Despite continuous research, cancer is still a leading cause of death worldwide; therefore, new methods of cancer management improvement are emerging. It is well known that in the pathophysiology of cancer, oxidative stress (OS) is a significant factor. Nevertheless, there is currently no quick or easy way to identify OS in cancer patients using blood tests. Currently, in cancer treatments, Pt(IV) complexes are preferred to Pt(II) complexes in terms of adverse effects, drug resistance, and administration methods. Intracellular reductants convert Pt(IV) complexes to their Pt(II) analogs, which are Pt compounds with anti-carcinogenic effects. Our aim was to find out if Pt(IV) complexes could be used to assess blood oxidative stress indicators and, consequently, monitor the development of cancer. In this review, we analyzed previous research using the PubMed and Google Scholar public databases to verify the potential use of Pt(IV) complexes in cancer management. We found that two main serum antioxidants, glutathione and ascorbic acid, which are easily measured using conventional methods, react favorably with Pt(IV) complexes. Our research results suggest Pt(IV) complexes as therapeutic anticancer drugs and potential diagnosis agents. However, further research must be conducted to verify this hypothesis.

Even though Pt(II)-based drugs represent the standard in cancer therapy, their use is seriously limited by severe side-effects (renal toxicity, allergic reactions, gastrointestinal disorders, hemorrhage and hearing loss), drug resistance and a grim prognosis. This review presents the results of multiple studies showing different nanoparticle-based platforms as delivery agents in order to overcome these drawbacks. The approach of using nanoparticle-based drug delivery systems of Pt drugs and prodrugs is promising due to key advantages like specific targeting and thereby reduced toxicity to healthy cells; increased stability in the bloodstream; multiple mechanisms of action such as stimulating anti-tumor immunity, responding to environmental stimuli (light, pH, etc.), or penetrating deeper into tissues; enhanced efficacy by their combination with other therapies (chemotherapy, gene therapy) to amplify the anti-tumor effect. However, certain challenges need to be overcome before these solutions can be widely applied in clinics. These include issues related to biocompatibility, large-scale production, and regulatory approvals. In conclusion, using nanoparticles to deliver Pt-based drugs represents an advanced and highly promising strategy to make chemotherapy more effective and less toxic. Nonetheless, further studies are required for the better understanding of intracellular mechanisms of action, toxicity and the pharmacokinetics of nanoparticles, and physical–chemical standardization.

Background: Cancer represents a major global public health issue, and recent research has focused on improving the efficacy of existing therapeutic approaches. In this context, oncolytic viruses have emerged as promising treatment options for advanced and treatment‐resistant malignancies. Among them, adenoviruses are the most extensively studied due to their favourable safety profile, biological versatility and ease of genetic modification to enhance therapeutic performance. Main body: Combination‐based strategies integrating virotherapy with chemotherapy, radiotherapy or immunotherapy have been widely investigated to further improve anti‐tumour efficacy. These approaches act through complementary and synergistic mechanisms, where chemotherapy can promote viral replication and increase tumour cell susceptibility through deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) damage and transient immunomodulation, while radiotherapy enhances immunogenic tumour cell death by inducing sustained DNA damage. In parallel, immunotherapy—particularly immune checkpoint inhibition—can strengthen anti‐tumour immunity by reversing T‐cell exhaustion and increasing CD8 ⁺ T‐cell infiltration and effector function. Collectively, these interactions amplify both direct viral oncolysis and immune‐mediated tumour clearance. Additionally, clinical trial data suggest that intravenous administration of oncolytic adenoviruses may provide greater systemic antit‐umour activity compared with intratumoural delivery, albeit with increased toxicity relative to localised injection. Conclusion: Oncolytic adenoviruses have emerged as promising treatment options for advanced and treatment‐resistant malignancies, particularly when integrated with chemotherapy, radiotherapy or immunotherapy. However, most studies included are early‐phase trials conducted in small patient cohorts, underscoring the need for further research to better define safety profiles, long‐term adverse effects, and the underlying mechanisms driving therapeutic response.