4.6 Article

Serum copper and zinc levels and the risk of oral cancer: A new insight based on large-scale case-control study

期刊

ORAL DISEASES
卷 25, 期 1, 页码 80-86

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/odi.12957

关键词

copper; inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry; oral cancer; trace elements; zinc

资金

  1. High-level Talents research Start-up Project of Fujian Medical University [XRCZX2018001]
  2. Scientific Research Talents Training Project of Health and Family Planning Health Commission in Fujian Province [2018-1-71, 2017-ZQN-57]
  3. Startup Fund for Scientific Research of Fujian Medical University [2017XQ1011]
  4. Joint Funds for the Innovation of Science and Technology of Fujian Province [2017Y9103, 2016Y9033]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective Limited evidence exists on the roles of serum copper (Cu) and zinc (Zn) in oral cancer risk. We aimed to preliminarily explore the association between serum Cu and Zn levels and oral cancer risk with relatively large-scale samples. Methods Serum Cu and Zn levels of 344 oral cancer patients and 1,122 matched healthy controls in this case-control study were measured by inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICP-MS). Results Restricted cubic spline revealed the U-shaped relationship between serum Cu or Zn levels and the risk of oral cancer. Serum deficient or elevated levels of Cu were significantly associated with the risk of oral cancer: The ORs were 1.38 (95% CI: 1.01-1.89) and 2.82 (95% CI: 1.60-4.98), respectively. The positive association of serum low or high levels of Zn with oral cancer risk was also observed: The ORs were 2.72 (95% CI: 1.60-4.62) and 12.41 (95% CI: 9.09-16.93), respectively. Additionally, there were multiplicative interactions between the aforementioned trace elements and smoking. Conclusions This preliminary study suggests that both serum excess and deficient levels of Cu or Zn were significant correlation with oral cancer risk, which may provide a new insight on the roles of serum Cu and Zn in oral cancer.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据