Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Analyzes serum copper and zinc levels in hepatitis C, oncology, and healthy controls, suggesting therapeutic targets.
Copper (Cu) and Zinc (Zn) are essential trace elements whose homeostasis is often dysregulated in chronic diseases. Imbalances, particularly an elevated serum copper-to-zinc (Cu/Zn) ratio, are linked to chronic hepatitis C (HCV) and various cancers, which suggests this ratio has value as a biomarker. The aim of the study was to analyze and compare serum Cu and Zn levels in patients with chronic hepatitis C, patients with oncological diseases, and patients in a healthy control group. This study enrolled 333 patients (66 HCV, 46 Oncology, 221 Healthy controls) from 2020 to 2025. Serum Cu and Zn were measured using flame atomic absorption spectrophotometry. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to compare group means (p<0.05 considered significant). Significant differences were found among groups (p<0.001). Mean serum Cu levels were significantly elevated in the Oncology and HCV groups compared to the Healthy control group. Conversely, mean serum Zn levels were significantly lower in both disease groups versus the control group. Consequently, the mean Cu/Zn ratio was highest in the Oncology group, followed by the HCV group, and lowest in the Healthy group (p<0.001). The observed Cu/Zn dysregulation in HCV and oncology patients points to its role in pathogenesis. Elevated Cu may promote tumor angiogenesis, while Zn deficiency could impair immune function and increase liver damage. These findings suggest that Cu and Zn metabolism could be viable therapeutic targets, for example, through copper-chelating agents in cancer. Serum Cu and Zn levels and the Cu/Zn ratio are significantly altered in patients with chronic hepatitis C and oncological diseases. The Cu/Zn ratio can be a strong, sensitive marker of this pathological dysregulation. Monitoring these trace elements may be crucial for patient care and for applying individualized treatment strategies.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Papochiev et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: