Touati 2014

Methods	Secondary citation(s) NA Language of publication English Study design Retrospective, single‐centre study Study centre(s) University Hospital of Limoges, France Country France Median follow‐up time (range) 65.8 months (2.2‐194.5)
Participants	Number of included participants Total: 158 With interim‐PET: 68 Inclusion criteria Histologically proven, classic HL Exclusion criteria Nodular lymphocyte predominant HL Consent Not reported Recruitment period February 1995 to July 2011 Age (range, in years) 38 (16‐85) Ethnic group(s) Not reported Stages of disease All stages Comorbidities Not reported Therapy regimen According to the standard of care at the time of diagnosis therapy regimens included ABVD, MOPP/ABV hybrid or BEACOPP; number of cycles not reported
Prognostic factor(s)	Prognostic factor(s) Interim PET Definition of prognostic factor(s) Not reported Timing of prognostic factor measurement After cycle 2 of chemotherapy Method for measurement (use of specific scale and cut‐off) Visual evaluation PET‐positive if focal or diffuse accumulation of FDG in lesions higher than in surrounding tissue FDG‐PET‐CT data (2005 and later) retrospectively reinterpreted using the Deauville 5‐point scoring system Was the same definition and method for measurement used in all participants? Different PET imaging techniques over time (dual‐head coincidence until 2005, then FDG‐PET‐CT), quality assurance and quality control program to ensure comparability of methods Were prognostic factor(s) assessed blinded for outcome(s), and for each other (if relevant)? Not reported
Notes	Conflict of interest Not reported Funding This work was supported by the University Hospital of Limoges, CHU Limoges, F‐87042 France.