Andre 2017.

Study characteristics
Methods	Secondary citation(s) Raemarkers 2014, Cottereau 2018 Language of publication English Study design Prospective, multi‐centre, phase III randomised trial Study centre(s) Various Countries Belgium, Croatia, Denmark, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Slovakia, Switzerland Median follow‐up time (range) 55 months
Participants	Number of included participants Total: 1925 Randomised to standard treatment without change in protocol because of interim PET: 954 Inclusion criteria Previously untreated Classic supradiaphragmic stage I and II HL Age 15 to 70 years Exclusion criteria Previous laparotomy Concomitant or previous cancer other than basal‐cell carcinoma of the skin or in situ carcinoma of the cervix Concomitant severe illness that would reduce life expectancy Social circumstances not allowing for proper treatment and follow‐up Positivity for the human immunodeficiency virus (exclusion criteria reported in Fermé 20071) Consent Yes; written informed consent Recruitment period November 2006 to June 2011 Age (range, in years) Favourable, standard treatment group median: 31 (15‐49) Unfavourable, standard treatment group median: 32 (15‐70) Ethnic group(s) Not reported Stages of disease Early stages (I and II) Comorbidities Not reported, except for the exclusion criteria Therapy regimen ABVD and radiotherapy depending on treatment arm, favourable/unfavourable disease, and early PET (ePET) positivity
Prognostic factor(s)	Prognostic factor(s) Early PET (ePET) Definition of prognostic factor(s) Not reported Timing of prognostic factor measurement After 2 ABVD cycles Method for measurement (use of specific scale and cut‐off) International Harmonization Project criteria. According to these criteria: PET‐negative corresponds to Deauville score 1 (no uptake) and score 2 (uptake ≤ mediastinum) Central review performed online (up to 6 experts, and one local expert) Was the same definition and method for measurement used in all participants? Central review started later for 2 centres in Italy due to technical difficulties, only 75% of ePET were centrally reviewed Were prognostic factor(s) assessed blinded for outcome(s), and for each other (if relevant)? Not reported
Outcome(s)	Primary outcome(s) and definition(s) Progression‐free survival (PFS), defined as time from random assignment to date of progression (as experiencing relapse after previous complete remission, progressive disease, or death from any cause) Secondary outcome(s) and definition(s) Overall survival (OS), not defined Timing of outcome measurement At 5 years Was the same definition and method for measurement used in all participants? Yes Was/were outcome(s) assessed blinded for prognostic factor(s), and for each other (if relevant)? Not reported
Missing data	Participants with any missing value? No If yes, how were missing data handled? Not applicable
Analysis	Univariable analysis: Yes Total number of participants included inunivariateanalysis for each outcome PFS: all OS: all Statistical method Kaplan‐Meier method HR (95% CI) Randomised arms were compared using the log‐rank test stratified by Ann Arbor stage and availability of a baseline FDG‐PET scan How was the prognostic factor treated? Binary Multivariable analysis: No
Risk of bias (QUIPS)	Study participation Low risk Clear description of participants and study characteristics. Study attrition Low risk Length of follow‐up reported. Exclusion of participants due to safety amendment during the study. Prognostic factor measurement Moderate risk Adequate measurement and description. Central review only for 75% of scans and delayed in the case of 2 centres due to technical difficulties. Outcome: Overall survival Not reported Outcome: Progression‐free survival Outcome measurement Low risk No definition of outcome. Outcome measured the same way for all participants. 'Other prognostic factors (covariates)' Low risk Statistical analysis and reporting Low risk Statistical method appropriate for the data. Outcome: Adverse events Not reported
Notes	Conflict of interest Casasnovas O: honoraria received from Genentech, Takeda, Gilead Sciences, Sanofi; consulting or advisory role at Genentech, Takeda, Gilead Sciences; research funding received from Genentech; travel, accomodation, expenses received from Genentech, Takeda, Gilead Sciences Brice P: research funding received from Merck Sharp & Dohme Oncology, Takeda; travel, accomodation, expenses received from Takeda Specht L: consulting or advisory role at Takeda; research funding received from Varian Medical Systems; travel, accomodation, expenses received from Takeda Delarue R: honoraria received from Servier, Gilead Sciences, Roche, Celgene, Takeda; consulting or advisory role at Gilead Sciences, Roche; Speakers' Bureau at Karyopharm Therapeutics; travel, accomodation, expenses received from Roche, Takeda, Celgene Hutchings M: consulting or advisory role at Takeda, Genentech, Celgene, Bayer; research funding received from Takeda, Janssen‐Cilag, Genentech, Celgene; travel, accomodation, expenses received from Takeda, Bristol‐Myers, Squibb, Janssen‐Cilag Funding Supported by European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (Belgium), LYmphoma Study Association (France), Fondazione Italiana Limfomi (Italy), Fondation Belge Contre le Cancer (Belgium), Dutch Cancer Society (the Netherlands), Institut National du Cancer (France), Assistance Publique des Hopitaux de Paris (France), Societe Française de Medecine Nucleaire et Imagerie Moleculaire (France), Associazone Angela Serra (Italy), van Vlissingen Lymfoom Fonds (the Netherlands), and Chugai Pharmaceutical (Japan). [1] Fermé C, Eghbali H, Meerwaldt JH, Rieux C, Bosq J, Berger F, et al. Chemotherapy plus involved‐field radiation in early‐stage Hodgkin’s disease. New England Journal of Medicine 2007;357:1916‐1927