Background: The value of real-world evidence derived from the care of patients managed outside the context of clinical trials is well recognised. However, the ability to link data from multiple centres, especially those from different countries, is complicated by complex legal and information governance differences. The Oncology Evidence Network is a collaboration of large hospital centres, with strong clinical informatics capabilities in six countries in Europe and Asia working with the support of an industrial partner to provide high quality, real world data reflecting routine clinical care. We have developed an efficient workflow based on a study-specific common data model (CDM) clinically validated at each site and analysed with a single analysis script, which embeds a set of data quality rules. Local implementation allows each centre to generate analytical outputs aligned across the different sites without the need for any patient level data to leave the participating site. This approach has been designed and tested in Epithelial Ovarian Cancer (EOC) patients. Methods: A CDM was agreed using expert advisors from each centre. Clinical alignment was achieved through iterative assessment of clinical vignettes, to ensure common definitions of clinical assessment, prognosis, and treatment algorithms in EOC patients. A data guide detailing variable level derivations and validation rules, general data coding principles, and conversions/codes from international coding systems was developed. The analysis scripts were implemented as a bespoke package (OpenOvary) in R. The package includes functions to validate the data against the CDM, and generate a standard output including tables, numerical summaries and Kaplan-Meier analysis of progression and overall survival. Results: 2,925 patient records from 6 centres across 6 countries were included in the study with 27 key data items curated by each centre. Treatment data is available detailing relevant surgical procedures and their outcomes, and regimens of SACT throughout patients’ care from diagnosis to death. Data completeness was generally high for key data items, with missing data ranging from 0-16% for FIGO stage at diagnosis and 0-14% for tumour morphology. The CDM and R script will be made publicly available for other centres to adopt and facilitate analysis of their local data. Conclusions: This collaboration has brought together a substantial body of data describing the care and outcomes for EOC patients. A CDM and flexible shared analysis approach enabled unified analysis and reporting whilst avoiding the transfer of patient level data and its pooling into a common database. The process of clinical and data alignment has generated a replicable model for rapid extension to other study centres to join the EOC study, or application to other disease areas.