How Fast Are EU Phase II Haematology CTIS Reviews and What Delays Them?
Clinical Trial Intelligence

How Fast Are EU Phase II Haematology CTIS Reviews and What Delays Them?

19 July 2026

Across 228 Phase II haematology trials, median EU/CTIS end-to-end review was 53.5 days (SD 43.7), and 127/228 trials (55.7%) reached first authorization within 60 days. Country-specific Part II was materially longer: median 243.0 days (SD 239.5) across 486 trial-country decisions, with only 150/486 (30.9%) completed within 60 days. August–September submissions, smaller country footprints, and plasma-cell or leukaemia/myeloid trials aligned with faster end-to-end review; November–December submissions, seven or more countries, non-malignant haematology, and complex Part II profiles aligned with delay.

Trials analysed
228
European Phase II haematology CTIS submissions
End-to-end median
53.5 days
SD 43.7 · initial CTIS submission to first authorization
Part II median
243.0 days
SD 239.5 · country submission to latest decision
Within 60 days
55.7% / 30.9%
End-to-end / country-specific Part II

Two CTIS timelines answer different operational questions

End-to-end timing is an EU/CTIS trial-level measure and is therefore not assigned to individual countries. Part II timing is country-specific and measures the national ethics and local-document pathway from the earliest Part II submission to the latest recorded decision or authorization.

EU/CTIS end-to-end
53.5 days
Median across 228 trials; mean 63.6 days and sample SD 43.7.
Country-specific Part II
243.0 days
Median across 486 trial-country decisions; mean 277.8 days and sample SD 239.5.
Interpretation

Country comparisons should use Part II only. Reporting end-to-end timing by country would incorrectly attribute the coordinated EU/CTIS authorization pathway to a single member state.

How often were reviews completed within key intervals?

End-to-end review crossed 50% between 30 and 60 days: 79/228 trials (34.6%) were authorized within 30 days and 127/228 (55.7%) within 60. Part II crossed 50% only after 180 days: 215/486 decisions (44.2%) were completed within 180 days and 309/486 (63.6%) within one year.

End-to-end cumulative completion
Within 30 days
34.6%
79/228 trials
Within 60 days
55.7%
127/228 trials
Within 90 days
65.8%
150/228 trials
Within 120 days
88.6%
202/228 trials
Within 180 days
99.6%
227/228 trials
Part II cumulative completion
Within 30 days
20.8%
101/486 trial-country decisions
Within 60 days
30.9%
150/486 trial-country decisions
Within 90 days
35.8%
174/486 trial-country decisions
Within 120 days
39.3%
191/486 trial-country decisions
Within 180 days
44.2%
215/486 trial-country decisions
Within 365 days
63.6%
309/486 trial-country decisions
Interpretation

A 60-day planning assumption covered 55.7% of end-to-end reviews but only 30.9% of Part II decisions. For Part II, even a 90-day assumption covered just 35.8%.

Which countries moved Part II fastest?

Among countries with at least five observed decisions, Norway had the lowest Part II median at 26.5 days, followed by Finland at 53.0 and the Netherlands at 63.0. Germany had the highest median at 354.5 days, followed by Greece at 332.5 and Belgium at 305.0.

Part II processing time by country
Country Decisions Median days SD days
Iceland 1 9.0
Norway 16 26.5 238.9
Lithuania 2 27.5 10.6
Romania 3 28.0 56.8
Ireland 1 31.0
Finland 11 53.0 192.6
Netherlands 29 63.0 269.3
Bulgaria 6 89.0 93.3
Portugal 1 99.0
Czechia 8 120.5 215.4
Sweden 21 150.0 234.8
Austria 7 162.0 181.1
Poland 17 168.0 255.2
Hungary 6 172.5 255.8
France 88 252.0 240.6
Italy 80 263.5 248.3
Spain 59 268.0 223.0
Denmark 25 282.0 221.0
Estonia 2 284.5 381.1
Belgium 29 305.0 242.4
Greece 16 332.5 240.0
Germany 58 354.5 244.8
Interpretation

Country was the dominant Part II differentiator: medians ranged from 9.0 to 354.5 days. For operational benchmarking, the more stable ≥5-observation range was 26.5 days in Norway to 354.5 days in Germany.

When did EU submissions move fastest?

Submission month showed the clearest end-to-end timing pattern without using submission year. August and September submissions had medians of 23.5 and 31.0 days; November and December rose to 106.0 and 119.0 days. Across August–September, 39/54 trials (72.2%) were faster than the overall median and only 8/54 (14.8%) lasted at least 90 days.

Median end-to-end days and ≥90-day delay rate
Jan
55.0 d
12 trials · 16.7% ≥90 d
Feb
84.0 d
15 trials · 40.0% ≥90 d
Mar
104.0 d
10 trials · 70.0% ≥90 d
Apr
77.0 d
9 trials · 22.2% ≥90 d
May
73.5 d
12 trials · 41.7% ≥90 d
Jun
29.0 d
14 trials · 14.3% ≥90 d
Jul
47.0 d
37 trials · 43.2% ≥90 d
Aug
23.5 d
28 trials · 17.9% ≥90 d
Sep
31.0 d
26 trials · 11.5% ≥90 d
Oct
34.0 d
31 trials · 22.6% ≥90 d
Nov
106.0 d
17 trials · 52.9% ≥90 d
Dec
119.0 d
17 trials · 82.4% ≥90 d
Interpretation

November–December submissions had a combined median of 119.0 days and 23/34 (67.6%) lasted at least 90 days, versus a 28.5-day median and 8/54 (14.8%) ≥90 days for August–September. In the adjusted model, December, March, November, and February remained 64%–129% longer than September (all p≤0.035).

Which trial factors aligned with faster or delayed end-to-end review?

Country footprint and disease group were the strongest reproducible trial-level factors. Single-country submissions had a 42.0-day median, versus 109.0 days for submissions spanning seven or more countries. Non-malignant haematology had a 111.0-day median, compared with 31.0 days for plasma-cell disorders and 34.0 days for leukaemia/myeloid trials.

Country footprint
CountriesNMedianFast≥90 d
1 countries 141 42.0 53.2% 28.4%
2–3 countries 43 56.0 48.8% 37.2%
4–6 countries 32 72.0 46.9% 43.8%
7+ countries 12 109.0 25.0% 66.7%
Disease group
Disease groupNMedianFast≥90 d
Plasma-cell disorders 36 31.0 63.9% 22.2%
Leukaemia / myeloid 77 34.0 61.0% 27.3%
Lymphoma / WM 67 56.0 41.8% 34.3%
Other haematology 23 75.0 43.5% 34.8%
Non-malignant haematology 25 111.0 24.0% 72.0%
Factors that persisted—or did not—in adjusted screening
More countries
+8.6% per country
Model-estimated longer end-to-end review for each additional country, p=0.015.
Non-malignant disease
+75.6%
Versus leukaemia/myeloid after adjustment, p=0.008.
Sponsor pattern
94 vs 40 days
Pharma versus academic/healthcare median; the adjusted direction remained longer but did not reach p<0.05 (p=0.072).
Planned recruitment window
ρ = −0.39
Longer planned windows correlated with shorter review, p<0.001; this is a descriptive cohort signal, not evidence that longer recruitment causes faster approval.
Interpretation

Randomization (58.0 vs 51.0 days; p=0.258), open-label design (53.0 vs 54.0; p=0.669), adaptive design (45.0 vs 54.5; p=0.454), biomarker stratification (56.0 vs 53.0; p=0.698), total sites (ρ=0.10; p=0.138), and sample size (ρ=−0.02; p=0.783) showed no consistent end-to-end signal.

What correlated with country-specific Part II delay?

Part II delay reflected both national review environment and submission complexity. One-site country packages had a 116.0-day median, rising to 330.5 days for packages with at least ten sites. After accounting for country and the other screened factors, multimodality, pharmaceutical sponsorship, bispecific therapy, CRO involvement, adaptive design, and country site load remained associated with longer Part II timing.

Country site load
Sites in countryNMedianFast≥90 d
1 sites 108 116.0 61.1% 53.7%
2–4 sites 168 253.5 49.4% 66.7%
5–9 sites 105 263.0 47.6% 63.8%
10+ sites 104 330.5 42.3% 72.1%
Factors remaining after country adjustment
Multimodality
337 vs 189 days
Median Part II; 78.6% vs 57.8% lasted ≥90 days. Adjusted association: +87%, p=0.001.
Pharma sponsor
276 vs 180 days
Versus academic/healthcare sponsors; 70.7% vs 57.3% lasted ≥90 days. Adjusted: +110%, p=0.004.
Bispecific antibody
431 vs 233 days
84.7% vs 61.6% lasted ≥90 days. Adjusted association: +88%, p=0.019.
CRO present
275 vs 180 days
69.2% vs 60.2% lasted ≥90 days. Adjusted association: +61%, p=0.038.
Adaptive design
291 vs 150 days
73.4% vs 58.5% lasted ≥90 days. Adjusted association: +53%, p=0.049.
Country site load
331 vs 116 days
Median for 10+ versus one site; site load remained associated after country adjustment, p=0.025.
Interpretation

The practical Part II risk stack is cumulative: a multi-modality, bispecific, pharma-sponsored, CRO-supported submission with many sites carries several independent markers of delay. These markers should trigger earlier local-document preparation and larger country-specific schedule buffers.

What should EU submission teams plan for?

The dataset supports four concrete planning rules for Phase II haematology CTIS submissions.

1 · Separate the clocks
54 days is not 243 days
Use 53.5 days for the trial-level EU/CTIS end-to-end median and 243.0 days for country-specific Part II. Do not assign the end-to-end metric to countries.
2 · Size the country buffer
42 → 109 days
End-to-end median increased from 42.0 days for one country to 109.0 for seven or more; 66.7% of 7+ country trials lasted ≥90 days.
3 · Treat late-year submissions as high risk
67.6% ≥90 days
For November–December submissions, compared with 14.8% for August–September.
4 · Escalate complex Part II packages early
331-day median at 10+ sites
Compared with 116 days for one-site country packages; multi-modality and bispecific submissions had medians of 336.5 and 431.0 days.

Definitions and analytical approach

CTIS is the Clinical Trials Information System used for EU clinical trial applications. End-to-end is the interval from initial CTIS submission to first CTIS authorization at trial level. Part II is the interval from earliest country Part II submission to latest recorded country decision or authorization. “Fast” means shorter than the relevant median; substantial delay is reported at ≥60 and ≥90 days. Medians and sample standard deviations are shown. All analyses pooled the 228-trial cohort and excluded year as an explanatory variable.