Rossi 2014.

Study characteristics
Methods	Secondary citation(s) NA Language of publication English Study design Retrospective, single‐centre study Study centre(s) Hospital of Dijon, France Country France Median follow‐up time (range) 50 months (22‐71)
Participants	Number of included participants 59 Inclusion criteria First diagnosis of classic HL Exclusion criteria Positive serology for HIV Consent Yes; written informed consent Recruitment period January 2007 to January 2010 Age (range, in years) 35.5 (16‐76) Ethnic group(s) Not reported Stages of disease All stages Comorbidities Not reported, except for exclusion of HIV positive participants Therapy regimen Anthracycline‐based chemotherapy dependent on disease stage: stages I‐II 4‐6x chemotherapy with radiotherapy; stages III‐IV 8x chemotherapy
Prognostic factor(s)	Prognostic factor(s) Interim PET Definition of prognostic factor(s) Whole‐body PET‐CT scan Timing of prognostic factor measurement After 2 cycles of chemotherapy 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 ΔSUVmax (PET0‐PET2) dichotomized by applying the ROC approach Independent review by 2 nuclear medicine physicians Was the same definition and method for measurement used in all participants? Different scanner used for 4 participants 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 the beginning of treatment until progression, relapse, or death from any cause or the date of last follow‐up Time to progression (TTP), defined as time from the date of the first course of chemotherapy to any treatment failure, including progression, relapse, or death related to lymphoma, or the date of last follow‐up (participants with death from other cause were censored at the time of death) Secondary outcome(s) and definition(s) None Timing of outcome measurement At 4 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 Statistical method Kaplan‐Meier product limit method with 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 hazards regression models per outcome How was the prognostic factor treated? Binary Number of candidate covariates 2 List of all candidate covariates ΔSUVmax (PET0‐PET2) International prognosis score (IPS)
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)' High risk Disease stage not accounted for. Statistical analysis and reporting Low risk Statistical method appropriate for the data. Outcome: Adverse events Not reported
Notes	Conflict of interest The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. Therefore, and solely to indicate this fact, this article is hereby marked “advertisement” in accordance with 18 USC section 1734. No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported. Funding Not reported