Touati 2014.

Study characteristics
Methods	Secondary citation(s) NA Language of publication English Study design Retrospective, single‐centre study Study centre(s) University Hospital of Limoges, France Country France Median follow‐up time (range) 65.8 months (2.2‐194.5)
Participants	Number of included participants Total: 158 With interim‐PET: 68 Inclusion criteria Histologically proven, classic HL Exclusion criteria Nodular lymphocyte predominant HL Consent Not reported Recruitment period February 1995 to July 2011 Age (range, in years) 38 (16‐85) Ethnic group(s) Not reported Stages of disease All stages Comorbidities Not reported Therapy regimen According to the standard of care at the time of diagnosis therapy regimens included ABVD, MOPP/ABV hybrid or BEACOPP; number of cycles not reported
Prognostic factor(s)	Prognostic factor(s) Interim PET Definition of prognostic factor(s) Not reported Timing of prognostic factor measurement After cycle 2 of chemotherapy Method for measurement (use of specific scale and cut‐off) Visual evaluation PET‐positive if focal or diffuse accumulation of FDG in lesions higher than in surrounding tissue FDG‐PET‐CT data (2005 and later) retrospectively reinterpreted using the Deauville 5‐point scoring system Was the same definition and method for measurement used in all participants? Different PET imaging techniques over time (dual‐head coincidence until 2005, then FDG‐PET‐CT), quality assurance and quality control program to ensure comparability of methods 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 time from date of diagnosis until relapse or death Overall survival (OS), defined as time from first day of diagnosis until death from any cause 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? Not applicable
Analysis	Univariable analysis: Yes Total number of participants included in univariable analysis for each outcome PFS: 68 OS: 68 Statistical method Kaplan‐Meier (survival analysis) Chi‐squared test or t‐test (differences between groups) ANOVA (comparison of means) How was the prognostic factor treated? Binary Multivariable analysis: No
Risk of bias (QUIPS)	Study participation Unclear risk Availability of interim PET as part of inclusion criteria, but not clear why less than 50% of participants had interim PET data. No comparison of baseline study sample (n = 357) with included participants (n = 158). Study attrition Low risk All participants with available interim PET included. Prognostic factor measurement Moderate risk Retrospective reinterpretation of PET scans using the Deauville criteria. Method described, but unclear whether assessors were blinded to initial interpretation. Outcome: Overall survival Outcome measurement Low risk Clear definition. Outcome measured the same way for all participants. 'Other prognostic factors (covariates)' High risk Disease stage not accounted for. Statistical analysis and reporting Low risk Statistical method appropriate for the data. Outcome: Progression‐free survival Outcome measurement Low risk Clear definition. Outcome measured the same way for all participants. '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 Not reported Funding This work was supported by the University Hospital of Limoges, CHU Limoges, F‐87042 France.