Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33022843›Full record

ReviewThe FEBS journal2021

New insights into the activities and toxicities of the old anticancer drug doxorubicin.

Sabina Y van der Zanden, Xiaohang Qiao, Jacques Neefjes

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in The FEBS journal, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 205 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
205citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
22.9field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

205 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 379 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. In Vitro Antineoplastic Effects ofFood science & nutrition · 2026
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

145 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Sabina Y van der ZandenDepartment of Cell and Chemical Biology, ONCODE Institute, Leiden University Medical Centre LUMC, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-5587-1514
Xiaohang QiaoDivision of Tumour Biology and Immunology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-8690-4179
Jacques NeefjesDepartment of Cell and Chemical Biology, ONCODE Institute, Leiden University Medical Centre LUMC, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-6763-2211
Leiden University · NLThe Netherlands Cancer Institute · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The anthracycline drug doxorubicin is among the most used-and useful-chemotherapeutics. While doxorubicin is highly effective in the treatment of various hematopoietic malignancies and solid tumours, its application is limited by severe adverse effects, including irreversible cardiotoxicity, therapy-related malignancies and gonadotoxicity. This continues to motivate investigation into the mechanisms of anthracycline activities and toxicities, with the aim to overcome the latter without sacrificing the former. It has long been appreciated that doxorubicin causes DNA double-strand breaks due to poisoning topoisomerase II. More recently, it became clear that doxorubicin also leads to chromatin damage achieved through eviction of histones from select sites in the genome. Evaluation of these activities in various anthracycline analogues has revealed that chromatin damage makes a major contribution to the efficacy of anthracycline drugs. Furthermore, the DNA-damaging effect conspires with chromatin damage to cause a number of adverse effects. Structure-activity relationships within the anthracycline family offer opportunities for chemical separation of these activities towards development of effective analogues with limited adverse effects. In this review, we elaborate on our current understanding of the different activities of doxorubicin and their contributions to drug efficacy and side effects. We then offer our perspective on how the activities of this old anticancer drug can be amended in new ways to benefit cancer patients, by providing effective treatment with improved quality of life.

Indexed as

AclarubicinAntineoplastic AgentsDNA Breaks, Double-StrandedDNA DamageDoxorubicinHumansAclarubicinAntineoplastic AgentsDoxorubicinaclarubicinanthracyclinescancercardiotoxicitychromatin damageDNA damagedoxorubicinhistone evictiontherapy-related tumourstopoisomerase II

Identifiers

PMID33022843
PMCPMC8597086
OpenAlexW3091905208

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.