Drugs ten years later: epirubicin.

G. Bonadonna,L. Gianni,A. Santoro,V. Bonfante,P. Bidoli,P. Casali,R. Demicheli,P. Valagussa

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/OXFORDJOURNALS.ANNONC.A058514

IF: 51.769

1993-05-01

Annals of Oncology

Abstract:The first clinical report on adriamycin (doxorubicin), the 14-hydroxydaunomycin derivative, dates back to almost a quarter of a century ago [1]. The initial findings [2], indicating a broad spectrum of antitumor activity as well as cardiac effects, were confirmed within a few years in large case series all over the world [3—7]. During the past two decades, doxorubicin represented the single most effective agent in the treatment of breast cancer, malignant lymphomas, bone and soft tissue sarcomas, and an essential component in numerous drug combinations for the management of various neoplastic diseases of adults and children. The search in experimental animal systems for other anthracycline analogs with better therapeutic index than daunorubicin and doxorubicin has been tenaciously pursued since early 1970s by investigators of Farmitalia Carlo Erba and the Milan Cancer Institute, namely F. Arcamone, A. Di Marco, A. M. Casazza and their coworkers [8-10). Epirubicin (4'-epiadriamycin, epidoxorubicin, Pharmorubicin*) was the first compound of the new series which became available during the late 1970s for phase I and II studies [11, 12]. In 1984, an international symposium held in Milan [13] concluded that there was preliminary evidence in favor of similar treatment efficacy between epirubicin and doxorubicin but the new analog was moderately less toxic than the parent compound in terms of immediate and delayed side effects. During the past decade, epirubicin underwent extensive pharmacologic, toxicologic and therapeutic investigations. It is now the proper time to briefly review what has been achieved in terms of pharmacology, optimal dose, schedule, and cost-benefit ratio in the most important human malignancies. Primarily because of space, this review will not attempt to dissect every single study reported in the medical literature. Readers interested in exhaustive details are kindly referred to the recent papers of Mouridsen et al. [14] and Delozier etal.[15|. Preclinical and clinical pharmacology