Clinical Trial Intelligence

What Drives Phase I Cell Therapy CTIS Timelines and Delays?

20 July 2026

Across 153 European Phase I cell therapy trials, the median CTIS end to end review interval was 77 days with an SD of 50.5 days. Country-specific CTIS Part II intervals were materially longer and more variable, with a median of 189 days and an SD of 233.7 days across 205 country observations. Faster outcomes clustered around October submissions, orphan-designated studies and submissions involving two to three countries, while December submissions, first-in-human studies, four or more countries and larger country site networks were associated with delay.

Trials included
153
European Phase I and Phase I/II cell therapy trials
CTIS end to end
77 days
Median · SD 50.5 days
Country Part II
189 days
Median · SD 233.7 days
Authorized by day 90
56.9%
87 of 153 end to end reviews

CTIS end to end review was faster than country-specific Part II

The observed CTIS end to end interval—from initial EU submission to first authorization—had a median of 77 days and SD of 50.5 days. The country-specific Part II interval—from the earliest national Part II submission to the latest national decision or authorization—had a median of 189 days and SD of 233.7 days. These are separate measures and are not additive.

Observed CTIS timing distributions
End to end
77 days
n=153 trials · mean 71.2 days
Part II by country
189 days
n=205 country observations · mean 245.5 days
End to end median
77
Initial CTIS submission to first authorization
Country Part II median
189
Earliest country Part II submission to latest decision/authorization
European CTIS/EU submission timelines; days are calendar-day intervals observed in the dataset.
Interpretation

The country-specific Part II measure was 112 days longer at the median and showed more than four times the dispersion by SD. Country execution—not the shared end to end authorization alone—therefore produced the widest timing uncertainty in this Phase I cell therapy cohort.

How often were CTIS approvals reached within common planning windows?

For end to end CTIS review, 56 of 153 trials (36.6%) were authorized within 30 days, 72 (47.1%) within 60 days and 87 (56.9%) within 90 days. For country Part II, 49 of 205 observations (23.9%) completed within 30 days, 71 (34.6%) within 60 days and 86 (42.0%) within 90 days.

Cumulative authorization percentages by interval
Interval End to end Trials Part II Country records
≤30 days 36.6% 56/153 23.9% 49/205
≤60 days 47.1% 72/153 34.6% 71/205
≤90 days 56.9% 87/153 42.0% 86/205
≤120 days 83.7% 128/153 45.9% 94/205
≤180 days 98.0% 150/153 48.8% 100/205
≤240 days 100.0% 153/153 56.6% 116/205
≤365 days 100.0% 153/153 71.2% 146/205
Cumulative share completed at or before each threshold; percentages use 153 trials and 205 country-level Part II observations.
Interpretation

The 77-day end to end median sits between the 60- and 90-day planning windows: fewer than half of trials cleared by day 60, but 83.7% cleared by day 120. Country Part II crossed 50% only after 180 days, reaching 56.6% by day 240 and 71.2% by one year.

Country-specific CTIS Part II timing varied widely

Among countries with at least 10 Part II observations, Spain had the shortest median at 115 days, followed by Italy at 204 days, the Netherlands at 225 days, France at 240.5 days, Germany at 248 days and Belgium at 282 days. The full table reports median and SD for every country represented.

Median Part II days in countries with at least 10 observations
Spain
115
n=47 country observations
Italy
204
n=23 country observations
Netherlands
225
n=17 country observations
France
240.5
n=34 country observations
Germany
248
n=39 country observations
Belgium
282
n=10 country observations
Country-specific Part II only; end to end CTIS timing is not assigned to individual countries.
All country Part II medians and standard deviations
Country n Median days SD days
Austria 2 25 5.7
Slovenia 1 27
Hungary 1 40
Romania 1 65
Czechia 3 75 76.4
Denmark 7 78 180.1
Norway 2 106 137.2
Spain 47 115 240.1
Poland 8 150 226.5
Italy 23 204 241.1
Netherlands 17 225 225.7
Luxembourg 1 231
France 34 240.5 226.5
Germany 39 248 250.2
Belgium 10 282 325.1
Greece 2 298.5 211.4
Sweden 7 329 196.5
SD is shown when at least two country observations were available; country rows are ordered by median Part II days.
Interpretation

Country selection materially changes the expected Part II schedule. Among higher-volume countries, Spain’s median was 133 days shorter than Germany’s and 167 days shorter than Belgium’s, while high SDs show that country medians should be used with contingency buffers rather than as fixed deadlines.

Submission month was the strongest calendar pattern

October submissions had a 31-day median and 18 of 23 trials (78.3%) finished below the overall 77-day median. December submissions had a 112-day median; only 3 of 20 (15.0%) were below median and 16 of 20 (80.0%) took at least 90 days. June was also favorable at 33 days, while May and November had medians of 104 and 93 days.

End to end CTIS timing by submission month
Month n Median Below 77d ≥90d
January 15 22 60.0% 33.3%
February 3 105 0.0% 66.7%
March 3 111 0.0% 100.0%
April 9 50 55.6% 44.4%
May 7 104 14.3% 85.7%
June 15 33 73.3% 26.7%
July 16 75 50.0% 50.0%
August 17 27 58.8% 35.3%
September 13 52 61.5% 30.8%
October 23 31 78.3% 13.0%
November 12 93 25.0% 50.0%
December 20 112 15.0% 80.0%
Month of initial CTIS/EU submission; submission year was not used in the analysis.
Interpretation

The calendar signal was directional rather than uniform: October and June had the clearest faster medians, while December was the clearest high-risk month. For planning, a December EU submission carried a 6.1-fold higher observed 90-day delay rate than October (80.0% versus 13.0%).

Operational scale increased delay once submissions became large

End to end CTIS timing rose to a 124.5-day median for submissions involving four or more countries, compared with 79 days for one country and 29.5 days for two to three countries. At country level, Part II timing rose from 87 days for one-site country packages to 232 days for two to five sites and 296.5 days for six or more sites.

Operational scale and median CTIS days
Countries per EU submission
2–3 countries (n=12)
29.5 days
1 country (n=129)
79 days
4+ countries (n=12)
124.5 days
Sites per trial
2–5 sites (n=44)
35 days
1 site (n=73)
79 days
6+ sites (n=36)
98 days
Across individual country records, Part II site count had a weak positive correlation with processing time (Spearman ρ=0.20, p=0.005). End to end country count had a weaker, non-significant monotonic correlation (ρ=0.13, p=0.111), so the category medians should be interpreted descriptively.
Country count refers to the EU submission footprint; site count refers to listed sites in each trial or country package.
Country Part II timing by number of sites
1 site
87 days
n=96; 49.0% at 90 days or longer
2–5 sites
232 days
n=79; 60.8% at 90 days or longer
6+ sites
296.5 days
n=30; 80.0% at 90 days or longer
Country-level Part II observations grouped by the number of sites in that country.
Interpretation

The clearest operational risk was a large local site footprint: six-plus-site country packages had a Part II median 209.5 days longer than one-site packages, and 24 of 30 (80.0%) remained at 90 days or longer. Multi-country complexity became most visible at four or more countries, where 8 of 12 trials (66.7%) reached 90 days or longer end to end.

First-in-human status and exact Phase I design were linked to longer review

First-in-human trials had a 106-day median versus 62 days for other studies, with 18 of 30 (60.0%) taking at least 90 days. Exact Phase I studies had a 97-day median versus 55 days for Phase I/II studies. Orphan-designated studies moved faster in this cohort—42 days versus 81.5 days—but this is a descriptive cohort association, not a causal effect.

Trial characteristics and 90-day delay
First in human
Yes / first group
106
median days · n=30
60.0% ≥90 days
No / comparator
62
median days · n=123
39.8% ≥90 days
Exact Phase I
Yes / first group
97
median days · n=52
53.8% ≥90 days
No / comparator
55
median days · n=97
38.1% ≥90 days
Orphan designated
Yes / first group
42
median days · n=17
17.6% ≥90 days
No / comparator
81.5
median days · n=136
47.1% ≥90 days
Pure cell therapy
Yes / first group
81
median days · n=91
47.3% ≥90 days
No / comparator
58.5
median days · n=62
38.7% ≥90 days
Each comparison shows median end to end CTIS days and the share taking 90 days or longer.
Median end to end days by disease domain
Oncology/haematology
55.5
n=78; 39.7% at 90 days or longer
Neurology
79
n=9; 44.4% at 90 days or longer
Immunology/rare disease
84
n=33; 45.5% at 90 days or longer
Musculoskeletal
89.5
n=8; 50.0% at 90 days or longer
Other
101
n=14; 57.1% at 90 days or longer
Disease domains are grouped from the recorded therapeutic areas; groups with at least eight trials are shown.
Interpretation

Novelty and early-phase intensity were more informative than most protocol-complexity counts. First-in-human status added 44 median days, and exact Phase I added 42 median days versus Phase I/II. In contrast, continuous measures such as sample size, eligibility criteria and endpoint counts showed no meaningful monotonic correlation with review time (absolute Spearman ρ values ≤0.14).

Which factors marked faster than median and substantial delay?

The matrix compares the same factors against three practical outcomes: below the 77-day end to end median, at least 60 days, and at least 90 days. October submissions and orphan designation were the strongest faster-than-median signals, while December submission, four or more countries and first-in-human status concentrated the largest 90-day delay shares.

Factor matrix for speed and delay
Factor Below 77d ≥60d ≥90d
October submissions
n=23; median 31 days
78.3% 26.1% 13.0%
December submissions
n=20; median 112 days
15.0% 85.0% 80.0%
2–3 countries
n=12; median 29.5 days
75.0% 25.0% 25.0%
4+ countries
n=12; median 124.5 days
33.3% 66.7% 66.7%
Orphan-designated trials
n=17; median 42 days
76.5% 23.5% 17.6%
First-in-human trials
n=30; median 106 days
36.7% 63.3% 60.0%
6+ sites
n=36; median 98 days
47.2% 58.3% 52.8%
Percentages are within each factor group; factors can overlap within the same trial.
Interpretation

A practical high-risk profile combines a late-year submission, first-in-human development and a broad country or site footprint. The lower-risk signals in this dataset were October or June submission timing and a two-to-three-country footprint; however, all associations are descriptive and should support contingency planning rather than deterministic forecasting.

Definitions used in the report

CTIS means the Clinical Trials Information System. End to end timing is the calendar interval from initial CTIS/EU submission to first CTIS authorization. Country Part II timing is the calendar interval from the earliest country-specific Part II submission to the latest recorded decision or authorization for that country. “Shorter than median” means below 77 days; substantial delay is reported at 60 days and 90 days or longer. Submission year was excluded as an explanatory factor.

Analytical scope: 153 European Phase I and Phase I/II trials containing a cell therapy modality. Country medians use only country-specific Part II observations; no country-level end to end statistic is reported.