Copper in colorectal cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Rocío Olmedo-Requena, Carlos Muñoz-Bravo, Macarena Lozano-Lorca, Carla González-Palacios Torres, José Juan Jiménez-Moleón, Inés Marín-Burdallo, Lucas González-Herrera

Journal: Carcinogenesis 2025;46(1):

PMID: 39847508

Abstract

Several clinical studies have evaluated the relationship between copper on colorectal cancer (CRC), but the results are contradictory. This study aimed to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate copper measured in two biological matrices (serum/plasma/blood and tissue) and dietary intake in CRC patients compared to healthy controls. We conducted a comprehensive and systematic search in PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and Web of Science. We included studies that reported copper levels in serum/plasma/blood, tissue, or from the diet, with an observational study design (cohort and case-control studies). Study quality was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa scale and potential causes of heterogeneity were evaluated. Standardized mean differences (SMD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) were pooled using random-effect models. Overall pooled odds ratio and 95% CI for the risk of CRC were calculated. Twenty-six studies (23 case-control and 3 cohort studies) with a total of 227 354 participants were included. Most of the studies presented low (50%) or moderate quality (42.3%). No differences in serum/plasma/blood copper levels (SMD = 0.23; 95% CI: -0.23, 0.70; I2 = 97.3%, 19 studies), tissue copper levels (SMD = -1.69; 95% CI: -3.41, 0.03; I2 = 85.6%, 2 studies), or copper/zinc ratio (SMD = 1.19; 95% CI: 0.54, 1.84; I2 = 95.3%, 6 studies) were found between CRC patients and healthy controls. Regarding dietary copper, CRC patients had a lower intake (SMD = -0.27; 95% CI: -0.51, -0.03; I2 = 0.0%, 2 studies). No differences were found in copper levels between CRC patients and healthy controls. However, evidence shows mostly low or moderate quality, and results were heterogeneous. More prospective studies with an adequate methodological approach are needed.

© The Author(s) 2025. Published by Oxford University Press.

Address: Department of Public Health and Psychiatry, School of Medicine, University of Málaga, 29071 Málaga, Spain.; Biomedical Research Institute of Malaga (IBIMA), 29010 Málaga, Spain.; Departamento de Medicina Preventiva y Salud Pública, Universidad de Granada, 18016 Granada, Spain.; Department of Forensic Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Granada, Avenida de la Investigación 11, 18016 Granada, Spain.; Departamento de Medicina Preventiva y Salud Pública, Universidad de Granada, 18016 Granada, Spain.; Instituto de Investigación Biosanitaria ibs.GRANADA, 18014 Granada, Spain.; Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red de Epidemiología y Salud Pública, Instituto de Salud Carlos III, 28029 Madrid, Spain.
Bant logo

© Copyright 2026, Nutrition Evidence

NED wishes to thank the following organisations for their support:

We use cookies to improve your experience and analyze site traffic with Google Analytics. By continuing to use our site, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn more.