Abstract Real-world evidence (RWE) has garnered great interest to support registration of new therapies and label expansions by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Currently, practical insights on the design and analysis of regulatory-grade RWE are lacking. This study aimed to analyze attributes of real-world studies in FDA's decision-making and characteristics of full versus accelerated approvals through a systematic review of oncology product approvals. Oncology approvals from 2015 to 2020 were reviewed from FDA.gov. Applications were screened for inclusion of RWE, and variables related to regulatory designations of the application, pivotal clinical trial, and real-world studies were extracted. FDA feedback was reviewed to identify takeaways and best practices for adequate RWE. Among 133 original and 573 supplemental approvals for oncology, 11 and 2, respectively, included RWE; none predated 2017. All real-world studies were retrospective in nature; the most common data source was chart review, and the most common primary endpoint was overall response rate, as in the pivotal trial. The FDA critiqued the lack of the following: a prespecified study protocol, inclusion/exclusion criteria matching to the trial, comparability of endpoint definitions, methods to minimize confounding and address unmeasured confounding, and plans to handle missing data. All full (versus accelerated) approvals shared the following characteristics: high magnitude of efficacy in the pivotal trial; designations of orphan disease, breakthrough therapy, and priority review; and no advisory committee meeting held. This study found that findings from external control real-world studies complemented efficacy data from single-arm trials in successful oncology product approvals.