Gandikota 2015.

Study characteristics
Methods	Secondary citation(s) NA Language of publication English Study design Retrospective study Study centre(s) Not reported Country/Countries Not reported Median follow‐up time (range) 46 months (24‐126)
Participants	Number of included participants 78 Inclusion criteria Biopsy‐proven, early‐stage (IA to IIB) classic HL of any subtype with or without bulky disease Age > 18 years Completion of planned ABVD and radiation therapy At least 24 months of follow‐up or until proven relapse if earlier Exclusion criteria None Consent No Recruitment period January 2000 to December 2012 Age (range, in years) 43 (median; 22‐86) Ethnic group(s) Not reported Stages of disease Early stages (IA to IIB) Comorbidities Not reported Therapy regimen ABVD (number of cycles based on risk factors and institutional guidelines) followed by involved‐field or extended‐field radiotherapy
Prognostic factor(s)	Prognostic factor(s) Interim PET Definition of prognostic factor(s) PET‐CT scan (from base of the skull to upper thigh) Timing of prognostic factor measurement After ABVD cycle 2 to 4 or at the end of chemotherapy Method for measurement (use of specific scale and cut‐off) 5‐point scale PET negative defined as a score ≤ 3 Staff physicians who were unaware of patient outcomes reviewed all scans Was the same definition and method for measurement used in all participants? Yes Were prognostic factor(s) assessed blinded for outcome(s), and for each other (if relevant)? Yes
Outcome(s)	Primary outcome(s) and definition(s) Outcomes relevant to this review were not explored in the study Secondary outcome(s) and definition(s) Not applicable Timing of outcome measurement Not applicable Was the same definition and method for measurement used in all participants? Not applicable Was/were outcome(s) assessed blinded for prognostic factor(s), and for each other (if relevant)? Not applicable
Missing data	Participants with any missing value? Yes: one patient without baseline PET due to pregnancy; one patient without detectable disease on the baseline scan (excision of single site disease) If yes, how were missing data handled? One patient without detectable disease on the baseline scan did not receive follow‐up PET since not considered necessary
Analysis	Univariable analysis: No Multivariable analysis: No
Risk of bias (QUIPS)	No risk of bias assessment, since outcomes relevant to this review were not explored in the study.
Notes	Conflict of interest The authors made no disclosure. Funding No specific funding was disclosed.