Randomized controlled trials remain the gold standard for evaluating cancer intervention efficacy. Randomized trials are not always feasible, practical, or timely, and often don’t adequately reflect patient heterogeneity and real-world clinical practice. Comparative effectiveness research can leverage secondary data to help fill knowledge gaps randomized trials leave unaddressed; however, comparative effectiveness research also faces shortcomings. The goal of this project was to develop a new model and inform an evolving framework articulating cancer comparative effectiveness research data needs
