El Gobierno tranquiliza a los científicos del mayor centro de investigación del cáncer, que puede quedar paralizado si no se resuelve una situación de máxima urgencia: la ausencia de gerente y de nadie más con poder para aprobar contratos, suministros y cualquier otra actividad para mantener el organismo funcionando.

“Somos plenamente conscientes de la situación que atraviesa el centro y del impacto que los recientes acontecimientos han podido tener tanto en su funcionamiento como en su reputación”, explica una carta de una sola página firmada por Eva Ortega Paíno, secretaria general de Investigación del Ministerio de Ciencia, Innovación y Universidades, dirigida a los científicos del Centro Nacional de Investigaciones Oncológicas (CNIO), a la que ha tenido acceso este diario. “El Patronato [máximo órgano de Gobierno] está trabajando con la máxima prioridad para adoptar las medidas necesarias que garanticen la estabilidad institucional, la continuidad operativa y el adecuado funcionamiento de la gestión del CNIO”, destaca la misiva.

Ortega Paíno, presidenta del Patronato, asegura que el organismo ha tomado nota “tanto en lo relativo a la cobertura urgente de las funciones de firma y gestión como a la necesidad de fortalecer la estructura administrativa y de gestión del centro”. “El Patronato comparte plenamente vuestra convicción de que el verdadero valor del CNIO reside en la excelencia científica de sus investigadores y en el compromiso de todas las personas que trabajáis en la institución. Nuestro objetivo es contribuir a que, cuanto antes, el foco vuelva a situarse en esa ciencia de primer nivel que el CNIO representa”, añade la carta, fechada este lunes.

Es todo lo que por ahora ha trascendido de la reunión del Patronato prevista para hoy, y en la que se esperaba dar solución a la parálisis inminente desencadenada por la renuncia del director gerente, José Manuel Bernabé. Bernabé, un alto funcionario del Estado, había presentado su renuncia el 2 de febrero después de que una ex compañera le señalase por acoso, aunque la investigación fue inconcluyente.

El ya exgerente desveló la semana pasada en exclusiva a EL PAÍS nuevos detalles sobre la presunta trama corrupta que operó en el centro durante años y que, según sus cálculos, pudo robar hasta 30 millones de euros de dinero público.

La baja de Bernabé, que era el único con capacidad de firmar cualquier contrato, suministro u operación, deja al centro sumido en la parálisis hasta que se habilite a alguien más con poder de firma. En sus revelaciones a este diario, Bernabé se quejaba precisamente de que durante los meses en los que estuvo destapando irregularidades trabajaba “solo”, y vigilado por los colaboradores del presunto cabecilla de la trama, el exgerente Juan Arroyo.

“Solicitamos una solución urgente para disponer de una persona con poder legal de firma”, han exigido más de 380 científicos y empleados del centro — el 80% de la plantilla y el 90% de los jefes— en una carta enviada el domingo al Patronato a la que ha tenido acceso este diario. Es la segunda carta de apoyo que envía el claustro después de la publicada la semana pasada, también con un amplísimo respaldo, en defensa de Bernabé y denunciando una campaña de desprestigio contra él.

Los científicos muestran su apoyo al trabajo del ex responsable del CNIO y piden que se continúe el plan que había trazado para sanear el centro. “Queremos incidir en la importancia de implementar el Plan de Actuación propuesto por el gerente anterior, José Manuel Bernabé, en lo que se refiere a la necesidad de una reestructuración de calado de todo nuestro sistema de gestión y administración. Es asimismo necesario seguir profundizando en el análisis exhaustivo de las prácticas de gestión del centro”, señala la misiva.

Este mismo lunes terminan los contratos de nueve personas de personal administrativo. Estos empleados estaban subcontratados a través de la empresa Gedosol, una de las presuntamente implicadas en la trama corrupta del CNIO. “Este colectivo, si bien subcontratado, es personal con experiencia de muchos años en el centro y que realiza trabajo esencial en el día a día”, señalan los científicos, que también alertan de la situación similar que afronta el personal de informática y de mantenimiento e instrumentación, así como técnicos del sistema SAP, entre otros.

“Consideramos que la simple contratación de un puesto de gerente nuevo e independiente va a ser insuficiente, si este reclutamiento no viene asociado a posibilidad de contratar a un equipo de gestión de su confianza con el que reconducir esta situación”, añaden los investigadores.

El sindicato CSIF ha informado de que las nueve personas cuyo cese es inminente tienen una antigüedad de entre 10 y 20 años en el centro. El sindicato cree que se ha producido una cesión ilegal de los trabajadores y estudia medidas legales. Asimismo se ha puesto en contacto con el secretario de Estado de Ciencia e Innovación, Juan Cruz, y con la secretaria general de Investigación, y presidenta del Patronato, Eva Ortega Paíno, “para solicitar información y pedir explicaciones”. Fuentes del sindicato informan de que en las próximas fechas también vencen los contratos de tres empleados subcontratados por Zeus, otra de las empresas presuntamente implicadas en la trama, y de otros seis trabajadores de informática, con contratos de Gedosol.

El ya exgerente del CNIO ha informado de todas las presuntas ilegalidades a la Fiscalía Anticorrupción, que investiga el caso. Entre ellas estaría la manipulación de contratos de mantenimiento por parte de la empresa Eiffage Energía, filial de una multinacional francesa, en la que también estaría implicado Javier de Dios, actual responsable de Gestión Técnica del CNIO, y colaborador de Arroyo. El cabecilla de la trama llegó a tener un “mayordomo” contratado con dinero del CNIO que cada semana acudía a casa de Arroyo, en una lujosa urbanización a las afueras de Madrid, para realizar trabajos domésticos, como pequeñas obras o limpiar el jardín, según las investigaciones que Bernabé reveló a este diario. Además, este operario llevaba regularmente a la vivienda de Arroyo un bidón de gasoil también pagado con fondos públicos del CNIO.

Estas presuntas ilegalidades se suman a las denunciadas por un exalto cargo del CNIO ante la Fiscalía Anticorrupción, y que motivaron el inicio de las investigaciones por parte del ministerio público, el 26 de noviembre de 2025.

Esa fecha es clave. Un día antes, tras tener ya una idea clara de las presuntas ilegalidades cometidas en el CNIO por Arroyo y sus colaboradores, Bernabé le pide al patronato que despida a Arroyo y a dos personas muy cercanas a él: el adjunto a la gerencia José Ignacio Fernández Vera, y la secretaria general Laura Muñoz. El primero fue durante años un colaborador estrecho de Arroyo y gestionaba, entre otras cosas, las donaciones de pisos y herencias al CNIO que hacían ciudadanos en sus testamentos para apoyar la investigación del cáncer. La segunda, Muñoz, había sido contratada en abril por el CNIO, con un sueldo exorbitante para su cargo de 80.000 euros al año. Hasta ese momento, desde 2013, había sido secretaria en el CNIO subcontratada a través de Gedosol, una de las empresas implicadas en la presunta trama corrupta. El Patronato aprobó por unanimidad los tres despidos.

Un día después, Muñoz presenta ante recursos humanos del CNIO una denuncia por acoso contra José Manuel Bernabé. Asegura que Bernabé le había mandado fotos y vídeos personales haciendo ejercicio, y comentarios sobre el número de relaciones que había tenido en el último año. Un comité externo analizó el caso, pero nunca pudo demostrar si hubo acoso o no, porque Muñoz nunca compareció. Sin embargo, la publicación de la denuncia por parte de Abc motivó que el Ministerio de Ciencia, Innovación y Universidades, dirigido por Diana Morant, le quitase la confianza a Bernabé, toda vez que este reconoció haber mandado esos mensajes.

El exgerente niega que acosase a Muñoz y cree que la denuncia es una trampa para hacerle caer. En efecto, la semana pasada, el patronato del CNIO acusó recibo de su renuncia como gerente. En realidad, Bernabé, con una salud debilitada después de estos meses de duro trabajo en un entorno hostil y rodeado de supuestos enemigos, ya había pedido marcharse del CNIO el 2 de febrero.

Four years ago, María, Adriana, and Paula López Fontanals received one of those life-changing pieces of news: it would change their bodies, their relationships with motherhood, with their daughters, with their health… A cousin alerted them after she developed a rapidly progressing breast tumor. “In September, she was cancer-free, and in January, she found a lump that had grown very quickly. Her mother had died of breast cancer. They told her, ‘Something’s wrong here,’ and they did a genetic test,” the sisters explain. That’s how she learned she carried a mutated version of the BRCA1 gene, known as the Angelina Jolie gene, whose name comes from BReast CANcer 1.

Carrying this mutation means having a greater than 60% chance of developing breast cancer, between 39% and 58% of developing ovarian cancer, and it is now known to be also linked to prostate, pancreatic, and melanoma cancers. She was also told to tell the whole family. María, Adriana and Paula received a message in their cousins’ WhatsApp group. “She told us, ‘This happened to me, get checked out because if you have it, it can be caught in time.’ She hasn’t died, but she went through a very difficult process. In the end, she lost a breast.”

The three sisters underwent genetic testing, a blood test that cost them €100. Three weeks later the results came in: all three had inherited a pathogenic mutation in the BRCA1 gene, discovered by the scientist Mary-Claire King. María is an optimistic woman and repeated the tests twice, thinking the results might be different, but they weren’t. “Yes, I had it,” she admits. “At that time I wasn’t afraid. As I got older, I was, but not in the same way as if you have cancer, because you live with the possibility that it won’t happen to you. You always count on the possibility that you might avoid it.”

Paula, the youngest of the three, accepted from the beginning that she carried the mutated gene deep within her cells. “I know I’m going to die from this,” she says. “I don’t know when, but I’m going to die of cancer. It’s clear, I have it inside my body.”

Adriana thought she was safe because she’d been told that, statistically, 50% of children are carriers, and her two sisters had already tested positive. Her plan was to have another baby. And the same week she found out she was a BRCA1 carrier, she got pregnant: “I wasn’t feeling well and I thought: Wait, they told you you have BRCA1, not cancer. It turns out it was the pregnancy.”

They say that when they learned of the diagnosis, they cried a lot and that only the women in the family wanted to know if they were carriers. “None of the men have been tested, as if it didn’t apply to them. But it does apply to them. They’re just afraid.”

The geneticist drew them a family tree, placing cancers on it like a detective. “My grandmother’s sister died of breast cancer; one of our aunts had pancreatic cancer and also died—you can’t escape that one. Our father had colon cancer, and the cousin who raised the alarm had cancer,” says María. That’s how they discovered the hereditary trait came down the paternal line, and they believe that their grandmother, who died at over 80 without developing the disease, was a silent carrier of the gene.

Within the same family with the same mutation, there is variability in risk, and not everyone develops the disease. “The gene predisposes you [to develop cancer], but it doesn’t cause cancer. Environmental factors and genetic background also play a role,” explains Rogelio González Sarmiento, coordinator of the genetic counseling and hereditary cancer unit at the Cancer Research Center in Salamanca. And it is precisely this variability that has presented these three women with a dilemma: what to do about a disease that hasn’t yet manifested and perhaps never will, but which poses a significant risk to their lives?

Hereditary cancers are rare tumors, occurring in less than 10% of diagnosed cancer cases. In the last decade, the number of known genes susceptible to mutation and potentially inherited has increased from around 40 to nearly 100.

Since receiving their diagnoses, the sisters have been attending genetic counseling clinics: María at the San Carlos Clinical Hospital in Madrid, Adriana at the Vall d’Hebron University Hospital in Barcelona, ​​and Paula at the San Jorge University Hospital in Huesca. Their options are to undergo intensive monitoring every six months or to have preventive surgeries that would remove a significant portion of their breast tissue (bilateral mastectomy), ovaries, and fallopian tubes (bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy). These operations involve profound changes to a woman’s body, such as breast implants or early menopause, in addition to the inherent risks of the surgeries themselves, and of course, life-altering ones—they would never be able to have children again—but they would likely prevent the need for chemotherapy, radiation therapy, and more extreme surgeries should they become ill. There are also estrogen-reducing drugs that, to some extent, can prevent these hormone-dependent tumors.

“Genetic counseling isn’t about getting your breasts or ovaries removed. It’s about having these options and choosing based on your life circumstances and goals. What do you want? Are you young and want children? Are you breastfeeding? Doctors provide the information, but it’s your decision,” says González. The three sisters made different choices.

Maria, journalist, 47 years old

Just over a year ago, María had both breasts, ovaries, and fallopian tubes removed. She spent more than seven and a half hours in the operating room, where she also received breast implants. She’s not entirely happy with them. Although she was a healthy woman, with no trace of illness, the entire protocol surrounding her operation was that of a cancer patient. She says that from the moment the idea was raised, she was absolutely certain she would have the surgery. She is the eldest of the three sisters.

“I was terrified, and I didn’t want to live with that fear my whole life. When you haven’t had surgery, you have a mammogram, breast and gynecological ultrasound, and tumor marker tests every six months… They even checked my freckles. Even so, I postponed the surgery for a year. One night, I dreamt I was being skinned alive. I called them and told them no, and they were a little angry. The following year, I had the surgery,” she explains. Although they were able to save both nipples and the ducts that supply them, she hasn’t finished her breast reconstruction yet and is on the waiting list to have her nipples tattooed.

Since the surgery, she has gone through early menopause. “It’s shocking. They remove your ovaries one day, and the next you start having insomnia. I realized that the emotional low I was feeling wasn’t so much because of the surgery as because of the menopause, so I started medication.” María has a nine-year-old daughter who cried a lot when she found out her mother had to have her breasts removed. “I had breastfed her for a long time… she would fall asleep with her hand on them,” she recalls.

Paula, fashion designer, 40 years old

“My daughter asks me why I have to have the surgery. I tell her, because Mommy is in danger,” says Paula, the youngest of the three. A mother of a seven-year-old girl, she was 35 when she was told she carried a pathogenic version of BRCA1 and she still wanted to have another child. Since then, she has had several miscarriages, but she has now made her decision and will have a mastectomy this year. “My doctor told me it’s more important that I’m alive for the daughter that I have than dead for the one I might have.” She prefers to have the two surgeries separately and plans to have her ovaries removed in a couple of years to avoid going through menopause too early.

“I knew that sooner or later I’d have to have surgery, but I saw it as something further off.” She also says that she now finds the tests every six months difficult; the CT scan makes her want to vomit, the Pap smears hurt, the injections in her breasts… “But what am I supposed to do?” she says. “Put up with the pain or find out if something has grown, given my genetics? Because they never just give me a mammogram and send me home. They always find something with me: ‘You can all go home except Paula López.’ And that time feels like an eternity.”

Adriana, photographer, 44 years old

Adriana has two daughters and is still breastfeeding, so for now she has checkups every six months. Until her second daughter turned two, she participated in a breast milk study program to determine if breast cancer can be detected at an earlier stage in breast milk, even before imaging techniques or blood tests.

She hasn’t decided to have the surgery yet. “Because of long breastfeeding periods and my job, where I spend all day surrounded by babies, I’m still more connected to childbirth than to menopause. And that’s a big deterrent to surgery. It’s such a big undertaking for my body, and I still don’t know if I’ll develop [cancer]. But I’m very grateful for the gene because it makes me happier, allows me to enjoy my daughters and life more. It makes me aware of how lucky I am to be here, that it’s a gift.”

Interestingly, all three have had daughters and hope that, by the time they grow up, they will face less definitive dilemmas than their own.

Sign up for our weekly newsletter to get more English-language news coverage from EL PAÍS USA Edition

Something is changing in breast cancer: it remains the most common tumor among women, but risk profiles are not the same. This group of diseases continues to be closely linked to aging, and in fact, most diagnoses occur in women over 55; however, in recent decades, cases in premenopausal women have been increasing more rapidly. A study published this Monday in The Lancet Oncology reveals that, while the rate of new diagnoses in older women has not changed substantially in the last three decades, in women between 20 and 54 years old it has increased by 29% since 1990.

According to the research, which provides an overview of the breast cancer situation in more than 200 countries, 161 new cases per 100,000 women over 55 were diagnosed in 2023. This is three times higher than the number diagnosed among women aged 20 to 54 (50 new cases per 100,000). The interpretation is that age remains a key factor in the risk of developing breast cancer, but by broadening the focus and observing the trend of recent decades, scientists have discovered that diagnoses among younger women, while far fewer, are increasing at a faster rate.

The researchers don’t delve deeply into the causes of this shift, but for oncologists like Gemma Viñas, head of the Breast Cancer Unit at the Catalan Institute of Oncology in Girona, in northeastern Spain, the data aligns with what they observe in their practice: “The incidence is increasing in all age groups, but we are seeing a greater increase in young women.” Isabel Echavarria, scientific secretary of the Spanish Society of Medical Oncology, agrees: “There is evidence that the incidence is increasing in young women, and this is something that worries us oncologists.”

The reasons behind this phenomenon are, to a large extent, still a mystery. Viñas asserts that there is probably “an impact from changes in reproductive factors,” such as the earlier onset of menstruation or the delay in motherhood and the number of children (breastfeeding and pregnancies are protective factors). Other modifiable risk factors, linked to lifestyle, such as being overweight or alcohol consumption, may also be playing a role, she suggests. “In young patients, we don’t know the real cause. It’s probably the sum of many factors,” she hints.

This isn’t the first time science has observed a rise in cancer, a disease traditionally associated with aging, among young adults. According to a study published in the journal BMJ Oncology in 2023, tumors in people under 50 have increased by almost 80% in three decades. Colon cancer is the most paradigmatic, and the one where this emerging trend has been most studied, but it’s not limited to that: it has also been observed in endometrial, kidney, thyroid, and breast cancer, among others. The scientific community is intrigued and has yet to fully define the scope of the phenomenon—some studies find this trend in 13 tumors, others reduce it to half a dozen—but many experts attribute it to the rise in unhealthy lifestyle habits, such as smoking, a poor diet, and being sedentary.

The environment in which an individual grows up could be key. Even before birth, as some experts suggest that exposures in utero can lead to molecular alterations that influence susceptibility to disease. In this regard, some studies suggest that reproductive factors (age at menstruation onset, whether or not breastfeeding was received, fertility rate, use of oral contraceptives, and more), as well as smoking, eating habits, alcohol consumption, lifestyle, and pre-existing conditions of the mother during pregnancy, “could be relevant intrauterine exposures.”

Breast cancer in young women also tends to be more aggressive, Viñas points out. “[This patient profile] usually has more proliferative tumors, and the diagnosis is usually made at more advanced stages because they are not part of screening programs,” she explains.

Echavarria adds that the lack of awareness about the possibility of developing cancer at these ages also contributes to the problem, leading to delays in seeking medical attention. “Furthermore, breast cancer screening tests, such as mammograms, are less sensitive in young women because they have denser breasts, making it more difficult to detect a tumor,” this oncologist explains. However, the rise in breast cancer cases at younger ages has encouraged European guidelines to recommend lowering the starting age for screening from 50 to 45 years.

Inequalities between countries

Beyond this specific phenomenon that keeps the scientific community on alert, the study in The Lancet Oncology also reviews global trends in breast cancer and estimates that in 2023 there were 2.3 million new cases of this tumor and 764,000 women died from this cause.

However, the data reveals that there are several worlds within the same planet. In wealthy countries, where there has been “success in detection, diagnosis, and treatment,” the authors say, the incidence remains stable and mortality rates are declining (five-year survival rates are between 85% and 90%). In contrast, lower-income regions are experiencing an explosion of new diagnoses, and due to deficiencies in their healthcare systems and limited (or nonexistent) access to top-tier diagnostic and therapeutic resources, mortality rates are also skyrocketing (one study in Africa placed the three-year survival rate at 50%).

According to the authors, in a scenario of population growth and aging, the forecast for 2050 across the globe is that new diagnoses will grow by a third (to 3.5 million) and deaths will increase by 44% (to 1.4 million), but the effect will not be homogeneous across the planet: they predict that there will be “a disproportionate impact on countries with limited resources.”

Modifiable risk factors

Researchers are calling for “immediate and decisive action” to address the growing inequalities across the globe and are urging resources to close the diagnostic and treatment gap. They also emphasize the significant role of modifiable risk factors: according to their calculations, more than a quarter (28%) of the global burden of breast cancer—that is, years of life lost due to poor health or premature death—is linked to modifiable risk factors such as smoking, high blood sugar, obesity, sedentary lifestyles, and alcohol consumption.

The authors believe that while some changes in reproductive factors mean fewer women benefit from the protective effect of childbirth, “these changes are unlikely to be the main drivers of breast cancer incidence.” They add, “Instead, the steady increase in exposure to other risk factors, such as early menarche [the onset of menstruation], late menopause, and increased obesity, could result in stable trends in breast cancer incidence by offsetting improvements in exposure to other risk factors, such as alcohol and tobacco use.”

Sign up for our weekly newsletter to get more English-language news coverage from EL PAÍS USA Edition