Clinical Trial Intelligence

Which CROs Support Leukemia Phase II and III Trials in Europe, and When Are They Needed Most?

18 June 2026

Across 237 leukemia Phase II and Phase III CTIS trials authorised in 2024–2026, CROs or CRO-like outsourced providers appear in 96 trials, or 40.5%. The strongest activity signal is trial complexity: CRO use reaches 35/43 trials (81.4%) once a leukemia trial spans 7 or more European countries, while Phase III trials show 43/76 CRO use (56.6%). IQVIA is the most active named provider, appearing in 31 trials, followed by ICON/PRA and Parexel/Perceptive with 25 trials each.

Trials analysed
237
Leukemia Phase II/III CTIS records
CRO-supported
96
96/237 trials, 40.5%
Most active CRO
IQVIA
31/237 trials, 13.1%
Strongest threshold
7+ countries
35/43 trials, 81.4%

Which CROs are most active in European leukemia Phase II/III trials?

The leading named CRO/provider is IQVIA, listed in 31/237 trials (13.1%). ICON/PRA and Parexel/Perceptive each appear in 25/237 trials (10.5%), while PPD/Thermo Fisher appears in 21/237 trials (8.9%). CRO/provider counting is trial-level: a provider is counted once per trial even if listed more than once in the CTIS sponsor record.

Top named CROs and outsourced clinical service providers by trial count
IQVIA
31 trials · 13.1%
ICON / PRA
25 trials · 10.5%
Parexel / Perceptive
25 trials · 10.5%
PPD / Thermo Fisher
21 trials · 8.9%
Almac
17 trials · 7.2%
Signant Health / ERT
12 trials · 5.1%
Labcorp
11 trials · 4.6%
Medidata
11 trials · 4.6%
Syneos Health
8 trials · 3.4%
4G Clinical
8 trials · 3.4%
Denominator: 237 unique leukemia Phase II/III CTIS trials, 2024–2026. Multiple providers can be listed for one trial.
Interpretation

Leukemia outsourcing is not dominated by one full-service CRO alone. The CTIS sponsor records show a layered model: IQVIA, ICON/PRA, Parexel/Perceptive, and PPD/Thermo Fisher lead broad operational coverage, while Almac, Signant/ERT, Labcorp, Medidata, 4G Clinical, and similar providers cover specialised EU submission, data, IRT, lab, and trial-technology functions.

Does CRO use rise in Phase III and newer CTIS submissions?

CRO use is materially higher in Phase III leukemia trials: 43/76 Phase III trials (56.6%) list a CRO, compared with 49/152 Phase II trials (32.2%). By authorisation year, CRO use rises from 58/158 trials in 2024 (36.7%) to 27/58 in 2025 (46.6%) and 11/21 in 2026 (52.4%).

CRO-supported trials as a percentage of each phase/year group
By phase
Phase III
43/76 56.6%
Phase II/III overlap
4/9 44.4%
Phase II
49/152 32.2%
By CTIS authorisation year
2024
58/158 36.7%
2025
27/58 46.6%
2026
11/21 52.4%
Phase groups are deduplicated at trial level; Phase II/III overlap trials are shown separately.
Interpretation

The CRO trigger is not simply “leukemia”; it is late-stage execution complexity. Phase III leukemia trials require more country coordination, monitoring, vendor governance, data systems, lab support, and CTIS Part II country execution, which explains the higher CRO intensity.

At what country footprint are CROs needed most?

Country count is the clearest outsourcing threshold in the leukemia dataset. CRO use is only 15/115 trials (13.0%) in single-country trials, but rises to 24/37 trials (64.9%) at 4–6 countries and 35/43 trials (81.4%) at 7 or more CTIS countries.

Percentage of leukemia trials with CRO support by country-count stratum
1 country
15/115 13.0%
2–3 countries
15/35 42.9%
4–6 countries
24/37 64.9%
7+ countries
35/43 81.4%
Country count is based on CTIS trial geography country entries.
Interpretation

For leukemia trial managers, 7 or more European countries is the strongest practical CRO-buying signal. At that point, CTIS/EU submission coordination, Part II country responses, local contracts, site activation, translations, and vendor oversight become difficult to manage with sponsor-only infrastructure.

At what site capacity does CRO use increase?

CRO use rises with the number of European sites. It is 6/34 trials (17.6%) in 1–3 site trials, 19/51 (37.3%) in 4–10 site trials, 29/76 (38.2%) in 11–25 site trials, and 33/61 (54.1%) once a trial reaches 26 or more sites.

Percentage of leukemia trials with CRO support by site-count stratum
1–3 sites
6/34 17.6%
4–10 sites
19/51 37.3%
11–25 sites
29/76 38.2%
26+ sites
33/61 54.1%
Site count is based on CTIS geography totals and country-level site entries.
Interpretation

The operational inflection point appears around 26 sites. Below that level, many academic and hospital-network leukemia studies remain sponsor-run; above it, monitoring, site payment, contracting, data cleaning, central lab, and IRT demands increasingly require outsourced infrastructure.

At what participant volume are CROs most used?

Participant volume shows a more moderate relationship than country count. The highest CRO-use rate is in the 151–300 participant stratum, where 18/38 trials (47.4%) list CRO support. The largest absolute CRO-backed volume is in 51–150 participant trials, with 33 CRO-supported trials out of 77 (42.9%).

Percentage of leukemia trials with CRO support by participant-count stratum
1–50 participants
28/92 30.4%
51–150 participants
33/77 42.9%
151–300 participants
18/38 47.4%
301+ participants
10/23 43.5%
Participant count is based on CTIS geography totals and country-level participant entries.
Interpretation

For leukemia, participant count alone is not the strongest CRO trigger. A 200-patient, 3-country trial may be easier to manage than a 100-patient, 10-country trial; the CTIS data points to geographic spread and site count as the more actionable outsourcing thresholds.

Which leukemia indications need CRO support most?

CRO use is highest in chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma/Richter transformation trials, where 35/60 trials (58.3%) list CRO support. AML trials have the highest absolute disease volume after CLL/SLL, with 21/58 CRO-supported trials (36.2%), while AML/MDS overlap trials show 12/30 CRO use (40.0%).

Percentage of trials with CRO support by leukemia disease group
CLL/SLL/Richter
35/60 58.3%
AML
21/58 36.2%
ALL
15/44 34.1%
AML / MDS overlap
12/30 40.0%
CML
5/13 38.5%
Other leukemia
3/13 23.1%
Disease groups are normalised from CTIS disease text: AML, ALL, CLL/SLL/Richter, AML/MDS, CML, and other leukemia.
Interpretation

CLL/SLL and Richter transformation appear to be the most CRO-intensive leukemia niche in this CTIS cohort. These trials often include multi-country mature haematology networks, biomarker/lab vendors, IRT systems, and commercial sponsors, making them stronger outsourcing candidates than many smaller academic AML or ALL studies.

Where do CRO-backed leukemia CTIS submissions concentrate in Europe?

The largest CRO-backed trial-country footprints are Spain with 64 CRO-backed trial-country entries, Italy with 61, France with 55, Germany with 52, and Poland with 42. In CRO-backed trials, Spain accounts for 406 sites and 2,304 participants, while Italy accounts for 430 sites and 1,479 participants.

CRO-backed trial-country entries with site and participant footprint
Spain
64 trial-country entries · 406 sites · 2304 participants
Italy
61 trial-country entries · 430 sites · 1479 participants
France
55 trial-country entries · 364 sites · 1708 participants
Germany
52 trial-country entries · 326 sites · 1469 participants
Poland
42 trial-country entries · 210 sites · 1462 participants
Czechia
32 trial-country entries · 100 sites · 716 participants
Belgium
29 trial-country entries · 92 sites · 369 participants
Netherlands
25 trial-country entries · 83 sites · 418 participants
One trial can contribute to multiple CTIS country entries.
Interpretation

CRO-backed leukemia trials concentrate in the major EU haematology markets: Spain, Italy, France, Germany, and Poland. These are the countries where CTIS Part II coordination, site activation, contracting, and patient allocation are most likely to require a centralised operating model.

Which functions are most often outsourced?

The most common outsourced function category is clinical operations/full-service CRO support, appearing in 83/237 trials (35.0%). Laboratory, biomarker, diagnostics, and PK support appears in 74/237 trials (31.2%), followed by eClinical, EDC/eCOA, and TMF systems in 48/237 (20.3%) and IRT/randomisation technology in 47/237 (19.8%).

Trials listing each outsourced function category
Clinical operations / full-service CRO
83 trials · 35.0%
Laboratory, biomarker, diagnostics, PK
74 trials · 31.2%
eClinical, EDC/eCOA, TMF
48 trials · 20.3%
IRT / randomisation technology
47 trials · 19.8%
Supplies, site payments, contracting
38 trials · 16.0%
Patient recruitment / reimbursement
31 trials · 13.1%
Central imaging
20 trials · 8.4%
Function categories are normalised from CTIS sponsor third-party duties and listed CRO responsibilities.
Interpretation

Leukemia trials outsource beyond monitoring. The CTIS records point to a common operating stack: central lab and biomarker vendors, eCOA/EDC/TMF systems, IRT/randomisation, supplies, site payments, patient travel/reimbursement, and imaging. This is especially relevant for AML, ALL, and CLL studies with MRD, PK/PD, central diagnostics, or multi-country EU submission requirements.

Which adjacent CTIS signals also predict CRO use?

Sponsor type is a major outsourcing signal: industry/pharma sponsors use CROs in 79/102 trials (77.5%), compared with 16/124 academic, hospital, or network-sponsored trials (12.9%). Orphan-designated leukemia trials also show higher CRO use at 39/74 trials (52.7%), compared with 57/163 non-orphan trials (35.0%).

Percentage of trials with CRO support by sponsor/designation group
Industry / pharma sponsors
79/102 77.5%
Academic / hospital / network sponsors
16/124 12.9%
Orphan-designated trials
39/74 52.7%
Paediatric trials
20/45 44.4%
Groups are derived from CTIS sponsor organisation type, paediatric flag, and orphan-drug flag.
Interpretation

The best CRO prospecting filters in leukemia are industry sponsorship, orphan designation, Phase III status, 7+ CTIS countries, and 26+ sites. Academic/hospital studies are common in the dataset but are much less likely to list a CRO unless they carry multinational or paediatric network complexity.

Definitions used in this report

CRO-supported trial: a trial where the CTIS sponsor record lists one or more organisations under cro_present.cros. This can include full-service CROs and specialised outsourced clinical service providers.

CTIS: the Clinical Trials Information System used for EU/EEA clinical trial applications; Part II information is country-specific and covers national/site-level assessment and authorisation details.

Disease shorthand: AML = acute myeloid leukemia; ALL = acute lymphoblastic leukemia; CLL = chronic lymphocytic leukemia; SLL = small lymphocytic lymphoma; CML = chronic myeloid leukemia; MDS = myelodysplastic syndrome.