Phase II Pediatric CTIS Timelines and Drivers
Clinical Trial Intelligence

What Drives Phase II Pediatric CTIS Timelines?

20 July 2026

Across 348 Phase II pediatric trials submitted through the EU Clinical Trials Information System (CTIS), the median end-to-end review was 68 days with a standard deviation (SD) of 45.3 days. Country-specific CTIS Part II review was substantially more variable, with a pooled median of 216 days and SD of 250.3 days. Faster EU submissions clustered in cell therapy, oncology and biomarker-stratified designs, while November–December submissions, gene therapy, adaptive designs and larger multinational footprints were more often delayed.

Trials included
348
Phase II pediatric EU CTIS submissions pooled across the dataset
End-to-end review
68 days
Median; SD 45.3 days; interquartile range 31–113 days
Country CTIS Part II
216 days
Median across 1,075 country decisions; SD 250.3 days
Three-month delay
44.8%
156 of 348 EU submissions required at least 90 days end to end

How quickly were Phase II pediatric EU CTIS submissions approved?

The median EU submission took 68 days end to end. Approval was achieved within 30 days for 84 of 348 trials (24.1%), within 60 days for 166 (47.7%), and within 90 days for 195 (56.0%). Country-specific Part II reviews accumulated more slowly: 382 of 1,075 decisions (35.5%) completed within 60 days and 422 (39.3%) within 90 days.

Cumulative CTIS approval thresholds

End-to-end EU submission

≤ 30 days
84/348 · 24.1%
≤ 60 days
166/348 · 47.7%
≤ 90 days
195/348 · 56.0%
≤ 120 days
293/348 · 84.2%
≤ 180 days
343/348 · 98.6%

Country-specific CTIS Part II

≤ 30 days
247/1075 · 23.0%
≤ 60 days
382/1075 · 35.5%
≤ 90 days
422/1075 · 39.3%
≤ 120 days
454/1075 · 42.2%
≤ 180 days
497/1075 · 46.2%
Interpretation

The EU-level review distribution has a clear break after 90 days: only 56.0% had cleared by that point, but 84.2% had cleared by 120 days. In contrast, fewer than half of country Part II decisions completed within 180 days, indicating that local Part II sequencing can remain the dominant operational uncertainty.

Which countries had the shortest CTIS Part II reviews?

End-to-end review is a single EU submission metric and is not assigned to individual countries. The country table therefore reports CTIS Part II only. Among countries with at least 10 observations, the Netherlands had the shortest median at 63 days, followed by Sweden at 81 days and Slovakia at 133 days. Greece had the longest median at 358 days, followed by Hungary at 348 days and Portugal at 314 days.

Country-specific CTIS Part II median and SD
CountryDecisionsMedian daysSD days
Lithuania 3 30 4.5
Latvia 3 31 84.1
Iceland 1 52
Netherlands 86 63 260.6
Romania 6 76.5 276.6
Sweden 33 81 240.8
Slovakia 10 133 229.6
Czechia 30 146 204.4
Slovenia 3 154 187.6
Norway 29 167 253.6
Finland 16 182 195.3
Ireland 12 196.5 272.1
Belgium 65 197 234.8
Croatia 2 203.5 253.9
Germany 106 206 255.4
Poland 70 208 247.4
Austria 27 210 231.0
Denmark 46 210.5 262.8
France 160 232.5 256.3
Bulgaria 6 252 215.4
Spain 151 254 263.4
Italy 153 255 255.2
Portugal 15 314 210.1
Hungary 17 348 250.6
Greece 25 358 225.7
Interpretation

Country choice materially changes the expected Part II path. The 295-day difference between the Netherlands and Greece among established country cohorts is larger than the full 68-day median end-to-end EU review, making country sequencing and parallelization central planning decisions.

Does submission month influence EU CTIS review time?

Submission month showed one of the clearest timing patterns without using year as an analytical factor. November and December submissions had median end-to-end reviews of 118 and 124 days, with 76.2% and 67.7% respectively reaching 90 days or longer. February, June, September and October had medians between 36 and 51 days.

End-to-end CTIS timing by submission month
MonthTrialsMedian daysBelow 68 days60+ days90+ days
January 19 38 52.6% 47.4% 36.8%
February 17 42 64.7% 41.2% 29.4%
March 22 87.5 36.4% 68.2% 45.5%
April 27 77 48.1% 55.6% 37.0%
May 20 76 50.0% 55.0% 50.0%
June 30 36.5 56.7% 43.3% 36.7%
July 50 43.5 54.0% 46.0% 46.0%
August 27 81 48.1% 51.9% 48.1%
September 37 36 56.8% 43.2% 43.2%
October 47 51 66.0% 40.4% 29.8%
November 21 118 19.0% 90.5% 76.2%
December 31 124 29.0% 71.0% 67.7%
Interpretation

Year-end submission appears to be the strongest calendar risk. A November submission carried a 76.2% probability of a 90-day-or-longer review versus 29.8% in October and 29.4% in February. Where operationally possible, moving submission readiness forward by several weeks may reduce exposure to the slowest review window.

How do country and site footprints relate to CTIS delay?

Multinational breadth had a modest positive correlation with longer end-to-end review (Spearman ρ=0.13). Trials spanning seven or more countries had a 98-day median and a 53.1% rate of 90-day-or-longer review, compared with 61 days and 39.6% for trials in zero or one country. Site count was less linear (ρ=0.09), although trials with 21 or more sites had a 103-day median and 56.1% 90-day delay rate.

CTIS timing by country and site footprint

Number of countries

FootprintnMedian<68d90+d
0–1 countries1596154.1%39.6%
2–3 countries658746.2%49.2%
4–6 countries757748.0%46.7%
7+ countries499844.9%53.1%

Number of sites

FootprintnMedian<68d90+d
1–3 sites1156650.4%42.6%
4–10 sites1078145.8%47.7%
11–20 sites674461.2%35.8%
21+ sites5710342.1%56.1%
Interpretation

Country count is a more consistent delay signal than site count. Site burden alone is not monotonic: trials with 11–20 sites had a 44-day median, while those with 21 or more sites reached 103 days. The operational risk therefore appears tied more to multinational coordination and very large networks than to moderate site expansion.

Which indications and modalities were associated with faster or slower approval?

Therapeutic area and modality separated the fastest and slowest cohorts. Oncology trials had a 44-day median and 32.2% 90-day delay rate; dermatology had a 35.5-day median. Immunology reached 103 days with 59.5% at 90 days or longer. Cell therapy had the shortest modality median at 37 days, while gene therapy reached 112.5 days and 65.4% 90-day delay.

Therapeutic-area CTIS timing
AreaTrialsMedian daysBelow 68 days90+ days
Dermatology1435.564.3%35.7%
Oncology1214464.5%32.2%
Haematology336051.5%42.4%
Respiratory1271.550.0%50.0%
Endocrinology259036.0%52.0%
Neurology489143.8%52.1%
Musculoskeletal249245.8%50.0%
Rare Disease959237.9%52.6%
Infectious Disease139446.2%53.8%
Gastroenterology1294.541.7%58.3%
Ophthalmology12102.516.7%66.7%
Immunology3710335.1%59.5%
Drug-modality CTIS timing
ModalityTrialsMedian daysBelow 68 days90+ days
Cell therapy413763.4%34.1%
Monoclonal antibody655855.4%43.1%
Small molecule2096252.6%43.1%
Peptide/protein/enzyme577545.6%43.9%
ADC99244.4%55.6%
Oligonucleotide1496.535.7%57.1%
Other1211125.0%66.7%
Gene therapy26112.526.9%65.4%
Bispecific antibody8114.525.0%75.0%
29 days
Sickle cell disease median across 5 trials; 20.0% reached 90 days
43 days
Ewing sarcoma median across 8 trials; 25.0% reached 90 days
98 days
Autism spectrum disorder median across 5 trials; 80.0% reached 90 days
Interpretation

Complex modality did not uniformly mean slower review: cell therapy was among the fastest cohorts, while gene therapy, oligonucleotides and bispecific antibodies were slower. This suggests that submission maturity and programme structure may matter more than a simple advanced-therapy label.

Which trial designs correlated with short review and substantial delay?

Biomarker-stratified trials were the strongest design correlate of faster review: their median was 41 days, 64.7% finished below the 68-day cohort median, and 27.5% reached 90 days. Adaptive trials had a 95-day median and 55.4% 90-day delay; dose-escalation trials reached 92 days and 52.6%. Randomisation had almost no separation, with medians of 67.5 versus 68 days.

Design features and end-to-end CTIS outcomes
Feature presentTrialsMedian daysBelow 68 days60+ days90+ daysMedian if absent
Biomarker stratified 51 41 64.7% 39.2% 27.5% 82
Adaptive 112 95 41.1% 59.8% 55.4% 57
Dose escalation 116 92 42.2% 58.6% 52.6% 58.5
Open label 203 86 45.8% 57.6% 49.3% 51
First in human 13 107 23.1% 76.9% 69.2% 63
Randomised 136 67.5 50.0% 53.7% 46.3% 68

Correlates of shorter than median review

Biomarker stratification
41-day median · 33/51 below 68 days (64.7%) · 14/51 at 90+ days (27.5%)
Cell therapy
37-day median · 26/41 below 68 days (63.4%) · 14/41 at 90+ days (34.1%)
Oncology
44-day median · 78/121 below 68 days (64.5%) · 39/121 at 90+ days (32.2%)
October submission
51-day median · 31/47 below 68 days (66.0%) · 14/47 at 90+ days (29.8%)

Correlates of two and three month delay

November submission
118-day median · 19/21 at 60+ days (90.5%) · 16/21 at 90+ days (76.2%)
First in human
107-day median · 10/13 at 60+ days (76.9%) · 9/13 at 90+ days (69.2%)
Gene therapy
112.5-day median · 19/26 at 60+ days (73.1%) · 17/26 at 90+ days (65.4%)
Adaptive design
95-day median · 67/112 at 60+ days (59.8%) · 62/112 at 90+ days (55.4%)
21 or more sites
103-day median · 34/57 at 60+ days (59.6%) · 32/57 at 90+ days (56.1%)
Interpretation

The strongest actionable risk stack is a year-end EU submission combined with first-in-human, gene-therapy or adaptive elements and a large multinational footprint. Conversely, biomarker-defined programmes were not slower in this cohort and frequently cleared well below the median. These are correlations, not causal effects, but they provide practical priors for CTIS planning and contingency buffers.

Planning benchmarks for Phase II pediatric CTIS submissions

A base-case planning assumption of 68 days matches the cohort median, while 120 days covers 293 of 348 submissions (84.2%) and 180 days covers 343 (98.6%). For higher-risk submissions involving November–December timing, gene therapy, first-in-human or adaptive designs, a 120-day internal planning window is better aligned with observed medians and delay rates. Country Part II should be modelled separately using the country-specific medians and SDs above.

Evidence-based planning windows
68 days
Base-case end-to-end median for the full Phase II pediatric EU CTIS cohort
120 days
Covers 293/348 submissions (84.2%); appropriate for elevated-complexity planning
180 days
Covers 343/348 submissions (98.6%); conservative end-to-end contingency
Interpretation

The practical planning distinction is not between “simple” and “complex” pediatric trials alone. The largest timing shifts arise from the combination of submission month, country footprint, modality and design. Separating the EU end-to-end benchmark from country Part II assumptions produces a more realistic launch plan.