Okosun 2012.

Study characteristics
Methods	Secondary citation(s) NA Language of publication English Study design Retrospective, multi‐centre study (6 centres) Study centre(s) 6 centres in London, UK Country UK Median follow‐up time (range) 27 months
Participants	Number of included participants 23 Inclusion criteria Newly diagnosed, histologically confirmed classic HL Advanced stage HIV positivity Exclusion criteria None Consent Not reported Recruitment period June 2007 to August 2010 Age (range, in years) 42 (median, 32‐60) Ethnic group(s) Not reported Stages of disease Advanced stages: stage III –IV or stage IIB with at least one adverse prognostic factor Comorbidities HIV positive participants only Therapy regimen Treatment for HL: standard ABVD therapy Treatment for HIV: HAART (two NRTIs in combination with either a non‐NRTI or a boosted protease inhibitor) antiretroviral therapy; G‐CSF per centre protocol; prophylaxis for Pneumocystis jiroveci
Prognostic factor(s)	Prognostic factor(s) Interim PET Definition of prognostic factor(s) Half‐body PET‐CT scan Timing of prognostic factor measurement After 2‐3 cycles of ABVD, within the week before start of the next cycle Method for measurement (use of specific scale and cut‐off) Deauville 5‐point scoring system Scores 1‐3 considered negative, scores 4‐5 considered positive Assessed at 3 established PET centres by own nuclear medicine physician and central review by nuclear medicine expert 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 disease progression or relapse or last follow‐up Secondary outcome(s) and definition(s) Overall survival (OS), defined as the time from diagnosis to death from any cause Complete remission, defined as the disappearance of all disease manifestations at the end of therapy Timing of outcome measurement At 2 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 in univariate analysis for each outcome PFS: all OS: not applicable, since no participants died Statistical method Kaplan‐Meier survival curves with log‐rank test 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. Three participants did not have a staging PET, no reasons for missing PET provided. Study attrition Low risk No loss to follow‐up. Length of follow‐up reported. Participants without interim PET (n = 11) excluded. 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. 'Other prognostic factors (covariates)' Low risk Only unfavourable and advanced stages included. Statistical analysis and reporting High risk Small sample size for some events (only two participants with positive interim PET result). Outcome: Adverse events Not reported
Notes	Conflict of interest All authors have no conflicts of interest or disclaimers to declare. Funding Not reported