When it comes to pancreatic cancer, the words always land in fragile territory. An experimental therapy, a result in mice, a fundraiser, a phrase said on social media: everything can become enormous in the space of a few hours, because this disease often leaves very little time and very little room for patience.
The journal PNAS, a publication of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States, has withdrawn the study led by the Spanish biochemist Mariano Barbacid on a possible triple therapy against pancreatic cancer. The decision came after the reporting of a conflict of interest considered relevant and incompletely declared at the time the article was sent. Barbacid and two co-authors, Carmen Guerra and Vasiliki Liaki, are linked to Vega Oncotargets, a company created to develop commercial applications linked to this line of research.
The research had shown important results in mice, while the transition to patients remains distant
The withdrawn study described a combination of three drugs capable of acting on different points of the molecular pathway linked to KRAS, a protein often involved in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, the most common form of pancreatic cancer. The therapy combined daraxonrasib, afatinib and SD36. In animal models, as communicated by the CNIO, the Spanish National Center for Oncology Research, the treatment achieved a significant and long-lasting regression of the tumors, without evident resistance and without significant toxicity in the treated mice. The CNIO itself, however, specified that the group led by Barbacid was still far from starting clinical trials with that triple therapy.
This distinction is important. It’s one thing to get a promising result in the laboratory, on animal models. It’s another to arrive at a therapy available to a sick person. In between there are checks, safety, dosages, subsequent studies, authorizations, possible clinical trials. The work, according to several experts cited in the Spanish scientific debate, remains promising, however it must be replicated in humans and requires time, resources and a lot of prudence in communication.
The context explains why the news made so much noise. In Spain, in 2026, approximately 10,405 new cases of pancreatic cancer are estimated. Five-year survival remains very low: according to REDECAN, it stands at around 11.1%, with differences between men and women. Such numbers transform every announcement into immediate hope, even when the research is still preclinical.
After the public presentation of the results, the CRIS Contra el Cáncer Foundation promoted a fundraiser to support the subsequent phases of the project. The campaign exceeded the initial goal of 3.5 million euros, reaching almost 3.7 million according to the most recent reconstructions. In the following weeks, more than one hundred patients would have contacted the research group to request access to the experimental treatment, even if at the moment there are no open clinical studies on patients.
View this post on Instagram
The conflict of interest concerns Vega Oncotargets
The crux of the retraction does not concern the existence of possible commercial consequences per se. In biomedical research it can happen that a laboratory result is developed through patents, dedicated companies and private investments. The delicate step concerns transparency: whoever evaluates a study must know any economic interests linked to the results.
According to what emerged, Barbacid and Guerra co-founded Vega Oncotargets together with other partners in 2024, with the aim of developing therapies derived from the group’s work. The journal felt that that financial connection should have been fully disclosed at the time the article was submitted. The case became even more sensitive because Barbacid, a member of the National Academy of Sciences since 2012, had been able to use a publication route reserved for members of the Academy, with a different procedure than ordinary submission.
Before arriving on PNAS, the study had also been submitted to Nature, which rejected it. After the retraction, Carmen Guerra said the group resubmitted the work to the same journal, this time acknowledging the commercial relationships. Meanwhile, the CNIO has indicated that it is examining the case in light of its code of good practice.
To complicate the picture, a post published on Barbacid’s social profile also arrived. In the message, the researcher thanks God and the people who supported him, talks about the “cure for pancreatic cancer”, claims that he has an economic interest as logical and claims to be able to eradicate the tumor in animals in over 97% of cases, adding that he believes that the benefit would have the same percentage in humans. It is a very delicate step, because the institutional communication of the CNIO speaks of preclinical results and of a human trial still to be carried out.
The same post mentions alleged pressure from large pharmaceutical companies, governments, politicians and entrepreneurs to stop the research. The message also talks about the closure of social accounts with thousands of followers and the blocking of accounts previously used to receive financial aid. The final request for donations passes through Binance, via an ID indicated in the text, with a language very distant from that of official communications.
This gap matters. The fundraising communicated by the CRIS Foundation passed through the foundation’s channels and tools indicated in its public notes, while the social post introduces a different channel and a tone much closer to personal conflict. In an affair already full of expectations, the difference between official collection, individual appeal and therapeutic promise must remain very clear. Especially for patients.
The Barbacid case shows a fracture that research knows well: the need to finance difficult and expensive studies, alongside the duty to declare any economic interest when those results are published. A possible therapy against pancreatic cancer needs money, laboratories, reviews, companies capable of developing molecules and years of testing. It also needs measured words, because a scientific promise can become enormous even before it becomes true.
Retraction does not automatically erase the value of preclinical data. However, it puts them back on a more demanding path. We need a new evaluation, we need declared conflicts of interest, we need clear donation channels, we need communication that keeps the results in mice separate from the patients’ hopes. With an illness like this, even a comma weighs.
You might also be interested in:
