OBJECTIVES: Observational studies can be useful to fill in gaps of randomized studies or when these cannot be conducted. Aim of this study was the assessment of available real world evidence (RWE) in oncology and the identification of research gaps for Germany. METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted to evaluate the status quo of RWE in the field of oncology. Key words identifying health services research in combination with oncology in Germany were used in a search performed in the DIMDI (German Institute of Medical Documentation and Information) meta-database including all years up to 2015. The selected publications were classified by type of RWE study and further categorized by cancer types. RESULTS: In total, 80 publications were included and stratified by RWE approach and cancer type. Nine RWE categories were determined, including cancer registries, registry-linked data, health care claims, inpatient and outpatient data, and surveys. Most observational studies (56%) assessed oncologic health care by conducting surveys, followed by cancer registries (10%) and claims data (9%). Overall, 32 studies evaluated cancer in general, breast cancer was assessed in 15 studies, whereas 4 addressed prostate cancer, with remaining publications addressing other cancer types. Most observational studies were published in 2011 (18%). Assessments with cancer registries were published as of 2011, whereas there were no studies with claims data from 2012-2014. Specific care and treatment of cancer patients, including palliative care was considered in 23 publications. Almost all cancer types were assessed, except lymphoid and hematopoietic neoplasms. Moreover, claims data were hardly used. For surveys, it can be noted that the use increased from 2005 onwards. CONCLUSIONS: The available evidence shows that RWE data in oncology has not yet reached its potential to supplement randomized studies. Research gaps exist in terms of RWE treatment with new concepts and drugs.