Background: While new interventions have improved cancer screening, treatment, and survivorship, the costs and other economic impacts of interventions may affect their uptake and availability. It is unknown what proportion of recently-funded National Cancer Institute (NCI) grants include economic outcomes. Methods: We used the NIH Query/View/Report (QVR) System to determine the number of competitive grants funded by NCI 2015-2020 that included economic outcomes. Grants were identified using the NIH Research, Condition, and Disease Categorization (RCDC) category “Cost Effectiveness Research”; 19 RCDC terms/concepts related to economic analyses; and 18 economic phrases searched for in grant titles, abstracts, and specific aims. The specific aims and abstracts of all grants meeting any of these search criteria were reviewed by an NCI scientist to ensure the presence of economic study outcomes. Results: Among over 13,700 competitive grants awarded by NCI 2015-2020, the search identified 149 grants; following abstract/specific aims review, 102 of these grants (0.74% of all grants) included an economic outcome. Most (69 of 102, 67.6%) included cost-effectiveness analysis; 24 included other cost analyses, 7 assessed financial hardship or similar outcomes, and 2 focused on developing economic methods. Among RCDC terms, more than half (53) listed modeling (9 listing Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network), 24 randomized controlled trials, 15 QALYs, 11 implementation science, 3 willingness to pay. The most common cancer sites listed were breast (28), lung (23), cervical (19), and colorectal (17) cancer. Almost half (48) mentioned screening and 24 cancer prevention. Risk factors listed included 28 for smoking, 18 HPV, 8 HIV, 8 physical activity, 6 obesity, 4 nutrition. Ten listed treatment efficacy, 6 chemotherapy, 4 radiation therapy, 3 hormone therapy, and 1 chemoradiation. “Treatment as usual” was listed by 16, symptom management 4, and telehealth 4. Survivors were listed for 15, caregivers 3, health disparity 18, rural 15, young adult 4. The majority of grant mechanisms were R01 (76, 74.5%); 3 were R21/R03, 4 other R mechanisms, 7 K awards, 6 U grants, 6 P, F, or L grants. Conclusions: While this search may not have identified all funded NCI grants over the past 5 years involving economic analyses, we found that less than 1% included economic outcomes. Recommendations to assist NCI in supporting health economics research focused on cancer across the entire care spectrum should be considered.