Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Cross-sectional study evaluates carbohydrate levels in serum and saliva as potential biomarkers in oral cancer patients, indicating disease progression.
Background & Objective: Enhanced glucose uptake creates a hyperglycaemic environment that contributes to the oral carcinogenetic cascade but has received less attention and has not been fully elucidated. This study aimed to assess the levels of free and bound carbohydrates in saliva and serum among healthy individuals, subjects with potentially malignant disorders, and oral cancer/oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC) patients. Methods: A cross-sectional comparative study was conducted among 90 subjects randomly selected based on clinical and histological criteria and allocated into three groups: Group 1, healthy individuals (n = 30); Group 2, potentially malignant disorders (n = 30); and Group 3, OSCC cases (n = 30). Saliva and serum samples were collected and subjected to biochemical analysis for carbohydrate level estimation. Descriptive statistics and the Mann-Whitney test were applied to assess differences between independent groups. Results: Mean salivary-bound total carbohydrate levels were 12.06 mg/dL, 37.67 mg/dL, and 65.45 mg/dL for Groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Mean serum-bound total carbohydrate levels were 30.39 mg/dL, 68.28 mg/dL, and 88.33 mg/dL for Groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Mean salivary-free total carbohydrate levels were 25.58 mg/dL (Group 1), 24.28 mg/dL (Group 2), and 53.13 mg/dL (Group 3), while mean serum-free total carbohydrate levels were 62.39 mg/dL, 74.01 mg/dL, and 193.68 mg/dL for Groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively. A highly significant increase was observed (P < 0.001). Conclusion: A substantial increase in serum and salivary total carbohydrate levels, particularly in bound forms, was observed across the three groups, highlighting the potential utility of carbohydrate levels as biomarkers for disease progression in oral cancer.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Mohtesham et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: