Two fictional examples show the shape of the work: a site plan with explicit enrollment assumptions, and a patient-opportunity handoff for selected sites.
Fully fictional demonstration. Not client results, real patient data, a validated forecast or a live matching tool.
01 / BEFORE SITE SELECTION
Which sites should we open—and what can they realistically enroll?
Fictional protocol P-01. Compare two candidate sites in a fixed six-month window from the planned activation date. A delayed opening does not move the end date. This illustrates the output format and arithmetic, not a clinical forecast.
Site Selection & Feasibility Intelligence — Illustrative output
Candidate
Recommendation
Enrollment expectation
Reason / unresolved condition
Site B
Prioritize, subject to capacity confirmation
3–6 over six months; assumed scenario
Pathway and PI fit; verify testing access and overlapping trials.
Site A
Retain as an alternative
Not estimated
Relevant trial history, but treatment-line coverage and current capacity are missing.
Assumptions and limits
Site B uses invented inputs: 2–4 patients entering screening per month × 6 months × 25% overall screening-to-enrollment conversion = 3–6. The 25% is an assumed combined conversion, not a measured rate. No activation delay is included; delayed opening or reduced capacity changes the estimate.
Next action
Confirm screening flow, conversion assumptions and capacity with the site and CRO. Revise the range before using it in a trial plan; do not fill Site A's gaps with a guessed count.
Follow the reasoning, not just the table.
Illustrative review packet · P-01 / v1 · snapshot D0. Every rule, record and estimate below is invented for this demonstration; no review or site confirmation is represented as completed.
Decision: which site should enter the next feasibility check?
Check Site B first, with Site A held as an alternative. Do not commit enrollment until the testing pathway, competing demand and capacity are confirmed.
01Protocol rules and hard gates
G-01 · Population and timing
The fictional protocol requires a specified disease setting, prior-treatment line and biomarker result. Compare the same population in a fixed six-month window from planned activation; delays reduce active months, not extend the deadline.
G-02 · Site readiness
Testing access and a feasible patient pathway are gates, not bonus points. A missing critical condition stays unresolved even when a site's historical experience looks strong.
02Evidence ledger and implications
E-01 · Invented protocol extract v1 / D0
Defines the population and required test. Both sites must be assessed against this version; an amendment triggers reassessment of G-01 and G-02.
E-02 · Simulated Site B screening worksheet / D0
Assumes 2–4 patients enter screening each month. The worksheet supplies an input, not a verified site count; the site must confirm its denominator, period and referral overlap.
E-03 · Simulated operating checklist / D0
Site B's testing access, overlapping trials and staff capacity remain open. These could reverse the priority even if the screening assumption is credible.
E-04 · Simulated Site A profile / D0
Relevant historical trial experience is present, but current treatment-line coverage and capacity are absent. Retain the site; do not invent an enrollment estimate to complete the table.
03What changes the estimate?
Base scenario · 3–6
2–4 entering screening per month × 6 active months × assumed 25% overall conversion. This is an illustrative range, not a confidence interval or an observed rate.
Two-month activation delay · 2–4
Within the same six-month planning window, only four active months remain: 2–4 × 4 × 25% = 2–4. Do not keep the original forecast after the window changes.
Critical access or capacity unresolved · withhold estimate
If G-02 cannot be confirmed, suspend the operational recommendation and return to feasibility. Unknown is not zero, and a registered competing trial is not a known number of patients to subtract.
04Review handoff and release conditions
Site / PI · before final selection
Confirm eligible screening flow, testing turnaround, relevant competing demand and available capacity. Record the respondent, date and evidence; silence is not confirmation.
OncoLattice analyst and reviewer · after confirmation
Reconcile conflicting inputs, revise the scenario and document what changed. Release a recommendation only with stated assumptions, open risks and a review owner.
Sponsor / CRO · decision and execution
Accept or challenge the revised plan, decide activation and own execution. Keep observed screening and enrollment separate from this planning estimate.
Tell us whether you are choosing sites or working with sites already selected. Start with non-confidential context; we will define the relevant deliverable and access arrangements together.
OncoLattice BioONCOLOGY ENROLLMENT INTELLIGENCE