Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41948374›Full record

ArticleBiomarker insights2026

Circulating EMID2 as a Prognostic Biomarker of Poor Outcomes in Patients with Metastatic Colorectal Cancer.

Marina Crespo-Bravo, Sine R Syversen, Jeppe Thorlacius-Ussing, Mogens K Boisen, Maria Liljefors, Julia S Johansen, Morten A Karsdal, Nicholas Willumsen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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

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

What it found

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

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

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

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

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

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

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

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Marina Crespo-BravoNordic Bioscience A/S, Herlev, Denmark.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6631-7279
Sine R SyversenNordic Bioscience A/S, Herlev, Denmark.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0009-0336-5236
Jeppe Thorlacius-UssingNordic Bioscience A/S, Herlev, Denmark.
Mogens K BoisenDepartment of Oncology, Copenhagen University Hospital - Herlev and Gentofte, Denmark.
Maria LiljeforsDepartment of Clinical Science, Intervention and Technology, Karolinska University Hospital Huddinge, Stockholm, Sweden.
Julia S JohansenDepartment of Oncology, Copenhagen University Hospital - Herlev and Gentofte, Denmark.
Morten A KarsdalNordic Bioscience A/S, Herlev, Denmark.
Nicholas WillumsenNordic Bioscience A/S, Herlev, Denmark.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: EMID1 and EMID2 (also known as type XXVI collagen) are extracellular matrix (ECM) proteins that belong to the EDEN gene superfamily. Both proteins feature EMI domains, implicating them in protein-protein interactions and ECM remodeling. Despite structural similarities EMID1 and EMID2 have distinct functions with EMID1 primarily expressed in epithelial cells and EMID2 in mesenchymal cells. Previous studies have shown that while EMID1 could promote metastasis EMID2 might inhibit tumor growth and dissemination. Objectives: Little is known about the specific functions and mechanisms of EMID1 and EMID2 in tumor development. Therefore, this study aims to explore the biomarker potential of EMID 1 and EMID2 in cancer. Design: Retrospective study including a cross-sectional and a prognostic cohort to evaluate the biomarker potential of EMID1 and EMID2 in cancer. Methods: We developed 2 competitive ELISAs targeting the N-terminal of EMID1 and EMID2. We compared EMID1 and EMID2 levels in serum from patients with different types of cancer (n = 216) to levels in healthy controls (n = 33). Thereafter, we measured EMID1 and EMID2 levels in a second cohort of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC; n = 212) in stage IV treated with chemotherapy in combination with bevacizumab. Results: The developed EMID1 and EMID2 ELISAs were specific, sensitive and robust. We did not find significant differences in EMID1 and EMID2 levels between patients with cancer and healthy controls, indicating limited diagnostic utility in cancer. However, in patients with mCRC, high EMID2 levels were associated with shorter PFS (241 days) compared to low levels (298 days) independently of other risk factors (HR = 1.57, 95% CI 1.04-2.36, Conclusion: This study highlights EMID2 as prognostic biomarker in patients with mCRC, where higher levels correlated with more aggressive disease and shorter PFS. Future research should focus on elucidating the mechanisms underlying EMID2 degradation and its implications in cancer progression. Although EMID1 did not show diagnostic or prognostic value in this study, its biomarker potential in other types of cancer or benign diseases warrants further investigation.

Indexed as

colorectal cancerEMID1EMID2extracellular matrixnon-invasive biomarkertumor microenvironment

Identifiers

PMID41948374
PMCPMC13051103

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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