Skip to main content

Advertisement

We're creating a new version of this page. See preview

  • Research
  • Open Access

Association between serum zinc levels and lung cancer: a meta-analysis of observational studies

World Journal of Surgical Oncology201917:78

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12957-019-1617-5

  • Received: 17 February 2019
  • Accepted: 16 April 2019
  • Published:

Abstract

Background

Inconsistent results according to numerous studies that had investigated the association between serum zinc levels and lung cancer risk were reported. The aim of this study was to explore whether serum zinc levels were lower in lung cancer patients than that in controls.

Methods

We systematically retrieved the databases of PubMed, Wanfang, Cochrane, ScienceDirect website, CNKI, and SinoMed databases for comprehensive relevant studies published before December 2018 and conducted a meta-analysis. Standard mean differences (SMD) were pooled using a random effects model.

Results

Thirty-two articles were eligible to investigate the correlation between serum zinc levels and lung cancer risk, involving 2894 cases and 9419 controls. The pooled results showed sufficient evidence approving the association between serum zinc levels and lung cancer risk. And the serum zinc levels in lung cancer were significantly lower than that in controls (summary SMD = − 0.88, 95% confidence interval (CI) = − 0.94, − 0.82). Meanwhile, consistent results were obtained both in European populations and Asian populations. No publication bias was detected in our analysis.

Conclusions

The present meta-analysis suggested that serum zinc levels were significantly lower in lung cancer patients than that in controls.

Keywords

  • Serum zinc or serum zinc level
  • Lung cancer
  • Meta-analysis

Introduction

Cancer is a crucial health problem on a global scale that has become one of the primary causes of death. The increasing trend in cancer globally could be slowed and reversed if preventive measures could provide the feasible approach [1]. As we all know, smoking had been as the well-known role in the development of lung cancer [2]. Previous studies had confirmed that some external environment exposure [3, 4], dietary factors [5, 6], and physical activities [7] could affect the risk of lung cancer. However, some trace element concentrations, such as zinc, copper, and so on, could also influence the development of lung cancer. A recent meta-analysis had been performed to explore the relationship about serum copper levels in lung cancer [8]. Copper and zinc are closely related trace elements. Zinc is used for the growth of cells and is also useful in maintaining the integrity of the cell membrane. Therefore, cancer cells may consume zinc in the circulation to maintain cancer growth and maintain its membrane integrity [9]. However, there has not been an article attempting to summarize the results for serum zinc levels on the risk of lung cancer. So far, numerous researchers have examined potential effects of serum zinc levels on lung cancer risk, but existing epidemiological data are inconsistent. Hence, we aimed to evaluate results from previous studies systematically and carefully by constructing a meta-analysis of observational studies to find whether serum zinc levels were lower in lung cancer patients than that in controls.

Methods

This meta-analysis was designed and performed according to the guidelines of the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA compliant) statement [10].

Data sources and searches

A comprehensive, computerized literature search regarding the association between serum zinc levels and lung cancer risk was conducted in six databases (PubMed, Wanfang, Cochrane, ScienceDirect website, CNKI, and SinoMed databases), from their inception to December 2018. Combinations of the following keywords were used for the search: “zinc levels” OR “zinc concentration” OR “zinc” OR “trace element” in combination with “lung cancer” OR “lung tumor”. Moreover, we also scrutinized the references of retrieved publications to identify any studies that were potentially missed.

Study selection criteria

To be eligible for our analysis, the studies had to meet the following criteria: (1) epidemiological studies; (2) the aim was to evaluate the associations between serum zinc levels and lung cancer risk; (3) the numbers, mean, and standard deviation (SD) of serum zinc levels for cases and control are available. It is noted that duplicated results may be published in more than one paper, so we selected the most recent or most informative paper in our analysis.

Data extraction and quality assessment

Two of the authors extracted all data independently, complying with the selection criteria above. A standardized data collection protocol was as follows: the last name of the first author, publication year, study design, the location of the study conducted in, subject in cases and control, gender, range or mean age of cases, method of measurement for serum zinc, and mean and SD of serum zinc levels for cases and control.

Statistical analysis

The strength of the association between serum zinc levels and lung cancer risk was measured by standard mean differences (SMD) and 95% confident interval (CI) by adopting random effects models that taking into account both within-study and between-study variations [11]. The analysis evaluated heterogeneity among researches via the Cochran’s Q test and I2 (inconsistency index) statistic [12]. Subgroup analysis based on study design and geographic location was conducted in this meta-analysis to explore possible heterogeneity and to analyze whether there was a correlation in some subgroups. The meta-regression analysis was also performed to examine the possible heterogeneity [13]. Furthermore, sensitivity analysis was done to estimate the stability of the results by removing each study from the analysis, one at a time, which can evaluate the influence of a single comparison on the overall risk estimate. We also adopted Begg’s funnel plots [14] and Egger’s linear regression test [15] to evaluate whether publication bias existed. All the statistical analyses involved were performed with STATA software. P values were two-sided and less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

Literature search and study characteristics

The specific step of searching and selecting relevant articles was summarized in Fig. 1. To sum up, we retrieved 204 articles from PubMed, 231 articles from Wanfang databases, 198 articles from Cochrane, 221 articles from ScienceDirect website, 265 articles from CNKI, and 248 articles from SinoMed databases. Fifty-nine articles were reviewed in full text. By evaluating the full text, 27 articles were further excluded owing to listed reasons below: review articles (n = 13), not reported mean or SD (n = 7), reported dietary factors (n = 5), and letter to the editor (n = 2). Ultimately, 32 articles [1647] met the inclusion criteria. Three studies came from Europe and the remaining 29 studies were from Asia. The characteristics of the included studies are shown in Table 1.
Fig. 1
Fig. 1

Flow diagram of the literature search

Table 1

Characteristics of studies between serum zinc levels and lung cancer risk

Study, year

Country

Study type

Age

Lung cancer cases

Controls

Methods of measured zinc

n

Zinc: mean ± SD

n

Zinc: mean ± SD

Sun et al., 1991

China

Case-control

30–75

104

M = 0.945 ± 0.303(μg/mL)

F = 0.970 ± 0.229 (μg/mL)

252

M = 0.945 ± 0.23(μg/mL)

F = 1.08 ± 0.197 (μg/mL)

Atomic absorption spectrophotometer measurements (IL-951, USA)

Cobanoglu et al., 2010

Turkey

Case-control

54 ± 8.29

30

0.539 ± 0.225 (μg/dL)

20

2.051 ± 0.298 (μg/dL)

UNICAM-929 spectrophotometer (Unicam Ltd, York Street, Cambridge, UK)

Diez et al., 1989

Spain

Case-control

60 ± 7

64

0.627 ± 0.136 (μg/mL)

100

0.733 ± 0.173 (μg/mL)

Perkin-Elmer 5.000 atomic absorption spectrophotometer

Jin et al., 2011

China

Case-control

34.9 ± 21.3

154

0.673 ± 0.47 (μg/mL)

154

1.27 ± 0.442 (μg/mL)

Atomic absorption spectrophotometer (Wako Pure Chemical Industries, Osaka, Japan)

Oyama et al., 1994

Japan

Case-control

26–83

109

0.853 ± 0.279 (μg/mL)

53

0.873 ± 0.324 (μg/mL)

Atomic absorption spectrophotometry (Wako Pure Chemical Industries, Osaka, Japan)

Zablocka-Slowinska et al., 2018

Poland

Case-control

50–70

44

0.86 ± 0.215 (μg/L)

44

0.99 ± 0.263 (μg/L)

Atomic absorption spectrometry

Zowczak et al., 2001

Poland

Case-control

42–87

14

12 ± 2 (μmol/L)

18

13.8 ± 2 (μmol/L)

Flame atomic absorption spectrometry using Perkin ELmer spectrometer

Feng et al., 2006

China

Observation study

18–82

13

17.72 ± 2.55 (μmol/L)

36

17.57 ± 2.74 (μmol/L)

Flame atomic absorption spectrometry

Zhang et al., 1997

China

Case-control

25–80

64

0.788 ± 0.171 (μg/mL)

31

0.91 ± 0.374 (μg/mL)

Atomic absorption spectrophotometer measurements

Jin et al., 2001

China

Case-control

45–70

40

11.1 ± 3.73 (μmol/L)

46

13.4 ± 2.5 (μmol/L)

Atomic absorption spectrophotometer measurements

Zhang et al., 1994

China

Case-control

59 ± 9

40

16.98 ± 3.06 (μmol/L)

24

20.96 ± 3.67 (μmol/L)

Atomic absorption spectrophotometer measurements

Xu et al., 1993

China

Case-control

56 ± 7.5

42

11.45 ± 2.08 (μmol/L)

40

13.78 ± 2.12 (μmol/L)

Atomic absorption spectrophotometer measurements

Zhou et al., 1995

China

Case-control

39–69

186

0.702 ± 0.182 (μg/mL)

150

0.976 ± 0.102 (μg/mL)

Atomic absorption spectrophotometer measurements

Chen et al., 1994

China

Case-control

37–72

58

27.4 ± 4.8 (mol/L)

100

14.5 ± 3.8 (mol/L)

Atomic absorption spectrophotometer measurements (MFX-ID)

Luo et al., 1996

China

Case-control

40–70

35

10.25 ± 1.38 (μmol/L)

22

12.85 ± 4.28 (μmol/L)

Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometer measurements

Mo et al., 1995

China

Case-control

58.5

57

0.719 ± 0.159 (μg/mL)

46

0.955 ± 0.139 (μg/mL)

Atomic absorption spectrophotometer measurements

He et al., 1995

China

Case-control

34–72

143

19.481 ± 3.671(μmol/L)

50

21.436 ± 6.278(μmol/L)

Atomic absorption spectrophotometer measurements

Wei L et al., 2002

China

Case-control

22–76

79

0.832 ± 0.092 (μg/mL)

32

1.182 ± 0.018 (μg/mL)

Atomic absorption spectrophotometer measurements (American p-100)

Zhao et al., 1993

China

Case-control

43–62

46

11.17 ± 3.74 (μmol/L)

50

16.92 ± 5.6 (μmol/L)

Atomic absorption spectrophotometer measurements (BJKP-36)

He et al., 2011

China

Case-control

38–69

104

9.08 ± 1.44 (μmol/L)

122

16.44 ± 1.69 (μmol/L)

Atomic absorption spectrophotometer measurements

Chen et al., 1998

China

Case-control

47–72

43

11.74 ± 2.74 (μmol/L)

180

13 ± 1.83 (μmol/L)

Atomic absorption spectrophotometer measurements (Japan Shimadzu-A670)

Liang et al., 1992

China

Case-control

61

57

13.86 ± 5.56 (μmol/L)

80

21.81 ± 3.38 (μmol/L)

Atomic absorption spectrophotometer measurements (Chinese WFX-ID)

Huang et al., 1998

China

Case-control

25–65

136

11.933 ± 2.68 (μmol/L)

7101

19.808 ± 6.43(μmol/L)

Atomic absorption spectrophotometer measurements (Japan Shimadzu-AA670/C2H2)

Wang et al., 2003

China

Case-control

28–69

50

0.74 ± 0.18 (μg/L)

60

1.83 ± 1.44 (μg/L)

Atomic absorption spectrophotometer measurements

Cheng et al., 2011

China

Case-control

37–68

197

0.9 ± 0.3 (μmol/L)

93

1.12 ± 0.56 (μmol/L)

Atomic absorption spectrophotometer measurements

Xie et al., 2000

China

Case-control

35–68

64

70.28 ± 10.6 (μmol/L)

100

80.3 ± 20.7 (μmol/L)

Atomic absorption spectrophotometer measurements

Du et al., 1996

China

Case-control

22–73

73

13.1 ± 4 (μmol/L)

63

15.2 ± 3.5 (μmol/L)

Atomic absorption spectrophotometer measurements

Zhu et al., 1997

China

Case-control

NA

56

13.16 ± 1.71 (μmol/L)

118

15.46 ± 2.13 (μmol/L)

Atomic absorption spectrophotometer measurements (Perkin Elmer Zeeman/3030, USA)

Zhang et al., 2000

China

Case-control

25–77

310

0.812 ± 0.16 (μg/mL)

48

1.039 ± 0.154 (μg/mL)

Atomic absorption spectrophotometer measurements (Japan Shimadzu-180-80)

Hu et al., 2000

China

Case-control

36–77

56

0.797 ± 0.176 (μg/mL)

60

0.908 ± 0.022 (μg/mL)

Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometer measurements

Guo et al., 1994

China

Case-control

55.1

26

1.28 ± 0.94 (μg/mL)

26

0.8 ± 0.25 (μg/mL)

Atomic absorption spectrophotometer measurements (Varian Spectr AA-40p, USA)

Han et al., 1999

China

Case-control

4–77

400

0.93 ± 0.38 (μg/mL)

100

1.1 ± 0.36 (μg/mL)

Atomic absorption spectrophotometer measurements (American PE3030)

SD standard deviation, NA not available, F female, M male

Serum zinc levels and lung cancer risk

In each study included in our analysis, 27 studies suggested that serum zinc levels were lower in lung cancer patients than that in controls, while four studies found a non-significant association between serum zinc levels and lung cancer. However, two studies obtained a positive association between serum zinc levels and lung cancer. Figure 2 has demonstrated the investigation results of the association between serum zinc levels and lung cancer in all the articles, as serum zinc levels in lung cancer were significantly lower than controls (summary SMD = − 0.88, 95% CI = − 0.94, − 0.82, Z value = 28.32, P for Z test < 0.001). Extreme heterogeneity was present among the pooled results (P < 0.001, I2 = 96.5%). Based on Egger’s test (P = 0.548) and the Begg’s funnel plot (Fig. 3), there existed no publication bias.
Fig. 2
Fig. 2

Forest plot of standard mean difference (SMD) with corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) of studies about serum zinc levels and lung cancer risk

Fig. 3
Fig. 3

Funnel plot about serum zinc levels and lung cancer risk

Stratified analysis

Subgroup analyses by study design and geographic location were conducted to further examine serum zinc levels and lung cancer risk. We found lower serum zinc levels in lung cancer patients than that in controls both in European populations (summary SMD = − 0.65, 95% CI = − 0.89, − 0.41, Z value = 5.25, P for Z test < 0.001, I2 = 0.0%) and Asian populations (summary SMD = − 0.90, 95% CI = − 0.96, − 0.83, Z value = 27.90, P for Z test < 0.001, I2 = 96.8%). Thirty-one of the 32 studies were case-control studies, and the result was consistent with the overall result (summary SMD = − 0.89, 95%CI = − 0.95, − 0.83, Z value = 28.47, P for Z test < 0.001, I2 = 96.6%).

Meta-regression analysis

Meta-regression analysis was evaluated in this article, indicating that no source of heterogeneity was observed in the association between serum zinc levels and lung cancer risk.

Sensitivity analysis

Sensitivity analysis indicated that no evidence of overall result changing was observed when removed each study from the analysis, one at a time.

Discussion

The meta-analysis was conducted to investigate the association between serum zinc levels and lung cancer. Findings from our report suggested that serum zinc levels in lung cancer cases were significantly lower than that in controls. Consistent results were found both in European populations and Asian populations.

Some previous studies had been published to explore serum element levels and lung cancer risk. Chen et al. performed a meta-analysis with 13 publications to assess the association between serum iron levels and lung cancer risk [48]. The authors concluded that serum iron levels had no effect on the risk of lung cancer. Song et al. found no significant association between serum magnesium levels and lung cancer risk when pooled 11 suitable papers [49]. However, Zhang et al. performed a meta-analysis using 33 articles to explore the association between serum copper levels and the risk of lung cancer [8]. Results from their study suggested that serum copper levels were higher in lung cancer than that in controls. Copper and zinc are closely related trace elements involved in cell proliferation, growth, gene expression, apoptosis, and other processes. These two trace elements are all necessary for the proper activity of superoxide dismutase due to their integral role as cofactors or ions stabilizing the molecular structure [50]. Zinc deficiency may have adverse events, especially on immune function [51]. Gómez et al. had studied the association of zinc and its role in lung cancer [52]. In general, zinc microenvironment may play a key role in oxidative stress, apoptosis, and/or cell signaling alterations which influence the behavior of malignant cancer cells [52], and this may play a role in preventing lung cancer.

Previous studies had significantly revealed that serum zinc had a protective effect on some cancers. Xie et al. conducted a meta-analysis about serum zinc levels and cervical cancer, indicating that serum zinc levels were lower in cervical cancer patients than controls [53]. In addition, Mao et al. found that bladder cancer patients had lower serum zinc levels compared with controls [54]. Moreover, a meta-analysis published by Zhao et al. suggested that serum zinc concentrations in prostate cancer patients were significantly lower than those in normal controls [55]. Our results were consistent with the abovementioned studies.

However, there are some limitations and potential bias that must be acknowledged in our meta-analysis. First, we only included papers published in English or Chinese, which may omit some other language paper. Furthermore, we only searched published articles, which may omit some unpublished articles or some meeting articles. These factors may yield between-study heterogeneity and publications bias in the overall pooled results. Second, although most method of measurement for serum zinc was using atomic absorption spectrophotometer, different methods of measurement as well as a different instrument could also cause between-study heterogeneity. Third, evidence of high heterogeneity was found, both in overall and subgroup analysis, in our analysis. However, we could not find the source of heterogeneity due to stratified analysis and meta->regression analysis concerning the relationship between serum zinc levels and lung cancer risk. Fourth, our meta-analysis included three articles from Europe and 29 articles from Asia, thus, further epidemiological studies are warranted in the future to assess the association between serum zinc levels and lung cancer risk.

Conclusions

In summary, our meta-analysis, which included a large number of subjects of 32 articles, manifested that serum zinc levels were significantly lower in lung cancer patients than that in controls.

Abbreviations

SMD: 

Standard mean differences

CI: 

Confidence interval

SD: 

Standard deviation

Declarations

Acknowledgements

None

Funding

None

Availability of data and materials

The tables and figures supporting the conclusions of this article are included within the article.

Authors’ contributions

YW and YSZ conceived and designed the study. YW, ZYS, and APL participated in data collecting. YW analyzed the data. YW and YSZ commented on drafts of the paper. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable

Consent for publication

Not applicable

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Institute of Pediatrics, The First Hospital of Jilin University, Changchun, 130021, Jilin Province, China
(2)
Department of Ophthalmology, The First Hospital of Jilin University, Changchun, 130021, Jilin Province, China
(3)
Center for Reproductive Medicine and Center for Prenatal Diagnosis, The First Hospital of Jilin University, No. 71, Xinmin Street, Changchun, 130021, Jilin Province, China

References

  1. Thun MJ, JO DL, Center MM, et al. The global burden of cancer: priorities for prevention. Carcinogenesis. 2010;31(1):100–10.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  2. O'Keeffe LM, Taylor G, Huxley RR, et al. Smoking as a risk factor for lung cancer in women and men: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Open. 2018;8(10):e021611.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  3. Jia PL, Zhang C, Yu JJ, et al. The risk of lung cancer among cooking adults: a meta-analysis of 23 observational studies. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2018;144(2):229–40.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  4. Mundt KA, Dell LD, Crawford L, et al. Cancer risk associated with exposure to bitumen and bitumen fumes: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis. J Occup Environ Med. 2018;60(1):e6–e54.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  5. Chen G, Wang J, Hong X, et al. Dietary vitamin E intake could reduce the risk of lung cancer: evidence from a meta-analysis. Int J Clin Exp Med. 2015;8(4):6631–7.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  6. Lin X, Liu L, Fu Y, et al. Dietary cholesterol intake and risk of lung cancer: a meta-analysis. Nutrients. 2018;10(2).PubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  7. Zhong S, Ma T, Chen L, et al. Physical activity and risk of lung cancer: a meta-analysis. Clin J Sport Med. 2016;26(3):173–81.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  8. Zhang X, Yang Q. Association between serum copper levels and lung cancer risk: a meta-analysis. J Int Med Res. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1177/0300060518798507.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  9. Schwartz MK. Role of trace elements in cancer. Cancer Res. 1975;35(11 Pt. 2):3481–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ. 2009;339:b2535.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  11. DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials. 1986;7(3):177–88.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  12. Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, et al. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ. 2003;327(7414):557–60.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  13. Higgins JP, Thompson SG. Controlling the risk of spurious findings from meta-regression. Stat Med. 2004;23(11):1663–82.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  14. Begg CB, Mazumdar M. Operating characteristics of a rank correlation test for publication bias. Biometrics. 1994;50(4):1088–101.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  15. Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, et al. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ. 1997;315(7109):629–34.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  16. Sun ZP, Meng SX, Xu PY, et al. Study on serum copper and zinc levels and copper/zinc ratio in 102 lung cancer patients. Trace Elem Health Res. 1991;1:67–9.Google Scholar
  17. Cobanoglu U, Demir H, Sayir F, et al. Some mineral, trace element and heavy metal concentrations in lung cancer. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2010;11(5):1383–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Diez M, Arroyo M, Cerdan FJ, et al. Serum and tissue trace metal levels in lung cancer. Oncology. 1989;46(4):230–4.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  19. Jin Y, Zhang C, Xu H, et al. Combined effects of serum trace metals and polymorphisms of CYP1A1 or GSTM1 on non-small cell lung cancer: a hospital based case-control study in China. Cancer Epidemiol. 2011;35(2):182–7.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  20. Oyama T, Matsuno K, Kawamoto T, et al. Efficiency of serum copper/zinc ratio for differential diagnosis of patients with and without lung cancer. Biol Trace Elem Res. 1994;42(2):115–27.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  21. Zablocka-Slowinska K, Placzkowska S, Prescha A, et al. Serum and whole blood Zn, Cu and Mn profiles and their relation to redox status in lung cancer patients. J Trace Elem Med Biol. 2018;45:78–84.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  22. Zowczak M, Iskra M, Paszkowski J, et al. Oxidase activity of ceruloplasmin and concentrations of copper and zinc in serum of cancer patients. J Trace Elem Med Biol. 2001;15(2-3):193–6.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  23. Feng JF, Li SL. Correlation between oxidative stress and trace elements in blood of patients with cancer. Chin J of Clinic Reh. 2006;10(4):187–90.Google Scholar
  24. Zhang Y. Clinical significance of determination of serum lead, zinc and copper to zinc ratio in patients with lung cancer. Trace Elem Sci Guangdong. 1997;4(3):32–4.Google Scholar
  25. Jin ZJ, Qian LQ, Dong GQ, et al. Measurement and analysis of serum copper, zinc and magnesium in patients with lung cancer and gastric cancer. Shaanxi Med J. 2001;30(3):165–6.Google Scholar
  26. Zhang TQ, Yao RL, Song MC. Copper, zinc and copper-zinc ratio in plasma of patients with lung cancer. Shaanxi Med J. 1994;25(4):349–51.Google Scholar
  27. Xu ZF, Sun YC, Zhang CW, et al. Clinical significance of changes of serum copper, zinc and magnesium contents in patients with lung cancer. J Second Mil Med Univ. 1993;14(2):195–6.Google Scholar
  28. Zhou QH, Luo YY, Li CF, et al. A study on serum copper and zinc levels in patients with lung cancer. Chinese J Clin Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1995;2(1):45–7.Google Scholar
  29. Chen ZH, Chen NJ, Chen LJ, et al. Detection of serum copper, zinc and iron in patients with lung cancer and lung infection and its clinical significance. J Guangzhou Med Coll. 1994;12(2):118–9.Google Scholar
  30. Luo XR, Mao WG. Changes of serum copper and zinc in patients with lung cancer and its clinical significance. Hunan Med. 1996;13(3):136–7.Google Scholar
  31. Mo LN, Du KX, Liu GC. Analysis of serum CEA and trace elements Zn and Cu in patients with lung cancer. Radioimmunology. 1995;8(6):354–5.Google Scholar
  32. He WD. Detection and analysis of some trace elements in serum of patients with lung cancer. Jiujiang Med J. 1995;10(2):69–71.Google Scholar
  33. Wei L, Ji QM, Xue DY, et al. The role of copper and zinc determination in patients with lung cancer. Chinese Tumor. 2002;11(3):182–3.Google Scholar
  34. Zhao YM, Zhang XP. The value of serum copper and zinc levels and their ratio in diagnosis of lung cancer. Shanghai Med Inspection J. 1993;8(2):120-21.Google Scholar
  35. He ZJ. Detection of serum trace elements in lung cancer patients and its significance. Med Innovation of China. 2011;8(18):118–9.Google Scholar
  36. Chen WY. Changes of serum trace elements copper and zinc in patients with lung cancer. Zhejiang Med. 1998;20(6):330–1.Google Scholar
  37. Liang GM, Zhu XH, Wang X. Serum zinc and copper levels and copper/zinc ratios in patients with lung cancer. Cancer Res. 1992;19(3):193–4.Google Scholar
  38. Huang ZY, Hu FD. Comparative study of serum trace elements in patients with lung cancer. Shanxi Clin Med J. 1998;17(2):114–6.Google Scholar
  39. Wang ZL, Zhang W, Zhang HY, et al. Determinat ion of serum trace elements and their clinical value in patients with lung cancer. Clin Focus. 2003;18(4):183–5.Google Scholar
  40. Cheng Z, Dai LL, Kang Y, et al. Detection of trace elements of patients with lung cancers and pulmonary infections and its clinical significance. Chin J Nosocomiol. 2011;21(10):2006–8.Google Scholar
  41. Xie SY, Chen YX. Analysis of 64 cases of lung cancer with trace elements copper and zinc. Shanxi Med J. 2000;29(2):83–4.Google Scholar
  42. Du FL, Li ZM, Cao MJ, et al. Determination of serum copper, zinc, magnesium and iron in patients with pulmonary tuberculosis, chronic bronchitis, pulmonary heart disease and lung cancer. J of Xi'an Med Univ. 1996;17(3):348–50.Google Scholar
  43. Zhu JJ, Duan XY, Liu JS. The diagnostic value of serum copper and zinc concentrations in lung cancer, pulmonary tuberculosis and pulmonary infection. China J Modern Med. 1997;7(10):11–3.Google Scholar
  44. Zhang Y, Li X. Relationship of serum trace elements to lung cancer. Trace Elem Health Res. 2000;17(3):15–7.Google Scholar
  45. Hu ZH, Ren Q, Guo J, et al. Significance of determination of serum zinc, copper and copper/zinc ratio on evaluating diagnosis therapeutic effect and prognosis of lung cancer. Trace Elem Sci Guangdong. 2000;7(1):19–22.Google Scholar
  46. Guo XH, Li PF, Peng FK, et al. Relationship between serum zinc, copper, manganese and lung cancer. Chin Pub Heal. 1994;10(4):156–7.Google Scholar
  47. Han CZ, Zhao XW, Jing JX, et al. [Evaluation of the serum copper zinc levels and copper/zinc ratio in the diagnosis of malignant tumor]. Chinese Tumor. 1999;8(12):572-73.Google Scholar
  48. Chen HF, Wu LX, Li XF, et al. A meta-analysis of association between serum iron levels and lung cancer risk. Cell Mol Biol (Noisy-le-grand). 2018;64(13):33–7.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  49. Song X, Zhong X, Tang K, et al. Serum magnesium levels and lung cancer risk: a meta-analysis. World J Surg Oncol. 2018;16(1):137.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  50. Aguirre JD, Culotta VC. Battles with iron: manganese in oxidative stress protection. J Biol Chem. 2012;287(17):13541–8.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  51. Grattan BJ, Freake HC. Zinc and cancer: implications for LIV-1 in breast cancer. Nutrients. 2012;4(7):648–75.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  52. Gómez NN, Biaggio VS, Ciminari ME, et al. Zinc: What is your role in lung cancer? Nutr Defic. 2016;Chapter 3:47–53.Google Scholar
  53. Xie Y, Wang J, Zhao X, et al. Higher serum zinc levels may reduce the risk of cervical cancer in Asian women: a meta-analysis. J Int Med Res. 2018;46(12):4898–906.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  54. Mao S, Huang S. Zinc and copper levels in bladder cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Biol Trace Elem Res. 2013;153(1-3):5–10.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  55. Zhao J, Wu Q, Hu X, et al. Comparative study of serum zinc concentrations in benign and malignant prostate disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Sci Rep. 2016;6:25778.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s). 2019

Advertisement