Table 3.
Comparison between IHC‐QDs and intIHC‐QDs in eight cases
| No. | Age | Stage | FISH | IHC‐DAB | IHC‐QDs | intIHC‐QDs |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Case 13 | 80 | I | 1.52 | 2 | 0.06 | 164.19 |
| Case 10 | 42 | IIB | 1.77 | 2 | 0.13 | 16.85 |
| Case 27 | 47 | IIB | 1.65 | 3 | 0.18 | 55.67 |
| Case 25 | 72 | IIA | 1.22 | 2 | 0.32 | 136.22 |
| Case 2 | 64 | IIIB | 1.40 | 2 | 5.27 | 157.01 |
| Case 32 | 60 | IIB | 4.25 | 3 | 8.17 | 314.44 |
| Case 28 | 63 | IV | 4.97 | 2 | 16.98 | 306.91 |
| Case 4 | 55 | IIA | 7.70 | 3 | 18.81 | 234.26 |
Stage grouping is based on TNM classification of malignant tumors seventh edition by the International Union Against Cancer (UICC) 42. IHC‐DAB is conventional standard IHC by enzyme antibody technique using 3,3′‐Diaminobenzidine (DAB) for staining. intIHC‐QDs is IHC with QDs and anti‐HER2 antibody which recognize the intracellular domain of HER2 protein.