Across 294 European ADC phase 1 - 3 trials, 187 trials named at least one CRO or CRO-like operational provider, equal to 63.6% of the dataset. IQVIA / Q2 Solutions, Clario / Bioclinica / ERT, Parexel / Perceptive, and PPD / Thermo Fisher were the most active provider groups. CRO demand was strongest when ADC studies became multi-country CTIS/EU submission programmes: 80 of 95 trials with 6+ countries used CRO support.
Among 187 CRO-supported ADC phase 1 - 3 trials, IQVIA / Q2 Solutions appeared in 74 trials (39.6%), followed by Clario / Bioclinica / ERT in 72 trials (38.5%), Parexel / Perceptive in 71 trials (38.0%), and PPD / Thermo Fisher in 70 trials (37.4%).
ADC outsourcing is not dominated by one full-service CRO. The top four provider groups each appeared in 37.4%–39.6% of CRO-supported trials, indicating a distributed vendor ecosystem across central lab, imaging, operational, safety, and CTIS/EU submission support.
Phase 1 ADC trial memberships had CRO support in 66 of 91 trials (72.5%). Phase 3 memberships were nearly identical at 74 of 102 trials (72.5%), while phase 2 memberships had 123 of 195 CRO-supported trials (63.1%).
| Phase membership | CRO-supported | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Phase I | 66 / 91 | 72.5% |
| Phase II | 123 / 195 | 63.1% |
| Phase III | 74 / 102 | 72.5% |
| Phase I + II hybrids | 65 / 81 | 80.2% |
| Phase II + III hybrids | 11 / 11 | 100.0% |
CRO demand is elevated both in early ADC development, where dose escalation and biomarker workflows are common, and in phase 3, where CTIS/EU submissions, site activation, imaging, and safety oversight expand across countries.
The strongest capacity signal was country footprint: 80 of 95 ADC trials with 6+ countries used CRO support (84.2%). Site footprint was also strong, with 76 of 103 trials using CROs at 31+ sites (73.8%). Disease complexity peaked at 23 of 27 trials with 4+ disease terms using CROs (85.2%).
The practical trigger for CRO demand is not just participant volume. CRO-supported trials had a median of 5 countries and 22 sites, compared with 1 country and 15 sites in non-CRO trials, making geographic and site-management complexity the clearest outsourcing driver.
Endometrial / uterine cancer had CRO support in 14 of 15 ADC trials (93.3%), ovarian / fallopian / peritoneal cancer in 24 of 26 trials (92.3%), and urothelial / bladder cancer in 20 of 23 trials (87.0%). Lung cancer generated the largest CRO-supported volume, with 50 CRO-supported trials out of 67 (74.6%).
| Indication family | CRO-supported | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Endometrial / uterine cancer | 14 / 15 | 93.3% |
| Ovarian / fallopian / peritoneal cancer | 24 / 26 | 92.3% |
| Urothelial / bladder cancer | 20 / 23 | 87.0% |
| Lung cancer | 50 / 67 | 74.6% |
| GI cancers | 23 / 31 | 74.2% |
| Breast cancer | 34 / 69 | 49.3% |
CRO demand is strongest where ADC development combines competitive oncology indications, imaging-based response assessment, biomarker testing, and multi-country CTIS/EU submission footprints. Lung cancer is the largest demand pool by absolute CRO-supported trial count.
Among 187 CRO-supported trials, imaging / BICR / radiology review was explicitly named in 110 trials (58.8%), central lab / biomarker / PK-ADA work in 103 trials (55.1%), and safety / adjudication / medical call-center services in 85 trials (45.5%). Regulatory, CTIS, submission, or site-contracting roles appeared in 29 trials (15.5%).
We continuously analyze new and updated clinical trial data and publish practical, evidence-led reports for clinical leaders.
