Cancer is the second leading cause of death worldwide. Late diagnosis, low drug selectivity, high toxicity, and treatment resistance are challenges associated with pharmacological interventions. The commonly used therapies include surgery, radiotherapy, hormonal therapy, immunotherapy, and chemotherapy. Recently, Cu complexes have been studied owing to their biological functions and effects on tumor angiogenesis. In this review, we examined 23 types of cancer and revealed the use of cell lines. The synthesis of Cu complexes with ligands such as phenanthroline and thiosemicarbazones has also been reported. Such co-ligation is promising because of its high cytotoxicity and selectivity. Compared with cisplatin, Cu complexes, especially mixed complexes, showed better interactions with DNA, generating reactive oxygen species and inducing apoptosis. Nanoformulations have also been adopted to improve the pharmacological activity of compounds. They enhance the efficacy of complexes by targeting them to the tumor tissue, thereby improving their safety. Studies have also explored Cu complexes with clinically relevant pharmacophores, suggesting a “hybrid chemotherapy” against resistant tumors. Overall, Cu complexes have demonstrated therapeutic versatility, antitumor efficacy, and reduced adverse effects, showing great potential as alternatives to conventional chemotherapy and justifying future clinical investigations to validate their use.

The complexes cis-[Ru(dmbpy)₂Cl(bpy)](PF₆) (Rubpy) and cis-[Ru(dmbpy)₂Cl(bpe)](PF₆) (Rubpe) (dmbpy = 4,4′-Dimethyl-2,2′-dipyridyl, bpy= 4,4′-dipyridyl and bpe = 1,2-bis(4-pyridyl)ethane) were synthesized and spectroelectrochemically characterized. Both Ru(II) complexes exhibited absorption bands assigned to intraligand and metal-to-ligand charge transfer (MLCT) transitions, and their spectral stability in PBS buffer (pH 7.4) supports their suitability for biological studies involving biomolecules or living cells. Fluorescence quenching assays revealed strong interactions with bovine serum albumin (BSA), with binding constants (K_b) values were 2.89 × 10⁵ M⁻¹ for Rubpy and 1.97 × 10⁵ M⁻¹ for Rubpe, and a stoichiometry of one binding site per albumin molecule. DNA-binding studies demonstrated non-covalent interactions with ss-DNA, evidenced by a hyperchromic effect in the MLCT bands, suggesting a partial intercalation or groove-binding mechanism. Cellular uptake assays indicated moderate incorporation of both complexes in tumor cells, with uptake levels of 52% (Rubpy) and 47% (Rubpe) in HeLa cells, and 42% (Rubpy) and 32% (Rubpe) in MDA-MB-231 cells. Despite the similar uptake profiles, cytotoxicity assays showed that Rubpe is approximately 2.4 times more potent than Rubpy, with IC₅₀ values of 9 μM (HeLa) and 12 μM (MDA-MB-231), compared to 22 μM and 29 μM for Rubpy, respectively. These results highlight the relevance of these Ru(II) complexes as molecular platforms for exploring structure–activity relationships in anticancer agents.