One Roof, Many Bottlenecks: Why Fragmented Site Models Undermine RLT Trials
.png)
Radiopharmaceutical development is advancing quickly. New radioligand therapies are entering clinical pipelines and attracting growing attention across oncology. But when these programs move into clinical trials, many sponsors encounter an obstacle that has little to do with the science itself.
The challenge lies in how clinical sites are organized.
Radioligand therapy trials build on a traditional oncology trial structure, but they require an additional layer of specialized expertise. Beyond standard oncology research operations, sites must coordinate nuclear medicine workflows, radiopharmacy preparation, radiation safety oversight, imaging procedures, and clinical research teams.
This combination of requirements creates operational complexity that many clinical[JH1.1][YS1.2] sites were not originally designed to manage. This combination of requirements creates operational complexity that many clinical sites were not originally designed to manage. The challenge can be particularly visible in academic centers. Many institutions want to participate in theragnostic trials so they can offer emerging radioligand therapies to patients, especially as FDA-approved agents become available. However, supporting these programs requires infrastructure such as radiopharmacy capabilities, isotope logistics, and trained nuclear medicine staff. Without these elements in place, even highly experienced academic sites may struggle to operationalize theragnostic trials.
When these functions operate in separate departments with limited coordination, delays become almost inevitable. Imaging schedules may not align with treatment visits. Radiopharmacy preparation may depend on isotope delivery timing. Radiation safety reviews may introduce additional approval steps.
The site may technically have all the required capabilities. However, without integrated workflows those capabilities can quickly become bottlenecks.
Why Radiopharmaceutical Trials Require Multiple Teams
Radioligand therapy uses targeted radioactive molecules to find and treat cancer. Delivering these therapies safely requires collaboration between several medical specialties.
Medical oncologists typically serve as the primary point of care for cancer patients and guide treatment typically serve as the primary point of care for cancer patients and guide treatment decisions. When radioligand therapy is considered, nuclear medicine physicians collaborate with oncology teams to oversee the administration of radioactive therapies. Imaging teams perform PET or SPECT scans to evaluate disease and treatment response. Radiopharmacy teams prepare and handle the radioactive compounds used in the study.
Organizations such as the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer emphasize that radioligand therapy research depends on collaboration across oncology, nuclear medicine, and imaging disciplines [1].
In clinical trials, these teams must coordinate closely to ensure that protocols are followed and that patient safety is maintained.
Each step in the process must occur in the correct order and often within precise time windows. If one part of the workflow slows down, the entire process can be affected.
The Operational Reality at Many Clinical Sites
Most hospitals were designed for routine clinical care rather than integrated research programs. Nuclear medicine departments, oncology clinics, imaging services, and pharmacy operations often function as separate units. This fragmentation becomes particularly challenging in early-stage radiopharmaceutical trials, where complex requirements such as dosimetry assessments are increasingly expected by regulators.
Each department may use different scheduling systems, approval processes, and operational priorities. This structure works well for many types of patient care. However, it can create challenges for radiopharmaceutical clinical trials.
For example, a clinical trial coordinator may need to align imaging appointments with radiopharmaceutical preparation and patient visits. Nuclear medicine teams may need to coordinate with oncology staff to ensure treatment schedules match protocol requirements.
The Society for Clinical Research Sites notes that radiopharmaceutical trials require specialized infrastructure, operational readiness, and technical expertise beyond what many traditional oncology research sites currently provide [2].
Even when a site has the necessary equipment and personnel, fragmented workflows can slow trial activation and complicate trial execution. Small operational delays accumulate. Communication becomes more complex. Startup timelines extend beyond original expectations.
Infrastructure Alone Does Not Solve the Problem
For companies developing radiopharmaceutical therapies, fragmented site workflows create meaningful development risks.
Clinical trial delays can affect regulatory timelines, financing milestones, and partnership discussions. Imaging coordination issues may lead to protocol deviations. Scheduling conflicts can slow patient recruitment and extend enrollment periods.
Infrastructure and workforce limitations have already been identified as major constraints in the expansion of radioligand therapy programs worldwide [4].
When these constraints combine with fragmented workflows at the site level, the impact becomes even more significant.
Sponsors may believe they have identified qualified sites, only to discover that coordination between departments becomes the limiting factor during activation or trial execution.
Why This Matters for Sponsors
Radiopharmaceutical trials often focus on infrastructure requirements such as imaging equipment, isotope handling.
Theragnostic Insight - Radiopharmaceutical trials rarely struggle because a site lacks a single capability. More often, challenges arise because those capabilities are not well coordinated.
At Theragnostic Insights, we help sponsors evaluate clinical trial sites through an operational lens. Beyond infrastructure and credentials, we assess how nuclear medicine, oncology, imaging, radiopharmacy, and clinical research teams work together.
By identifying workflow gaps early, development teams can reduce activation delays and improve trial execution.
Because in radiopharmaceutical development, having the right capabilities under one roof is only the first step.
The real advantage comes when those capabilities function as one coordinated system.
Stay tuned for more in this mini-series: Clinical Capacity Crisis: The Hidden Bottleneck in Radiopharma Development.
In the coming weeks, we’ll continue exploring the clinical capacity crisis holding back radiopharmaceutical innovation; from regional access gaps to operational gridlock and infrastructure blind spots. Don’t miss the next post as we map out the road to a truly trial-capable ecosystem.
1. The Trial Site Gap: Why Radiopharmaceutical Innovation Is Hitting a Wall
2. Geography Is Destiny: The Clinical Access Gaps in Radiopharmaceutical Research
3. Operational Gridlock: Where Radiopharmaceutical Trials Break Down on Site
4. Beyond the Badge: Rethinking What “Trial-Ready” Really Means in Radiopharma
5. Infrastructure as Investment Strategy: Clinical Site Access and Radiopharma ROI
6. Built for What’s Next: Redefining Clinical Site Design for Theragnostic Trials
7. Speed as Strategy: How Site Scarcity Is Slowing Radiopharmaceutical Pipelines
8. One Roof, Many Bottlenecks: Why Fragmented Site Models Undermine RLT Trials
References:
[1] European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer, 2024. Radioligand Therapy Scientific Strategy. EORTC
[2] Society for Clinical Research Sites, 2025. Preparing Clinical Sites for Radiopharmaceutical Trials: A Comprehensive Guide. SCRS
[3] Currie GM & Bailey DL, 2025. Challenges and Opportunities in Radioligand Therapy. Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology
[4] Radiology Review Editorial Board, 2024. Radioligand Therapy: Transforming Cancer Care Amid Workforce and Infrastructure Challenges. The Radiology Review
