Clinical Trial Intelligence

Which CROs support European renal cell carcinoma phase 2 & 3 trials most often?

21 June 2026

Across 45 European renal cell carcinoma phase 2 & 3 trials, CROs or CRO-like specialist vendors were listed in 25 trials, equal to 55.6%. PPD / Thermo Fisher was the most active named provider with 10 trial appearances, followed by ICON plc and Parexel with 8 each. CRO need was strongest in multi-country CTIS/EU submission programmes: 12 of 12 trials across 5 or more countries used CRO support.

Trials included
45
RCC phase 2 & 3 trials
CRO present
25 / 45
55.6% of trials
Most active CRO
PPD / Thermo Fisher
10 trial appearances
Highest-need capacity tier
100.0%
12 / 12 trials with 5+ countries used CROs

Which CROs are most active in renal cell carcinoma phase 2 & 3 trials?

Among the 25 CRO-supported trials, PPD / Thermo Fisher appeared in 10 trials, equal to 40.0% of CRO-supported trials and 22.2% of all 45 trials. ICON plc and Parexel each appeared in 8 trials, equal to 32.0% of CRO-supported trials.

Top CROs by share of CRO-supported trials
PPD / Thermo Fisher10 trials · 40.0%
ICON plc8 trials · 32.0%
Parexel8 trials · 32.0%
Almac Clinical Technologies7 trials · 28.0%
Fortrea5 trials · 20.0%
Medidata Solutions5 trials · 20.0%
Denominator: 25 CRO-supported renal cell carcinoma phase 2 & 3 trials.
Interpretation

The active CRO market is concentrated around large global delivery groups and platform specialists. PPD / Thermo Fisher, ICON plc, Parexel, Almac, Fortrea, and Medidata form the recurring vendor set most visible in European RCC CTIS submissions.

Which CROs support the largest country, site, and participant footprints?

PPD / Thermo Fisher had the broadest cumulative footprint: 10 trials linked to 60 country activations, 248 sites, and 2,023 planned participants. ICON plc followed with 49 country activations, 179 sites, and 1,395 participants.

Operational footprint by named CRO
CRO Trials Countries Sites Participants
PPD / Thermo Fisher10602482,023
ICON plc8491791,395
Parexel8552281,104
Medidata Solutions543216980
Almac Clinical Technologies748168746
Fortrea526108326
Footprint sums each CRO’s associated trial geography; CROs can co-appear in the same trial.
Interpretation

The CROs most useful for RCC sponsors are not only the most frequent names; they are also the providers attached to broad CTIS country rollouts, high site counts, and large participant footprints.

At what capacity level are CROs needed most?

CRO use was driven more by geographic and site complexity than by participant volume alone. CRO support appeared in 12 of 12 trials with 5 or more countries, compared with 13 of 16 trials with 2–4 countries and 0 of 17 single-country trials.

CRO presence by operational complexity
Number of countries
5+ countries12 / 12 · 100.0%
2–4 countries13 / 16 · 81.3%
1 country0 / 17 · 0.0%
Number of sites
6–15 sites11 / 14 · 78.6%
16+ sites11 / 16 · 68.8%
1–5 sites2 / 14 · 14.3%
Number of participants
151+ participants8 / 14 · 57.1%
51–150 participants11 / 20 · 55.0%
1–50 participants6 / 11 · 54.5%
Measure: share of trials in each capacity tier with CROs or CRO-like specialist vendors listed.
Interpretation

The practical CRO trigger in European RCC phase 2 & 3 trials is multi-country CTIS/EU execution. Once a study expands beyond a single country, CRO use rises sharply; when it reaches 5 or more countries, CRO involvement becomes universal in this cohort.

Which RCC indications and disease profiles show the highest CRO need?

Disease breadth was a stronger CRO signal than RCC subtype alone. Trials covering 6 or more diseases used CROs in 7 of 8 cases, equal to 87.5%, while single-disease RCC trials used CROs in 11 of 17 cases, equal to 64.7%.

CRO use by disease breadth and indication group
6+ diseases
87.5%
7 / 8 trials
Clear-cell RCC in multi-tumor trials
75.0%
3 / 4 trials
Papillary / MET-driven RCC
66.7%
2 / 3 trials
Single-disease RCC trials
64.7%
11 / 17 trials
Measure: CRO-supported trials by disease breadth and RCC indication grouping.
Interpretation

CRO demand is highest when RCC is embedded in broad solid-tumor or biomarker-defined programmes. These studies create more operational, eligibility, lab, and endpoint coordination pressure than narrow single-country RCC trials.

What functions are most often outsourced?

The most common outsourced function was central lab, biomarker, or bioanalysis work, appearing in 21 of 45 trials, equal to 46.7%. IRT/randomisation/eClinical systems appeared in 17 of 45 trials, and full-service clinical operations or project delivery appeared in 16 of 45 trials.

Function categories by share of all trials
Central lab / biomarker / bioanalysis21 / 45 · 46.7%
IRT / randomisation / eClinical systems17 / 45 · 37.8%
Full-service clinical operations / project delivery16 / 45 · 35.6%
eCOA / ePRO / EDC / data platform13 / 45 · 28.9%
Central imaging / endpoint review13 / 45 · 28.9%
EU regulatory / medical-information support9 / 45 · 20.0%
Clinical supply / IMP logistics8 / 45 · 17.8%
Patient recruitment / travel / reimbursement8 / 45 · 17.8%
Denominator: 45 renal cell carcinoma phase 2 & 3 trials.
Interpretation

RCC outsourcing is not limited to classical monitoring. The strongest recurring demand is for biomarker/lab execution, eClinical infrastructure, imaging review, and CTIS/EU-facing regulatory or medical-information support.

Which European countries create the largest RCC trial delivery burden?

France and Spain carried the largest country-level RCC phase 2 & 3 footprint. France appeared in 28 trial-country activations with 208 sites and 1,910 participants, while Spain appeared in 27 activations with 173 sites and 1,324 participants.

Largest country-level trial footprints
Country Trial-country activations Sites Participants CRO-supported activations
France282081,91021 / 28 · 75.0%
Spain271731,32422 / 27 · 81.5%
Italy1413764710 / 14 · 71.4%
Poland155942314 / 15 · 93.3%
Belgium102931110 / 10 · 100.0%
Germany115827211 / 11 · 100.0%
Country-level footprint aggregates trial-country entries, sites, and planned participants.
Interpretation

France and Spain are the main operational load centres for European RCC trial delivery, while Belgium and Germany show universal CRO-supported country activations in this cohort.

Which adjacent questions does the same data answer?

The same CTIS-derived sponsor and geography fields answer whether CRO use differs by sponsor type and whether CRO-supported trials are attached to more complex EU submission patterns.

Additional findings from existing RCC data
Are CROs mainly used by pharma sponsors?
Yes. Pharmaceutical company sponsors used CROs in 24 of 31 trials, equal to 77.4%; non-pharma institutional sponsors used CROs in 1 of 14 trials, equal to 7.1%.
Does phase change CRO demand?
Only slightly. CRO support appeared in 17 of 30 phase 2 trials, equal to 56.7%, and 8 of 15 phase 3 trials, equal to 53.3%.
What does CTIS Part II processing suggest?
CRO-supported trials with CTIS Part II processing data averaged 354 days, with a median of 280 days. Non-CRO trials averaged 223 days, with a median of 158 days.
CTIS = Clinical Trials Information System; Part II reflects country-level assessment and authorisation timing.
Interpretation

The CTIS timing pattern should be read as a complexity signal rather than a causal CRO effect. CROs are concentrated in broader, pharma-sponsored, multi-country RCC programmes where EU submission coordination, country activation, vendor management, and site execution are heavier.

Definitions

CRO means contract research organization. CTIS means Clinical Trials Information System. IRT means interactive response technology for randomisation and treatment allocation. IMP means investigational medicinal product. eCOA, ePRO, and EDC refer to electronic clinical outcome assessment, electronic patient-reported outcome, and electronic data capture systems.