Oncology Based In-Vivo CRO Market by Animal Model (Murine, Non Murine), Route Of Administration (Intravenous, Oral, Subcutaneous), Therapeutic Modality, End User - Global Forecast 2025-2032
Description
The Oncology Based In-Vivo CRO Market was valued at USD 1.41 billion in 2024 and is projected to grow to USD 1.57 billion in 2025, with a CAGR of 11.75%, reaching USD 3.43 billion by 2032.
Concise framing of the current preclinical oncology in-vivo ecosystem emphasizing model selection, administration routes and therapeutic modality implications
The in-vivo oncology contract research landscape operates at the intersection of scientific rigor, regulatory complexity, and operational logistics. Organizations advancing preclinical oncology programs must navigate an environment where model selection, route of administration, and therapeutic modality decisions materially influence downstream translational outcomes. This executive summary synthesizes the current environment to inform C-suite, program leads, and procurement teams seeking clarity on where preclinical investments create the greatest value and where operational risk concentrates.
Across the preclinical continuum, teams balance biological fidelity with throughput and cost efficiency. Choices between murine platforms-ranging from genetically engineered mouse models to immunocompetent syngeneic systems and xenografts-and non-murine models such as dog, rabbit, and rat are driven by study objectives and translational intent. Likewise, route of administration decisions between intravenous, oral, and subcutaneous dosing pathways affect pharmacokinetic exposure, formulation strategies, and study complexity. Therapeutic modality further shapes study design, with chemotherapy, immunotherapy and targeted therapy each imposing unique biomarker, PK/PD and immunogenicity requirements. End users from academic laboratories to pharmaceutical sponsors and specialized contract research organizations bring differing priorities for rigor, timeline, and compliance.
As the industry accelerates, the need for integrated, high-quality preclinical data has never been more pronounced. This introduction frames subsequent sections that explore transformative shifts, tariff-driven disruptions, segmentation insights, regional dynamics, competitive positioning, actionable recommendations and the methodological underpinnings of the analysis.
Compelling narrative of scientific, operational, and modality-driven transformation reshaping preclinical oncology in-vivo studies and provider capabilities
Recent years have seen substantive shifts that are redefining how in-vivo oncology studies are designed, delivered, and interpreted. Advances in model engineering have increased the availability and granularity of biologically relevant murine systems while simultaneously elevating expectations around reproducibility and translational fidelity. Genetic editing techniques and refined engraftment approaches have driven broader adoption of complex models but also increased the technical bar for study execution, requiring deeper in-house expertise or specialized external partners.
Parallel to scientific evolution, the landscape of therapeutic development has diversified. Immunotherapy programs demand integrated immune monitoring and novel endpoints, while targeted therapies require precise exposure profiling tied to molecular biomarkers. These modality-specific needs are prompting laboratories and sponsors to re-evaluate route of administration strategies and to invest in analytics that can parse mechanism-specific signals from background variability. The rising complexity has created an opportunity for CROs that can bundle high-quality model execution with advanced PK/PD, biomarker, and data analytics capabilities.
Operationally, supply chain resilience, facility biosafety enhancements, and workforce specialization are now central to service continuity and client confidence. Together, these transformative shifts are compressing timelines for translational decision-making and rewarding providers that can standardize complex workflows without compromising biological nuance.
Strategic assessment of how recent tariff measures introduce procurement volatility, supply chain reconfiguration and contractual imperatives affecting preclinical study continuity
The introduction of new tariff measures has introduced an additional dimension of complexity for organizations that depend on cross-border sourcing of animals, reagents, equipment and specialized services. Tariff changes can influence procurement strategies for animal models and ancillary supplies, and they can cascade through shipping, customs clearance and inventory planning in ways that materially affect study timelines. Sponsors and service providers are adapting by re-evaluating vendor geographies, consolidating orders to optimize customs treatment, and expanding local sourcing options to mitigate exposure to sudden cost shifts.
Beyond direct costs, tariffs can provoke strategic rerouting of supply chains that extend lead times for critical materials and require contingency planning for reagent validation and animal husbandry. Contractual terms governing change orders, force majeure and pass-through costs are gaining prominence in negotiations, as both sponsors and CROs seek clarity on responsibility and flexibility. In many cases, organizations are also intensifying communication between procurement, regulatory and scientific teams to assess the downstream implications of alternative suppliers or substitute materials on data integrity and study comparability.
In this environment, transparency, scenario planning and contractual rigor become essential. Parties that proactively model logistical impacts, secure secondary suppliers, and adopt flexible study designs will reduce disruption and preserve program momentum despite tariff-driven headwinds.
Integrated segmentation insights connecting animal model choices, administration routes, therapeutic modalities and end-user priorities to optimize preclinical strategy
Segmentation offers a practical lens to align study design with intended translational outcomes and resource constraints. When considering animal model selection, teams must weigh murine systems such as genetically engineered mouse models, immunocompetent syngeneic models, and mouse xenografts against non-murine options like dog, rabbit, and rat to calibrate biological relevance, immunology compatibility, and regulatory expectations. Each choice carries implications for study duration, husbandry complexity, and the types of endpoints that can be robustly measured. Route of administration further refines study parameters, with intravenous dosing enabling systemic exposure assessments, oral routes reflecting projected clinical dosing realities, and subcutaneous delivery simplifying repeated dosing regimens but potentially altering absorption kinetics.
Therapeutic modality segmentation amplifies these distinctions: chemotherapy studies often prioritize tumor response and toxicity profiling, immunotherapy programs require sophisticated immune phenotyping and functional assays, and targeted therapies demand precise PK/PD correlation with molecular biomarkers. Within immunotherapy, checkpoint inhibitors and monoclonal antibodies create divergent needs for immune-competent models and antibody-specific pharmacology, while targeted therapy subsets such as kinase inhibitors and small molecule inhibitors necessitate tailored bioanalytical platforms. End-user segmentation-spanning academia and research institutes, contract research organizations, and pharmaceutical sponsors-reflects divergent priorities around cost, throughput, regulatory traceability and depth of scientific collaboration, shaping how services are packaged and delivered.
By integrating these segmentation dimensions, stakeholders can design studies that balance translational ambition with operational feasibility, ensuring that model and modality choices are purpose-built for downstream decision-making.
Region-specific analysis of capabilities, regulatory nuances and logistical factors shaping where preclinical oncology in-vivo studies are optimally conducted
Regional dynamics critically influence access to model types, regulatory expectations, and logistical considerations for in-vivo oncology research. In the Americas, robust infrastructures for specialized breeding, advanced analytical services and significant pharmaceutical R&D investment support broad access to complex murine and non-murine models, while proximity to major sponsors enables streamlined collaboration and rapid iteration on study designs. Europe, Middle East & Africa presents heterogeneous capabilities across countries, where centers of excellence deliver high-skill services but differences in regulatory frameworks and import/export rules require careful navigation to maintain study timelines and data comparability.
Asia-Pacific has matured rapidly as a hub for both cost-effective preclinical capacity and growing scientific expertise, with several providers offering scale and expanded service portfolios. However, cross-border logistics, variable biosafety norms, and regional regulatory nuances require rigorous quality management and contractual clarity to ensure consistent global datasets. Collectively, these regional characteristics inform decisions about where to place studies based on model availability, analytic capabilities, and timing pressures. Sponsors often adopt mixed-location strategies that leverage local strengths while centralizing critical assays or sentinel studies to maintain standardization. As a result, regional strategy becomes a key determinant of both program cost structure and the reliability of translational insights.
Competitive landscape analysis highlighting provider differentiation through scientific depth, quality systems, and integrated translational service offerings
Competitive positioning among service providers reflects divergent strategies to capture value in a progressively specialized market. Leading contract research organizations and specialized model providers differentiate through depth of scientific expertise, validated model libraries, and the ability to integrate translational endpoints such as advanced biomarker analytics and immunoprofiling. Strategic partnerships between pharmaceutical sponsors and academic centers or specialized laboratories continue to play a role where bespoke model development or highly mechanistic studies are required.
Providers that invest in quality management systems, accreditation, and reproducible protocols reduce client onboarding friction and increase confidence in cross-study comparability. Meanwhile, nimble niche players that offer rapid turnaround for defined model systems or that specialize in modality-specific assays attract early-stage programs seeking speed and flexibility. Increasingly, service providers also offer advisory capabilities, helping sponsors align preclinical design with clinical development strategy and regulatory expectations. The converging pressures of scientific complexity and operational resilience are elevating the importance of end-to-end service offerings that can manage model workstreams, bioanalytics and data integration under a single governance framework.
Actionable recommendations urging leaders to combine redundancy, analytics investment and governance to safeguard preclinical translational integrity and timelines
Industry leaders should adopt a pragmatic combination of scientific rigor and operational resilience to protect program timelines and translational validity. Investing in redundant supplier relationships for critical reagents and animals reduces exposure to geopolitical and tariff-related shocks, while formalizing contractual language around change orders and cost pass-through provides financial clarity. Concurrently, expanding internal or partnered capabilities for immune monitoring, PK/PD analytics and biomarker assay validation will improve the interpretability of preclinical signals and support stronger clinical translation.
Operationally, instituting standardized protocols and cross-site reference standards will enhance reproducibility across geographically distributed studies. Leaders should also prioritize early engagement between translational scientists, regulatory affairs and procurement to align study design with downstream filing expectations and supply chain realities. From a portfolio perspective, matching model complexity and modality-specific endpoints to program risk tolerances ensures that resources are focused where they most effectively reduce clinical attrition. Finally, fostering transparent, collaborative vendor relationships underpinned by performance metrics and data governance will accelerate decision-making and strengthen long-term program resilience.
Transparent and rigorous research methodology combining expert interviews, technical literature and provider operational assessments to ensure robust insights
This analysis synthesizes primary interviews with subject-matter experts, technical literature on in-vivo model performance and operational data from providers operating across major global regions. The methodology emphasized comparative evaluation of model platforms, route-of-administration implications, and modality-specific assay needs, prioritizing reproducibility, translational relevance and operational feasibility. Qualitative inputs from translational scientists, laboratory directors and procurement leads informed scenario planning around tariff impacts and supply chain adaptations.
Where possible, model-specific performance characteristics and operational constraints were cross-validated against published scientific findings and provider service descriptions to ensure a balanced perspective. The research process also incorporated structured assessments of regional capabilities based on facility accreditations, analytical service breadth, and logistics complexity. Throughout, emphasis was placed on triangulating multiple data sources to minimize bias and to produce insights that are directly actionable for sponsors, CROs and research institutions seeking to optimize in-vivo oncology programs.
Integrated conclusion underscoring the need for reproducible models, resilient operations and aligned translational endpoints to enable clinical success
The modern in-vivo oncology ecosystem presents both significant opportunities and clear operational challenges. Advances in model engineering and analytic capabilities have expanded the toolbox available to translational teams, enabling more mechanism-informed decisions earlier in development. At the same time, increasing modality complexity and external pressures such as tariff changes and regional variability require deliberate strategy and operational discipline to preserve data integrity and program momentum.
Organizations that marry careful model and modality selection with resilient supply chain practices, sophisticated bioanalytics and robust vendor governance will be best positioned to convert preclinical signals into clinical confidence. As decision-makers refine their approaches, the emphasis should remain on reproducibility, cross-site standardization and aligning preclinical endpoints with the objectives of later clinical development. Ultimately, disciplined execution in the preclinical phase will materially influence downstream development efficiency and the likelihood of successful clinical translation.
Note: PDF & Excel + Online Access - 1 Year
Concise framing of the current preclinical oncology in-vivo ecosystem emphasizing model selection, administration routes and therapeutic modality implications
The in-vivo oncology contract research landscape operates at the intersection of scientific rigor, regulatory complexity, and operational logistics. Organizations advancing preclinical oncology programs must navigate an environment where model selection, route of administration, and therapeutic modality decisions materially influence downstream translational outcomes. This executive summary synthesizes the current environment to inform C-suite, program leads, and procurement teams seeking clarity on where preclinical investments create the greatest value and where operational risk concentrates.
Across the preclinical continuum, teams balance biological fidelity with throughput and cost efficiency. Choices between murine platforms-ranging from genetically engineered mouse models to immunocompetent syngeneic systems and xenografts-and non-murine models such as dog, rabbit, and rat are driven by study objectives and translational intent. Likewise, route of administration decisions between intravenous, oral, and subcutaneous dosing pathways affect pharmacokinetic exposure, formulation strategies, and study complexity. Therapeutic modality further shapes study design, with chemotherapy, immunotherapy and targeted therapy each imposing unique biomarker, PK/PD and immunogenicity requirements. End users from academic laboratories to pharmaceutical sponsors and specialized contract research organizations bring differing priorities for rigor, timeline, and compliance.
As the industry accelerates, the need for integrated, high-quality preclinical data has never been more pronounced. This introduction frames subsequent sections that explore transformative shifts, tariff-driven disruptions, segmentation insights, regional dynamics, competitive positioning, actionable recommendations and the methodological underpinnings of the analysis.
Compelling narrative of scientific, operational, and modality-driven transformation reshaping preclinical oncology in-vivo studies and provider capabilities
Recent years have seen substantive shifts that are redefining how in-vivo oncology studies are designed, delivered, and interpreted. Advances in model engineering have increased the availability and granularity of biologically relevant murine systems while simultaneously elevating expectations around reproducibility and translational fidelity. Genetic editing techniques and refined engraftment approaches have driven broader adoption of complex models but also increased the technical bar for study execution, requiring deeper in-house expertise or specialized external partners.
Parallel to scientific evolution, the landscape of therapeutic development has diversified. Immunotherapy programs demand integrated immune monitoring and novel endpoints, while targeted therapies require precise exposure profiling tied to molecular biomarkers. These modality-specific needs are prompting laboratories and sponsors to re-evaluate route of administration strategies and to invest in analytics that can parse mechanism-specific signals from background variability. The rising complexity has created an opportunity for CROs that can bundle high-quality model execution with advanced PK/PD, biomarker, and data analytics capabilities.
Operationally, supply chain resilience, facility biosafety enhancements, and workforce specialization are now central to service continuity and client confidence. Together, these transformative shifts are compressing timelines for translational decision-making and rewarding providers that can standardize complex workflows without compromising biological nuance.
Strategic assessment of how recent tariff measures introduce procurement volatility, supply chain reconfiguration and contractual imperatives affecting preclinical study continuity
The introduction of new tariff measures has introduced an additional dimension of complexity for organizations that depend on cross-border sourcing of animals, reagents, equipment and specialized services. Tariff changes can influence procurement strategies for animal models and ancillary supplies, and they can cascade through shipping, customs clearance and inventory planning in ways that materially affect study timelines. Sponsors and service providers are adapting by re-evaluating vendor geographies, consolidating orders to optimize customs treatment, and expanding local sourcing options to mitigate exposure to sudden cost shifts.
Beyond direct costs, tariffs can provoke strategic rerouting of supply chains that extend lead times for critical materials and require contingency planning for reagent validation and animal husbandry. Contractual terms governing change orders, force majeure and pass-through costs are gaining prominence in negotiations, as both sponsors and CROs seek clarity on responsibility and flexibility. In many cases, organizations are also intensifying communication between procurement, regulatory and scientific teams to assess the downstream implications of alternative suppliers or substitute materials on data integrity and study comparability.
In this environment, transparency, scenario planning and contractual rigor become essential. Parties that proactively model logistical impacts, secure secondary suppliers, and adopt flexible study designs will reduce disruption and preserve program momentum despite tariff-driven headwinds.
Integrated segmentation insights connecting animal model choices, administration routes, therapeutic modalities and end-user priorities to optimize preclinical strategy
Segmentation offers a practical lens to align study design with intended translational outcomes and resource constraints. When considering animal model selection, teams must weigh murine systems such as genetically engineered mouse models, immunocompetent syngeneic models, and mouse xenografts against non-murine options like dog, rabbit, and rat to calibrate biological relevance, immunology compatibility, and regulatory expectations. Each choice carries implications for study duration, husbandry complexity, and the types of endpoints that can be robustly measured. Route of administration further refines study parameters, with intravenous dosing enabling systemic exposure assessments, oral routes reflecting projected clinical dosing realities, and subcutaneous delivery simplifying repeated dosing regimens but potentially altering absorption kinetics.
Therapeutic modality segmentation amplifies these distinctions: chemotherapy studies often prioritize tumor response and toxicity profiling, immunotherapy programs require sophisticated immune phenotyping and functional assays, and targeted therapies demand precise PK/PD correlation with molecular biomarkers. Within immunotherapy, checkpoint inhibitors and monoclonal antibodies create divergent needs for immune-competent models and antibody-specific pharmacology, while targeted therapy subsets such as kinase inhibitors and small molecule inhibitors necessitate tailored bioanalytical platforms. End-user segmentation-spanning academia and research institutes, contract research organizations, and pharmaceutical sponsors-reflects divergent priorities around cost, throughput, regulatory traceability and depth of scientific collaboration, shaping how services are packaged and delivered.
By integrating these segmentation dimensions, stakeholders can design studies that balance translational ambition with operational feasibility, ensuring that model and modality choices are purpose-built for downstream decision-making.
Region-specific analysis of capabilities, regulatory nuances and logistical factors shaping where preclinical oncology in-vivo studies are optimally conducted
Regional dynamics critically influence access to model types, regulatory expectations, and logistical considerations for in-vivo oncology research. In the Americas, robust infrastructures for specialized breeding, advanced analytical services and significant pharmaceutical R&D investment support broad access to complex murine and non-murine models, while proximity to major sponsors enables streamlined collaboration and rapid iteration on study designs. Europe, Middle East & Africa presents heterogeneous capabilities across countries, where centers of excellence deliver high-skill services but differences in regulatory frameworks and import/export rules require careful navigation to maintain study timelines and data comparability.
Asia-Pacific has matured rapidly as a hub for both cost-effective preclinical capacity and growing scientific expertise, with several providers offering scale and expanded service portfolios. However, cross-border logistics, variable biosafety norms, and regional regulatory nuances require rigorous quality management and contractual clarity to ensure consistent global datasets. Collectively, these regional characteristics inform decisions about where to place studies based on model availability, analytic capabilities, and timing pressures. Sponsors often adopt mixed-location strategies that leverage local strengths while centralizing critical assays or sentinel studies to maintain standardization. As a result, regional strategy becomes a key determinant of both program cost structure and the reliability of translational insights.
Competitive landscape analysis highlighting provider differentiation through scientific depth, quality systems, and integrated translational service offerings
Competitive positioning among service providers reflects divergent strategies to capture value in a progressively specialized market. Leading contract research organizations and specialized model providers differentiate through depth of scientific expertise, validated model libraries, and the ability to integrate translational endpoints such as advanced biomarker analytics and immunoprofiling. Strategic partnerships between pharmaceutical sponsors and academic centers or specialized laboratories continue to play a role where bespoke model development or highly mechanistic studies are required.
Providers that invest in quality management systems, accreditation, and reproducible protocols reduce client onboarding friction and increase confidence in cross-study comparability. Meanwhile, nimble niche players that offer rapid turnaround for defined model systems or that specialize in modality-specific assays attract early-stage programs seeking speed and flexibility. Increasingly, service providers also offer advisory capabilities, helping sponsors align preclinical design with clinical development strategy and regulatory expectations. The converging pressures of scientific complexity and operational resilience are elevating the importance of end-to-end service offerings that can manage model workstreams, bioanalytics and data integration under a single governance framework.
Actionable recommendations urging leaders to combine redundancy, analytics investment and governance to safeguard preclinical translational integrity and timelines
Industry leaders should adopt a pragmatic combination of scientific rigor and operational resilience to protect program timelines and translational validity. Investing in redundant supplier relationships for critical reagents and animals reduces exposure to geopolitical and tariff-related shocks, while formalizing contractual language around change orders and cost pass-through provides financial clarity. Concurrently, expanding internal or partnered capabilities for immune monitoring, PK/PD analytics and biomarker assay validation will improve the interpretability of preclinical signals and support stronger clinical translation.
Operationally, instituting standardized protocols and cross-site reference standards will enhance reproducibility across geographically distributed studies. Leaders should also prioritize early engagement between translational scientists, regulatory affairs and procurement to align study design with downstream filing expectations and supply chain realities. From a portfolio perspective, matching model complexity and modality-specific endpoints to program risk tolerances ensures that resources are focused where they most effectively reduce clinical attrition. Finally, fostering transparent, collaborative vendor relationships underpinned by performance metrics and data governance will accelerate decision-making and strengthen long-term program resilience.
Transparent and rigorous research methodology combining expert interviews, technical literature and provider operational assessments to ensure robust insights
This analysis synthesizes primary interviews with subject-matter experts, technical literature on in-vivo model performance and operational data from providers operating across major global regions. The methodology emphasized comparative evaluation of model platforms, route-of-administration implications, and modality-specific assay needs, prioritizing reproducibility, translational relevance and operational feasibility. Qualitative inputs from translational scientists, laboratory directors and procurement leads informed scenario planning around tariff impacts and supply chain adaptations.
Where possible, model-specific performance characteristics and operational constraints were cross-validated against published scientific findings and provider service descriptions to ensure a balanced perspective. The research process also incorporated structured assessments of regional capabilities based on facility accreditations, analytical service breadth, and logistics complexity. Throughout, emphasis was placed on triangulating multiple data sources to minimize bias and to produce insights that are directly actionable for sponsors, CROs and research institutions seeking to optimize in-vivo oncology programs.
Integrated conclusion underscoring the need for reproducible models, resilient operations and aligned translational endpoints to enable clinical success
The modern in-vivo oncology ecosystem presents both significant opportunities and clear operational challenges. Advances in model engineering and analytic capabilities have expanded the toolbox available to translational teams, enabling more mechanism-informed decisions earlier in development. At the same time, increasing modality complexity and external pressures such as tariff changes and regional variability require deliberate strategy and operational discipline to preserve data integrity and program momentum.
Organizations that marry careful model and modality selection with resilient supply chain practices, sophisticated bioanalytics and robust vendor governance will be best positioned to convert preclinical signals into clinical confidence. As decision-makers refine their approaches, the emphasis should remain on reproducibility, cross-site standardization and aligning preclinical endpoints with the objectives of later clinical development. Ultimately, disciplined execution in the preclinical phase will materially influence downstream development efficiency and the likelihood of successful clinical translation.
Note: PDF & Excel + Online Access - 1 Year
Table of Contents
185 Pages
- 1. Preface
- 1.1. Objectives of the Study
- 1.2. Market Segmentation & Coverage
- 1.3. Years Considered for the Study
- 1.4. Currency
- 1.5. Language
- 1.6. Stakeholders
- 2. Research Methodology
- 3. Executive Summary
- 4. Market Overview
- 5. Market Insights
- 5.1. Expansion of humanized mouse models for preclinical assessment of immuno-oncology therapies requiring complex T-cell interactions
- 5.2. Integration of advanced intravital microscopy and PET/MRI imaging to enhance real-time tumor progression and drug distribution studies in in-vivo models
- 5.3. Adoption of CRISPR/Cas9-engineered tumor models to accelerate target validation and functional genomics in oncology in-vivo research
- 5.4. Implementation of patient-derived xenograft (PDX) models reflecting diverse tumor heterogeneity for personalized oncology drug testing strategies
- 5.5. Utilization of high-throughput in-vivo screening platforms to expedite lead compound optimization and reduce time to IND submission
- 5.6. Expansion of GLP-compliant in-vivo CRO facilities in Asia-Pacific to meet the growing demand for regulatory-grade oncology data
- 6. Cumulative Impact of United States Tariffs 2025
- 7. Cumulative Impact of Artificial Intelligence 2025
- 8. Oncology Based In-Vivo CRO Market, by Animal Model
- 8.1. Murine
- 8.1.1. Genetically Engineered Mouse Model
- 8.1.2. Immunocompetent Syngeneic
- 8.1.3. Mouse Xenograft
- 8.2. Non Murine
- 8.2.1. Dog
- 8.2.2. Rabbit
- 8.2.3. Rat
- 9. Oncology Based In-Vivo CRO Market, by Route Of Administration
- 9.1. Intravenous
- 9.2. Oral
- 9.3. Subcutaneous
- 10. Oncology Based In-Vivo CRO Market, by Therapeutic Modality
- 10.1. Chemotherapy
- 10.2. Immunotherapy
- 10.2.1. Checkpoint Inhibitors
- 10.2.2. Monoclonal Antibodies
- 10.3. Targeted Therapy
- 10.3.1. Kinase Inhibitors
- 10.3.2. Small Molecule Inhibitors
- 11. Oncology Based In-Vivo CRO Market, by End User
- 11.1. Academia & Research Institute
- 11.2. Contract Research Organization
- 11.3. Pharmaceutical
- 12. Oncology Based In-Vivo CRO Market, by Region
- 12.1. Americas
- 12.1.1. North America
- 12.1.2. Latin America
- 12.2. Europe, Middle East & Africa
- 12.2.1. Europe
- 12.2.2. Middle East
- 12.2.3. Africa
- 12.3. Asia-Pacific
- 13. Oncology Based In-Vivo CRO Market, by Group
- 13.1. ASEAN
- 13.2. GCC
- 13.3. European Union
- 13.4. BRICS
- 13.5. G7
- 13.6. NATO
- 14. Oncology Based In-Vivo CRO Market, by Country
- 14.1. United States
- 14.2. Canada
- 14.3. Mexico
- 14.4. Brazil
- 14.5. United Kingdom
- 14.6. Germany
- 14.7. France
- 14.8. Russia
- 14.9. Italy
- 14.10. Spain
- 14.11. China
- 14.12. India
- 14.13. Japan
- 14.14. Australia
- 14.15. South Korea
- 15. Competitive Landscape
- 15.1. Market Share Analysis, 2024
- 15.2. FPNV Positioning Matrix, 2024
- 15.3. Competitive Analysis
- 15.3.1. Bioanalytical Systems, Inc.
- 15.3.2. Celerion, Inc.
- 15.3.3. Champion Oncology, Inc.
- 15.3.4. Charles River Laboratories International, Inc.
- 15.3.5. Crown Bioscience, Inc.
- 15.3.6. Explora BioLabs, Inc.
- 15.3.7. Frontage Laboratories, Inc.
- 15.3.8. GenScript Biotech Corporation
- 15.3.9. GenScript ProBio Co., Ltd.
- 15.3.10. Inotiv, Inc.
- 15.3.11. JSR Life Sciences Corporation
- 15.3.12. KCR S.A.
- 15.3.13. Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings
- 15.3.14. Living Tumor Laboratory, Inc.
- 15.3.15. MPI Research, Inc.
- 15.3.16. Oncodesign SA
- 15.3.17. Parexel International Corporation
- 15.3.18. PRA Health Sciences, Inc.
- 15.3.19. Syneos Health, Inc.
- 15.3.20. Taconic Biosciences, Inc.
- 15.3.21. The Jackson Laboratory, Inc.
- 15.3.22. Toxikon Corporation
- 15.3.23. Translational Drug Development, Inc.
- 15.3.24. WuXi AppTec Co., Ltd.
Pricing
Currency Rates
Questions or Comments?
Our team has the ability to search within reports to verify it suits your needs. We can also help maximize your budget by finding sections of reports you can purchase.
