Loading
Life sciences · Journal article
Antioxidants · October 16, 2026
No summary has been generated for this record yet. What follows is drawn from its source metadata only.
Journal article.
No findings were extractable from the material analysed.
Safety was not reported in the material analysed. Check the source before drawing any conclusion about harm.
The source did not state who this applies to in practice.
Graded across the dimensions that decide whether you should act, each from what the source actually supports. There is no single score, and where a dimension was not assessed it says so.
This record has not been graded across any dimension yet. Treat the label above as provisional and read the source.
What is missing. This record has no bottom line, key findings, reported figures, evidence dimensions. That is a gap in the analysis, not a judgement about the study.
Oxidative stress is a fundamental driver of carcinogenesis and tumor progression, arising from an imbalance between reactive oxygen or nitrogen species and antioxidant defense mechanisms. This redox disruption contributes to genomic instability, metabolic reprogramming, inflammation, immune modulation, and therapy resistance processes that together influence the biological behavior of cancer. A broad spectrum of oxidative stress biomarkers has been evaluated in oncology, including markers of lipid peroxidation, protein oxidation, DNA oxidation, and enzymatic or non-enzymatic antioxidant systems. This review integrates current mechanistic knowledge of the formation and functional significance of these biomarkers and evaluates clinical evidence regarding their diagnostic, prognostic, and predictive usefulness across multiple cancer types. We examine whether oxidative stress biomarkers could complement established measures of risk and describe treatment-related changes in systemic oxidative status, while distinguishing these potential applications from validated clinical uses. Despite promising findings, biomarker implementation remains limited by analytical variability, lack of standardized reference ranges, and insufficient prospective validation. Beyond biomedical considerations, the review also highlights key organizational and quality-related factors that may influence the integration of oxidative stress biomarkers into clinical practice. These include laboratory quality assurance requirements, methodological standardization, workflow and data management needs, and broader health system implications. By integrating mechanistic, clinical, analytical, and organizational evidence, this review identifies the validation and quality requirements that must be met before oxidative stress biomarkers can inform routine oncology decisions.