methods, PCR-based technologies offer compelling advantages for standardization through quantitative, objective results that complement traditional approaches. The optimal HER2 testing paradigm likely integrates multiple methodologies, with qRT-PCR providing particular value in equivocal cases and HER2-low detection. Future standardization efforts should focus on establishing validated cut-off values, implementing quality control procedures, and incorporating emerging technologies like artificial intelligence to further reduce interlaboratory variability and ensure optimal patient selection for targeted therapies.

Comparative Performance Analysis: Validation Metrics and Clinical Concordance

The accurate determination of Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2 (HER2) status is a critical component in the diagnosis and treatment planning for breast cancer, directly influencing patient eligibility for targeted therapies. For decades, immunohistochemistry (IHC) and in situ hybridization (ISH) have been the cornerstone methods for assessing HER2 protein overexpression and gene amplification, respectively. However, these techniques are susceptible to subjective interpretation and technical variability. Reverse transcription quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) and other PCR-based methods have emerged as objective, quantitative alternatives. This guide provides a head-to-head comparison of IHC and qPCR for HER2 status determination, synthesizing experimental data and methodologies to offer a clear, evidence-based resource for researchers and drug development professionals.

Multiple studies have directly compared the performance of IHC and various PCR methodologies for determining HER2 status. The table below summarizes key concordance metrics reported in the literature.

Table 1: Summary of Concordance Rates Between IHC/FISH and qPCR for HER2 Status

Study (Citation)	Sample Type	Method Compared to IHC/FISH	Overall Concordance	Sensitivity	Specificity	Key Findings
Chen et al. (2022) [4]	Surgical specimens	RT-qPCR (mRNA)	92.80%	-	-	Spearman correlation of 0.762 between HER2 IHC and ERBB2 mRNA levels.
PMC Study (2016) [63]	Fine-needle aspiration	qPCR (DNA)	97%	96%	98%	qPCR on FNA samples is a reliable and fast method for HER2 status determination.
Tvrdík et al. (2012) [64]	FFPE tissues	qPCR (DNA)	97.6%	94.2%	100%	qPCR results showed a positive correlation (R=0.57) with IHC and were not encumbered by subjective error.
ScienceDirect Study [52]	FFPE tissues	qRT-PCR (DNA)	97.6%	95.1%	99.1%	The qPCR method was successfully used to evaluate HER2 status in samples with indeterminate FISH results.
2023 MD Study [45]	FFPE tissues	RT-qPCR (mRNA)	89.4% (Training) 80.4% (Validation)	-	-	Demonstrated high concordance for ER, PR, and HER2, with similar prognostic stratification by subtype.

These studies consistently demonstrate that qPCR is a highly sensitive and specific technique for determining HER2 status, with concordance rates with standard IHC/FISH often exceeding 90%. The high specificity observed in several studies indicates that qPCR is particularly reliable in correctly identifying true negative cases, minimizing false positives.

Experimental Protocols in Focus

To ensure the reproducibility of these comparative studies, it is essential to understand the detailed methodologies employed. The following table outlines the key experimental protocols from the cited research.

Table 2: Detailed Experimental Protocols from Key Studies

Study Component	PMC Study (2016) [63]	Tvrdík et al. (2012) [64]
Sample Type	US-guided fine-needle aspiration (FNA) samples.	Formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tissue from core needle biopsy or surgery.
DNA Extraction	QIAamp DNA Mini Kit (Qiagen).	QIAamp DNA mini kit (Qiagen) after deparaffinization.
qPCR Method	qPCR using a set of ten primer pairs targeting HER2 (exons 8, 26), chromosome 17 (CEN17), and diploid controls. Reactions in duplicate with FastSYBRgreen Master Mix.	LightCycler 480 and LightMix Her2/neu kit (Tib MolBiol). Normalized to housekeeping gene RPL23.
HER2 Status Calculation (qPCR)	Copy number calculated using the ΔCt method. HER2 amplification determined by the ratio of HER2 gene copies to control genes.	The normalized ratio of HER2 to RPL23. A ratio >2 was considered positive for amplification.
Reference Method	IHC and FISH on subsequent core-needle biopsy or surgical specimen.	Manual IHC (HercepTest), automatic IHC (Ventana), FISH, and SISH.
Interpretation Criteria (Reference)	Standard ASCO/CAP guidelines.	IHC: 0/1+ = negative; 2+ = weak positive; 3+ = strong positive. FISH/SISH: Ratio >2 = positive.

The workflow for a typical comparison study, integrating both IHC and qPCR pathways, can be visualized as follows:

The Evolving Diagnostic Landscape: Role of AI and Digital PCR

While qPCR offers a quantitative advantage, technological advancements are also addressing the limitations of traditional IHC. Artificial Intelligence (AI) is being deployed to reduce the high inter-observer variability inherent in manual IHC scoring. A recent meta-analysis found that AI models demonstrated a pooled sensitivity of 0.97 and specificity of 0.82 in distinguishing HER2-positive from negative cases, with near-perfect performance for score 3+ cases (sensitivity 0.97, specificity 0.99) [6]. Furthermore, AI shows promise in standardizing the identification of HER2-low cancers, a critical distinction with the advent of new antibody-drug conjugates [65].

Simultaneously, newer PCR technologies are emerging. Digital real-time PCR (drPCR) has been developed for ultrafast and precise HER2 assessment. One multicenter study reported that drPCR was not only faster and simpler but also more accurate than conventional IHC/ISH, which frequently yielded false positives. The study highlighted that HER2 drPCR(+)/IHC-ISH(+) patients achieved high pathological complete response rates with anti-HER2 therapy, while drPCR(-)/IHC-ISH(+) cases responded poorly, underscoring drPCR's superior predictive accuracy [66].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Reagents and Kits

The following table catalogues key research reagents and their applications as utilized in the cited comparative studies.

Table 3: Key Research Reagent Solutions for HER2 Testing

Reagent / Kit Name	Function / Target	Application in Research	Citation
HercepTest (Dako)	IHC for HER2 protein	Manual IHC staining and scoring of HER2 protein overexpression.	[64]
Ventana anti-Her2/neu (Roche)	IHC for HER2 protein	Automated IHC staining using the Ventana Benchmark XT platform.	[64]
PathVysion HER-2 DNA Probe Kit (Abbott)	FISH for HER2 gene	Detection of HER2 gene amplification via fluorescence in situ hybridization.	[64]
QIAamp DNA Mini Kit (Qiagen)	Nucleic Acid Extraction	Extraction of DNA from fresh cells (FNA) or FFPE tissues for downstream qPCR.	[63] [64]
LightMix Her2/neu kit (Tib MolBiol)	qPCR for HER2 gene	Quantitative PCR-based determination of HER2 gene copy number.	[64]
MammaTyper Kit	RT-qPCR for mRNA	A commercially available CE-IVD marked kit for molecular subtyping by quantifying ESR1, PGR, ERBB2, and MKi67 mRNA.	[5]

The head-to-head comparisons presented in this guide consistently demonstrate that qPCR is a highly concordant, reliable, and objective methodology for determining HER2 status in breast cancer. Its high specificity and sensitivity, coupled with its ability to provide results from minimal tissue material like FNAs and resolve indeterminate FISH cases, position it as a powerful tool in the molecular pathology arsenal. The continued evolution of PCR technologies, such as digital PCR, alongside computational advances like AI-assisted IHC scoring, promises to further refine the precision of HER2 diagnostics. For researchers and drug developers, these quantitative methods are indispensable for ensuring accurate patient stratification in clinical trials and for advancing the development of targeted oncology therapeutics.

The accurate determination of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) status has undergone a significant evolution in breast cancer diagnostics. While traditional immunohistochemistry (IHC) and in situ hybridization (ISH) methods effectively identify HER2-positive cancers with high levels of protein overexpression or gene amplification, they face considerable challenges in detecting low levels of HER2 expression [7] [13]. The emergence of HER2-low as a clinically relevant category, driven by the efficacy of novel antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) in metastatic breast cancer, has created an urgent need for more sensitive and quantitative detection methods [7] [13]. This comparison guide objectively evaluates the performance of quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) against standard IHC for detecting low HER2 expression levels, providing researchers and drug development professionals with critical experimental data to inform methodological selection.

Technical Comparison: qPCR vs. IHC for HER2 Detection

Fundamental Methodological Differences

qPCR and IHC employ fundamentally distinct approaches to assess HER2 status. IHC is a protein-based method that visualizes HER2 receptor expression on the cell membrane through antibody binding and chromogenic detection, providing spatial context but yielding semi-quantitative results scored as 0, 1+, 2+, or 3+ based on staining intensity and pattern [13]. In contrast, qPCR is a nucleic acid-based technique that quantifies ERBB2 mRNA expression levels through reverse transcription and amplification, providing continuous numerical data (e.g., normalized expression values or fold-changes) that reflect transcriptional activity [7] [18].

Analytical Sensitivity for Low HER2 Expression

Multiple studies demonstrate qPCR's superior analytical sensitivity for detecting low HER2 expression compared to IHC. A comprehensive transcriptomic analysis of 3182 breast tumors revealed that 86% of samples classified as IHC 0 showed detectable ERBB2 mRNA expression, with 41% falling in the "low" expression class, 42% in "intermediate," and 4% in "high" expression categories [7]. This finding highlights IHC's limitations in distinguishing true HER2-zero from HER2-low cases, as the assay was originally designed to identify high-level overexpression rather than subtle expression differences in the lower range [13].

A 2024 study evaluating MammaTyper RT-qPCR on core needle biopsies found that 40 of 72 HER2 IHC 0 tumors were classified as ERBB2-low by qPCR analysis, further demonstrating qPCR's enhanced ability to detect low-level HER2 expression that IHC fails to categorize accurately [67]. The overall concordance between methods remained high (OPA: 95%), but qPCR provided more precise quantification in the low expression range where IHC scoring becomes subjective and inconsistent [67].

Table 1: Performance Comparison for HER2 Status Determination

Performance Metric	qPCR Method	IHC Method	Study Details
Sensitivity	76-78% [16] [18]	55-59% [16] [18]	For detecting HER2 positive cases
Specificity	78-91% [16] [18]	86-95% [16] [18]	For detecting HER2 positive cases
Detection in IHC 0 Cases	86% show detectable ERBB2 mRNA [7]	Not applicable (reference category)	3182 tumor samples analyzed
Concordance with Reference	Overall agreement: 90.8-94.1% [18]	Standard reference method	Compared with FISH
Low Expression Discrimination	Continuous quantitative data [7] [67]	Categorical (0, 1+, 2+, 3+) with subjective interpretation [13]	Technical capability

Experimental Data and Performance Metrics

Concordance Studies and Diagnostic Accuracy

Head-to-head comparisons reveal important performance differences between qPCR and IHC. A 2009 study analyzing 85 breast cancer patients reported that qPCR showed significantly better sensitivity (78% vs. 59%) though slightly lower specificity (91% vs. 95%) compared to enzyme immunoassay (a protein detection method related to IHC) when discriminating HER2-positive patients from controls [16]. The area under the curve (AUC) values for transcriptomics-based ERBB2 measurement in distinguishing HER2-low from HER2-zero cancers were ≥0.75 in both RNA-Seq and microarray datasets, indicating strong classification performance [7].

A 2017 method comparison study demonstrated an overall agreement of 94.1% between FISH and DNA-based Q-PCR, with a kappa value of 0.87, indicating excellent concordance [18]. However, the same study found that RNA-based qRT-PCR correlated better with HER2 protein levels measured by Western blot than FISH, particularly in equivocal cases where FISH failed to provide conclusive results [18].

Clinical Utility in Treatment Response Prediction

qPCR's quantitative assessment of HER2 expression shows promise in predicting treatment response. Analysis of neoadjuvant chemotherapy response in 324 breast cancer samples revealed that pathological complete response (pCR) rates were more widely distributed across ERBB2 expression classes compared to IHC scores, with the highest pCR proportions observed in patients with "very high" ERBB2 expression receiving anti-HER2 therapy [7]. Both treated and untreated patient groups showed significant association between ERBB2 expression classes and treatment response, whereas HER2 IHC scores only showed significant association in the treated group [7].

Table 2: Response Prediction and Technical Characteristics

Characteristic	qPCR Method	IHC Method	Clinical Implications
Response Prediction	Significant association in treated and untreated groups [7]	Significant association only in treated group [7]	Better patient stratification
Data Output	Continuous numerical values [7] [67]	Semi-quantitative categories (0, 1+, 2+, 3+) [13]	More precise quantification
Preanalytical Sensitivity	Affected by RNA quality and tumor cell percentage [18]	Affected by fixation, processing, and antigen retrieval [7]	Different optimization needs
Interpretation	Objective numerical thresholds [16] [67]	Subjective visual scoring [13]	Reduced variability
Throughput Capability	High-throughput possible with RNA-Seq [7]	Limited by manual processing and evaluation [13]	Scalability for large studies

Experimental Protocols for HER2 Detection

qPCR Methodology for HER2 mRNA Quantification

The qPCR protocol for HER2 detection typically involves careful RNA extraction, reverse transcription to cDNA, followed by quantitative PCR amplification using ERBB2-specific primers and probes [18] [67]. For precise results, proper preanalytical handling is crucial. The MammaTyper test, a CE-marked RT-qPCR assay, exemplifies a standardized approach for mRNA expression analysis of ERBB2 along with ESR1, PGR, and MKI67 from core needle biopsies [67].

In a detailed 2017 protocol, RNA was isolated using the Paradise Reagent System with proteinase K digestion for 16 hours at 56°C, followed by DNase I treatment to remove genomic DNA contamination [18]. RNA quantity and quality were assessed using both spectrophotometric and fluorometric methods. Reverse transcription was performed using random hexamers, and preamplification of cDNA targets was conducted with 14 cycles to enhance detection sensitivity without distorting relative mRNA levels [18]. Quantitative PCR was then carried out using TaqMan chemistry with specific probes for ERBB2 and reference genes (typically RPLP0), running 40 cycles of amplification on a real-time PCR system [18].

IHC Protocol for HER2 Protein Detection

Standard IHC protocols for HER2 detection begin with proper tissue fixation in 10% neutral buffered formalin for 6-72 hours [13]. Tissue sections are incubated with primary antibodies against HER2/neu, such as the rabbit monoclonal antibody VENTANA anti-HER2/neu (4B5) [18]. Detection employs enzyme-conjugated secondary antibodies with chromogenic substrates to visualize HER2 protein localization on the cell membrane.

Scoring follows ASCO/CAP guidelines: 0 (no staining or faint staining in ≤10% of cells), 1+ (faint staining in >10% of cells), 2+ (weak to moderate staining in >10% of cells), and 3+ (strong staining in >10% of cells) [13]. Equivocal cases (2+) require reflex testing by ISH for definitive classification. Best practices for distinguishing IHC 0 vs. 1+ include reviewing at 40x magnification to detect faint or focal expression and considering second reviews for cases close to threshold [13].

Visualizing Experimental Workflows

Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Essential Reagents and Materials for HER2 Detection Experiments

Reagent/Material	Function	Example Products/Details
RNA Isolation Kit	Extraction of high-quality RNA from tissue samples	Paradise Reagent System, QIAamp DNA FFPE Tissue Kit [18]
Reverse Transcription Kit	Conversion of RNA to complementary DNA (cDNA)	High Capacity cDNA Archive Kit with random hexamers [18]
qPCR Master Mix	Enzymes and buffers for quantitative amplification	TaqMan PreAmp Master Mix, Universal Master Mix [18]
ERBB2 Primers/Probes	Specific detection of HER2 mRNA	TaqMan assays (e.g., Hs00170433 for ERBB2) [18]
Reference Gene Assays	Normalization of expression data	RPLP0, APP as reference genes [18]
HER2 Antibodies	Detection of HER2 protein in IHC	VENTANA anti-HER2/neu (4B5) rabbit monoclonal antibody [18]
Chromogenic Substrates	Visualization of antibody binding	Enzyme-conjugated substrates for color development [18]
Cell Line Controls	Quality control and standardization	SKBR3 (HER2-positive) breast cancer cell line [18]

The comprehensive comparison between qPCR and IHC for detecting low HER2 expression levels demonstrates that while both methods have distinct strengths, qPCR offers superior analytical sensitivity and quantitative precision for identifying the biologically continuous spectrum of HER2 expression, particularly in the low range that has become therapeutically relevant. qPCR's ability to detect ERBB2 mRNA in 86% of IHC 0 cases, combined with its objective numerical output and better correlation with protein levels in equivocal cases, positions it as an essential complementary tool for refining HER2-low categorization [7] [18]. For researchers and drug development professionals working with HER2-low breast cancers, qPCR provides a more sensitive and quantitative approach that can enhance patient stratification for targeted therapies and improve treatment outcome predictions. As HER2-directed therapies continue to evolve, integrating transcriptomic measurements with conventional protein-based methods will be crucial for advancing precision oncology in breast cancer management.

The accurate assessment of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) status has evolved from a simple binary classification to a more nuanced continuum with significant implications for prognosis and treatment selection. This comparison guide objectively evaluates the performance of two principal methodologies—immunohistochemistry (IHC) and quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR)—in determining HER2 status, with particular focus on their correlation with clinical outcomes and treatment response. The emergence of antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) effective against tumors with low HER2 expression has intensified the need for precise diagnostic tools capable of reliably distinguishing subtle expression differences. Within this context, we analyze the technical capabilities, prognostic value, and therapeutic predictive power of both IHC and qPCR methodologies, providing researchers and drug development professionals with evidence-based comparisons to inform diagnostic strategies and clinical trial design.

Technical Performance and Concordance

Methodological Principles and Capabilities

Immunohistochemistry (IHC) is a semi-quantitative technique that visualizes HER2 protein expression on the cell membrane through antibody-mediated staining. The results are typically scored on a scale of 0, 1+, 2+, and 3+ based on staining intensity and completeness of membrane staining. This method provides valuable morphological context by preserving tissue architecture, allowing pathologists to directly correlate HER2 expression with specific tumor regions. However, as a semi-quantitative approach, IHC has inherent limitations in dynamic range and is susceptible to interobserver variability and pre-analytical factors such as tissue fixation time.

Quantitative PCR (qPCR) methodologies, including reverse transcription qPCR (RT-qPCR) and digital PCR (ddPCR), offer complementary approaches. RT-qPCR quantifies ERBB2 mRNA expression levels, reflecting transcriptional activity of the HER2 gene, while ddPCR provides absolute quantification of ERBB2 gene copy number at the DNA level. These methods provide continuous, numerical data with broader dynamic ranges and reduced subjective interpretation. While they require nucleic acid extraction and lose morphological context, they offer superior standardization and quantification capabilities, particularly valuable for detecting expression gradients in the HER2-low spectrum.

Concordance Between Methods

Substantial evidence demonstrates strong overall concordance between IHC and PCR-based methods for determining HER2 status, particularly at the extremes of expression. A comprehensive study comparing IHC with RT-qPCR across multiple breast cancer biomarkers reported a 92.80% overall percent agreement for HER2/ERBB2 assessment, with a strong Spearman correlation coefficient of 0.762 [4]. This indicates that while the methods generally align, discrepancies do occur, particularly in borderline cases.

For cases requiring precise gene copy number quantification, digital PCR has demonstrated exceptional performance. A recent study of 909 primary breast cancers validated a multiplex ddPCR assay for ERBB2 copy number determination, which showed Area Under the Curve (AUC) values of 0.93-0.96 for concordance with clinical HER2 status, with an overall accuracy of 94.1% in the validation cohort [68]. The positive and negative predictive values for classic HER2 amplification and non-amplification groups were 97.2% and 94.8%, respectively, highlighting the robust performance of this quantitative approach [68].

Table 1: Comparative Performance Metrics of HER2 Testing Methodologies

Method	Target	Concordance with Reference	Sensitivity	Specificity	Key Strengths
IHC	HER2 Protein	Reference Standard	87.96% [69]	93.75% [69]	Morphological context, accessibility
RT-qPCR	ERBB2 mRNA	92.8% OPA with IHC [4]	93.4% [41]	100% [41]	Quantitative, objective, broad dynamic range
ddPCR	ERBB2 Copy Number	94.1% Accuracy [68]	86.1% [18]	99.0% [18]	Absolute quantification, high precision

Correlation with Clinical Outcomes

Prognostic Significance by Cancer Type

HER2 status, determined by various methodologies, carries significant prognostic implications across cancer types. In urothelial carcinoma of the bladder (UCB), HER2 overexpression detected by IHC has demonstrated strong prognostic value. A retrospective study of 108 UCB patients found that 57.4% exhibited HER2 overexpression (IHC 2+/3+), which was significantly associated with higher tumor grades and advanced stages [70]. Critically, Kaplan-Meier analysis revealed that patients with HER2 overexpression had significantly shorter 5-year overall survival rates and recurrence-free survival [70]. Multivariate Cox regression analysis confirmed HER2 overexpression as a high-risk independent predictor of UCB recurrence, with a hazard ratio of 3.61 [70].

In breast cancer, the prognostic significance of HER2 expression extends beyond the traditional positive/negative dichotomy. A retrospective analysis of 684 patients with HER2-negative breast cancer revealed important prognostic distinctions within this population. HER2-low tumors (IHC 1+ or 2+/ISH-negative) demonstrated distinct clinicopathological features compared to HER2-zero (IHC 0) tumors, including a higher proportion of hormone receptor-positive cases and lower rates of histological grade III [71]. Multivariate Cox regression analysis indicated that low HER2 expression served as a protective factor for recurrence-free interval, with a hazard ratio of 0.531, particularly in patients with hormone receptor-positive disease and those younger than 65 years [71].

Quantitative Assessment Enhances Prognostic Stratification

The continuous quantitative capabilities of PCR-based methods enable more refined prognostic stratification than categorical IHC scoring. A study utilizing ddPCR to quantify ERBB2 copy number identified a biological "ultrahigh" ERBB2 group with significantly worse survival outcomes among patients treated with adjuvant trastuzumab [68]. These patients had significantly worse recurrence-free survival and overall survival, with hazard ratios of 3.3 and 3.6, respectively, in multivariable Cox regression analyses [68]. This finding was validated in a population-based cohort using RNA-seq data as a surrogate, confirming that ultrahigh ERBB2 mRNA levels predicted decreased long-term survival after trastuzumab treatment [68].

The ability of RT-qPCR to provide continuous quantitative data also helps resolve prognostic ambiguities in the HER2-low spectrum. Research has demonstrated significant differences in mRNA levels between IHC 0 and 1+ groups, enabling further refinement of prognostic categorization [36]. After reclassification of IHC categories using RT-qPCR thresholds, statistically significant differences emerged in histological grade, estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, and tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes expression [36].

Table 2: Prognostic Associations of HER2 Status Determined by Different Methodologies

Method	Cancer Type	HER2 Status	Prognostic Association	Statistical Significance
IHC	Urothelial Carcinoma	Overexpression (2+/3+)	Shorter 5-year OS; HR 3.61 for recurrence	P=0.005 OS; P=0.039 recurrence [70]
IHC	Breast Cancer	Low (1+ or 2+/ISH-) vs Zero (0)	Longer RFI; HR 0.531	P=0.038 [71]
ddPCR	Breast Cancer	Ultrahigh Copy Number	Worse RFS and OS after trastuzumab	HR 3.3 RFS; HR 3.6 OS [68]

Predictive Value for Treatment Response

HER2-Targeted Therapies

Accurate HER2 status determination is crucial for predicting response to HER2-targeted therapies. The emergence of antibody-drug conjugates effective in HER2-low breast cancers has heightened the importance of precisely distinguishing between IHC 0 and 1+ categories. Research indicates that RT-qPCR may outperform IHC in identifying patients who overexpress HER2 protein, particularly in diagnostically challenging cases. One study noted that disagreement between FISH and qRT-PCR was mostly restricted to equivocal cases, with HER2 protein analysis suggesting that qRT-PCR correlates better with HER2 protein levels than FISH in these situations [18].

The technical limitations of IHC in distinguishing low HER2 expression levels present significant clinical implications. Visual IHC scoring is subject to substantial interobserver variability, which becomes particularly problematic when distinguishing between HER2 0 and 1+ categories—a critical determination for ADC eligibility [6]. Artificial intelligence-assisted IHC analysis has demonstrated declining performance in lower HER2 expression categories, with sensitivity for score 1+ identification dropping to 69% compared to 97% for score 3+ [6]. This variability underscores the need for more objective quantification methods to ensure appropriate patient selection for novel therapies.

Technical Considerations for Treatment Selection

PCR-based methods offer advantages in standardizing HER2 assessment across laboratories and platforms. A prospective validation study of a one-step RT-qPCR-based test for quantifying HER2 gene expression demonstrated 100% concordance with FISH results and a kappa coefficient of 0.863 with IHC [41]. The test achieved an area under the curve of 0.955, with sensitivity and specificity of 93.4% and 100%, respectively [41]. These performance characteristics highlight the potential of standardized PCR assays to complement traditional IHC/FISH algorithms, particularly in equivocal cases.

The quantitative nature of PCR methods also enables more nuanced assessment of HER2 expression as a continuous variable, which may better reflect biological heterogeneity. One study utilizing RT-qPCR identified a U-shaped relationship between continuous HER2 mRNA levels and hazard ratios in HER2-negative patients, suggesting that IHC has a relatively limited dynamic range for detection in cases with low HER2 expression [36]. This continuous risk relationship would be obscured by categorical IHC scoring, potentially missing clinically relevant prognostic information.

Experimental Protocols and Methodologies

Key Experimental Workflows

IHC Protocol for HER2 Assessment: Tissue sections from formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) blocks are cut at 4μm thickness, mounted on slides, and dried. Following deparaffinization and rehydration, antigen retrieval is performed using citrate buffer (pH 6.0) or EDTA buffer (pH 9.0) with heating. Endogenous peroxidase activity is blocked with 3% hydrogen peroxide. Sections are incubated with anti-HER2 primary antibody (e.g., rabbit monoclonal antibody clone 4B5), followed by application of secondary detection system using labeled polymer-enzyme conjugates. Staining is visualized with chromogenic substrates such as 3,3'-diaminobenzidine (DAB), followed by counterstaining with hematoxylin. Scoring is performed according to ASCO/CAP guidelines: 0 (no staining or <10% staining), 1+ (faint/barely perceptible membrane staining in >10% of cells), 2+ (weak to moderate complete membrane staining in >10% of cells), and 3+ (circumferential intense membrane staining in >10% of cells) [70] [69].

RT-qPCR Protocol for HER2 mRNA Quantification: RNA is extracted from FFPE tissue sections using commercial kits with optimized procedures for degraded FFPE-derived RNA, including extended proteinase K digestion. RNA quantity and quality are assessed using spectrophotometric and fluorometric methods. cDNA synthesis is performed using reverse transcriptase with random hexamers and/or oligo-dT primers. For enhanced sensitivity, a preamplification step may be incorporated using target-specific primers. Quantitative PCR is performed using TaqMan assays with primers and probes specific for ERBB2 and reference genes (e.g., RPL30, RPL37, RPLP0). Reactions are run in duplicate or triplicate on real-time PCR instruments. Data analysis utilizes the ΔΔCt method with normalization to reference genes, with results expressed as normalized expression values relative to a calibrator sample [4] [41] [18].

ddPCR Protocol for ERBB2 Copy Number Analysis: DNA is extracted from FFPE tissues using commercial kits with consideration for potential fragmentation. A multiplex ddPCR reaction is performed with probes for ERBB2 and reference genes (e.g., CEP17 and a copy-number-stable region such as 2p13.1). The reaction mixture is partitioned into thousands of nanodroplets using automated droplet generators. Endpoint PCR amplification is performed, followed by droplet reading to classify droplets as positive or negative for each target. Copy number is calculated using Poisson statistics based on the ratio of positive droplets for target versus reference genes, providing absolute quantification without standard curves [68].

Visual Experimental Workflow

The following diagram illustrates the key decision points and methodological relationships in HER2 status determination for clinical outcomes and treatment response:

Diagram 1: HER2 Testing Workflow and Clinical Correlations. This diagram illustrates the relationship between testing methodologies, HER2 status categories, and clinical applications, highlighting how both IHC and PCR-based approaches contribute to prognostic stratification and treatment selection.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents for HER2 Status Determination

Reagent/Category	Specific Examples	Function/Application
Primary Antibodies	Rabbit monoclonal anti-HER2/neu (4B5)	Detection of HER2 protein in IHC
Nucleic Acid Extraction Kits	QIAamp DNA FFPE Tissue Kit, Paradise Reagent System	Isolation of DNA/RNA from archival FFPE samples
PCR Assays	TaqMan assays for ERBB2, Reference genes (RPL30, RPL37)	Quantitative detection of HER2 mRNA/DNA
Reference Controls	CEP17 probe, 2p13.1 region, APP gene	Normalization for gene copy number and expression
Digital PCR Reagents	ddPCR Supermix, Droplet generation oil	Partitioning and amplification for absolute quantification
Cell Line Controls	SK-BR-3 (HER2-amplified), Normal genomic DNA	Positive and negative process controls

The comparative analysis of IHC and qPCR methodologies for HER2 status determination reveals a complex landscape where technical capabilities directly influence prognostic stratification and treatment prediction. IHC remains the foundational method, providing essential morphological context and established prognostic associations across cancer types. However, PCR-based approaches offer significant advantages in quantification, objectivity, and dynamic range, particularly relevant in the era of HER2-low therapeutics and biologically nuanced prognostic stratification.

The optimal approach for clinical research and drug development may increasingly involve complementary use of both methodologies, leveraging the strengths of each while mitigating their respective limitations. As therapeutic options continue to evolve, particularly with ADCs targeting increasingly subtle expression gradients, the precision offered by quantitative PCR methods will likely play an expanding role in patient stratification and response prediction. Future directions should focus on standardized implementation of PCR-based assays, validation of expression thresholds linked to clinical outcomes, and refined classification systems that integrate both protein and nucleic acid-based assessments to maximize prognostic and predictive accuracy.

The accurate determination of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) status has undergone a significant transformation in breast cancer diagnostics. While immunohistochemistry (IHC) and in situ hybridization have long been the standard methods, the emergence of novel antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) effective across the HER2 expression spectrum has created an urgent need for more precise quantification approaches [72] [14]. The conventional binary classification of HER2 as positive or negative is being replaced by a more nuanced continuum that includes HER2-positive, HER2-low, and HER2-ultralow categories [14] [73]. This evolution has driven interest in mRNA-based quantification and transcriptomic classification as complementary approaches that may overcome limitations inherent to traditional protein-based detection methods.

The growing recognition that HER2 expression exists along a spectrum with clinical implications has highlighted the limitations of conventional IHC, particularly in distinguishing between HER2-low and HER2-ultralow categories [74] [14]. Meanwhile, transcriptomic approaches offer the potential for more standardized, quantitative assessment of ERBB2 expression and have demonstrated utility in predicting treatment response and patient outcomes [75] [74]. This comparison guide objectively evaluates these novel approaches against established methodologies, providing researchers and drug development professionals with experimental data and technical insights to inform biomarker strategy in the era of ADC therapeutics.

Comparative Performance of HER2 Assessment Technologies

Methodological Approaches and Diagnostic Performance

Table 1: Comparative analytical performance of HER2/ERBB2 detection technologies

Methodology	Target	Quantitative Capability	Reported Concordance with IHC	Key Advantages	Key Limitations
Immunohistochemistry (IHC)	HER2 protein	Semi-quantitative	Reference standard	Established guidelines, widely available	Interobserver variability, limited sensitivity for low expression
RT-qPCR	ERBB2 mRNA	Fully quantitative	100% for HER2 status [76]	High standardization, minimal sample requirement	Requires RNA extraction, lacks spatial context
Microarray	ERBB2 mRNA	Fully quantitative	AUC ≥0.75 vs IHC classification [74]	High-throughput, reproducible	Platform-dependent normalization, specialized equipment
RNA Sequencing	ERBB2 mRNA	Fully quantitative	Detects HER2 signal in 86% of IHC 0 cases [74]	Whole-transcriptome data, detects novel transcripts	Higher cost, computational complexity
Deep Learning on IHC Images	HER2 protein morphology	Quantitative prediction	91% accuracy for HER2 scores [34]	Reduces subjectivity, utilizes existing images	Dependent on image quality, black box limitations

Clinical Validation and Outcome Correlation

Table 2: Clinical performance and predictive value of HER2/ERBB2 assessment methods

Methodology	Predictive Value for Treatment Response	Prognostic Value	HER2-Low Discrimination	Regulatory Status
Conventional IHC (HER2/4B5)	Standard for HER2-targeted therapies	Established for HER2-positive disease	Approved for ultralow identification (CE-IVDR) [73]	Companion diagnostic for multiple therapies
HER2DX ERBB2 mRNA Score	Superior PFS (HR=0.40) and OS (HR=0.26) for high vs low in advanced HER2+ BC [75]	Independent prognostic factor in multivariable analysis [75]	Not specifically validated	Laboratory-developed test
Transcriptomic Quantification	pCR most prevalent in highest ERBB2 expression with anti-HER2 therapy [74]	Association with pathological characteristics [76]	Distinguishes HER2-zero from HER2-low (AUC=0.76) [72]	Research use only
Deep Learning FISH Prediction	Not reported	Not reported	Not primary purpose	Research use only

Experimental Protocols and Methodologies

ERBB2 mRNA Quantification by RT-qPCR

The RT-qPCR methodology for ERBB2 mRNA quantification follows a standardized RNA-to-Ct workflow that enables precise quantification of gene expression levels [76]. The protocol begins with RNA extraction from formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tissue sections using commercially available kits such as the Qiagen RNeasy FFPE Kit. For samples with less than 50% invasive tumor content, macrodissection is performed to enrich for tumor cells. RNA quantification and purity assessment are critical steps, performed using a Qubit RNA High Sensitivity kit and NanoDrop spectrophotometer, respectively.

Following RNA extraction, residual DNA contamination is assessed using TaqMan ACTB assay with appropriate positive and negative controls. If contamination is detected, DNase I treatment is applied. cDNA synthesis then proceeds using random hexamers and reverse transcriptase kits such as Omniscript RT, with incubation at 37°C for 60 minutes. Real-time PCR amplification is performed in triplicate using TaqMan gene expression assays for ERBB2 on platforms such as QuantStudio 3, with reactions containing qPCRBIO Probe Mix Lo-ROX in a final volume of 20 µL. The PCR conditions consist of an initial denaturation at 95°C for 2 minutes, followed by 40 cycles of 5 seconds at 95°C and 25 seconds at 60°C.

Gene expression normalization employs multiple reference genes (typically ACTB, GAPDH, GUSB, RPLP0, and TFRC) to account for variations in RNA input and quality. Expression levels are calculated using the delta Ct method, with established cut-offs for ERBB2 status determination. Validation studies have demonstrated 100% concordance between ERBB2 mRNA results by this method and HER2 status determined by IHC/FISH [76].

Figure 1: Experimental workflow for ERBB2 mRNA quantification by RT-qPCR

Transcriptomic Classification of HR+/HER2+ Breast Cancer

The molecular subtyping protocol for HR+/HER2+ breast cancer involves comprehensive transcriptomic analysis followed by computational classification [77]. The methodology begins with collection of pretreatment biopsy samples from patients with confirmed HR+/HER2+ breast cancer. RNA extraction is performed using standardized protocols, followed by quality control measures including RNA integrity number (RIN) assessment. Transcriptomic profiling is conducted using microarray or RNA sequencing platforms, with the former providing robust gene expression data and the latter offering whole-transcriptome coverage.

For the MUKDEN classification system, gene expression data undergoes preprocessing including background correction, normalization, and batch effect adjustment. Non-negative matrix factorization (NMF) cluster analysis is then applied to identify molecular subtypes based on distinct gene expression patterns. This unsupervised clustering approach identifies four primary subtypes: MUKDEN I (HER2-enriched with HIF-1 pathway activation), MUKDEN II (ER-activated), MUKDEN III (immunomodulatory), and MUKDEN IV (highly heterogeneous) [77].

Validation of the classification system involves multiple steps. First, subtype-specific genes are identified using statistical thresholds (adjusted p-value < 0.05 and log2 fold change ≥ 1). The classifier is then validated in independent internal cohorts and external public datasets including TCGA-BRCA, I-SPY2, and GSE96058. Functional enrichment analysis using KEGG pathways and gene set enrichment analysis (GSEA) confirms distinct biological characteristics for each subtype. Finally, an IHC-based surrogate classifier is developed for practical clinical application, demonstrating high concordance with the mRNA-based classification.

Figure 2: Transcriptomic classification workflow for HR+/HER2+ breast cancer

Deep Learning-Based HER2 Scoring from IHC Images

The deep learning approach for HER2 scoring adapts the clustering-constrained-attention multiple-instance learning (CLAM) model to analyze digitized whole-slide images of HER2 IHC staining [34]. The methodology begins with collecting a large dataset of HER2 IHC images, with the published study utilizing 5,731 images including 592 cases with corresponding FISH testing. Image preprocessing involves whole-slide scanning at appropriate magnification (typically 20× or 40×) followed by tissue segmentation and patching to extract relevant regions of interest.

The model architecture consists of two primary components: a feature extractor backbone (typically a pre-trained convolutional neural network) and an attention-based multiple-instance learning module. The model is trained using weakly supervised learning, with only slide-level labels required for training. For HER2 IHC score prediction, the model is trained to classify images into the standard categories (0, 1+, 2+, 3+) based on the ASCO/CAP guidelines. For FISH prediction, a separate model is trained on the subset of cases with available FISH results to predict positive versus negative status.

The training process involves appropriate data augmentation techniques to improve model robustness, including rotation, flipping, and color normalization to address staining variability. Model performance is evaluated using standard metrics including overall accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). External validation is performed on cases from multiple institutions to assess generalizability. The published model achieved 91% ± 0.01 overall accuracy for HER2 scoring and an AUC of 0.84 ± 0.07 for FISH prediction [34].

Signaling Pathways and Biological Mechanisms

Molecular Subtypes and Therapeutic Implications in HR+/HER2+ Breast Cancer

The transcriptomic classification of HR+/HER2+ breast cancer reveals distinct biological subtypes with specific pathway activation patterns that have direct therapeutic implications [77]. The MUKDEN I subtype demonstrates robust activation of the HER2 signaling pathway along with hypoxia-inducible factor 1 (HIF-1) signaling, indicating a hypoxic tumor microenvironment. This subtype shows particular sensitivity to intensified anti-HER2 targeted therapy, potentially including newer generation ADCs. The simultaneous activation of HER2 and hypoxia pathways suggests potential vulnerability to combination therapies targeting both pathways.

The MUKDEN II subtype is characterized by dominant estrogen receptor (ER) pathway activation, suggesting that these tumors may be more dependent on ER signaling than HER2 signaling despite their HER2-positive status. This subtype demonstrates potential sensitivity to combined therapeutic strategies targeting both ER and HER2 pathways simultaneously, potentially including endocrine therapy combined with HER2-targeted agents. The MUKDEN III subtype shows elevated immune cell infiltration and activation of immune-related pathways, indicating an immunoregulatory phenotype. This subtype exhibits particular sensitivity to HER2-targeted antibody-drug conjugates and may potentially benefit from immune checkpoint inhibitors.

The MUKDEN IV subtype demonstrates high heterogeneity with upregulation of multiple pathways associated with poor prognosis, including extracellular matrix (ECM) remodeling, PI3K-AKT signaling, Wnt signaling, EGFR signaling, and drug metabolism-cytochrome P450 pathways. This multifaceted activation pattern suggests that these tumors may require a multifaceted therapeutic approach, with organoid susceptibility assays indicating potential sensitivity to PI3K inhibitors [77].

Figure 3: Molecular subtypes and therapeutic implications in HR+/HER2+ breast cancer

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Platforms

Table 3: Key research reagent solutions for ERBB2 mRNA quantification and transcriptomic classification

Category	Specific Product/Platform	Manufacturer/Provider	Primary Application	Key Features/Benefits
RNA Extraction	RNeasy FFPE Kit	Qiagen	RNA isolation from FFPE tissue	Optimized for challenging samples, includes DNase treatment
RNA Quality Assessment	Qubit RNA HS Assay Kit	Thermo Fisher Scientific	RNA quantification	RNA-specific fluorescence, high sensitivity
Reverse Transcription	Omniscript RT Kit	Qiagen	cDNA synthesis	High efficiency with random hexamers
qPCR Reagents	TaqMan Gene Expression Assays	Thermo Fisher Scientific	mRNA quantification	Target-specific probes, high specificity
qPCR Platform	QuantStudio 3 Real-Time PCR System	Thermo Fisher Scientific	Amplification and detection	Modular format, high throughput capability
Microarray Platform	Human Genome U133 Plus 2.0 Array	Affymetrix	Transcriptomic profiling	Comprehensive genome coverage, established analysis pipelines
RNA Sequencing	NovaSeq/HiSeq2500	Illumina	Whole-transcriptome analysis	Detection of novel transcripts, fusion genes
IHC Companion Diagnostic	VENTANA HER2 (4B5) Antibody	Roche	HER2 protein detection	CE-IVDR approved for ultralow detection [73]
Digital Pathology	VENTANA BenchMark Staining System	Roche	Automated IHC processing	Standardized staining, reduced variability

Discussion and Future Perspectives

The comparative analysis of ERBB2 mRNA quantification and transcriptomic classification approaches reveals a rapidly evolving landscape in breast cancer biomarker development. mRNA-based methods demonstrate particular strength in providing continuous, quantitative assessment of HER2 expression that may better reflect the biological continuum of HER2 expression in tumors [72] [74]. The ability of transcriptomic approaches to detect ERBB2 expression in the majority (86%) of tumors classified as IHC 0 highlights the superior sensitivity of these methods and their potential utility in identifying patients with very low HER2 expression who might benefit from novel ADC therapies [74].

The clinical validity of these approaches is supported by growing evidence. The HER2DX ERBB2 mRNA score has demonstrated independent prognostic value in advanced HER2-positive breast cancer treated with first-line taxane-trastuzumab-pertuzumab regimen, with high-expression patients showing significantly better progression-free survival (33.9 vs. 10.6 months) and overall survival (not reached vs. 30.8 months) compared to low-expression patients [75]. Similarly, transcriptomic classification of HR+/HER2+ breast cancer has revealed distinct molecular subtypes with differential treatment responses, enabling more precise targeting of therapeutic approaches [77].

Future developments in this field will likely focus on integrating multiple molecular features into comprehensive predictive models. The success of deep learning approaches in standardizing HER2 IHC scoring [34] suggests that artificial intelligence may bridge the gap between traditional protein-based methods and modern molecular approaches. Furthermore, the regulatory approval of companion diagnostics for HER2-ultralow detection [73] establishes a precedent for incorporating more sensitive detection methods into clinical practice. As novel HER2-targeted therapies continue to expand across the expression spectrum, the precision offered by mRNA quantification and transcriptomic classification may become increasingly essential for optimizing patient selection and treatment outcomes.

This guide provides an objective comparison between immunohistochemistry (IHC) and quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) for determining HER2 status in breast cancer. Based on current research, each method presents distinct advantages: IHC remains the morphological standard for protein localization, while qPCR offers superior quantitative precision, higher throughput, and reduced observer variability. The emergence of HER2-low as a therapeutic category and advancements in RNA sequencing are refining the role of molecular techniques in diagnostic workflows.

Performance Metrics and Concordance Data

Table 1: Overall Concordance Between IHC, qPCR, and FISH for HER2 Status Determination

Comparison	Concordance Rate	Sample Size (n)	Key Findings	Citation
RT-qPCR vs. IHC (HER2)	92.80% (OPA*)	265	High overall percent agreement for HER2 status.	[4]
RT-qPCR vs. IHC (Ki67)	74.44% (OPA)	265	Lower agreement for proliferation markers.	[4]
qPCR vs. FISH	95% (Ratio); 93% (Copy Number)	699; 773	High concordance with FISH, the historical gold standard.	[78]
qRT-PCR vs. FISH	90.8% (OA)	153	Disagreement mostly restricted to equivocal FISH cases.	[18]
IHC vs. FISH	95%-96%	840	Established correlation between protein expression and gene amplification.	[78]

OPA: Overall Percent Agreement; *OA: Overall Agreement*

Analytical Sensitivity and Specificity

Table 2: Sensitivity and Specificity of qPCR-Based HER2 Testing

Assay Type	Sensitivity	Specificity	Reference Standard	Citation
QPCR (HER2 mRNA)	78%	91%	IHC/FISH (Tumor Status)	[16]
QPCR (HER2 mRNA)	76%	78%	IHC/FISH (for HER2- vs. HER2+)	[16]
qPCR vs. FISH (Ratio)	89%	96%	FISH	[78]
qRT-PCR vs. FISH	86.1%	99.0%	FISH	[18]

Methodological Comparison: Core Protocols

Immunohistochemistry (IHC) Workflow

The standard IHC protocol for HER2 testing involves visual scoring of protein expression and localization in tumor tissue sections.

• Tissue Preparation: Formalin-Fixed, Paraffin-Embedded (FFPE) tissue sections are cut to 4-5 μm thickness [79].
• Antigen Retrieval: Slides are treated with heat and a retrieval buffer to unmask epitopes.
• Staining: Sections are incubated with a primary anti-HER2 antibody and a detection system. Common antibodies include the rabbit monoclonal VENTANA anti-HER2/neu (4B5) [18].
• Visualization: A chromogen is applied to produce a visible stain at the antigen site.
• Scoring: A pathologist scores slides based on membrane staining intensity, completeness, and the percentage of positive invasive tumor cells according to established guidelines [79]:
  • 0: No staining or incomplete, faint staining in ≤10% of cells.
  • 1+: Faint membrane staining in >10% of cells.
  • 2+: Weak to moderate complete membrane staining in >10% of cells.
  • 3+: Intense, complete membrane staining in >10% of cells.

Quantitative PCR (qPCR) Workflow

The qPCR protocol quantifies ERBB2 (HER2) gene expression levels from tumor-derived RNA.

• Tissue Macro-dissection: An experienced pathologist identifies and marks tumor-rich areas on FFPE sections to ensure ≥70% tumor cellularity [18].
• RNA Extraction: Total RNA is isolated from FFPE sections using specialized kits. A DNase I treatment step is included to remove genomic DNA contamination [18].
• cDNA Synthesis: Reverse transcription is performed on purified RNA using random hexamers or oligo(dT) primers to generate complementary DNA (cDNA) [18].
• Quantitative PCR: The cDNA is amplified in a real-time PCR instrument using primers and probes specific to the ERBB2 gene. A reference gene is used for normalization. The Cycle Threshold (Ct) value is used for relative quantification [18].
• Data Analysis: ERBB2 expression levels are calculated relative to the reference gene. Samples are classified as positive or negative using a predefined cutoff value established through validation studies [4].

Workflow and Logical Pathway Visualization

Diagram 1: Comparative workflow for IHC and qPCR HER2 testing.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

Table 3: Key Reagent Solutions for HER2 Status Determination

Reagent / Solution	Function in Protocol	Example Products / Components
Primary Anti-HER2 Antibodies	Binds specifically to the HER2 protein for IHC detection.	VENTANA anti-HER2/neu (4B5) [18]
IHC Detection Kit	Visualizes antibody binding through enzyme-chromogen reactions.	Typically contains secondary antibodies, enzyme conjugates, and chromogens.
Nucleic Acid Extraction Kits	Isolates high-quality RNA from FFPE tissue samples.	QIAamp DNA FFPE Tissue Kit, Paradise Reagent System [18]
Reverse Transcription Kits	Synthesizes cDNA from extracted RNA templates.	High Capacity cDNA Archive Kit [18]
qPCR Assays & Master Mix	Provides primers, probes, and enzymes for specific DNA amplification and detection.	TaqMan PreAmp Master Mix, assays for ERBB2 and reference genes [18]
Internal Control Genes	Normalizes for RNA input and quality variations in qPCR.	RPLP0, RPL13A, APP [18] [80]

Throughput, Accessibility, and Implementation Analysis

Cost-Benefit and Operational Comparison

Table 4: Throughput, Cost, and Implementation Considerations

Feature	Immunohistochemistry (IHC)	Quantitative PCR (qPCR)
Throughput	Lower; manual, slide-by-slide processing.	Higher; capable of 96-well or 384-well plate formats [78].
Automation Potential	Moderate for staining; low for interpretation.	High for liquid handling and data analysis.
Tumor Cellularity Requirements	Can assess morphology directly; less stringent on pre-analytical dissection.	Requires high tumor cellularity (≥70%) or macro/micro-dissection [18].
Turnaround Time	~1-2 days (including scoring).	<1 day after nucleic acid extraction [80].
Data Output	Semi-quantitative (ordinal scores: 0, 1+, 2+, 3+).	Fully quantitative (continuous numerical values) [4].
Key Cost Drivers	Antibodies, manual labor (pathologist time).	PCR reagents, RNA extraction kits, instrumentation.
Major Implementation Challenge	Inter-observer variability in scoring [4] [6].	Requires rigorous validation of pre-analytical steps and cutoffs [4].

Addressing Key Challenges and Future Directions

• IHC Variability: Artificial intelligence is emerging as a powerful tool to mitigate scoring variability. A 2025 meta-analysis demonstrated AI's high accuracy, particularly for distinguishing IHC 2+ and 3+ scores, with a pooled sensitivity of 0.97 and specificity of 0.99 for 3+ [6].
• The HER2-Low Paradigm: Differentiating IHC 0 from 1+ is clinically crucial but challenging. Transcriptomics can sensitively detect ERBB2 mRNA in 86% of IHC 0 cases, offering a continuous scale that may better stratify patients for antibody-drug conjugates [7].
• Clinical Utility of qPCR: Evidence suggests RT-qPCR may outperform FISH in identifying patients overexpressing HER2 protein, particularly in equivocal cases [18]. It shows high concordance (84.53%) with IHC-based subtyping for breast cancer [4].

Conclusion

The determination of HER2 status has evolved beyond simple binary classification, necessitating precise methodologies capable of detecting a spectrum of expression levels. While IHC remains the established standard, RT-qPCR demonstrates strong concordance, particularly for HER2 classification, and offers advantages in objectivity and quantification of low expression levels. The future of HER2 testing lies not in selecting a single superior method, but in developing integrated approaches that leverage the complementary strengths of both technologies. Emerging tools including artificial intelligence, digital pathology, and transcriptomic profiling promise to enhance accuracy further. For researchers and drug developers, this evolving landscape underscores the importance of method validation and standardization to ensure optimal patient selection for HER2-targeted therapies, particularly as antibody-drug conjugates continue to expand treatment options across the HER2 expression continuum.

References

• 1. HER2-Low Breast Cancer—Current Knowledge and Future ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12028887/]
• 2. HER2 testing in multifocal/multicentric breast cancer [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12475518/]
• 3. Concordance between HER-2 status determined by qPCR ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1574789116300692]
• 4. Comparison of immunohistochemistry and RT-qPCR for ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35789315/]
• 5. Comparison between routine methods and RT-qPCR [https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0255580]
• 6. Systematic review and meta-analysis of artificial ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41746-025-01483-8]
• 7. Enhancing HER2-low breast cancer detection with ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41523-025-00817-9]
• 8. Roche receives FDA approval for the first companion ... [https://www.roche.com/media/releases/med-cor-2025-01-31]
• 9. Artificial intelligence-assisted HER2 interpretation for breast ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12261348/]
• 10. low or HER2-ultralow breast cancer [https://www.asco.org/practice-patients/patient-resources/breaking-cancer-news-patients/asco-annual-meeting/ai-her2-low]
• 11. Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2 (HER2) ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0893395225001991]
• 12. ASCO 2025: REVEAL GENOMICS UNVEILS NEW ... [https://www.reveal-genomics.com/press-releases/asco-2025-reveal-genomics-unveils-new-her2dx-data-from-800-patients]
• 13. HER2 Testing in Breast Cancer - 2023 Guideline Update [https://www.cap.org/protocols-and-guidelines/cap-guidelines/current-cap-guidelines/recommendations-for-human-epidermal-growth-factor-2-testing-in-breast-cancer]
• 14. International Expert Consensus Recommendations for ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0893395225002236]
• 15. HER2 testing results, practices, and preferences among ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12638377/]
• 16. Comparison between Real-Time Quantitative PCR ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4619101/]
• 17. Proteomics based selection achieves complete response ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41698-024-00696-6]
• 18. Her2 assessment using quantitative reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction reliably identifies Her2 overexpression without amplification in breast cancer cases - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5412048/]
• 19. Evaluation of the quantitative analytical methods real-time PCR for HER-2 gene quantification and ELISA of serum HER-2 protein and comparison with fluorescence in situ hybridization and immunohistochemistry for determining HER-2 status in breast cancer patients - PubMed [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15976096/]
• 20. A Reliable and Standardizable Differential PCR and qPCR Methodology Assesses HER2 Gene Amplification in Gastric Cancer - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8230392/]
• 21. Correlation of HER2 levels expression through ... [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12094-025-03999-7]
• 22. HER2 Status and HER2-Positive Breast Cancer [https://www.breastcancer.org/pathology-report/her2-status]
• 23. ASCO 2025: REVEAL GENOMICS Unveils New HER2DX ... [https://www.biospace.com/press-releases/asco-2025-reveal-genomics-unveils-new-her2dx-data-from-800-patients]
• 24. Immunohistochemistry (IHC): The Complete Guide [https://www.antibodies.com/applications/immunohistochemistry]
• 25. Immunohistochemistry for Pathologists: Protocols, Pitfalls, ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5122731/]
• 26. An Introduction to Specimen Processing [https://www.leicabiosystems.com/us/knowledge-pathway/an-introduction-to-specimen-processing/]
• 27. Tissue processing for histopathology analysis in preclinical ... [https://waxitinc.com/tissue-processing-guide/]
• 28. Intro to Immunohistochemistry (IHC) Staining: Steps & Best ... [https://www.leicabiosystems.com/us/knowledge-pathway/immunohistochemistry-an-overview-steps-to-better-ihc-staining/]
• 29. Molecular Biological Determination of HER2 Status Using ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11899855/]
• 30. New standards in HER2-low testing: the CASI-01 ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40945049/]
• 31. of Comparison and RT- immunohistochemistry for assessing... qPCR [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10549-022-06649-6]
• 32. of the IHC, FISH, SISH and Comparison for the... qPCR methods [https://www.spandidos-publications.com/mmr/6/2/439?text=fulltext]
• 33. Prediction of Response to Anti-HER2 Therapy Using A ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0893395225000092]
• 34. Enhancing HER2 testing in breast cancer: predicting ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40050230]
• 35. Prospective Validation of a One-Step RT-qPCR-based Test ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11996119/]
• 36. RT-qPCR is helpful to distinguish the clinicopathological ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0344033823002327]
• 37. Enhancing HER2 testing in breast cancer - PubMed Central [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11884934/]
• 38. Immunohistochemical and molecular analyses of HER2 ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3111154/]
• 39. Comparison of immunohistochemistry with PCR for ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5307758/]
• 40. Her2 assessment using quantitative reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction reliably identifies Her2 overexpression without amplification in breast cancer cases | Journal of Translational Medicine | Full Text [https://translational-medicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12967-017-1195-7]
• 41. Prospective Validation of a One-Step RT-qPCR-based Test ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39611912/]
• 42. Interobserver variability in her2 immunohistochemistry ... [https://surgexppathol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s42047-025-00199-z]
• 43. Understanding Preanalytical Variables and their Effects on ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6004232/]
• 44. Immunohistochemistry Techniques, Strengths, Limitations ... [https://www.technologynetworks.com/analysis/articles/immunohistochemistry-techniques-strengths-limitations-and-applications-363107]
• 45. Concordance of RT-qPCR with immunohistochemistry and its ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10519502/]
• 46. A Comparison Between Immunohistochemistry and mRNA ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39471829/?utm_source=FeedFetcher&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=None&utm_content=14GVrEVieJsBLt532l8lZYTQD6RldlwpJeNCFcmBZFUC9pyMlO&fc=None&ff=20241031134211&v=2.18.0.post9+e462414]
• 47. Top Ten Most Common Real-Time qRT-PCR Pitfalls [https://www.thermofisher.com/us/en/home/references/ambion-tech-support/rtpcr-analysis/general-articles/ten-most-common-real-time-qrt-pcr-pitfalls.html]
• 48. Evaluation of normalisation strategies for qPCR data ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-06657-8]
• 49. MIQE 2.0 and the Urgent Need to Rethink qPCR Standards [https://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/26/11/4975]
• 50. Analyzing qPCR data: Better practices to facilitate rigor and ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405580825004431]
• 51. Quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction is an ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4637581/]
• 52. Evaluation of HER2 Gene Status in Breast Cancer ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1525157815000823]
• 53. Comparison of immunohistochemistry with PCR for ... [https://bmccancer.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12885-017-3111-1]
• 54. Discussions on redefining HER2 status in breast cancer ... [https://www.spandidos-publications.com/10.3892/mco.2025.2898]
• 55. Study Shows Potential Benefits of AI-Assisted ... [https://ascopost.com/issues/june-10-2025/study-shows-potential-benefits-of-ai-assisted-classification-in-her2-low-and-her2-ultralow-breast-cancer]
• 56. Artificial Intelligence Assistance Can Help Improve ... [https://www.asco.org/about-asco/press-center/news-releases/artificial-intelligence-assistance-improve-accuracy-identifying-her2-low-ultralow-breast-cancers]
• 57. HER2 mRNA Score From Quantitative ERBB2 ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12258798/]
• 58. Comparison of AI Digital Pathology Tools Finds Means ... [https://friendsofcancerresearch.org/news/comparison-of-ai-digital-pathology-tools-finds-means-to-measure-performance/]
• 59. The Performance and Clinical Applicability of HER2 Digital ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11311684/]
• 60. Standardization of HER2 testing: results of an international ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0893395222049651]
• 61. Interlaboratory variability of HER2 fluorescence in situ ... [https://diagnosticpathology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13000-024-01588-w]
• 62. Development and Validation of a HER2-Low Focused ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0893395224001157]
• 63. Concordance between HER‐2 status determined by qPCR in ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5423214/]
• 64. Comparison of the IHC, FISH, SISH and qPCR methods for ... [https://www.spandidos-publications.com/mmr/6/2/439]
• 65. Artificial intelligence-assisted HER2 interpretation for breast ... [https://gs.amegroups.org/article/view/139861/html]
• 66. Improving HER2 Diagnostics with Digital Real-Time PCR ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40913387/]
• 67. Concordance between ER, PR, Ki67, and HER2-low ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38651302/]
• 68. Digital PCR quantification of ultrahigh ERBB2 copy number ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41523-024-00621-x]
• 69. Diagnostic Accuracy of Immunohistochemistry for HER2- ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38156869/]
• 70. Prognostic significance of HER2 status evaluation using ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9622977/]
• 71. Clinicopathological features and prognosis of patients with ... [https://bmccancer.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12885-023-11421-0]
• 72. HER2 mRNA Score From Quantitative ERBB2 ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40170597/]
• 73. Roche receives CE IVDR approval for HER2 (4B5) ... [https://diagnostics.roche.com/global/en/news-listing/2025/roche-receives-ce-ivdr-approval-for-her2--4b5--companion-diagnos.html]
• 74. Enhancing HER2-low breast cancer detection with ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12402487/]
• 75. HER2DX ERBB2 mRNA score in first-line advanced HER2- ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41523-025-00753-8]
• 76. Assessment of ESR1, PGR, ERBB2, and MKI67 mRNA in ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12261032/]
• 77. Molecular classification of hormone receptor-positive ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41392-025-02181-3]
• 78. SISH/CISH or qPCR as alternative techniques to FISH for ... [https://bmccancer.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2407-13-351]
• 79. Immunohistochemical HER2 Recognition and Analysis of ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9858188/]
• 80. Advanced breast cancer diagnosis: Multiplex RT-qPCR for ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405580823001966]