Advancing Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment through Immunohistochemistry Innovations

Advancing Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment through Immunohistochemistry Innovations

Chinenye Mary Okorochi¹, Enoch Chibuike Okorochi^2*, Felix Edoiseh Ehidiamhen³, Ejike McNelson Nlemchukwu Dike⁴ , Olushola Olakunle Jegede⁵, Adeyinka Samson Akinyo⁶, Abosede Rianat Abolade⁷, Precious Chinonso Nwafor-Richard¹

¹Department of Medical Laboratory Science Babcock University, Ilishan, Ogun State, Nigeria

²Department of Medical Laboratory Science, Joseph Ayo Babalola University, Osun State, Nigeria

³Department of Anatomic Pathology, Faculty of Basic Clinical Sciences, David Umahi, Federal University of Health Sciences, Uburu, Ebonyi State, Nigeria

⁴Department of Radiodiagnosis, Federal Teaching Hospital, Owerri, Imo State, Nigeria

⁵Department of Anatomical Pathology Federal Medical Center, Umuahia, Abia State, Nigeria

⁶Department of Medical Laboratory Science, College of Postgraduate Studies, University of Nigeria, Nssuka, Enugu, Nigeria

⁷Department of Medical Laboratory Science, College of Medicine, Lead City University Ibadan, Oyo State, Nigeria

^*Corresponding Author

DOI: https://doi.org/10.51244/IJRSI.2025.12060096

Received: 26 May 2025; Accepted: 07 June 2025; Published: 11 July 2025

ABSTRACT

Immunohistochemistry (IHC) serves as a vital technique in clinical diagnostics, enabling the detection of specific proteins within tissue sections. This method employs antibodies to identify antigens unique to abnormal cells, such as those found in cancer. IHC plays a crucial role in diagnosing cancer, predicting treatment outcomes, and validating biomarkers for personalized medicine. This review article covers principles, procedures, advantages, and limitations of IHC, emphasizing the importance of proper specimen handling, fixation, and antigen retrieval to optimize results. Key steps include selecting appropriate antibodies, blocking non-specific binding, and employing effective detection systems. Recent advancements in automated IHC systems improved reproducibility, though manual methods allow for greater flexibility in research settings. Despite strengths, IHC faces challenges such as variability in antibody specificity, potential loss of antigenicity due to improper fixation, and storage. This review highlights the significance of IHC in identifying prognostic markers, confirming infectious agents, and diagnosing neurodegenerative disorders. Ultimately, IHC serves as an indispensable tool for pathologists, enhancing understanding of disease mechanisms, aiding in the development of targeted therapies. Proper training, adherence to best practices remain essential for accurate interpretation of IHC results, ensuring continued relevance in clinical, research applications.

Keywords: Antibody, Antigen, Biomarkers, Cancer, Immunohistochemistry (IHC), Pathology

INTRODUCTION

Immunohistochemistry (IHC) is a powerful technique that combines the principles of immunology and histology to detect specific antigens in tissue sections. This method utilizes antibodies that bind to particular proteins, allowing for the visualization of their distribution and localization within the context of tissue architecture. The significance of IHC in both clinical diagnostics and basic research cannot be overstated, as it provides critical insights into the molecular underpinnings of various diseases, particularly cancer (de Matos et al., 2010).

The origins of IHC date back to 1941 when Albert Coons first conceptualized and implemented the technique, paving the way for its widespread application in pathology (Coons et al., 1941). Since then, IHC has evolved into a fundamental tool for diagnosing cancers, identifying prognostic markers, and validating biomarkers for personalized medicine(Mason & Gatter, 1987).. The ability to visualize specific proteins within the complex milieu of tissue sections offers invaluable information that cannot be obtained from isolated cells, thereby enhancing our understanding of disease mechanisms and therapeutic targets.

IHC is particularly valuable in the diagnosis of cancer, where it aids in distinguishing between different tumor types and determining their origin. Specific molecular markers, which are characteristic of various cellular events such as proliferation and apoptosis, can be identified through IHC (de Matos et al., 2010). The technique is predominantly performed on formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tissues, which are favored for their ease of storage and processing. However, IHC can also be applied to frozen sections, which preserve antigenicity better but may compromise morphological details(Taylor, 2014).

In recent years, advancements in IHC technology have led to the development of automated systems that enhance reproducibility and efficiency, particularly in clinical settings (Gustavson et al., 2009). Despite these advancements, manual methods remain prevalent in research environments, where flexibility and optimization of specific antigen-antibody interactions are often required. The choice of antibodies, fixation methods, and antigen retrieval techniques are critical factors that influence the success of IHC (O’Hurley et al., 2014).

While IHC has numerous strengths, including its ability to provide qualitative and semi-quantitative data on protein expression, it is not without limitations. Variability in antibody specificity, potential loss of antigenicity due to improper fixation, and the complexity of interpretation can pose challenges (O’Hurley et al., 2014). Furthermore, the interpretation of IHC results can be subjective, highlighting the need for rigorous training and adherence to best practices among pathologists (Rasmussen & Rudbeck, 2015).

Figure 1: Antigen-Antibody Interaction

Description: A diagram illustrating the interaction between an antigen and an antibody, highlighting the binding sites.

Source: [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antibody)

Summarily, IHC is an indispensable tool in modern pathology and research, facilitating the diagnosis and understanding of various diseases. This review article will delve into the principles, procedures, advantages, and limitations of IHC, providing a comprehensive overview of its applications and the critical factors that influence its effectiveness. By enhancing our knowledge of IHC, we can improve diagnostic accuracy and contribute to the advancement of personalized medicine.

Recent Advances in Immunohistochemistry (IHC) Automated IHC Systems

The introduction of automated IHC machines has revolutionized the field by improving the reliability and reproducibility of staining processes. Automated systems minimize human error and variability, allowing for standardized protocols that can be applied across multiple samples. This has been particularly beneficial in clinical settings where consistent results are crucial (Mebratie & Dagnaw, 2024). However, while automation enhances reproducibility, manual methods still allow for greater flexibility and optimization, particularly in research settings (O’Hurley et al., 2014).

Enhanced Detection Systems

Recent advances in detection systems have significantly increased the sensitivity of IHC. New methods, such as polymer-based detection systems and tyramine amplification systems, have been developed to enhance signal detection. These systems can amplify the signal by more than 50-fold compared to traditional methods, allowing for the visualization of low-abundance proteins (Hou et al., 2022). The use of fluorescent detection methods has also gained popularity due to their ability to facilitate multiplexing, enabling the simultaneous detection of multiple targets within a single tissue section (Baker et al., 2005).

Figure 2: Diagram illustrating the process of antigen retrieval and its impact on IHC results.

Source: Adapted from (Antigen Retrieval Basics – Precisionary Instruments, n.d.)

Antigen Retrieval Techniques

Antigen retrieval methods have evolved to address the challenges posed by formaldehyde fixation, which can mask epitopes. Heat-induced epitope retrieval (HIER) remains the most widely used method, but new protocols and conditions are continuously being optimized to improve antigenicity recovery (Standardization of Immunohistochemistry Based on Antigen Retrieval Technique for Routine Formalin-Fixed Tissue Sections – Research Profiles at Washington University School of Medicine, n.d.). Additionally, enzymatic retrieval methods are being explored for specific antigens, providing researchers with more tools to ensure successful staining (Antigen Retrieval Basics – Precisionary Instruments, n.d.).

Comparative Tables

Table 1.  Manual vs. Automated IHC Methods

Feature	Manual IHC	Automated IHC
Flexibility	High	Limited
Reproducibility	Variable	High
Time Efficacy	Longer	Shorter
Cost	Generally low	High initial investment
Optimization of Antibody	High (tailored protocols)	Standardized protocol
User Skill Requirement	High (requires training)	Moderate (automated processes)

Table 2. Common Antigen Retrieval Techniques

Technique	Description	Advantages	Limitations
Heat-Induced Epitope Retrieval (HIER)	Uses heat to unmask epitopes	Widely used, effective for many antigens	Can damage tissue morphology
Enzymatic Retrieval	Uses enzymes to digest proteins	Specific for certain antigens	Requires optimization for each antigen
pH-based Retrieval	Adjusts pH to enhance antigenicity	Simple and effective for some antigens	Not universally applicable

Improved Antibody Validation

The selection and validation of antibodies have become more rigorous, emphasizing specificity and minimizing cross-reactivity. Utilizing well-characterized antibodies, along with thorough literature reviews and validation studies, has become standard practice (O’Hurley et al., 2014). This focus on validation is crucial for achieving reliable results, particularly when using novel antibodies or studying new targets (Howat et al., 2014).

Multiplexing Capabilities

Recent developments in multiplexing techniques allow for the simultaneous detection of multiple antigens within a single tissue section. This capability is particularly valuable in understanding complex biological systems and disease states, as it enables researchers to study interactions between different proteins in their native context (PRINCIPLE AND TECHNIQUES OF IMMUNOHISTOCHEMISTRY – A REVIEW, n.d.). The ability to visualize co-localization of proteins can provide insights into cellular processes and disease mechanisms.

Digital Pathology and Image Analysis

The integration of digital pathology and advanced image analysis software has transformed the interpretation of IHC results. Automated image analysis tools can quantify staining intensity and distribution, providing objective data that can complement traditional qualitative assessments (Rasmussen & Rudbeck, 2015). This shift towards quantitative analysis enhances the reproducibility of results and facilitates more robust statistical evaluations in research and clinical diagnostics.

Applications in Personalized Medicine

IHC is increasingly being utilized in the context of personalized medicine, particularly in oncology. The ability to assess the expression of specific biomarkers can guide treatment decisions and predict patient responses to therapies (Mason & Gatter, 1987). For instance, the identification of hormone receptors in breast cancer through IHC has become a standard practice for determining treatment strategies (Zaha, 2014).

In conclusion, the recent advances in immunohistochemistry have significantly enhanced its role as a powerful tool in both research and clinical diagnostics. As techniques continue to evolve, IHC will remain at the forefront of biomedical research, providing critical insights into disease mechanisms and aiding in the development of targeted therapies.

Current Challenges in IHC

Immunohistochemistry (IHC) is a widely utilized technique in both clinical diagnostics and research for the visualization of specific protein expressions in tissue sections. Despite its numerous advantages, several challenges persist that can significantly impact the accuracy and reliability of IHC results. This review aims to elucidate these challenges, supported by relevant literature.

Antibody Specificity and Validation

A critical challenge in IHC is ensuring the specificity and reliability of antibodies employed in the staining process. Antibodies may exhibit cross-reactivity, resulting in false-positive outcomes. The validation of antibodies is paramount; however, many commercially available antibodies lack comprehensive validation data  (O’Hurley et al., 2014). It is essential for researchers to select antibodies based on robust literature evidence and to conduct rigorous validation using appropriate controls (Howat et al., 2014). Variability in antibody performance can also stem from batch-to-batch differences, particularly with polyclonal antibodies, leading to inconsistent results (“Antibody,” 2025).

Pre-Analytical Variability

The pre-analytical phase, encompassing tissue handling, fixation, and processing, is crucial for successful IHC. Variations in fixation time, type of fixative, and tissue processing can profoundly affect antigenicity and staining outcomes(PRINCIPLE AND TECHNIQUES OF IMMUNOHISTOCHEMISTRY – A REVIEW, n.d.). For example, over-fixation can mask epitopes, while inadequate fixation may result in protein degradation (Mebratie & Dagnaw, 2024). The absence of standardized protocols for tissue handling and fixation across laboratories contributes to variability in IHC results (Patil et al., 2009).

Antigen Retrieval Challenges

Antigen retrieval is a necessary step to unmask epitopes that may be obscured due to fixation. However, the optimal conditions for antigen retrieval can vary significantly depending on the specific antigen and antibody employed (Standardization of Immunohistochemistry Based on Antigen Retrieval Technique for Routine Formalin-Fixed Tissue Sections – Research Profiles at Washington University School of Medicine, n.d.). The heat-induced epitope retrieval (HIER) method, while commonly utilized, can sometimes induce artifacts or damage tissue morphology if not meticulously controlled (Antigen Retrieval Basics – Precisionary Instruments, n.d.). The complexity of optimizing antigen retrieval conditions for different antibodies remains a significant challenge in standardizing IHC protocols.

Figure 3: Scoring Systems in IHC

Description: A pie chart summarizing different scoring systems used in IHC interpretation.

Source: Adapted from Nature Protocol

Background Staining and Nonspecific Binding

Background staining from nonspecific antibody binding is a prevalent issue in IHC. This can arise from endogenous enzyme activity, biotin interference, and nonspecific interactions (Vanishri et al., 2018). Blocking steps are essential to minimize background staining; however, they can introduce variability if not optimized appropriately (Hou et al., 2014). The presence of endogenous biotin in tissues, particularly in organs such as the liver and kidney, complicates the interpretation of results (Hewitt et al., 2014).

Quantification and Scoring Variability

The interpretation of IHC results can be inherently subjective, leading to variability in scoring among pathologists. Currently, there is no universally accepted scoring system for IHC, complicating the comparison of results across studies (Nature Protocols, 2025) . The lack of standardized cut-off values for positive and negative staining exacerbates this issue, making it challenging to establish consistent diagnostic criteria (Rasmussen & Rudbeck, 2015). This subjectivity can result in discrepancies in clinical decision-making, particularly in oncology diagnostics.

Storage and Stability of Tissue Samples

The storage conditions of tissue samples can significantly influence the stability of antigens and the overall quality of IHC results. Prolonged storage of formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tissues can lead to loss of antigenicity, particularly for sensitive markers such as p53 (Prioleau & Schnitt, 1995). The optimal storage conditions for unstained sections remain undefined, and the presence of moisture can contribute to antigen degradation (Frontiers | The Role of Taurine in Male Reproduction: Physiology, Pathology and Toxicology, n.d.). These factors necessitate careful consideration of storage protocols to maintain the integrity of tissue sample.

Technological Limitations

While automated IHC systems have enhanced reproducibility, they may not allow for the nuanced optimizations that manual methods can provide (Standardization of Immunohistochemistry Based on Antigen Retrieval Technique for Routine Formalin-Fixed Tissue Sections – Research Profiles at Washington University School of Medicine, n.d.). Automated systems can also be constrained by the types of reagents and protocols they can accommodate, which may not be suitable for all experimental conditions. The reliance on technology can sometimes overshadow the necessity for critical thinking and troubleshooting by laboratory personnel.

Finally, despite the advancements in immunohistochemistry, several challenges remain that can affect the reliability and accuracy of results. Addressing these challenges necessitates a multifaceted approach, including rigorous antibody validation, standardized protocols for tissue handling and processing, and careful optimization of staining conditions. Continuous education and training for pathologists and laboratory personnel are essential to effectively navigate these challenges.

Figure 4: IHC Workflow

Description: A schematic representation of the IHC workflow, from tissue collection to visualization.

Source: Adapted from [Nature Protocols](https://www.nature.com/nprot/)

Unmet Needs in IHC Research

Immunohistochemistry (IHC) is a critical technique that bridges clinical diagnostics and basic research, providing insights into protein expression within the context of tissue architecture. Despite its widespread application and advancements, several unmet needs in IHC research persist, which hinder its full potential in both clinical and research settings. This review section discusses these unmet needs, supported by relevant literature.

Standardization of Protocols

One of the primary unmet needs in IHC research is the lack of standardized protocols across laboratories. Variability in tissue handling, fixation, antigen retrieval, and staining procedures can lead to inconsistent results (Patil et al., 2009). The absence of universally accepted guidelines for these critical steps contributes to discrepancies in IHC outcomes, making it challenging to compare results across studies (PRINCIPLE AND TECHNIQUES OF IMMUNOHISTOCHEMISTRY – A REVIEW, n.d.).Establishing standardized protocols would enhance reproducibility and reliability in IHC applications.

Rigorous Antibody Validation

The validation of antibodies remains a significant challenge in IHC research. Many commercially available antibodies lack comprehensive validation data, leading to concerns about their specificity and reliability (O’Hurley et al., 2014). Researchers often face difficulties in selecting appropriate antibodies due to insufficient information regarding their performance across different tissues and experimental conditions (Howat et al., 2014). Enhanced efforts in antibody validation, including the development of standardized validation protocols, are essential to ensure the accuracy of IHC results.

Optimization of Antigen Retrieval Techniques

Antigen retrieval is a critical step in IHC that can significantly affect staining outcomes. However, the optimal conditions for antigen retrieval can vary widely depending on the specific antigen and antibody used (Shi et al., 2007). Current methods, such as heat-induced epitope retrieval (HIER), can sometimes lead to artifacts or damage to tissue morphology if not carefully controlled (Antigen Retrieval Basics – Precisionary Instruments, n.d.). There is a pressing need for research focused on optimizing antigen retrieval techniques to improve the consistency and reliability of IHC staining.

Addressing Background Staining

Background staining due to nonspecific binding of antibodies is a common issue that complicates the interpretation of IHC results. This problem can arise from various factors, including endogenous enzyme activity and nonspecific interactions (Patil et al., 2009). While blocking strategies are employed to minimize background staining, they can introduce variability if not optimized correctly (Hou et al., 2022). Research aimed at developing more effective blocking agents and strategies to reduce background staining is needed to enhance the clarity of IHC results

Development of Quantitative Scoring Systems

The subjective nature of IHC interpretation can lead to variability in scoring among pathologists, complicating the comparison of results across studies (Standardization of Immunohistochemistry Based on Antigen Retrieval Technique for Routine Formalin-Fixed Tissue Sections – Research Profiles at Washington University School of Medicine, n.d.). Currently, there is no universally accepted scoring system for IHC, which hinders the establishment of consistent diagnostic criteria (Rasmussen & Rudbeck, 2015). The development of robust, quantitative scoring systems that can objectively assess staining intensity and distribution is an unmet need that could improve the reliability of IHC in clinical diagnostics.

Improved Storage Solutions for Tissue Samples

The storage conditions of tissue samples significantly impact the stability of antigens and the overall quality of IHC results. Prolonged storage of formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tissues can lead to loss of antigenicity, particularly for sensitive markers (Prioleau & Schnitt, 1995). Current guidelines for optimal storage conditions are lacking, and research is needed to establish best practices for the storage of unstained sections to maintain antigen integrity (Frontiers | The Role of Taurine in Male Reproduction: Physiology, Pathology and Toxicology, n.d.).

Integration of Advanced Technologies

While automated IHC systems have improved reproducibility, they may not accommodate the nuanced optimizations that manual methods can provide (Standardization of Immunohistochemistry Based on Antigen Retrieval Technique for Routine Formalin-Fixed Tissue Sections – Research Profiles at Washington University School of Medicine, n.d.). The integration of advanced imaging technologies and artificial intelligence into IHC could enhance the analysis and interpretation of staining results. However, research into the application of these technologies in IHC is still in its infancy. Addressing this gap could lead to significant advancements in the field.

Need for Improved Antibody Validation

There is a pressing need for improved validation of antibodies used in IHC. Comprehensive databases that provide information on antibody specificity, cross-reactivity, and performance in various applications would greatly benefit researchers and clinicians alike.

Development of New Detection Methods

Innovative detection methods that enhance sensitivity and specificity are needed. For instance, the integration of nanotechnology and biosensors into IHC could lead to the development of more sensitive and rapid diagnostic tools.

Training and Education

As IHC continues to evolve, there is a need for ongoing training and education for pathologists and laboratory personnel. Workshops, online courses, and standardized training programs can help ensure that practitioners are equipped with the latest knowledge and skills

In conclusion, the unmet needs in immunohistochemistry research present significant challenges that must be addressed to enhance the reliability and accuracy of IHC results. By focusing on standardization, antibody validation, optimization of techniques, and the development of quantitative scoring systems, the field can move towards more consistent and reproducible outcomes. Continued investment in research and development is essential to meet these needs and to fully realize the potential of IHC in both clinical and research applications.

Best Practices in IHC

To optimize the effectiveness and reliability of immunohistochemistry, the following best practices are recommended:

1. Standardize Protocols: Develop and adhere to standardized protocols for tissue handling, fixation, antigen retrieval, and staining to minimize variability and enhance reproducibility.
2. Rigorous Antibody Validation: Select antibodies based on comprehensive validation data and conduct thorough testing for specificity and cross-reactivity.
3. Optimize Antigen Retrieval: Tailor antigen retrieval techniques to the specific antibodies and antigens being studied, ensuring conditions are meticulously controlled to avoid artifacts.
4. Minimize Background Staining: Implement effective blocking strategies and optimize conditions to reduce nonspecific binding and background staining.
5. Utilize Quantitative Scoring Systems: Adopt quantitative scoring systems and leverage digital image analysis tools to standardize interpretation and reduce subjectivity.
6. Ensure Proper Storage: Follow best practices for the storage of tissue samples, considering factors such as temperature and humidity to maintain antigen integrity.
7. Continuous Education: Engage in ongoing training and professional development to stay updated on the latest advancements and techniques in IHC.
8. By following these best practices, researchers and clinicians can enhance the reliability and accuracy of IHC results, ultimately improving diagnostic outcomes and patient care.

Future Directions in IHC

Immunohistochemistry (IHC) has established itself as a vital technique in both clinical diagnostics and research, enabling the visualization of protein expression in tissue sections. As the field continues to evolve, several future directions can be identified that aim to enhance the utility, accuracy, and application of IHC. This section outlines these prospective advancements, supported by relevant literature.

Standardization of Protocols

One of the most pressing needs in IHC research is the establishment of standardized protocols across laboratories. The variability in tissue handling, fixation, antigen retrieval, and staining procedures can lead to inconsistent results (Patil et al., 2009). Future efforts should focus on developing comprehensive guidelines that encompass all aspects of IHC, from sample collection to interpretation. Such standardization would facilitate the comparison of results across studies and improve the reproducibility of findings (Taylor, 2014).

Enhanced Antibody Validation

The validation of antibodies remains a critical area for improvement in IHC. Many commercially available antibodies lack rigorous validation data, raising concerns about their specificity and reliability (O’Hurley et al., 2014). Future research should prioritize the development of robust validation protocols that include comprehensive testing for cross-reactivity and specificity. Additionally, the creation of databases that provide detailed information on antibody performance across various tissues and conditions would be invaluable for researchers (Howat et al., 2014).

Advancements in Antigen Retrieval Techniques

Antigen retrieval is a crucial step that can significantly influence IHC outcomes. While heat-induced epitope retrieval (HIER) is widely used, the optimal conditions for antigen retrieval can vary greatly depending on the specific antigen and antibody(Standardization of Immunohistochemistry Based on Antigen Retrieval Technique for Routine Formalin-Fixed Tissue Sections – Research Profiles at Washington University School of Medicine, n.d.). Future research should aim to refine antigen retrieval techniques, exploring novel methods and conditions that enhance antigenicity while minimizing tissue damage. The development of standardized antigen retrieval protocols tailored to specific antibodies could greatly improve consistency in IHC results.

Addressing Background Staining

Background staining due to nonspecific binding of antibodies is a common challenge in IHC that complicates result interpretation. This issue can arise from various factors, including endogenous enzyme activity and nonspecific interactions (Patil et al., 2009) . Future directions should focus on the development of more effective blocking agents and strategies to reduce background staining. Innovations in blocking techniques, such as the use of synthetic peptides or advanced serum formulations, could enhance the clarity of IHC results (Hou et al., 2022).

Development of Quantitative Scoring Systems

The subjective nature of IHC interpretation can lead to variability in scoring among pathologists, complicating the comparison of results across studies (Nature Protocols, 2025). Future research should focus on the creation of robust, quantitative scoring systems that can objectively assess staining intensity and distribution. Implementing machine learning algorithms and image analysis tools to assist in scoring could provide a more standardized approach to IHC interpretation, thereby improving diagnostic accuracy (Rasmussen & Rudbeck, 2015).

Improved Storage Solutions for Tissue Samples

The storage conditions of tissue samples significantly impact the stability of antigens and the overall quality of IHC results. Prolonged storage of formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tissues can lead to loss of antigenicity, particularly for sensitive markers (Prioleau & Schnitt, 1995). Future studies should investigate optimal storage conditions for unstained sections, including the effects of temperature and humidity on antigen stability. Establishing best practices for tissue storage will be crucial for maintaining sample integrity over time (Frontiers | The Role of Taurine in Male Reproduction: Physiology, Pathology and Toxicology, n.d.).

Integration of Advanced Technologies

The integration of advanced imaging technologies and artificial intelligence into IHC could significantly enhance the analysis and interpretation of staining results. Automated image analysis tools can quantify staining intensity and distribution, providing objective data that complements traditional qualitative assessments (Standardization of Immunohistochemistry Based on Antigen Retrieval Technique for Routine Formalin-Fixed Tissue Sections – Research Profiles at Washington University School of Medicine, n.d.). Future directions should explore the application of these technologies in IHC, potentially leading to more precise and reproducible results.

Focus on Biomarker Discovery

IHC will continue to play a crucial role in biomarker discovery, particularly in cancer research. Identifying novel biomarkers through IHC can lead to the development of targeted therapies and improve patient outcomes. The integration of AI and machine learning can facilitate the identification of new biomarkers by analyzing large datasets of IHC results, thus accelerating the discovery process.

Enhanced Automation and Standardization

Future advancements in automation and standardization will further enhance the reliability and efficiency of IHC. Developing fully automated systems that can perform all steps of the IHC process with minimal human intervention will be a significant milestone. This could include the use of robotics for sample handling and the integration of AI for real-time monitoring and adjustment of staining protocols.

Finally, the future of immunohistochemistry holds great promise, with numerous avenues for improvement and innovation. By addressing the unmet needs in standardization, antibody validation, antigen retrieval optimization, and the development of quantitative scoring systems, the field can enhance the reliability and accuracy of IHC results. Continued investment in research and development, along with the integration of advanced technologies such as AI and nanotechnology, will be essential to fully realize the potential of IHC in both clinical and research applications.

CONCLUSION

Immunohistochemistry (IHC) remains an indispensable tool in both clinical diagnostics and basic research, significantly enhancing our understanding of cancer biology and treatment pathways. Recent advances in detection systems, automation, and antibody development have markedly improved the sensitivity and specificity of IHC, allowing for more accurate diagnoses and personalized treatment strategies. However, challenges such as variability in antibody specificity, interpretation of results, and pre-analytical variables persist, potentially compromising the reliability of IHC outcomes.

To address these challenges, it is essential for researchers and clinicians to prioritize the following recommendations:

1. Standardization of Protocols: Establishing universally accepted protocols for tissue handling, fixation, antigen retrieval, and staining will enhance reproducibility and reliability across laboratories. Collaborative efforts among institutions to develop and disseminate these guidelines are crucial.
2. Rigorous Antibody Validation: Researchers should invest in comprehensive validation studies for antibodies used in IHC. Creating centralized databases that provide detailed information on antibody specificity and performance across various tissues will facilitate informed choices and improve experimental outcomes.
3. Optimization of Antigen Retrieval Techniques: Continued research into refining antigen retrieval methods is necessary to enhance antigenicity while minimizing tissue damage. This includes exploring novel techniques and developing standardized protocols tailored to specific antibodies.
4. Development of Quantitative Scoring Systems: Implementing robust, quantitative scoring systems that utilize machine learning and image analysis tools can standardize IHC interpretation, reducing subjectivity and variability among pathologists.
5. Integration of Advanced Technologies: Embracing advancements in digital pathology and artificial intelligence can significantly enhance the analysis and interpretation of IHC results. Future research should focus on the application of these technologies to improve diagnostic accuracy and efficiency.
6. Ongoing Training and Education: Continuous professional development for pathologists and laboratory personnel is vital. Workshops, online courses, and standardized training programs should be established to ensure practitioners are equipped with the latest knowledge and skills in IHC.

By addressing these recommendations, the field of immunohistochemistry can move towards more consistent and reproducible outcomes, ultimately advancing personalized medicine and improving patient care. The future of IHC holds great promise, and with sustained investment in research and development, alongside the integration of advanced technologies, we can fully realize its potential in both clinical and research applications.

Conflict Of Interest

The authors declared there is no conflict of interest.

Data Availability

All data used in this review article are found within the content of the published review article.

REFERENCES

1. Antibody. (2025). In Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Antibody&oldid=1291681782
2. Antigen Retrieval Basics—Precisionary Instruments. (n.d.). Retrieved May 23, 2025, from https://precisionary.com/learn-the-basics-about-antigen-retrieval/
3. Baker, A. F., Dragovich, T., Ihle, N. T., Williams, R., Fenoglio-Preiser, C., & Powis, G. (2005). Stability of Phosphoprotein as a Biological Marker of Tumor Signaling. Clinical Cancer Research, 11(12), 4338–4340. https://doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-05-0422
4. Coons, A. H., Creech, H. J., & Jones, R. N. (1941). Immunological Properties of an Antibody Containing a Fluorescent Group.∗. Proceedings of the Society for Experimental Biology and Medicine, 47(2), 200–202. https://doi.org/10.3181/00379727-47-13084P
5. de Matos, L. L., Trufelli, D. C., de Matos, M. G. L., & da Silva Pinhal, M. A. (2010). Immunohistochemistry as an Important Tool in Biomarkers Detection and Clinical Practice. Biomarker Insights, 5, 9–20. https://doi.org/10.4137/bmi.s2185
6. Frontiers | The role of taurine in male reproduction: Physiology, pathology and toxicology. (n.d.). Retrieved May 24, 2025, from https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/endocrinology/articles/10.3389/fendo.2023.1017886/full
7. Hou, W., Yi, C., & Zhu, H. (2022). Predictive biomarkers of colon cancer immunotherapy: Present and future. Frontiers in Immunology, 13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fimmu.2022.1032314
8. Howat, W. J., Lewis, A., Jones, P., Kampf, C., Pontén, F., van der Loos, C. M., Gray, N., Womack, C., & Warford, A. (2014). Antibody validation of immunohistochemistry for biomarker discovery: Recommendations of a consortium of academic and pharmaceutical based histopathology researchers. Methods, 70(1), 34–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ymeth.2014.01.018
9. Mason, D. Y., & Gatter, K. C. (1987). The role of immunocytochemistry in diagnostic pathology. Journal of Clinical Pathology, 40(9), 1042–1054. https://doi.org/10.1136/jcp.40.9.1042
10. Mebratie, D. Y., & Dagnaw, G. G. (2024). Review of immunohistochemistry techniques: Applications, current status, and future perspectives. Seminars in Diagnostic Pathology, 41(3), 154–160. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.semdp.2024.05.001
11. Nature Protocols. (2025, May 19). Nature. https://www.nature.com/nprot/
12. O’Hurley, G., Sjöstedt, E., Rahman, A., Li, B., Kampf, C., Pontén, F., Gallagher, W. M., & Lindskog, C. (2014). Garbage in, garbage out: A critical evaluation of strategies used for validation of immunohistochemical biomarkers. Molecular Oncology, 8(4), 783–798. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molonc.2014.03.008
13. Patil, S. B., Haragannavar, V. C., & Nambiar, S. K. (2009). Troubleshooting in Immunohistochemistry with their Remedies. World Journal of Dentistry, 9(4), 333–341. https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10015-1558
14. PRINCIPLE AND TECHNIQUES OF IMMUNOHISTOCHEMISTRY – A REVIEW. (n.d.). ResearchGate. Retrieved May 24, 2025, from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/280609999_PRINCIPLE_AND_TECHNIQUES_OF_IMMUNOHISTOCHEMISTRY_-_A_REVIEW
15. Prioleau, J., & Schnitt, S. J. (1995). P53 Antigen Loss in Stored Paraffin Slides. New England Journal of Medicine, 332(22), 1521–1522. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM199506013322217
16. Rasmussen, O. F., & Rudbeck, L. (2015). Immunohistochemistry: A Dako Perspective. In F. Lin & J. Prichard (Eds.), Handbook of Practical Immunohistochemistry: Frequently Asked Questions (pp. 57–67). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-1578-1_5
17. Standardization of immunohistochemistry based on antigen retrieval technique for routine formalin-fixed tissue sections—Research Profiles at Washington University School of Medicine. (n.d.). Retrieved May 24, 2025, from https://profiles.wustl.edu/en/publications/standardization-of-immunohistochemistry-based-on-antigen-retrieva
18. Taylor, C. R. (2014). Immunohistochemistry in Surgical Pathology: Principles and Practice. In C. E. Day (Ed.), Histopathology: Methods and Protocols (pp. 81–109). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-1050-2_5
19. Zaha, D. C. (2014). Significance of immunohistochemistry in breast cancer. World Journal of Clinical Oncology, 5(3), 382–392. https://doi.org/10.5306/wjco.v5.i3.382