Markova 2012.

Study characteristics
Methods	Secondary citation(s) Markova 2009 Language of publication English Study design Retrospective, single‐centre study Study centre(s) Prague, institution not reported Country Czech Republic Median follow‐up time (range) 52 months
Participants	Number of included participants 69 Inclusion criteria Newly diagnosed, histologically proven HL Clinical stage IIB with large mediastinal mass and/or extranodal disease, stage III or IV Age 18‐60 years Exclusion criteria Presence of any concurrent disease precluding protocol treatment Composite lymphoma Previous malignancy Previous chemo‐ or radiotherapy Pregnancy or lactation Diabetes mellitus and elevated fasting blood sugar level >130 mg/dl (exclusion from PET) Consent Not reported Recruitment period January 2004 to February 2008 Age (range, in years) 30.7 (± 8.4) Ethnic group(s) Not reported Stages of disease IIB to IVB Comorbidities None, due to exclusion criteria Therapy regimen Treatment according to the HD15 trial of the German Hodgkin Study Group (GHSG) randomly assigned to either 8 cycles of BEACOPPescalated, 6 cycles of BEACOPPescalated or 8 cycles of time‐condensed BEACOPP14baseline Local radiotherapy for participants with partial remission with residual mass ≥2.5cm and positive PET scan after chemotherapy
Prognostic factor(s)	Prognostic factor(s) Interim PET Definition of prognostic factor(s) Not reported Timing of prognostic factor measurement After cycle 4 of chemotherapy, as close as possible to cycle 5 Method for measurement (use of specific scale and cut‐off) A local nuclear medicine physician interpreted all interim‐PET scans PET‐positive defined as focal or diffuse uptake above background in a location incompatible with normal anatomy or physiology, without a specific standardised uptake cut‐off value; PET‐negative defined as no uptake, or increased uptake at the site of residual mass with an intensity lower or equal to the mediastinal blood pool 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)? Not reported
Outcome(s)	Primary outcome(s) and definition(s) Progression‐free survival (PFS), defined as the time from diagnosis to the first evidence of progression or relapse, or death from any cause Secondary outcome(s) and definition(s) None Timing of outcome measurement After cycle 4, 6/8 and 3 months after completion of chemotherapy 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 in univariable analysis for each outcome PFS: all Statistical method Kaplan‐Meier (survival analysis) Log‐rank test (comparison between groups) How was the prognostic factor treated? Binary Multivariable analysis: No
Risk of bias (QUIPS)	Study participation Low risk All eligible participants included. Clear description of participants and study characteristics. Consecutive sampling. Inclusion and exclusion criteria provided. Study attrition Low risk No loss to follow‐up. Prognostic factor measurement Moderate risk Prognostic factor measured differently: PET4 scans reviewed locally (at the centre) by one physician, whereas PET6/8 assessment included central review. Outcome: Overall survival Not reported Outcome: Progression‐free survival Outcome measurement Low risk Outcome measured the same way for all participants. 'Other prognostic factors (covariates)' Low risk Only advanced stages included. Statistical analysis and reporting Low risk Statistical method in univariable analysis appropriate for the data. Outcome: Adverse events Not reported
Notes	Conflict of interest Not reported Funding Not reported