ArticleAdvanced biology2026
Prognostic Role of EMR1 in Lymph Nodes and Primary Tumors of Colon Cancer Patients.
Article in Advanced biology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The purpose was to investigate whether the eosinophil biomarker EMR1, ectopically expressed in colon cancer tumor cells, could be used to identify patients at risk for relapse after curative surgery. EMR1 mRNA levels were determined in primary tumors (n = 66) and lymph nodes (LNs; n = 377) from 121 colon cancer patients. Controls were resection margins of colon cancer tumors and LNs from patients with inflammatory bowel disease. Primary read-out was recurrency evaluated as disease-free survival time in the Kaplan-Meier survival model and hazard ratio calculation by uni- and multivariate Cox regression. High EMR1 levels in the regional LNs were associated with poor prognosis [hazard ratio 3.1 (1.2-8.0) at 5-year follow-up, p = 0.02]. Patients with a very poor prognosis were identified by combining EMR1 with CXCL17 analysis of LNs [hazard ratio 4.6 (1.1-19.7), p = 0.04]. High EMR1 levels in the primary tumor were associated with a good prognosis [hazard ratio 0.1 (0.02-0.9), p = 0.04]. Multivariate analysis strengthened the result for LNs but weakened the result for the primary tumor. These contradictory prognostic results probably relate to the prominent eosinophilia in the primary tumor, essentially lacking in LNs, where ectopically expressed EMR1 in tumor cells dominates. Thus, EMR1 expressed in tumor cells probably promotes tumor growth.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.