Mesguich 2016.

Study characteristics
Methods	Secondary citation(s) NA Language of publication English Study design Retrospective, multi‐centre study (2 centres) Study centre(s) Haut‐Lévêque Hospital and Bergonié Institute, Bordeaux, France Country France Median follow‐up time (range) 58.9 months
Participants	Number of included participants 76 Inclusion criteria Biopsy‐proven, classic HL Availability of baseline, interim and end‐of‐treatment PET‐CT Exclusion criteria Treatment with chemotherapy different than ABVD Planned treatment modification following int‐PET results End‐PET performance > 6 months after end of treatment Consent No; waived because of retrospective design Recruitment period December 2005 to April 2011 Age (range, in years) 37 (median; 14‐67) Ethnic group(s) Not reported Stages of disease All stages Comorbidities Not reported Therapy regimen Various therapy regimens: 3, 4, 6 or 8 cycles of ABVD with or without radiotherapy
Prognostic factor(s)	Prognostic factor(s) Interim PET Definition of prognostic factor(s) Not reported Timing of prognostic factor measurement After 2, 3 or 4 treatment cycles Method for measurement (use of specific scale and cut‐off) Deauville 5‐point scoring system Consensual reading of two nuclear medicine physicians Two cut‐offs for interim PET positivity tested and compared: either scores 4 to 5 considered PET positive, or scores 3 to 5 considered PET positive 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) Progression‐free survival (PFS), defined as the time from diagnosis to either failure of first‐line treatment, relapse or death Secondary outcome(s) and definition(s) None 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? NA
Analysis	Univariable analysis: Yes Total number of participants included in univariate analysis for each outcome PFS: all Statistical method Kaplan Meier analysis curve Log‐rank test How was the prognostic factor treated? Binary Multivariable analysis: Yes Total number of participants included in multivariable analysis for each outcome PFS: all Statistical method Cox proportional hazard models How was the prognostic factor treated? Binary Number of candidate covariates 3 List of all candidate covariates Interim PET Disease stage* Bulky disease* *2 separate models, each adjusted for one of the 2 covariates other than interim PET
Risk of bias (QUIPS)	Study participation Low risk Clear description of participants and study characteristics. Study attrition Low risk No loss to follow‐up. Prognostic factor measurement Low risk Adequate measurement and description. Prognostic factor measured the same way for all participants. Outcome: Overall survival Not reported Outcome: Progression‐free survival Outcome measurement Low risk Clear definition. Outcome measured the same way for all participants. Blinding not reported. 'Other prognostic factors (covariates)' Low risk Adjusted for disease stage. Statistical analysis and reporting Low risk Statistical method appropriate for the data. Outcome: Adverse events Not reported
Notes	Conflict of interest None declared. Funding No funding was sought or received for this study.