4.7 Article

Diagnostic value of the copper/zinc ratio in hepatocellular carcinoma: a case control study

Journal

JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY
Volume 38, Issue 1, Pages 45-51

Publisher

SPRINGER JAPAN KK
DOI: 10.1007/s005350300005

Keywords

liver cancer; copper; zinc; antioxidants; Cu/Zn ratio

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background. The aim of this study was to assess the accuracy of the copper/zinc ratio in the evaluation of a group of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Methods. A total of 105 patients were studied and separated into three groups: group I (n = 40), patients with HCC, group 11 (n = 25), patients with liver cirrhosis, and group III (n = 40), patients with benign digestive disease. Serum levels of copper and zinc were measured by atomic absorption spectrophotometry. Results. The serum levels of copper (mug/dl) in patients with HCC (97.4 +/- 27.2; P < 0.05) were significantly higher than those in patients with liver cirrhosis (73.7 +/- 17.5) or benign digestive disease (77.1 +/- 20.8), and the serum levels of zinc (mug/dl) were significantly lower (71.6 +/- 30.5; P < 0.05) than those in patients with benign digestive disease (81.7 +/- 17.7 mug/dl) and were similar to those in cirrhotic patients (68.5 +/- 17.1). The Cu/Zn ratio was also significantly higher in patients with HCC (1.52 +/- 0.64; P < 0.05) than in patients with liver cirrhosis (1.06 +/- 0.2) or patients with benign digestive disease (0.95 +/- 0.39). Considering a cutoff value of 1.15, the sensitivity of the Cu/Zn ratio was 87.5%, with a specificity of 86.1%, a positive predictive value of 79.5%, and a negative predictive value of 91.8%. Conclusions. The Cu/Zn ratio was found to be significantly higher in patients with HCC compared with that in age and sex-matched controls, with a sensitivity of 87.5%; this ratio might be useful in the evaluation of suspected hepatocellular malignancy.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available