OBJECTIVES: There is a growing literature of health state utility values in oncology, providing researchers with an increasing opportunity to draw on existing published values rather than obtaining new data.  A review of utility studies would identify existing values and gaps in the current literature.  Our objective was to conduct a rapid, comprehensive literature review capturing oncology specific utilities and disutilities for adverse events, associated with the therapeutic area of oncology, in order to develop a utilities library. METHODS: A comprehensive search string and pre-determined eligibility criteria guided a search of Embase.com and the Cochrane Library focusing on primary papers and  recent robust systematic reviews published from 1999-2009.  To guide data extraction and construct the utility library, categories were created and included cancer type; treatment information; methods of utility capture; and utility/disutility value/range. RESULTS: We identified 362 studies estimating utility and disutility values in oncology, in a wide range of cancer types.  Breast and prostate cancers were the most commonly investigated (n=91 and n=49 respectively).  Comparably, a paucity of utility values were reported for other cancers.  Methods of utility elicitation varied in robustness and wide-ranging values were reported.  The most common method of utility capture was EQ5D followed by the HUI and the Time-Trade-Off or Standard Gamble techniques.  Conversely, only 1 study employed the SF-6D.   Although the most common causes of cancer-related deaths are lung and colorectal cancer, we found fewer studies eliciting utilities for these cancers relative to breast and prostate cancers (n=21 and n=27 respectively).  CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates the value in reviewing literature estimating utilities and disutilities in oncology.  It highlights areas in oncology where identified utility values may be combined to produce more robust values and examine sources of variation.