OBJECTIVES:  In the context of gradual implementation of economic evaluation of medicines, the Catalan Health Service (CatSalut) aimed to assess which types of EE were considered by seven Health Technology Assessment (HTA) agencies for a sample of 49 oncologic indications. METHODS:  The following agencies were included: HAS (France), IQWIG (Germany), NICE (United Kingdom), PBAC (Australia), pCODR (Canada), SMC (Scotland) and TLV (Sweden). Reports available online on agencies’ websites covering the target indications until October 2015 were reviewed. Information about the EE conducted was extracted and assessed: type of EE, perspective, type of costs, responsible for the model development, and whether a budged impact model (BIM) was included. RESULTS:  294 reports were identified across the seven agencies assessed, 74% of which included an EE and 33% included a BIM. Among agencies conducting EE (all but IQWIG), cost-utility analysis (CUA) was the most frequently applied (73.5%): 63% in TLV, 92% in SMC, 72% in PBAC, 97% in NICE, 54% in pCODR, and in the only EE identified in HAS. Cost-effectiveness and cost minimization analyses were observed in 11% and 10.5% of the reports, respectively. Most of the identified EE considered only direct costs; 16% and 3% of EE conducted by TLV and NICE, respectively, included indirect costs. Manufacturers participated in the development of all EE, either on their own or in collaboration with the agency or with an external committee. Only 83%, 76% and 68% of reports of PBAC, SMC and NICE, respectively, included a BIM. CONCLUSIONS:  The most common type of EE across the assessed indications for all agencies was the CUA, and only 3 agencies conducted BIMs for HTA. Indirect costs were seldom used.