What Shapes Phase II Cell Therapy CTIS Timelines?
Clinical Trial Intelligence

What Shapes Phase II Cell Therapy CTIS Timelines?

20 July 2026

Across 186 Phase II or Phase II inclusive cell therapy trials submitted through the European Union Clinical Trials Information System (CTIS), the median end-to-end review was 55.5 days (SD 48.6). Country-specific CTIS Part II decisions were much more dispersed: 323 country-trial records had a median of 238 days (SD 227.8). Submission month and operational scale were the clearest correlates of speed: August–October submissions had a 29-day median, while trials in four or more countries had a 115.5-day median.

186Phase II cell therapy trials included
55.5 dMedian EU CTIS end-to-end review · SD 48.6
238 dMedian country-specific CTIS Part II · SD 227.8
22European countries represented across 323 Part II records

How long do Phase II cell therapy CTIS reviews take?

The trial-level end-to-end metric reached its midpoint at 55.5 days, whereas the country-specific Part II metric reached its midpoint at 238 days. End-to-end timing is therefore reported once for the EU submission and is not attributed to individual countries.

Overall CTIS review time distribution
EU submission55.5 days

Median from initial CTIS submission to first authorization across 186 trials. Mean 68.4 days; SD 48.6; range 1–194 days.

Country Part II238 days

Median from earliest country Part II submission to the latest country decision or authorization across 323 records. Mean 277.0 days; SD 227.8; range 2–777 days.

Population: Phase II or Phase II inclusive cell therapy trials in EuropeDays are calendar days
Interpretation

The central EU CTIS decision occurred in roughly two months for half of trials, but country-level Part II records were far more variable. Operational planning should therefore separate the EU end-to-end milestone from country activation readiness.

What share of trials clear within common time windows?

For end-to-end review, 95 of 186 trials (51.1%) were authorized within 60 days and 110 (59.1%) within 90 days. For Part II, 162 of 323 country records (50.2%) concluded within 240 days, closely matching the 238-day median.

Cumulative end-to-end authorizations
Within 30 days36.0%
67/186
Within 60 days51.1%
95/186
Within 90 days59.1%
110/186
Within 120 days84.4%
157/186
Within 180 days98.9%
184/186
Denominator: 186 trials
Cumulative country Part II decisions
Within 30 days19.5%
63/323
Within 60 days31.6%
102/323
Within 90 days34.4%
111/323
Within 120 days37.2%
120/323
Within 180 days41.2%
133/323
Within 240 days50.2%
162/323
Within 365 days63.2%
204/323
Denominator: 323 country-trial records
Interpretation

A 60-day planning assumption describes the median end-to-end EU submission, but not country Part II. Only 102 of 323 Part II records (31.6%) concluded within 60 days and 204 (63.2%) within one year.

How do country-specific Part II timelines differ?

Among countries with at least 10 observations, Austria had the lowest median at 122 days, followed by Belgium at 133.5 and Poland at 187. Denmark had the highest median at 388 days, although country-level SDs were large, indicating substantial within-country variation.

Country-specific CTIS Part II median and standard deviation
CountryRecordsMedian daysSD days90+ day delay
Slovenia1270.0%
Estonia1870.0%
Austria10122206.250.0%
Belgium18133.5249.150.0%
Poland10187235.260.0%
Portugal219119.8100.0%
Italy45204236.460.0%
Bulgaria1204100.0%
Luxembourg1231100.0%
France51247234.168.6%
Spain58247.5220.669.0%
Germany51252225.470.6%
Netherlands29275252.662.1%
Sweden12317.5236.866.7%
Lithuania1343100.0%
Greece3358177.8100.0%
Croatia3358332.066.7%
Romania2359142.8100.0%
Norway5369266.480.0%
Czechia3377228.066.7%
Hungary4379275.175.0%
Denmark12388234.666.7%
Green dot indicates at least 10 country-trial recordsSD not shown for single observations
Interpretation

Country ranking alone is insufficient for forecasting. Even the more frequently represented countries showed SDs above 200 days, so portfolio mix, site footprint and submission month should accompany country benchmarks.

Which trial profiles are associated with shorter end-to-end review?

A review shorter than the overall 55.5-day median was most common in August–October submissions, paediatric trials and solid-tumour cohorts. Multicountry scale, large site networks, open-label designs and autoimmune or inflammatory indications were associated with longer medians and more 90-day delays.

Submission window
August–October 29 days 46/62 (74.2%) below the overall median
November–March 100.5 days 34/62 (54.8%) reached 90+ days
Country footprint
1–3 countries 51 days 85/162 (52.5%) below median
4+ countries 115.5 days 16/24 (66.7%) reached 90+ days
Site footprint
Fewer than 10 sites 52 days 58/151 (38.4%) reached 90+ days
10+ sites 110 days 18/35 (51.4%) reached 90+ days
Trial population
Paediatric 37 days 25/41 (61.0%) below median
Non-paediatric 72 days 62/145 (42.8%) reached 90+ days
Disease cluster
Solid tumours 33 days 19/31 (61.3%) below median
Autoimmune and inflammatory 107.5 days 15/22 (68.2%) reached 90+ days
Masking
Blinded or not open label 42.5 days 50/86 (58.1%) below median
Open label 83.5 days 46/100 (46.0%) reached 90+ days
Interpretation

The strongest practical signal was submission timing: 46 of 62 August–October submissions (74.2%) finished below the median, versus 21 of 62 November–March submissions (33.9%). These are observational associations and should guide risk-adjusted planning rather than causal assumptions.

How does submission month change CTIS timing?

Without using year as an analytical variable, month-level patterns were pronounced. September and October had the shortest end-to-end medians at 24.5 and 31 days, while March and December reached 117 and 112 days. For Part II, April had a 40-day median, compared with 443 days in June.

Median review days by submission month
Month
End to end
Country Part II
Jan
38 d n=15
308 d n=20
Feb
78.5 d n=6
375 d n=35
Mar
117 d n=7
91.5 d n=26
Apr
71.5 d n=16
40 d n=16
May
100 d n=8
203.5 d n=40
Jun
79 d n=19
443 d n=12
Jul
72 d n=19
253.5 d n=38
Aug
27 d n=19
199 d n=27
Sep
24.5 d n=14
210 d n=56
Oct
31 d n=29
275 d n=23
Nov
93 d n=14
338.5 d n=16
Dec
112 d n=20
151 d n=13
Monthly medians pooled across the full cohort; no year stratificationGreen: end to end · amber: Part II
Interpretation

August–October was the most favorable end-to-end window at 29 days, compared with 100.5 days for November–March. At Part II level, February or June submissions had a 404-day median and 43 of 47 records (91.5%) reached 90 days or longer.

What correlates with substantial Part II delay?

Part II delay rose with operational complexity. Trials in four or more countries had a 354-day median and 53 of 67 records (79.1%) at 90 days or longer. Trials with 10 or more total sites had a 322-day median and 98 of 125 records (78.4%) at 90 days or longer.

Part II complexity and 90-day delay
FactorLower-complexity profileHigher-complexity profile
Trial countries 1–3 countries
231.5 d median · 62.5% at 90+ d
4+ countries
354 d median · 79.1% at 90+ d
Total trial sites <10 sites
203 d median · 58.1% at 90+ d
10+ sites
322 d median · 78.4% at 90+ d
Sites in the country 1–3 sites
204 d median · 61.1% at 90+ d
4+ sites
320 d median · 77.7% at 90+ d
Modality mix Cell therapy only
191 d median · 57.1% at 90+ d
Cell therapy plus another modality
270 d median · 72.1% at 90+ d
Masking Blinded or not open label
177.5 d median · 55.8% at 90+ d
Open label
260 d median · 71.9% at 90+ d
Outcome: country-specific Part II processing time90+ days denotes three months or longer
Trial countries
ρ = 0.19More countries correlated with longer Part II timing; n=323 records.
Total trial sites
ρ = 0.23The strongest continuous scale correlation with Part II timing; n=313 records.
Country sites
ρ = 0.18More sites within the country correlated with longer Part II timing; n=323 records.
Interpretation

Scale effects were consistent across three measures: number of countries, total sites and sites within the country. Country activation plans should therefore add contingency for both central multicountry coordination and local site-document volume.

Which expected factors were weak predictors?

Not every design feature separated timelines. Randomized and nonrandomized trials had nearly identical end-to-end medians of 56 and 55 days. Adaptive and nonadaptive trials had medians of 56 and 53 days, while target sample size showed virtually no continuous end-to-end correlation.

Weak or inconsistent end-to-end correlates
Randomization
1 dayMedian difference: 56 days randomized versus 55 days nonrandomized.
Adaptive design
3 daysMedian difference: 56 days adaptive versus 53 days nonadaptive.
Sample size
ρ = −0.05No meaningful continuous correlation with end-to-end review; n=183 trials.
Spearman rank correlation for continuous variables
Interpretation

Operational configuration and submission timing were more informative than randomization, adaptive design or enrollment target. Review-risk models should prioritize country and site footprint before protocol labels alone.

Definitions

EU CTIS end to end

Calendar days from the initial CTIS submission date to the first CTIS authorization date for the trial. This is a trial-level EU submission metric.

CTIS Part II

Calendar days from the earliest Part II submission in a country to the latest decision or authorization recorded for that country. This is the only country-specific timeline in the report.

Shorter than median

End-to-end review below 55.5 days or Part II timing below 238 days, depending on the analysis.

Substantial delay

At least 60 days for the two-month threshold and at least 90 days for the three-month threshold.