Interim PET‐results for prognosis in adults with Hodgkin lymphoma: a systematic review and meta‐analysis of prognostic factor studies

Angela Aldin; Lisa Umlauff; Lise J Estcourt; Gary Collins; Karel GM Moons; Andreas Engert; Carsten Kobe; Bastian von Tresckow; Madhuri Haque; Farid Foroutan; Nina Kreuzberger; Marialena Trivella<sup>a</sup>; Nicole Skoetz<sup>a</sup>

doi:10.1002/14651858.CD012643.pub3

Resultados provisionales de la TEP para el pronóstico en adultos con linfoma de Hodgkin: revisión sistemática y metanálisis de los estudios de factores pronósticos

Contraer todo Desplegar todo

Referencias

Referencias de los estudios incluidos en esta revisión

Ir a:

estudios excluidos
estudios a la espera de valoración
estudios en curso
otras referencias
otras versiones publicadas

Adams HJ, Kwee TC. Interim fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography-adapted therapy is not an efficient approach to improving outcome in early-stage Hodgkin lymphoma. Journal of Clinical Oncology 2017;35(24):2850-1.

Andre ME, Girinsky T, Federico M, Reman O, Fortpied C, Gotti M, et al. Early positron emission tomography response-adapted treatment in stage I and II Hodgkin lymphoma: final results of the randomized EORTC/LYSA/FIL H10 trial (NCT00433433). Journal of Clinical Oncology 2017;35:1786-94.

Andre ME, Reman O, Federico M, Brice P, Brusamolino E, Girinski T, et al. First report on the H10 EORTC/GELA/IIL randomized intergroup trial on early FDG-PET scan guided treatment adaptation versus standard combined modality treatment in patients with supra-diaphragmatic stage I/II Hodgkin's lymphoma, for the Groupe d'Etude Des Lymphomes De l'Adulte (GELA), European Organisation for the Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Lymphoma Group and the Intergruppo Italiano Linfomi (IIL). Blood 2009;114(22):97.

Google Scholar

Andre ME, Reman O, Federico M, Girinski T, Brice P, Brusamolino E, et al. Interim analysis of the randomized EORTC/LYSA/FIL intergroup H10 trial on early PET-scan driven treatment adaptation in stage I/II Hodgkin lymphoma. Blood 2012;120(21):549.

Cottereau AS, Versari A, Loft A, Casanovas O, Bellei M, Ricci R, et al. Prognostic value of baseline metabolic tumor volume in early-stage Hodgkin lymphoma in the standard arm of the H10 trial. Journal of Nuclear Medicine 2018;131(13):1456-63.

Google Scholar

Fornecker LM, Lazarovici J, Aurer I, Casasnovas RO, Gac A C, Bonnet C, et al. PET-based response after 2 cycles of brentuximab vedotin in combination with AVD for first-line treatment of unfavorable early-stage Hodgkin lymphoma: First analysis of the primary endpoint of BREACH, a randomized phase II trial of LYSA-FIL-EORTC intergroup. Blood 2017;130(Suppl 1):736.

Google Scholar

Hindie E, Mesguich C, Zanotti-Fregonara P. On the role of interim fluorine-18-labeled fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in early-stage favorable Hodgkin lymphoma. Journal of Clinical Oncology 2017;35(24):2851-2.

Raemaekers JM, Andre MP, Federico M, Girinsky T, Oumedaly R, Brusamolino E, et al. Omitting radiotherapy in early positron emission tomography-negative stage I/II Hodgkin lymphoma is associated with an increased risk of early relapse: Clinical results of the preplanned interim analysis of the randomized EORTC/LYSA/FIL H10 trial. Journal of Clinical Oncology 2014;32:1188-94.

Annunziata S, Calcagni M, Rufini V, Cuccaro A, Massini G, Bartolomei F, et al. The prognostic role of interim FDG-PET/CT and CD68+ cells count in the treatment of Hodgkin lymphoma. European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging 2014;41(Suppl. 2):S182.

Google Scholar

Annunziata S, Calcagni ML, Indovina L, Rufini V. Measurement uncertainty and clinical impact of target-to-background ratios derived by interim FDG-PET/CT in Hodgkin Lymphoma: reply to Laffon and Martan. European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging 2017;44(12):2140-1.

Annunziata S, Cuccaro A, Calcagni M, Indovina L, Hohaus S, Giordano A, et al. Could the ratio between lesion and liver SUVmax (rPET) be a prognostic factor in patients with Hodgkin lymphoma undergoing interim FDG-PET/CT? A retrospective study. In: European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging. Vol. 42. 2015:S686.

Google Scholar

Annunziata S, Cuccaro A, Calcagni ML, Hohaus S, Giordano A, Rufini V. Interim FDG-PET/CT in Hodgkin lymphoma: the prognostic role of the ratio between target lesion and liver SUVmax (rPET). Annals of Nuclear Medicine 2016;30:588-92.

Annunziata S, Cuccaro A, Hohaus S, Calcagni M L, Giordano A, Rufini V. Interim FDG-PET/CT in patients with Hodgkin lymphoma: The prognostic role of the ratio between target lesion and liver SUVmax (rPET). Journal of Nuclear Medicine 2016;57(Supp 2):651.

Google Scholar

Annunziata S, Cuccaro A, Hohaus S, Giordano A, Rufini V. Semi-quantitative parameters could improve positive predictive value of interim FDG-PET/CT in Hodgkin lymphoma. European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging 2016;43(Suppl 1):S312.

Google Scholar

Annunziata S, Cuccaro A, Hohaus S, Rufini V. Interim FDG-PET/CT in Hodgkin lymphoma: The prognostic value of ratios between target lesion and background SUV. Clinical and Translational Imaging 2017;5(Suppl 1):S44-5.

Google Scholar

Annunziata S, Cuccaro A, Rufini V, Calcagni M, Giachelia M, Martini M, et al. The prognostic role of interim FDG-PET/CT, CD68 1 cells count and levels of plasma thymus and activation-regulated chemokine in the treatment of Hodgkin lymphoma. Clinical and Translational Imaging 2015;3(Suppl 1):S18-19.

Google Scholar

Cuccaro A, Annunziata S, Rufini V, Calcagni M L, Giordano A, Hohaus S. Can the ratio between lesion and liver SUVmax improve outcome prediction in Hodgkin lymphoma with respect to the 5-point Deauville score? Haematologica 2015;100(Suppl 3):89.

Google Scholar

Barnes JA, LaCasce AS, Zukotynski K, Israel D, Feng Y, Neuberg D, et al. End-of-treatment but not interim PET scan predicts outcome in nonbulky limited-stage Hodgkin's lymphoma. Annals of Oncology 2011;22:910-5.

Sher DJ, Mauch PM, Van Den Abbeele A, LaCasce AS, Czerminski J, Ng AK. Prognostic significance of mid- and post-ABVD PET imaging in Hodgkin's lymphoma: the importance of involved-field radiotherapy. Annals of Oncology 2009;20:1848-53.

Casasnovas O, Bouabdallah R, Brice P, Lazarovici J, Ghesquieres H, Stamatoullas A, et al. PET-adapted treatment for newly diagnosed advanced Hodgkin lymphoma (AHL2011): a randomised, multicentre, non-inferiority, phase 3 study. Lancet Oncology 2019;20(2):202-15.

Casasnovas O, Brice P, Bouabdallah R, Salles G, Stamatoulas A, Dupuis J, et al. Final analysis of the AHL2011 randomized phase III LYSA study comparing an early pet driven treatment de-escalation to a not pet-monitored strategy in patients with advanced stages Hodgkin lymphoma. HemaSphere 2018;2(Suppl. 2):7.

Google Scholar

Casasnovas O, Brice P, Bouabdallah R, Salles GA, Stamatoulas A, Dupuis J, et al. Randomized phase III study comparing an early PET driven treatment de-escalation to a not PET-monitored strategy in patients with advanced stages Hodgkin lymphoma: final analysis of the AHL2011 LYSA study. Journal of Clinical Oncology 2018;36(15):7503.

Casasnovas O, Brice P, Bouabdallah R, Salles GA, Stamatoullas A, Dupuis J, et al. Randomized phase III study comparing an early pet driven treatment de-escalation to a not pet-monitored strategy in patients with advanced stages hodgkin lymphoma: interim analysis of the AHL2011 LYSA study. Blood 2015;126(23):577.

Casasnovas O, Kanoun S, Tal I, Cottereau AS, Edeline V, Brice P, et al. Baseline total metabolic volume (TMTV) to predict the outcome of patients with advanced Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) enrolled in the AHL2011 LYSA trial. Journal of Clinical Oncology 2016;34(15):7509.

Casasnovas O, Meignan M, Reman O, Gaillard I, Stamatoullas A, Brice P, et al. AHL 2011: A LYSA randomized phase III study of a treatment driven by early PET response compared to a standard treatment in patients with Ann Arbor stage III-IV or high-risk IIB Hodgkin lymphoma. Journal of Clinical Oncology 2013;31(Suppl. 15):8615.

Cerci JJ, Pracchia LF, Linardi CC, Pitella FA, Delbeke D, Izaki M, et al. 18F-FDG PET after 2 cycles of ABVD predicts event-free survival in early and advanced Hodgkin lymphoma. Journal of Nuclear Medicine 2010;51:1337-43.

Adams HJ, Kwee TC. Prevention of large-scale implementation of unnecessary and expensive predictive tests in Hodgkin's lymphoma. Lancet Haematology 2017;4(2):e63-4.

Agostinelli C, Gallamini A, Stracqualursi L, Agati P, Tripodo C, Fuligni F, et al. The combined role of biomarkers and interim PET scan in prediction of treatment outcome in classical Hodgkin's lymphoma: a retrospective, European, multicentre cohort study. Lancet Haematology 2016;3(10):e467-79.

Biggi A, Bergesio F, Bianchi A, Menga M, Chauvie S, Fallanca F, et al. Semi-quantitative scan assessment improves the accuracy of the deauville 5-point scale? Clinical and Translational Imaging 2017;5(Suppl. 1):S43-4.

Google Scholar

Biggi A, Gallamini A, Chauvie S, Hutchings M, Kostakoglu L, Gregianin M, et al. International validation study for interim PET in ABVD-treated, advanced-stage Hodgkin lymphoma: interpretation criteria and concordance rate among reviewers. Journal of Nuclear Medicine 2013;54:683-90.

Biggi A, Kostakoglu L, Barrington S, Chauvie S, Gregianin M, Meignan M, et al. How the threshold of positive results influence progression free survival (PFS) in advanced Hodgkin's lymphoma treated with ABVD: Experience from the International Validation Study. European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging 2012;39(Suppl. 2):S222.

Google Scholar

Gallamini A, Barrington SF, Biggi A, Chauvie S, Kostakoglu L, Gregianin M, et al. The predictive role of interim positron emission tomography for Hodgkin lymphoma treatment outcome is confirmed using the interpretation criteria of the Deauville five-point scale. Haematologica 2014;99:1107-13.

Gallamini A, Hutchings M, Rigacci L, Specht L, Merli F, Hansen M, et al. Early interim 2-[18F]fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography is prognostically superior to international prognostic score in advanced-stage Hodgkin's lymphoma: a report from a joint Italian-Danish study. Journal of Clinical Oncology 2007;25:3746-52.

Gallamini A, Rigacci L, Merli F, Nassi L, Bosi A, Capodanno I, et al. The predictive value of positron emission tomography scanning performed after two courses of standard therapy on treatment outcome in advanced stage Hodgkin's disease. Haematologica 2006;91:475-81.

Google Scholar

Meignan M. High-risk interim PET negative patients in Hodgkin's lymphoma. Lancet Haematology 2016;3(10):e449-50.

Rigacci L, Puccini B, Zinzani PL, Biggi A, Castagnoli A, Merli F, et al. The prognostic value of positron emission tomography performed after two courses (INTERIM-PET) of standard therapy on treatment outcome in early stage Hodgkin lymphoma: A multicentric study by the fondazione italiana linfomi (FIL). American Journal of Hematology 2015;90:499-503.

Gandikota N, Hartridge-Lambert S, Migliacci JC, Yahalom J, Portlock CS, Schoder H. Very low utility of surveillance imaging in early-stage classic Hodgkin lymphoma treated with a combination of doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine and radiation therapy. Cancer 2015;121:1985-92.

Hutchings M, Mikhaeel NG, Fields PA, Nunan T, Timothy AR. Prognostic value of interim FDG-PET after two or three cycles of chemotherapy in Hodgkin lymphoma. Annals of Oncology 2005;16:1160-8.

Hutchings M, Loft A, Hansen M, Pedersen LM, Buhl T, Jurlander J, et al. FDG-PET after two cycles of chemotherapy predicts treatment failure and progression-free survival in Hodgkin lymphoma. Blood 2006;107:52-9.

Hutchings M, Kostakoglu L, Zaucha J M, Malkowski B, Biggi A, Danielewicz I, et al. Early determination of treatment sensitivity in Hodgkin lymphoma: FDG-PET/CT after one cycle of therapy has a higher negative predictive value than after two cycles of chemotherapy. Annals of Oncology 2011;22(Suppl. 4):138-9.

Google Scholar

Hutchings M, Kostakoglu L, Zaucha JM, Malkowski B, Biggi A, Danielewicz I, et al. In vivo treatment sensitivity testing with positron emission tomography/computed tomography after one cycle of chemotherapy for Hodgkin lymphoma. Journal of Clinical Oncology 2014;32:2705-11.

Adams HJ, Kwee TC. Interim FDG-PET does not predict outcome in advanced-stage Hodgkin lymphoma patients treated with BEACOPP. British Journal of Haematology 2018;185(4):758-60.

Adams HJ, Kwee TC. Interim FDG-PET/CT in Hodgkin lymphoma: what are we actually looking at? Acta Oncologica 2018;57(8):1128-30.

Borchmann P, Eichenauer DA, Pluetschow A, Haverkamp H, Kreissl S, Fuchs M, et al. Targeted BEACOPP variants in patients with newly diagnosed advanced stage classical Hodgkin lymphoma: Final analysis of a randomized phase II study. Blood 2015;126(23):580.

Borchmann P, Engert A. Reply to H.J.A. Adams et al, E.A. Hawkes et al, and C.F. Hess et al. Journal of Clinical Oncology 2017;35(3):375-6.

Borchmann P, Goergen H, Kobe C, Eichenauer D, Greil R, Lohri A, et al. EBEACOPP with or without rituximab in interim-PET-positive advanced-stage Hodgkin lymphoma: updated results of the international, randomized phase 3 GHSG HD18 trial. Hematological Oncology 2017;35(Suppl. 2):65.

Borchmann P, Goergen H, Kobe C, Fuchs M, Greil R, Zijlstra JM, et al. Treatment reduction in patients with advanced-stage Hodgkin lymphoma and negative interim pet: final results of the international, randomized phase 3 trial HD18 by the German Hodgkin study group. Haematologica 2017;102(S150):24-5.

Google Scholar

Borchmann P, Goergen H, Kobe C, Lohri A, Greil R, Eichenauer DA, et al. Early interim PET in patients with advanced-stage Hodgkin's lymphoma treated within the phase 3 GHSG HD18 study. Blood 2017;130(Suppl. 1):653.

Google Scholar

Borchmann P, Goergen H, Kobe C, Lohri A, Greil R, Eichenauer DA, et al. PET-guided treatment in patients with advanced-stage Hodgkin's lymphoma (HD18): final results of an open-label, international, randomised phase 3 trial by the German Hodgkin Study Group. Lancet 2018;390(10114):2790‐802.

Google Scholar

Borchmann P, Haverkamp H, Lohri A, Kreissl S, Greil R, Markova J, et al. Addition of rituximab to BEACOPPescalated to improve the outcome of early interim PET positive advanced stage hodgkin lymphoma patients: Second planned interim analysis of the HD18 study. Blood 2014;124(21):500.

Borchmann P, Haverkamp H, Lohri A, Mey U, Kreissl S, Greil R, et al. Progression-free survival of early interim PET-positive patients with advanced stage Hodgkin's lymphoma treated with BEACOPPescalated alone or in combination with rituximab (HD18): an open-label, international, randomised phase 3 study by the German Hodgkin Study Group. Lancet Oncology 2017;18(4):454-63.

Google Scholar

Crump M. Predicting outcomes after a positive interim FDG-PET scan in advanced Hodgkin's lymphoma. Lancet Oncology 2017;18(4):416-8.

Kobe C, Goergen H, Baues C, Kuhnert G, Voltin CA, Zijlstra J, et al. Outcome-based interpretation of early interim PET in advanced-stage Hodgkin lymphoma. Blood 2018;132(21):2273-9.

Kobe C, Goergen H, Fuchs M, Eich HT, Baues C, Diehl V, et al. Treatment reduction in patients with advanced-stage Hodgkin lymphoma and negative interim FDG-PET: final results of the international, randomized, phase 3 HD18 trial by the German Hodgkin Study Group. European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging 2017;44(Suppl. 1):S312.

Google Scholar

Kreissl S, Goergen H, Kobe C, Fuchs M, Greil R, Huttmann A, et al. Treatment reduction in patients with advanced-stage Hodgkin-lymphoma and negative interim PET: final results of the international randomized phase 3 trial HD18 by the German Hodgkin Study Goup. Oncology Research and Treatment 2017;40(Suppl. 3):201.

Google Scholar

Markova J, Kahraman D, Kobe C, Skopalova M, Mocikova H, Klaskova K, et al. Role of [18F]-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography in early and late therapy assessment of patients with advanced Hodgkin lymphoma treated with bleomycin, etoposide, adriamycin, cyclophosphamide, vincristine, procarbazine and prednisone. Leukemia & Lymphoma 2012;53:64-70.

Markova J, Kobe C, Skopalova M, Dedeckova K, Mocikova H, Klaskova K, et al. Response assessment after 4 cycles of BEACOPP using FDG-PET in patients with advanced-stage Hodgkin lymphoma. Annals of Oncology 2011;22(Suppl. 4):160.

Google Scholar

Markova J, Kobe C, Skopalova M, Klaskova K, Dedeckova K, Plutschow A, et al. FDG-PET for assessment of early treatment response after four cycles of chemotherapy in patients with advanced-stage Hodgkin's lymphoma has a high negative predictive value. Annals of Oncology 2009;20:1270-4.

Markova J, Kobe C, Skopalova M, Zikavska L, Vernerova Z, Klaskova K, et al. Early and late response assessment with FDG-PET after BEACOPP-based chemotherapy in advanced-stage Hodgkin lymphoma patients has a high negative predictive value. In: Haematologica. Vol. 94. 2009:33.

Google Scholar

Adams HJ, Kwee TC. Hodgkin lymphoma: is there really a need for interim and end-of-treatment FDG-PET evaluations? British Journal of Haematology 2018;181(1):122-3.

Mesguich C, Cazeau AL, Bouabdallah K, Hindie E. Hodgkin lymphoma: is there really a need for interim and end-of-treatment FDG-PET evaluations? - Response to Adams & Kwee. British Journal of Haematology 2018;181(1):124-5.

Mesguich C, Cazeau AL, Bouabdallah K, Soubeyran P, Guyot M, Milpied N, et al. Hodgkin lymphoma: a negative interim-PET cannot circumvent the need for end-of-treatment-PET evaluation. British Journal of Haematology 2016;175:652-60.

Mesguich C, Cazeau AL, Bouabdallah K, Soubeyran P, Guyot M, Milpied N, et al. Hodgkin's lymphoma: Interim FDG-PET result with a score <= 2 on the 5-point scale may obviate the need for end-of-treatment FDG-PET evaluation. Journal of Nuclear Medicine 2015;56(Suppl. 3):595.

Google Scholar

Oki Y, Chuang H, Chasen B, Jessop A, Pan T, Fanale M, et al. The prognostic value of interim positron emission tomography scan in patients with classical Hodgkin lymphoma. British Journal of Haematology 2014;165:112-6.

Okosun J, Shaw K, Montoto S, Marcus R, Fields P, Virchis A, et al. Interim FDG-PET scanning in patients with Hodgkin lymphoma and HIV predict response to ABVD chemotherapy. Haematologica 2011;96(Suppl. 2):322-3.

Google Scholar

Okosun J, Warbey V, Shaw K, Montoto S, Fields P, Marcus R, et al. Interim fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose-PET predicts response and progression-free survival in patients with Hodgkin lymphoma and HIV infection. AIDS 2012;26:861-5.

Orlacchio A, Schillaci O, Gaspari E, Della Gatta F, Danieli R, Bolacchi F, et al. Role of [18F]-FDG-PET/MDCT in evaluating early response in patients with Hodgkin's lymphoma. La Radiologia Medica 2012;117:1250-63.

Rossi C, Kanoun S, Berriolo-Riedinger A, Dygai-Cochet I, Humbert O, Legouge C, et al. Interim 18F-FDG PET SUVmax reduction is superior to visual analysis in predicting outcome early in Hodgkin lymphoma patients. Journal of Nuclear Medicine 2014;55:569-73.

Barna S, Miltenyi Z, Simon Z, Jona A, Magyari F, Nagy Z, et al. Prognostical value of Interim and restaging PET/CT on Hodgkin lymphoma with CHEAP (Chemotherapy Effectiveness Assessed by PET/CT) long term observation. European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging 2014;41(Suppl. 2):S511.

Google Scholar

Illes A, Magyari F, Barna S, Simon Z, Payer E, Garai I, et al. Experiences of the first two years with interim PET/CT in Hodgkin lymphoma - the Hungarian CHEAP study. Haematologica 2010;95(Suppl. 4):S45.

Google Scholar

Miltenyi Z, Barna S, Garai I, Simon Z, Jona A, Magyari F, et al. Prognostic value of interim and restaging PET/CT in Hodgkin lymphoma. Results of the CHEAP (Chemotherapy Effectiveness Assessment by PET/CT) study - long term observation. Neoplasma 2015;62:627-34.

Miltenyi Z, Simon Z, Jona A, Magyari F, Barna S, Garai I, et al. Interim PET/CT in Hodgkin lymphoma - final results of the Hungarian CHEAP study (2007-2011). Haematologica 2013;98(Suppl. 2):42.

Google Scholar

Simon Z, Barna S, Miltenyi Z, Husi K, Magyari F, Jona A, et al. Combined prognostic value of absolute lymphocyte/monocyte ratio in peripheral blood and interim PET/CT results in Hodgkin lymphoma. International Journal of Hematology 2016;103(1):63-9.

Kostakoglu L, Gandikota N, Hutchings M, Cotter R, Lamonica D, Nanni C, et al. Deauville criteria and post One-Cycle SUVmax decrease seem to predict progression free survival (PFS) better than metabolic tumor measurements in classical Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL). European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging 2012;39(Suppl. 2):S222.

Google Scholar

Kostakoglu L, Schoder H, Hall N, Straus DJ, Johnson JL, Schwartz L, et al. Interim FDG PET imaging in CALGB 50203 trial of stage I/II non-bulky Hodgkin lymphoma: Would using combined PET and CT criteria better predict response than each test alone? Blood 2011;118(21):3644.

Kostakoglu L, Schoder H, Johnson JL, Hall NC, Schwartz LH, Straus DJ, et al. Interim [(18)F]fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography imaging in stage I-II non-bulky Hodgkin lymphoma: would using combined positron emission tomography and computed tomography criteria better predict response than each test alone? Leukemia & Lymphoma 2012;53:2143-50.

Straus DJ, Johnson JL, LaCasce AS, Bartlett NL, Kostakoglu L, Hsi ED, et al. Doxorubicin, vinblastine, and gemcitabine (CALGB 50203) for stage I/II nonbulky Hodgkin lymphoma: pretreatment prognostic factors and interim PET. Blood 2011;117:5314-20.

Hutchings M, Kamper P. New clues to the prognostic challenge of Hodgkin Lymphoma. Leukemia & Lymphoma 2015;56(2):277-8.

Touati M, Delage-Corre M, Monteil J, Abraham J, Moreau S, Remenieras L, et al. CD68-positive tumor-associated macrophages predict unfavorable treatment outcomes in classical Hodgkin lymphoma in correlation with interim fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography assessment. Leukemia and Lymphoma 2015;56:332-41.

Ying Z, Wang X, Song Y, Zheng W, Wang X, Xie Y, et al. Prognostic value of 18F-FDG PET-CT in Hodgkin lymphoma. Chinese Journal Of Hematology 2014;35:325-7.

Google Scholar

Adams HJ, Kwee TC. The predictive value of interim FDG-PET in early-stage Hodgkin lymphoma is not well established. Annals of Oncology 2018;29(2):510-2.

Zaucha JM, Chauvie S, Malkowski B, Warszewska A, Biggi A, Kobylecka M, et al. The prognostic role of interim PET after first chemotherapy cycle in ABVD-treated Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) patients - Polish lymphoma research group (PLRG) observational study. Haematologica 2013;98(Suppl. 2):38.

Google Scholar

Zaucha JM, Malkowski B, Chauvie S, Subocz E, Tajer J, Kulikowski W, et al. The predictive role of interim PET after the first chemotherapy cycle and sequential evaluation of response to ABVD in Hodgkin lymphoma patients - the Polish Lymphoma Research Group (PLRG) Observational Study. Annals of Oncology 2017;28(12):3051-7.

Zaucha JM, Malkowski B, Subocz E, Chauvie S, Tajer J, Kulikowski W, et al. The prognostic role of interim PET after first chemotherapy cycle and PET sequential evaluation of response to ABVD in <hodgkin lymphoma patients - The Polish Lymphoma Research Group (PLRG) observational study. Blood 2015;126(23):3943.

Adams HJ, Kwee TC. Does interim 18F-FDG-PET response-adapted therapy really benefit advanced-stage Hodgkin lymphoma patients? Nuclear Medicine Communications 2016;37(12):1333-4.

Puccini B, Rigacci L, Zinzani PL, Broccoli A, Gallamini A, Merli F, et al. Early positive FDG-PET scan do not confirm its prognostic impact in localized bulky disease Hodgkin lymphoma patients. Haematologica 2011;96(Suppl. 3):26-7.

Google Scholar

Rigacci L, Puccini B, Gallamini A, Merli F, Stelitano C, Balzarotti M, et al. Early FDG-PET scan confirms its prognostic impact also in localized stage, ABVD treated Hodgkin lymphoma patients. Haematologica 2009;94(Suppl. 2):34.

Google Scholar

Rigacci L, Puccini B, Zinzani PL, Kovalchuk S, Broccoli A, Evangelista A, et al. Clinical characteristics of patients with negative interim-PET and positive final PET: Data from the prospective PET-oriented HD0801 study by Fondazione Italiana linfomi (FIL). Hematological Oncology 2017;35(Suppl. 2):38.

Rigacci L, Zinzani PL, Puccini B, Broccoli A, Gallamini A, Merli F, et al. Early FDG-PET scan confirms its prognostic impact also in localized stage, ABVD treated Hodgkin lymphoma patients. Haematologica 2010;95(Suppl. 2):474.

Google Scholar

Rigacci L, Zinzani PL, Puccini B, Broccoli A, Gallamini A, Merli F, et al. Early FDG-PET scan confirms its prognostic impact also in localized stage, ABVD treated Hodgkin lymphoma patients. In: Haematologica. Vol. 96. 2010:S13.

Google Scholar

Rigacci L, Zinzani PL, Puccini B, Broccoli A, Gallamini A, Merli F, et al. Early positive FDG-PET scan do not confirm its prognostic impact in bulky disease Hodgkin lymphoma patients. Haematologica 2011;96(Suppl. 2):320-1.

Google Scholar

Rigacci L, Zinzani PL, Puccini B, Broccoli A, Gallamini A, Merli F, et al. IHP interpretation criteria of interim-PET scan confirms prognostic impact in early stage Hodgkin lymphoma patients without bulky disease. Blood 2010;116(21):3890.

Stefoni V, Broccoli A, Alinari L, Ambrosini V, Derenzini E, Fanti S, et al. Predictive role of early interim FDG-PET in Hodgkin lymphoma. Blood 2009;114(22):1659.

Stefoni V, Pellegrini C, Rigacci L, Broccoli A, Puccini B, Fanti S, et al. Interim PET 2: Is it a real prognostic factor in selecting two different subsets of Hodgkin disease patients? Haematologica 2011;96(Suppl. 3):123.

Google Scholar

Zinzani PL, Rigacci L, Stefoni V, Broccoli A, Puccini B, Castagnoli A, et al. Early interim 18F-FDG PET in Hodgkin's lymphoma: evaluation on 304 patients. European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging 2012;39:4-12.

Zinzani PL, Tani M, Fanti S, Alinari L, Musuraca G, Marchi E, et al. Early positron emission tomography (PET) restaging: a predictive final response in Hodgkin's disease patients. Annals of Oncology 2006;17:1296-300.

Referencias de los estudios excluidos de esta revisión

Ir a:

estudios incluidos
estudios a la espera de valoración
estudios en curso
otras referencias
otras versiones publicadas

Adams HJ, Kwee TC. RAPID trial demonstrates low positive predictive value of interim FDG-PET in early-stage Hodgkin lymphoma after three cycles of ABVD. Journal of Pediatric Hematology/Oncology 2016;38(2):165.

Adams HJ, Kwee TC. Predictive value of interim [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography in advanced-stage Hodgkin lymphoma is not well established. Journal of Clinical Oncology2017;35(3):370-1.

Google Scholar

Adams HJ, Kwee TC. Interim FDG-PET has no value in selecting patients who require treatment modification in both early- and advanced-stage Hodgkin lymphoma. British Journal of Haematology2018;183(1):129-31.

Google Scholar

Adams HJ, Kwee TC. No evidence to promote interim FDG-PET adapted therapy in the NCCN guidelines for Hodgkin lymphoma. Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network2018;16(3):226-7.

Google Scholar

Adams HJ, Kwee TC. Strikingly heterogeneous results among studies on interim fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography-adapted treatment in advanced-stage Hodgkin lymphoma. Journal of Clinical Oncology2018;36(20):2123-4.

Google Scholar

Adams HJ, Kwee TC. Post-ABVD biopsy results, and not post-ABVD FDG-PET results, predict outcome in early-stage Hodgkin lymphoma. British Journal of Haematology2019;184(2):290-2.

Google Scholar

Advani R, Maeda L, Lavori P, Quon A, Hoppe R, Breslin S, et al. Impact of positive positron emission tomography on prediction of freedom from progression after Stanford V chemotherapy in Hodgkin's disease. Journal of Clinical Oncology 2007;25:3902-7.

Afanasyev BV, Moiseev IS, Alekseev SM, Mikhailova NB, Kondakova EV, Ilyin NV, et al. Multicenter prospective escalation-deescalation PET-guided clinical study in classical type Hodgkin disease in the north-west of Russian federation (RNWOHG-HD1): Rationale and design. Cellular Therapy and Transplantation2017;6(4):76-81.

Google Scholar

Albano D, Patti C, Lagalla R, Midiri M, Galia M. Whole-body MRI, FDG-PET/CT, and bone marrow biopsy, for the assessment of bone marrow involvement in patients with newly diagnosed lymphoma. Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging 2017;45(4):1082-9.

Albano D, Patti C, Matranga D, Lagalla R, Midiri M, Galia M. Whole-body diffusion-weighted MR and FDG-PET/CT in Hodgkin Lymphoma: Predictive role before treatment and early assessment after two courses of ABVD. European Journal of Radiology 2018;103:90-8.

Altamirano J, Esparza JR, de la Garza Salazar J, Calvo PS, Vera SR, Chalapud Revelo JR, et al. Staging, response to therapy, and restaging of lymphomas with18F-FDG PET. Archives of Medical Research 2008;39(1):69-77.

Ansell SM. Hodgkin lymphoma: 2016 update on diagnosis, risk-stratification, and management. American Journal of Hematology 2016;91(4):434-42.

Awan UE, Siddiqui N, SaadUllah M, Bashir H, Farooqui ZS, Muzaffar N, et al. FDG-PET scan in assessing lymphomas and the application of Deauville Criteria. Journal of the Pakistan Medical Association 2013;63(6):725-30.

Google Scholar

Barrington SF, O'Doherty MJ, Pike L, Franceschetto A, Cucca M, Brun E, et al. Standardised PET-CT reporting for an international multicentre trial in lymphoma (RATHL). European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging 2011;38 (SUPPL. 2):S115.

Google Scholar

Barrington SF, Johnson PW. <18F-FDG PET/CT in lymphoma: Has imaging-directed personalized medicine become a reality? Journal of Nuclear Medicine 2017;58(10):1539-44.

Bar-Shalom R, Yefremov N, Haim N, Dann EJ, Epelbaum R, Keidar Z, et al. Camera-based FDG pet and 67Ga SPECT in evaluation of lymphoma: Comparative study. Radiology 2003;227(2):353-60.

Basu S. Early FDG-PET response-adapted risk stratification and further therapeutic decision-making in lymphoma: Will this replace the established prognostic indices and be the standard-of-care in clinical management? European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging 2009;36(12):2089-90.

Becherer A, Mitterbauer M, Jaeger U, Kalhs P, Greinix HT, Karanikas G, et al. Positron emission tomography with 2-fluoro-D-2-deoxyglucose (FDG-PET) predicts relapse of malignant lymphoma after high-dose therapy with stem cell transplantation. Leukemia 2002;16(2):260-7.

Bednaruk-Mlynski E, Pienkowska J, Skorzak A, Malkowski B, Kulikowski W, Subocz E, et al. Comparison of positron emission tomography/computed tomography with classical contrast-enhanced computed tomography in the initial staging of Hodgkin lymphoma. Leukemia and Lymphoma 2015;56(2):377-82.

Biggi A, Kostakoglu L, Barrington S, Chauvie S, Gregianin M, Meignan M, et al. How the threshold of positive results influence progression free survival (PFS) in advanced Hodgkin's lymphoma treated with ABVD: Experience from the International Validation Study. European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging 2012;39(2):S222.

Google Scholar

Biggi A, Bergesio F, Menga M, Bianchi A, Fallanca F, Chauvie S, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of FDG PET/CT at the of treatment of Hodgkin lymphoma in the HD0607 trial. Clinical and Translational Imaging 2017;5:S44.

Google Scholar

Bishop G. PET-directed therapy for Hodgkin's lymphoma. New England Journal of Medicine 2015;373(4):392.

Google Scholar

Bjurberg M, Gustavsson A, Ohlsson T, Brun E. FDG-PET in the detection of residual disease and relapse in patients with Hodgkin's lymphoma. Experience from a Swedish centre. Acta Oncologica 2006;45(6):743-9.

Blum R, Prince HM, Hicks RJ, Patrikeos A, Seymour J. Discordant response to chemotherapy detected by PET scanning: Unveiling of a second primary cancer. American Journal of Clinical Oncology: Cancer Clinical Trials 2002;25(4):368-70.

Bodet-Milin C, Kraeber-Bodere F, Moreau P, Campion L, Dupas B, Le Gouill S. Investigation of FDG-PET/CT imaging to guide biopsies in the detection of histological transformation of indolent lymphoma. Haematologica 2008;93(3):471-2.

Bodet-Milin C, Salaun PY, Crespin C, Vuillez JP, Kraeber-Bodere F. FDG-PET scanning in managing patients with lymphoma. Medecine Nucleaire 2009;33(8):486-90.

Google Scholar

Boisson N, Cachin F, Kelly A, De Freitas D, Isnardi V, Mestas D, et al. PET-CT in the Hodgkin's disease. Medecine Nucleaire 2007;31(10):562-7.

Google Scholar

Borchmann S, von Tresckow B, Engert A. Current developments in the treatment of early-stage classical Hodgkin lymphoma. Current Opinion in Oncology 2016;28(5):377-83.

Bucerius J, Herkel C, Joe AY, Altehoefer C, Finke J, Moser E, et al. <sup>18</sup>F-FDG PET and conventional imaging for assessment of Hodgkin's disease and non Hodgkin's lymphoma: An analysis of 193 patient studies. Nuklearmedizin 2006;45(3):105-10.

Google Scholar

Carras S, Dubois B, Senecal D, Jais JP, Peoc'h M, Quittet P, et al. Interim PET response-adapted strategy in untreated advanced stage Hodgkin lymphoma: Results of GOELAMS LH 2007 phase 2 multicentric trial. Clinical Lymphoma, Myeloma & Leukemia 2018;18(3):191-8.

Ciammella P, Filippi AR, Simontacchi G, Buglione M, Botto B, Mangoni M, et al. Post-ABVD/pre-radiotherapy 18F-FDG-PET provides additional prognostic information for early-stage Hodgkin lymphoma: A retrospective analysis on 165 patients. British Journal of Radiology 2016;89(1061):20150983.

Cremerius U, Fabry U, Kroll U, Zimny M, Neuerburg J, Osieka R, et al. [Clinical value of FDG PET for therapy monitoring of malignant lymphoma--results of a retrospective study in 72 patients]. Clinic for Nuclear Medicine (Stuttgart) 1999;38(1):24-30.

Google Scholar

Cremerius U, Fabry U, Neuerburg J, Zimny M, Bares R, Osieka R, et al. Prognostic significance of positron emission tomography using fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose in patients treated for malignant lymphoma. Clinic for Nuclear Medicine (Stuttgart) 2001;40(1):23-30.

Google Scholar

Cuccaro A, Annunziata S, Cupelli E, Martini M, Calcagni ML, Rufini V, et al. CD68+ cell count, early evaluation with PET and plasma TARC levels predict response in Hodgkin lymphoma. Cancer Medicine 2016;5(3):398-406.

D'Urso D, Stefano A, Romano A, Russo G, Cosentino S, Fallanca F, et al. Analysis of metabolic parameters coming from basal and interim PET in Hodgkin lymphoma. Current Medical Imaging Reviews 2018;14(4):533-44.

Damlaj M, Al-Zahrani M, Syed G, Gmati G, Pasha T, Abuelgasim K, et al. Escalation from ABVD following positive interim functional imaging improves progression free survival but not overall survival in advanced classical Hodgkin lymphoma-a real world analysis. Blood 2017;130(Suppl. 1):2799.

Google Scholar

Damlaj M, Al-Zahrani M, Syed G, Gmati G, Alahmari B, Pasha T, et al. Interim functional imaging is an independent predictor of progression-free survival in advanced classical Hodgkin lymphoma - A real-world analysis. Clinical Lymphoma, Myeloma and Leukemia 2019;19(1):e71-9.

Danilov AV, Li H, Press OW, Shapira I, Swinnen LJ, Noy A, et al. Feasibility of interim positron emission tomography (PET)-adapted therapy in HIV-positive patients with advanced Hodgkin lymphoma (HL): a sub-analysis of SWOG S0816 Phase 2 trial. Leukemia & Lymphoma 2017;58(2):461-5.

Dann EJ, Bar-Shalom R, Tamir A, Ben-Shachar M, Avivi I, Zuckerman T, et al. For standard and high-risk patients with Hodgkin lymphoma six cycles of tailored BEACOPP, based on interim scintigraphy, are effective and female fertility is preserved. Blood 2009;114(22):1552.

Dann EJ, Bar-Shalom R, Tamir A, Epelbaum R, Avivi I, Ben-Shachar M, et al. A functional dynamic scoring model to elucidate the significance of post-induction interim fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography findings in patients with Hodgkin's lymphoma. Haematologica 2010;95(7):1198-206.

Dann EJ, Bairey O, Bar-Shalom R, Izak M, Korenberg A, Akria L, et al. Tailored therapy in Hodgkin lymphoma, based on predefined risk factors and early interim PET/CT, can lead to modification and safe reduction in therapy: Results of 134 patients on the Israel National Hodgkin Study. Blood 2010;116(21):2809.

Dann EJ, Bairey O, Bar-Shalom R, Mashiach T, Izak M, Korenberg A, et al. Early Hodgkin lymphoma therapy, based on predefined risk factors and early interim PET/CT. Israeli H2 protocol: Preliminary report. Haematologica 2012;97(Suppl. 1):85.

Google Scholar

Dann EJ, Bairey O, Bar-Shalom R, Izak M, Korenberg A, Akria L, et al. Tailored therapy in Hodgkin lymphoma, based on predefined risk factors and early interim PET/CT, Israeli H2 protocol: Preliminary report on 317 patients. Haematologica 2013;98(Suppl. 2):37.

Google Scholar

Dann EJ, Bairey O, Bar-Shalom R, Mashiach T, Barzilai E, Korenberg A, et al. Adjustment of therapy for Hodgkin lymphoma based on interim PET is beneficial and radiotherapy may be substituted with chemotherapy in patients with negative interim study: Final results of H2 trial. European Haematology Association Open Access Library2016;(S107):4-5.

Google Scholar

Dann EJ, Bairey O, Bar-Shalom R, Mashiach T, Barzilai E, Kornberg A, et al. Modification of initial therapy in early and advanced Hodgkin lymphoma, based on interim PET/CT is beneficial: a prospective multicentre trial of 355 patients. British Journal of Haematology 2017;178:709-718.

Dann EJ, Paltiel O. Interim FDG-PET has no value in selecting patients who require treatment modification in both early- and advanced-stage Hodgkin lymphoma: Response to Adams and Kwee. British Journal of Haematology 2018;183(1):131-3.

deAndres-Galiana EJ, Fernandez-Martinez JL, Luaces O, del Coz JJ, Fernandez R, Solano J, et al. On the prediction of Hodgkin lymphoma treatment response. Clinical and Translational Oncology 2015;17(8):612-9.

Diehl V, Kobe C, Haverkamp H, Dietlein M, Engert A. FDG-PET for assessment of residual tissue after completion of chemotherapy in Hodgkin lymphoma report on the 2nd interim analysis of the PET investigation in the trial HD15 of the GHSG. In: Blood. The American Society of Hematology. 2007.

Google Scholar

El-Galaly TC, Mylam KJ, Brown P, Specht L, Christiansen I, Munksgaard L, et al. Positron emission tomography/computed tomography surveillance in patients with Hodgkin lymphoma in first remission has a low positive predictive value and high costs. Haematologica 2012;97(6):931-6.

Evens AM, Kostakoglu L. The role of FDG-PET in defining prognosis of Hodgkin lymphoma for early-stage disease. Blood 2014;124(23):3356-64.

Fanti S, Castellucci P, Stefoni V, Nanni C, Tani M, Rubello D, et al. Early relapse in a patient with Hodgkin's disease and negative interim FDG-PET. Annals of Nuclear Medicine 2008;22(5):429-32.

Filmont J E, Czernin J, Yap C, Silverman DH, Quon A, Phelps ME, et al. Value of F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography for predicting the clinical outcome of patients with aggressive lymphoma prior to and after autologous stem-cell transplantation. Chest 2003;124(2):608-13.

Fornecker LM, Lazarovici J, Aurer I, Casasnovas RO, Gac AC, Bonnet C, et al. Pet-based response after 2 cycles of brentuximab vedotin in combination with avd for first-line treatment of unfavorable early-stage Hodgkin Lymphoma: first analysis of the primary endpoint of breach, a randomized phase II trial of LYSA-FIL-EORTC intergroup. Blood 2017;130(Suppl. 1):736.

Google Scholar

Freudenberg LS, Antoch G, Schutt P, Beyer T, Jentzen W, Muller SP, et al. FDG-PET/CT in re-staging of patients with lymphoma. European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging 2004;31(3):325-9.

Friedberg JW, Fischman A, Neuberg D, Kim H, Takvorian T, Mauch PM, et al. FDG-PET is superior to gallium scintigraphy in the staging and follow-up of patients with de novo Hodgkin's disease: a prospective, blinded comparison. Leukemia & Lymphoma2004;45(1):85-92.

Google Scholar

Friedberg JW, Fischman A, Neuberg D, Kim H, Takvorian T, Ng AK, et al. FDG-PET is superior to gallium scintigraphy in staging and more sensitive in the follow-up of patients with de novo Hodgkin lymphoma: a blinded comparison. Leukemia and Lymphoma 2004;45(1):85-92.

Front D, Bar-Shalom R, Mor M, Haim N, Epelbaum R, Frenkel A, et al. Hodgkin disease: prediction of outcome with 67Ga scintigraphy after one cycle of chemotherapy. Radiology 1999;210(2):487-91.

Fruchart C, Reman O, Le Stang N, Musafiri D, Cheze S, Macro M, et al. Prognostic value of early 18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography and gallium-67 scintigraphy in aggressive lymphoma: A prospective comparative study. Leukemia and Lymphoma 2006;47(12):2547-57.

Gallamini A, Hutchings M, Avigdor A, Polliack A. Early interim PET scan in Hodgkin lymphoma: Where do we stand? Leukemia and Lymphoma 2008;49(4):659-62.

Gallamini A, Tarella C, Viviani S, Rossi A, Patti C, Mulé A, et al. Early chemotherapy intensification with escalated BEACOPP in advanced-stage Hodgkin lymphoma with a positive interim PET-CT after 2 ABVD cycles: Long-term results of the GITIL/FIL HD 0607 trial. Journal of Clinical Oncology 2018;36(5):454-462.

Gallamini A, Tarella C, Viviani S, Rossi A, Patti C, Mule A, et al. Early chemotherapy intensification with escalated BEACOPP in patients with advanced-stage Hodgkin lymphoma with a positive interim positron emission tomography/computed tomography scan after two ABVD cycles: Long-term results of the GITIL/FIL HD 0607 trial. Journal of Clinical Oncology 2018;36(5):454-62.

Gallamini A, Viviani S, Pavoni C, Rambaldi A. Reply to H.J.A. Adams et al and C. Mesguich et al. Journal of Clinical Oncology 2018;36(20):2127-8.

Gallowitsch HJ, Igerc I, Kohlfurst S, Lind P. The incremental value of F-18 FDG PET and PET/CT in malignant lymphoma. Imaging Decisions MRI 2008;12(4):2-6.

Goldschmidt N, Or O, Klein M, Savitsky B, Paltiel O. The role of routine imaging procedures in the detection of relapse of patients with Hodgkin lymphoma and aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Annals of Hematology 2011;90(2):165-71.

Greil R. Treatment optimisation trial in the first-line treatment of advanced stage Hodgkin lymphoma; comparison of 4-6 cycles of escalated BEACOPP with 4-6 cycles of BrECADD. Memo - Magazine of European Medical Oncology. 2018;11(1):1-28.

Google Scholar

Guidez S, Delwail V, Brice P. PET-scan in management of Hodgkin's lymphoma. Hematologie 2016;22(6):389-91.

Hagtvedt T, Seierstad T, Lund KV, Løndalen AM, Bogsrud TV, Smith HJ, et al. Diffusion-weighted MRI compared to FDG PET/CT for assessment of early treatment response in lymphoma. Acta Radiologica 2015;56(2):152-8.

Haioun C, Itti E, Rahmouni A, Brice P, Rain JD, Belhadj K, et al. [18F]fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) in aggressive lymphoma: an early prognostic tool for predicting patient outcome. Blood 2005;106(4):1376-81.

Hartmann S, Agostinelli C, Diener J, Doring C, Fanti S, Zinzani PL, et al. GLUT1 expression patterns in different Hodgkin lymphoma subtypes and progressively transformed germinal centers. BMC Cancer 2012;12:586.

Hartridge-Lambert SK, Schoder H, Lim RC, Maragulia JC, Portlock CS. ABVD alone and a PET scan complete remission negates the need for radiologic surveillance in early-stage, nonbulky Hodgkin lymphoma. Cancer 2013;119(6):1203-9.

Honda A, Nakamura F, Nannya Y, Shintani Y, Fukayama M, Ichikawa M, et al. Pulmonary lymphocyte-rich classical Hodgkin lymphoma with early response to ABVD therapy. Annals of Hematology 2014;93(6):1073-4.

Hueltenschmidt B, Sautter-Bihl ML, Lang O, Maul FD, Fischer J, Mergenthaler HG, et al. Whole body positron emission tomography in the treatment of Hodgkin disease. Cancer 2001;91(2):302-10.

Huic D, Mutvar A, Radman I, Grosev D, Labar B, Zuvic M, et al. The value of F-18 FDG triple-head coincidence PET in the posttreatment evaluation of patients with lymphoma. Clinical Nuclear Medicine 2006;31(5):275-8.

Google Scholar

Hutchings M, Loft A, Hansen M, Berthelsen AK, Specht L. Clinical impact of FDG-PET/CT in the planning of radiotherapy for early-stage Hodgkin lymphoma. European Journal of Haematology 2007;78(3):206-12.

Iagaru A, Wang Y, Mari C, Quon A, Goris ML, Horning S, et al. (18)F-FDG-PET/CT evaluation of response to treatment in lymphoma: when is the optimal time for the first re-evaluation scan? Hellenic Society of Nuclear Medicine 2008;11(3):153-6.

Google Scholar

Illidge T. Personalised approach to treating early Hodgkin's lymphoma. BMJ 2015;350:h2927.

Jerusalem G, Beguin Y, Fassotte MF, Belhocine T, Hustinx R, Rigo P, et al. Early detection of relapse by whole-body positron emission tomography in the follow-up of patients with Hodgkin's disease. Annals of Oncology 2003;14(1):123-30.

Johnson PW, Federico M, Fossa A, O'Doherty M, Roberts T, Stevens L, et al. Response-adapted therapy based on interim FDG-PET scans in advanced Hodgkin lymphoma: first analysis of the safety of deescalation and efficacy of escalation in the international RATHL study (CRUK/07/033). Clinical Advances in Hematology and Oncology 2015;13(8 Suppl. 9):6‐7.

Google Scholar

Johnson P, Federico M, Kirkwood A, Fossa A, Berkahn L, Carella A, et al. Adapted treatment guided by interim PET-CT scan in advanced Hodgkin's lymphoma. New England Journal of Medicine 2016;374(25):2419-29.

Kamran SC, Jacene HA, Chen YH, Mauch PM, Ng AK. Clinical outcome of patients with early stage favorable Hodgkin lymphoma treated with ABVDX2 cycles followed by PET/CT restaging and 20 Gy of involved-site radiotherapy. Haematologica 2016;101(Suppl. 5):14.

Google Scholar

Kamran SC, Jacene HA, Chen YH, Mauch PM, Ng AK. Clinical outcome of patients with early stage favorable Hodgkin lymphoma treated with ABVD x two cycles followed by FDG-PET/CT restaging and 20 Gy of involved-site radiotherapy. Leukemia and Lymphoma 2018;59(6):1384-90.

Kobe C, Dietlein M, Franklin J, Markova J, Lohri A, Amthauer H, et al. Positron emission tomography has a high negative predictive value for progression or early relapse for patients with residual disease after first-line chemotherapy in advanced-stage Hodgkin lymphoma. Blood 2008;112(10):3989-94.

Kobe C, Kuhnert G, Kahraman D, Haverkamp H, Eich HT, Franke M, et al. Assessment of tumor size reduction improves outcome prediction of positron emission tomography/computed tomography after chemotherapy in advanced-stage Hodgkin lymphoma. Journal of Clinical Oncology 2014;32(17):1776-81.

Kostakoglu L, Goldsmith SJ, Leonard JP, Christos P, Furman RR, Atasever T, et al. FDG-PET after 1 cycle of therapy predicts outcome in diffuse large cell lymphoma and classic Hodgkin disease. Cancer 2006;107:2678-87.

Li YJ, Li ZM, Xia XY, Huang HQ, Xia ZJ, Lin TY, et al. Prognostic value of interim and posttherapy 18F-FDG PET/CT in patients with mature T-cell and natural killer cell lymphomas. Journal of Nuclear Medicine 2013;54(4):507-15.

Lowe VJ, Wiseman GA. Assessment of Lymphoma Therapy Using (18)F-FDG PET. Journal of Nuclear Medicine 2002;43(8):1028-30.

Google Scholar

Milgrom SA, Pinnix CC, Chuang H, Oki Y, Akhtari M, Mawlawi O, et al. Early-stage Hodgkin lymphoma outcomes after combined modality therapy according to the post-chemotherapy 5-point score: can residual pet-positive disease be cured with radiotherapy alone? British Journal of Haematology 2017;179(3):488-96.

Mocikova H, Obrtlikova P, Vackova B, Trneny M. Positron emission tomography at the end of first-line therapy and during follow-up in patients with Hodgkin lymphoma: a retrospective study. Annals of Oncology 2010;21(6):1222-7.

Mocikova H, Pytlik R, Markova J, Steinerova K, Kral Z, Belada D, et al. Pre-transplant positron emission tomography in patients with relapsed Hodgkin lymphoma. Leukemia & Lymphoma 2011;52(9):1668-74.

Molnar Z, Simon Z, Borbenyi Z, Deak B, Galuska L, Keresztes K, et al. Prognostic value of FDG-PET in Hodgkin lymphoma for posttreatment evaluation. Long term follow-up results. Neoplasma 2010;57(4):349-54.

Google Scholar

Moskowitz CH. Early FDG-PET adapted treatment improves the outcome of early FDG-PET-positive patients with stages I/II hodgkin lymphoma (HL): Final results of the randomized intergroup EORTC/LYSA/FIL H10 trial. Clinical advances in Hematology & Oncology: H&O 2015;13(8 Supplement 9):16-7.

Google Scholar

Naumann R, Vaic A, Beuthien-Baumann B, Bredow J, Kropp J, Kittner T, et al. Prognostic value of positron emission tomography in the evaluation of post-treatment residual mass in patients with Hodgkin's disease and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. British Journal of Haematology 2001;115(4):793-800.

NCT00784537. High-dose chemotherapy and stem cell transplantation, in patients PET-2 positive, after 2 courses of ABVD and comparison of RT versus no RT in PET-2 negative patients. clinicaltrials.gov/show/nct00784537 (first received 4 November 2008).

NCT00795613. Positron Emission Tomography (PET)-adapted chemotherapy In advanced Hodgkin Lymphoma (HL). clinicaltrials.gov/show/nct00795613 (first received 21 November 2008).

NCT01358747. Study of a treatment driven by early PET response to a treatment not monitored by early PET in patients with AA stage 3-4 or 2B HL. clinicaltrials.gov/show/nct01358747 (first received 24 May 2011).

NCT01652261. Very early FDG-PET/CT-response adapted therapy for advanced Hodgkin Lymphoma (H11). clinicaltrials.gov/show/nct01652261 (first received 30 July 2012).

NCT02292979. Brentuximab vedotin associated with chemotherapy in untreated patients with Hodgkin Lymphoma. clinicaltrials.gov/show/nct02292979 (first received 18 November 2014).

Nguyen VT, Pophali PA, Tsai J P, Jagadeesh D, Dean RM, Pohlman B, et al. Early stage, bulky Hodgkin lymphoma patients have a favorable outcome when treated with or without consolidative radiotherapy: potential role of PET scan in treatment planning. British Journal of Haematology 2017;179(4):674-6.

Panizo C, Perez-Salazar M, Bendandi M, Rodriguez-Calvillo M, Boan JF, Garcia-Velloso MJ, et al. Positron emission tomography using 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose for the evaluation of residual Hodgkin's disease mediastinal masses. Leukemia and Lymphoma 2004;45(9):1829-33.

Paolini R, Rampin L, Rodella E, Ramazzina E, Banti E, Al-Nahhas A, et al. The prognostic value of 18F-FDG PET-CT in the management of Hodgkin's lymphoma: Preliminary results of a prospective study. Nuclear Medicine Review 2007;10(2):87-90.

Google Scholar

Pavlovsky A, Fernandez I, Kurgansky N, Prates V, Zoppegno L, Negri P, et al. PET-adapted therapy after three cycles of ABVD for all stages of Hodgkin lymphoma: results of the GATLA LH-05 trial. British Journal of Haematology 2019;185(5):865-73.

Pichler R, Maschek W, Hatzl-Griesenhofer M, Huber H, Wimmer G, Wahl G, et al. Clinical value of FDG hybrid-PET in staging and restaging of malignant lymphoma - compared with conventional diagnostic methods. NuklearMedizin 2000;39(6):166-73.

Google Scholar

Reinhardt MJ, Herkel C, Altehoefer C, Finke J, Moser E. Computed tomography and 18F-FDG positron emission tomography for therapy control of Hodgkin's and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma patients: when do we really need FDG-PET? Annals of Oncology 2005;16(9):1524-9.

Rigacci L, Castagnoli A, Carpaneto A, Carrai V, Vaggelli L, Matteini M. Can (18)F-FDG PET after first cycle chemotherapy predict the efficacy of therapy in Hodgkin's disease? Haematologica 2002;87(5):ELT24.

Google Scholar

Rigacci L, Puccini B, Zinzani P, Kovalchuk S, Broccoli A, Evangelista A, et al. Clinical characteristics of patients with negative interim-pet and positive final PET: data from the prospective PET-oriented HD0801 study by Fondazione Italiana linfomi (FIL). Hematological Oncology 2017;35(Suppl. 2):38.

Rubello D, Gordien P, Morliere C, Guyot M, Bordenave L, Colletti PM, et al. Variability of hepatic 18F-FDG uptake at interim PET in patients with Hodgkin lymphoma. Clinical Nuclear Medicine 2015;40:e405-10.

Sakr R, Massoud M, Kerbage F, Rached L, Zeghondy J, Akoury E, et al. Real-life Experience for Integration of PET-CT in the Treatment of Hodgkin Lymphoma in Lebanon. Clinical Lymphoma, Myeloma & Leukemia 2017;17S:S92-5.

Schot BW, Zijlstra JM, Sluiter WJ, van Imhoff GW, Pruim J, Vaalburg W, et al. Early FDG-PET assessment in combination with clinical risk scores determines prognosis in recurring lymphoma. Blood 2007;109(2):486-91.

Simontacchi G, Filippi AR, Ciammella P, Buglione M, Saieva C, Magrini SM, et al. Interim PET after two ABVD cycles in early-stage Hodgkin lymphoma: Outcomes following the continuation of chemotherapy plus radiotherapy. International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics 2015;92:1077-83.

Slaby J, Belohlavek O, Taborska K, Prochazka M, Trneny M, Klener P. [Predictive features of positron emission tomography after two cycles of induction therapy in malignant lymphoma]. Casopis Lékaru Ceských [Journal of Czech Physicians] 2002;141(10):312-5.

Google Scholar

Spaepen K, Stroobants S, Dupont P, Thomas J, Vandenberghe P, Balzarini J, et al. Can positron emission tomography with [(18)F]-fluorodeoxyglucose after first-line treatment distinguish Hodgkin's disease patients who need additional therapy from others in whom additional therapy would mean avoidable toxicity? British Journal of Haematology 2001;115:272-8.

Specht L. FDG-PET scan and treatment planning for early stage Hodgkin lymphoma. Radiotherapy and Oncology 2007;85(2):176-7.

Spinner MA, Advani RH. Risk-adapted therapy for advanced-stage Hodgkin lymphoma. Hematology 2018;1:200-6.

Straus DJ, Jung SH, Pitcher B, Kostakoglu L, Grecula JC, Hsi ED, et al. CALGB 50604: risk-adapted treatment of nonbulky early-stage Hodgkin lymphoma based on interim PET. Blood 2018;132(10):1013-21.

Strigari L, Attili A, Duggento A, Chiaravalloti A, Schillaci O, Guerrisi MG. Quantitative analysis of basal and interim PET/CT images for predicting tumor recurrence in patients with Hodgkin's lymphoma. Nuclear Medicine Communications 2016;37:16-22.

Sucak GT, Ozkurt ZN, Suyani E, Yasar DG, Akdemir OU, Aki Z, et al. Early post-transplantation positron emission tomography in patients with Hodgkin lymphoma is an independent prognostic factor with an impact on overall survival. Annals of Hematology 2011;90(11):1329-36.

Tirelli U, Spina M. PET-adapted salvage therapy in Hodgkin's lymphoma. Lancet Oncology 2015;16(3):239-40.

Tomita N, Hattori Y, Fujisawa S, Hashimoto C, Taguchi J, Takasaki H, et al. Post-therapy 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography for predicting outcome in patients with peripheral T cell lymphoma. Annals of Hematology 2015;94(3):431-6.

Torizuka T, Nakamura F, Kanno T, Futatsubashi M, Yoshikawa E, Okada H, et al. Early therapy monitoring with FDG-PET in aggressive non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and Hodgkin's lymphoma. European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging 2004;31(1):22-8.

Trotman J, Fossa A, Federico M, Stevens L, Kirkwood A, Clifton-Hadley L, et al. Response-adjusted therapy for advanced Hodgkin lymphoma (RATHL) trial: longer follow up confirms efficacy of de-escalation after a negative interim PET scan (CRUK/07/033). Hematological Oncology 2017;35:65‐7.

Tseng D, Rachakonda LP, Su Z, Advani R, Horning S, Hoppe RT, et al. Interim-treatment quantitative PET parameters predict progression and death among patients with Hodgkin's disease. Radiation Oncology 2012;7:5.

Villa D, Sehn LH, Aquino-Parsons C, Tonseth P, Scott D W, Gerrie AS, et al. Interim PET-directed therapy in limited stage Hodgkin lymphoma initially treated with ABVD. Haematologica 2018;12:12.

Weidmann E, Baican B, Hertel A, Baum RP, Chow KU, Knupp B, et al. Positron emission tomography (PET) for staging and evaluation of response to treatment in patients with Hodgkin's disease. Leukemia and Lymphoma 1999;34(5-6):545-51.

Wilson D, Benard F, Gascoyne RD, Slack GW, Farinha P, Morris J, et al. Interim PET-directed therapy in limited-stage Hodgkin lymphoma initially treated with ABVD. Haematologica 2018;103(12):e590-3.

Google Scholar

Xie W, Jiang X F, Zhao W L, Wang L. Prognostic evaluation of different PET/CT reading methods in Hodgkin lymphoma and diffused large B-cell lymphoma. Journal of Shanghai Jiaotong University 2018;38(8):954-9.

Google Scholar

Yasgur BS. Interim PET results guide ongoing therapy in Hodgkin lymphoma. Oncology Report 2015;11(8):available at: https://www.mdedge.com/hematologynews/nhlhub/article/101136/indolent-lymphoma/interim-pet-results-guide-ongoing-therapy.

Google Scholar

Yoshimi A, Izutsu K, Takahashi M, Kako S, Oshima K, Kanda Y, et al. Conventional allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation for lymphoma may overcome the poor prognosis associated with a positive FDG-PET scan before transplantation. American Journal of Hematology 2008;83(6):477-81.

Zabrocka E, Sierko E, Wojtukiewicz MZ. Positron emission tomography scanning in the management of Hodgkin lymphoma patients: a single-institution experience. Advances in Clinical and Experimental Medicine 2016;25(6):1185-92.

Zaucha J, Danielewicz I, Malkowski B, Zaucha R, Lesniewski-Kmak K. The role of PET for interim response assessment in patients with Hodgkin's lymphoma. Wspolczesna Onkologia 2009;13(4):161-6.

Google Scholar

Zinzani PL, Magagnoli M, Chierichetti F, Zompatori M, Garraffa G, Bendandi M, et al. The role of positron emission tomography (PET) in the management of lymphoma patients. Annals of Oncology 1999;10(10):1181-4.

Zinzani PL, Chierichetti F, Zompatori M, Tani M, Stefoni V, Garraffa G, et al. Advantages of positron emission tomography (PET) with respect to computed tomography in the follow-up of lymphoma patients with abdominal presentation. Leukemia and Lymphoma 2002;43(6):1239-43.

Zinzani PL, Broccoli A, Gioia DM, Castagnoli A, Ciccone G, Evangelista A, et al. Interim positron emission tomography response-adapted therapy in advanced-stage hodgkin lymphoma: final results of the phase II part of the HD0801 study. Journal of Clinical Oncology2016;34(12):1376-85.

Google Scholar

Referencias de los estudios en espera de evaluación

Ir a:

estudios incluidos
estudios excluidos
estudios en curso
otras referencias
otras versiones publicadas

Abramson JS, Barnes JA, LaCasce AS, Zukotynski K, Israel D, Feng Y, et al. End of treatment but not interim PET scan predicts outcome in non-bulky limited stage Hodgkin lymphoma. Haematologica 2010;95(Suppl. 4):S16.

Google Scholar

Algrin C, Berenger N, Chevret S, Vercellino L, De Bazelaire C, Brice P, et al. Interim-positron emission tomography with [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose (interim-PET) evaluation in mediastinal lymphoma including Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) and primary mediastinal large B-cell lymphoma (PMBL). Blood 2010;116(21):2860.

Arce-Calisaya P, Scarsbrook A, Thygesen H, Chowdhury F, Patel C. Interim FDG PET/CT in Hodgkin's lymphoma - Does binary response assessment criteria have any prognostic value? European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging 2013;40(Suppl. 2):S476.

Google Scholar

Baratto L, Guerra L, Elisei F, Crivellaro C, De Ponti E, Bolis S, et al. Interim-PET in Hodgkin lymphoma: Deauville criteria and metabolic parameters as prognostic factors. Clinical and Translational Imaging 2015;3(Suppl. 1):S16-7.

Google Scholar

Barna S, Fedinecz N, Magyari F, Varga J, Illes A, Garai I. Prognostic value of interim 18FDG-PET/CT in patients with Hodgkin's lymphoma using different 5-point visual scales for interpretation. European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging 2011;38(Suppl. 2):S377.

Google Scholar

Barrington SF, Kostakoglu L, Hutchings M, Meignan M, Biggi A, Gregianin M, et al. Are the Deauville criteria a reliable tool for assessment of interim PET in Hodgkin lymphoma? In: European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging. Vol. 38. 2011:S164.

Google Scholar

Bentur OS, Eldad DJ, Paran E, Lavie D, Nachmias B, Dally N, et al. The predictive value of interim PET-CT in elderly patients with Hodgkin lymphoma. In: Haematologica. Conference: 22th Congress of the European Hematology Association. Spain. Vol. 102. 2017:460-1.

Google Scholar

Berenger N, Vercellino L, Algrin C, Groheux D, Hindie E, Lussato D, et al. Prognostic value of interim 18F-FDG PET/CT in mediastinal bulky Hodgkin lymphoma. European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging 2010;37(Suppl. 2):S436.

Google Scholar

Bhatwadekar S, Deshpande S, Khadse S, Shah B, Desai D, Kachchhi U, et al. Excellent outcome in Hodgkin lymphoma with ABVD and CMT: A single-centre retrospective analysis. Hematological Oncology 2017;35(Suppl. 2):316-7.

Cimino G, Zaucha JM, Cirillo S, Saviolo C, Hutchings M, El-Galaly TC, et al. The complementary prognostic role of baseline and interim PET in predicting treatment outcome in advanced-stage Hodgkin lymphoma. Blood 2014;124(21):4405.

Cocorocchio E, Vanazzi A, Botteri E, Alietti A, Negri M, Bassi S, et al. Prognostic role of interim 18FDG-PET in Hodgkin lymphoma: A single-center experience. Journal of Clinical Oncology 2009;27(15 suppl. 1):e19520.

Google Scholar

Cocorocchio E, Botteri E, Gigli F, Bassi S, Bertazzoni P, Sammassimo S, et al. Evaluation of interim 18FDG-PET in advanced Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) patients (PTS) treated with ChlVPP/ABVVP regimen. In: Annals of Oncology. Vol. 22. 2011:216.

Google Scholar

Copeland A, Fanale M, Chuang H, Macapinlac H, Faria SC, Siegmund B, et al. Single institution experience with interim PET evaluation in newly diagnosed CHL receiving ABVD chemotherapy: Need for standardization. Haematologica 2010;95(Suppl. 4):S50.

Google Scholar

Cuzzocrea M, Guerra L, Elisei F, Crivellaro C, De Ponti E, Bolis S, et al. The Deauville criteria and metabolic parameters as prognostic factors in interim PET in Hodgkin lymphoma: A single centre experience. European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging 2015;42(1 suppl. 1):S152-3.

Google Scholar

De Rueda B, Costilla L, Catalina S, Grasa J, Rubio D, Giraldo P. Prognostic value of 18F-FDG PET/CT in Hodgkin lymphoma. Haematologica 2013;98(Suppl. 1):572-3.

Google Scholar

Fabbri A, Rigacci L, Lazzi S, Di Lollo S, Pietrini A, Puccini B, et al. 'Early FDG-PET' predicts clinical course of Hodgkin's lymphoma although does not correlate with macrophages infiltration in diagnostic specimens. Haematologica 2011;96(Suppl. 2):321-2.

Google Scholar

Fiore F, Viviani S, Luminari S, Levis A, Di Raimondo F, Merli F, et al. Early interim FDG-PET during intensified BEACOPP therapy for advanced-stage Hodgkin disease shows a lower positive predictive value than during ABVD. Haematologica 2010;95(Suppl. 4):S19.

Google Scholar

Gallegos C, De Rueda B, Grasa JM, Banso A, Giraldo P. The importance of PET/CT as method of evaluation of early response to treatment in HL. Haematologica 2012;97(Suppl. 1):566.

Google Scholar

Hohaus S, Cuccaro A, Annunziata S, Martini M, D'Alo F, Calcagni ML, et al. The risk of progression of Hodgkin lymphoma in patients with negative interim PET: A role for the number of tumor-infiltrating macrophages (CD68+ cell counts) and B symptoms. Haematologica 2015;100(Suppl. 3):7.

Google Scholar

Hutchings M, Kostakoglu L, Loft A, Coleman M, Specht L. Correlation of FDG-PET results after one cycle and after two cycles of chemotherapy in Hodgkin lymphoma. Journal of Clinical Oncology 2010;28(15):8061.

Knight-Greenfield A, Marshall RA, Hutchings M, Doucette J, Stern J, Coleman M, et al. Interim FDG PET/CT to predict progression-free survival (PFS) better than clinical and baseline metabolic measurements in Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL). Journal of Clinical Oncology 2013;31(15):8555.

Leontjeva A, Demina E, Ryabukhina J, Tumyan G, Trofimova O, Sotnikov V, et al. Significance of early interim PET results in advanced Hodgkin lymphoma treated intensive program EACOPP-14. British Journal of Haematology 2016;173(Suppl. 1):107.

Google Scholar

Luminari S, Cesaretti M, Tomasello C, Guida A, Bagni B, Merli F, et al. The use of FDG positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) in patients with Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) in the "real world": A population based study from northern Italy. Haematologica 2010;95(Suppl. 4):S42-3.

Google Scholar

Luminari S, Cesaretti M, Tomasello C, Guida A, Bagni B, Merli F, et al. Use of 2-[18F]fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography in patients with Hodgkin lymphoma in daily practice: a population-based study from Northern Italy. Leukemia and Lymphoma 2011;52(9):1689-96.

Medvedovskaya E, Leontjeva A, Demina E, Ryabukhina J, Tumyan G, Kokosadze N, et al. The impact of outcome of interim PET/CT on advanced Hodgkin lymphoma treated with EACOPP-14. Haematologica 2016;101(Suppl. 5):26.

Google Scholar

Molnar Z, Deak B, Kajary K, Lengyel Z, Molnar P, Rosta A, et al. The value of interim 18F-FDG PET/CT in Hodgkin lymphoma. European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging 2011;38(Suppl. 2):S165.

Google Scholar

Molnar Z, Deak B, Kajary K, Lengyel Z, Molnar P, Rosta A, et al. Interim FDG PET/CT examinations in advanced stage Hodgkin lymphoma. Nuclear Medicine Review 2011;14(Suppl. A):A4.

Google Scholar

Moreira C, Fidalgo P, Queiroz L, Domingues N, Moreira I, Oliveira I, et al. Prognostic value of interim vs. end-of-treatment PET scan in Hodgkin's lymphoma. Hematological Oncology 2013;31(Suppl. 1):257.

Google Scholar

Perrone T, Gaudio F, Giordano A, De Risi C, Spina A, Curci P, et al. Role of positron emission tomography (PET) after 2 and 4 courses of chemotherapy in patients with Hodgkin's lymphoma: A single center experience. Haematologica 2009;94(Suppl. 4):216.

Google Scholar

Pophali PA, Rybicki LA, Fenner KB, Jagadeesh D, Dean RM, Pohlman B, et al. Bulky disease does not adversely affect overall survival in early stage Hodgkin lymphoma: Role of interim PET and possible omission of radiotherapy in select patients. Blood 2014;124:21.

Rusconi C, Ravelli E, Gabutti C, Zilioli V, Meli E, Nichelatti M, et al. Baseline and dynamic prognostic factors in newly diagnosed classical Hodgkin's lymphoma. Haematologica 2010;95(Suppl. 4):S43.

Google Scholar

Spallino M, Guerra L, Cuzzocrea M, Elisei F, Crivellaro C, De Ponti E, et al. The Deauville criteria and QPET as prognostic factors in interim PET in adult Hodgkin lymphoma: A single centre experience. Clinical and Translational Imaging 2017;5(Suppl. 1):S43.

Google Scholar

Yaghmour G, Farhat M, Valdivieso BS, Janakiraman N. PET-negative at 2, 3 or 4 cycles of ABVD in Hodgkin's lymphoma is still good. Journal of General Internal Medicine 2012;27(Suppl. 2):S258-9.

Google Scholar

Zanoni L, Agostinelli C, Gallamini A, Rigacci L, Sista M, Piccaluga P, et al. The predictive value of interim PET and immunohistochemical markers in Hodgkin lymphoma (HL). European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging 2011;38(Suppl. 2):S165.

Google Scholar

Referencias de los estudios en curso

Ir a:

estudios incluidos
estudios excluidos
estudios a la espera de valoración
otras referencias
otras versiones publicadas

Kobe C, Dietlein M, Kuhnert G, Holstein A, Kahraman D, Haverkamp H, et al. Recruitment and PET interpretation in the HD16 trial for early stage Hodgkin lymphoma. Treatment stratification by FDG-PET. In: NuklearMedizin. Vol. 50. Jahrestagung der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Nuklearmedizin. Bremen, Germany. 2012:A39-40.

Google Scholar

NCT00736320. HD16 for early stages - treatment optimization trial in the first-line treatment of early stage Hodgkin lymphoma; treatment stratification by means of FDG-PET. clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/nct00736320 (first received 15 August 2008).

Referencias adicionales

Ir a:

estudios incluidos
estudios excluidos
estudios a la espera de valoración
estudios en curso
otras versiones publicadas

Adams HJ, Nievelstein RA, Kwee TC. Prognostic value of interim FDG-PET in Hodgkin lymphoma: systematic review and meta-analysis. British Journal of Haematology 2015;170(3):356-66.

Adams HJ, Kwee TC. Controversies on the prognostic value of interim FDG-PET in advanced-stage Hodgkin lymphoma. European Journal of Haematology 2016;97(6):491-8.

Altman DG. Practical Statistics for Medical Research. 1 edition. London: Chapman & Hall, 1991.

Altman DG, McShane LM, Sauerbrei W, Taube SE. Reporting Recommendations for Tumor Marker Prognostic Studies (REMARK): explanation and elaboration. PLOS Medicine 2012;9(5):e1001216. [PMID: 22675273]

Amitai I, Gurion R, Vidal L, Dann EJ, Raanani P, Gafter-Gvili A. PET-adapted therapy for advanced Hodgkin lymphoma – systematic review. Acta Oncologica 2018;57(6):765-72.

Barrington SF, Mikhaeel NG, Kostakoglu L, Meignan M, Hutchings M, Mueller SP, et al. Role of imaging in the staging and response assessment of lymphoma: consensus of the International Conference on Malignant Lymphomas Imaging Working Group. Journal of Clinical Oncology 2014;32(27):3048-58.

Barrington SF, Kluge R. FDG PET for therapy monitoring in Hodgkin and non-Hodgkin lymphomas. European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging 2017;44(1):97-110.

Berriolo-Riedinger A, Becker S, Casasnovas O, Vander Borght T, Edeline V. Role of FDG PET-CT in the treatment management of Hodgkin lymphoma. Cancer Radiotherapy 2018;22(5):393-400.

Blank O, von Tresckow B, Monsef I, Specht L, Engert A, Skoetz N. Chemotherapy alone versus chemotherapy plus radiotherapy for adults with early stage Hodgkin lymphoma. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2017, Issue 4. Art. No: CD007110. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007110.pub3]

Boellaard R, O'Doherty MJ, Weber WA, Mottaghy FM, Lonsdale MN, Stroobants SG, et al. FDG PET and PET/CT: EANM procedure guidelines for tumour PET imaging: version 1.0. European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging 2010;37(1):181-200. [PMID: 19915839]

Borchmann P, Haverkamp H, Diehl V, Cerny T, Markova J, Ho AD, et al. Eight cycles of escalated-dose BEACOPP compared with four cycles of escalated-dose BEACOPP followed by four cycles of baseline-dose BEACOPP with or without radiotherapy in patients with advanced-stage Hodgkin's lymphoma: final analysis of the HD12 trial of the German Hodgkin Study Group. Journal of Clinical Oncology 2011;29(32):4234-42. [PMID: 21990399]

Google Scholar

Bouwmeester W, Zuithoff NP, Mallett S, Geerlings MI, Vergouwe Y, Steyerberg EW, et al. Reporting and methods in clinical prediction research: a systematic review. PLOS Medicine 2012;9(5):1-12.

Bröckelmann PJ, Eichenauer DA, Jakob T, Follmann M, Engert A, Skoetz N. Clinical practice guideline: Hodgkin lymphoma in adults—diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up. Deutsches Ärzteblatt International 2018;115:535-40.

Google Scholar

Canellos GP, Anderson JR, Propert KJ, Nissen N, Cooper MR, Henderson ES, et al. Chemotherapy of advanced Hodgkin's disease with MOPP, ABVD, or MOPP alternating with ABVD. New England Journal of Medicine 1992;327(21):1478-84. [PMID: 1383821]

Cheson BD, Fisher RI, Barrington SF, Cavalli F, Schwartz LH, Zucca E, et al. Recommendations for initial evaluation, staging, and response assessment of Hodgkin and non-Hodgkin lymphoma: the Lugano classification. Journal of Clinical Oncology 2014;32(27):3059-68. [PMID: 25113753]

Veritas Health InnovationCovidence. Version accessed 4 March 2019. Melbourne, Australia.: Veritas Health Innovation. Available at www.covidence.org.

Cuccaro A, Bartolomei F, Cupelli E, Galli E, Giachelia M, Hohaus S. Prognostic factors in hodgkin lymphoma. Mediterranean Journal of Hematology and Infectious Diseases 2014;6(1):e2014053.

Debray T, Damen J, Snell K, Ensor J, Hooft L, Reitsma J, et al. A guide to systematic review and meta-analysis of prediction model performance. BMJ 2017;356:i6460.

Debray T, Moons K, Riley R. Detecting small-study effects and funnel plot asymmetry in meta-analysis of survival data: A comparison of new and existing tests. Research Synthesis Methods 2018;9(1):41-50.

Deeks JJ, Higgins JP, Altman DG. Chapter 9: Analysing data and undertaking meta-analyses. In: Higgins JPT, Green S (editors), Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from www.cochrane-handbook.org.

Engert A, Schiller P, Josting A, Herrmann R, Koch P, Sieber M, et al. Involved-field radiotherapy is equally effective and less toxic compared with extended-field radiotherapy after four cycles of chemotherapy in patients with early-stage unfavorable Hodgkin's lymphoma: results of the HD8 trial of the German Hodgkin's Lymphoma Study Group. Journal of Clinical Oncology 2003;21(19):3601-8.

Google Scholar

Engert A, Franklin J, Eich HT, Brillant C, Sehlen S, Cartoni C, et al. Two cycles of doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine plus extended-field radiotherapy is superior to radiotherapy alone in early favorable Hodgkin's lymphoma: final results of the GHSG HD7 trial. Journal of Clinical Oncology 2007;25(23):3495-502.

Engert A, Plutschow A, Eich HT, Lohri A, Dorken B, Borchmann P, et al. Reduced treatment intensity in patients with early-stage Hodgkin's lymphoma. New England Journal of Medicine 2010;363(7):640-52. [PMID: 20818855]

Engert A, Haverkamp H, Kobe C, Markova J, Renner C, Ho A, et al. Reduced-intensity chemotherapy and PET-guided radiotherapy in patients with advanced stage Hodgkin's lymphoma (HD15 trial): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 non-inferiority trial. Lancet 2012;379(9828):1791-9. [PMID: 22480758]

Fitzgerald TJ. Optimisation of adaptive therapy for advanced Hodgkin lymphoma. Lancet Oncology 2019;20(2):167-8.

Franklin JG, Paus MD, Pluetschow A, Specht L. Chemotherapy, radiotherapy and combined modality for Hodgkin's disease, with emphasis on second cancer risk. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2005, Issue 4. Art. No: CD003187. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003187.pub2] [PMID: 16235316]

Gallamini A, Hutchings M, Rigacci L, Specht L, Merli F, Hansen M, et al. Early interim 2-[18F]fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography is prognostically superior to international prognostic score in advanced-stage Hodgkin's lymphoma: a report from a joint Italian-Danish study. Journal of Clinical Oncology 2007;25(24):3746-52. [PMID: 17646666]

Geersing GJ, Bouwmeester W, Zuithoff P, Spijker R, Leeflang M, Moons KG. Search filters for finding prognostic and diagnostic prediction studies in Medline to enhance systematic reviews. PLOS One 2012;7(7):e32844.

Hayden JA, van der Windt DA, Cartwright JL, Cote P, Bombardier C. Assessing bias in studies of prognostic factors. Annals of Internal Medicine 2013;158(4):280-6. [PMID: 23420236]

Higgins JP, Deeks JJ (editors). Chapter 7: Selecting studies and collecting data. In: Higgins JP, Green S (editors), Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from www.cochrane-handbook.org.

Higgins JP, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Chapter 16: Special topics in statistics. In: Higgins JP, Green S, editors(s). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011.

Howlader N, Noone AM, Krapcho M, Garshell J, Neyman N, Altekruse SF, et al. SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1975-2010. National Cancer Institute. Bethesda, MD. http://seer.cancer.gov/csr/1975_2010/ based on November 2012 SEER data submission, posted to the SEER web site, April 2013 (accessed 23 June 2015).

Iorio A, Spencer FA, Falavigna M, Alba C, Lang E, Burnand B, et al. Use of GRADE for assessment of evidence about prognosis: rating confidence in estimates of event rates in broad categories of patients. BMJ 2015;350:1-8.

Josting A. Prognostic factors in Hodgkin lymphoma. Expert Review of Hematology 2010;3(5):583-92.

Juweid ME, Stroobants S, Hoekstra OS, Mottaghy FM, Dietlein M, Guermazi A, et al. Use of positron emission tomography for response assessment of lymphoma: consensus of the Imaging Subcommittee of International Harmonization Project in Lymphoma. Journal of Clinical Oncology 2007;25:571-8.

Klimm B, Engert A, Diehl V. First-line treatment of Hodgkin's lymphoma. Current Hematology Reports 2005;4(1):15-22.

Google Scholar

Kobe C, Dietlein M, Franklin J, Markova J, Lohri A, Amthauer H, et al. Positron emission tomography has a high negative predictive value for progression or early relapse for patients with residual disease after first-line chemotherapy in advanced-stage Hodgkin lymphoma. Blood 2008;112(10):3989-94. [PMID: 18757777]

Kobe C, Dietlein M, Fuchs M. Interpretation and validation of interim positron emission tomography in Hodgkin lymphoma. Leukemia and Lymphoma2010;51(3):552-3. [PMID: 20141443]

Google Scholar

Kobe C, Dietlein M, Kriz J, Furth C, Fuchs M, Borchmann P, et al. The role of PET in Hodgkin's lymphoma and its impact on radiation oncology. Expert Review of Anticancer Therapy 2010;10(9):1419-28. [PMID: 20836677]

Kyzas PA, Loizou KT, Ioannidis JP. Selective reporting biases in cancer prognostic factor studies. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 2005;97(14):1043-55. [PMID: 16030302]

Kyzas PA, Denaxa-Kyza D, Ioannidis JP. Quality of reporting of cancer prognostic marker studies: association with reported prognostic effect. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 2007;99(3):236-43. [PMID: 17284718]

Kılıçkap S, Barışta I, Ulger S, Celik I, Selek U, Yıldız F, et al. Clinical Features and Prognostic Factors of Hodgkin's Lymphoma: A Single Center Experience. Balkan Medical Journal 2013;30(2):178-85.

Lefebvre C, Manheimer E, Glanville J. Chapter 6: Searching for studies. In: Higgins JP, Green S (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from www.cochrane-handbook.org.

Lister TA, Crowther D, Sutcliffe SB, Glatstein E, Canellos GP, Young RC, et al. Report of a committee convened to discuss the evaluation and staging of patients with Hodgkin's disease: Cotswolds meeting. Journal of Clinical Oncology 1989;7(11):1630-6.

Macaskill P, Gatsonis C, Deeks J, Harbord R, Takwoingi Y. Chapter 10 Analysing and Presenting Results. In: Deeks JJ, Bossuyt PM, Gatsonis C, editors(s). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Diagnostic Test Accuracy. Version 1.0. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2010. Available from: http://srdta.cochrane.org/.

Mallett S, Timmer A, Sauerbrei W, Altman DG. Reporting of prognostic studies of tumour markers: a review of published articles in relation to REMARK guidelines. British Journal of Cancer 2010;102(1):173-80. [PMID: 19997101]

Markova J, Kobe C, Skopalova M, Klaskova K, Dedeckova K, Plutschow A, et al. FDG-PET for assessment of early treatment response after four cycles of chemotherapy in patients with advanced-stage Hodgkin's lymphoma has a high negative predictive value. Annals of Oncology 2009;20(7):1270-4. [PMID: 19228806]

McShane LM, Altman DG, Sauerbrei W, Taube SE, Gion M, Clark GM. Reporting recommendations for tumour MARKer prognostic studies (REMARK). British Journal of Cancer 2005;93(4):387-91.

Meignan M, Gallamini A, Meignan M, Gallamini A, Haioun C. Report on the First International Workshop on Interim-PET-Scan in Lymphoma. Leukemia and Lymphoma 2009;50(8):1257-60.

Meignan M, Itti E, Bardet S, Lumbroso J, Edeline V, Olivier P, et al. Development and application of a real-time on-line blinded independent central review of interim PET scans to determine treatment allocation in lymphoma trials. Journal of Clinical Oncology 2009;27(16):2739-41.

Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2009;62(10):1006-12.

Moons KG, Royston P, Vergouwe Y, Grobbee DE, Altman DG. Prognosis and prognostic research: what, why, and how? BMJ 2009;338:b375.

Moons KG, de Groot JA, Bouwmeester W, Vergouwe Y, Mallett S, Altman DG, et al. Critical appraisal and data extraction for systematic reviews of prediction modelling studies: the CHARMS checklist. PLoS Medicine 2014;11:e1001744.

Moskowitz CH, Walewski J, Nademanee A, Masszi T, Agura E, Holowiecki J, et al. Five-year PFS from the AETHERA trial of brentuximab vedotin for Hodgkin lymphoma at high risk of progression or relapse. Blood Journal 2018;132(25):2639.

Parmar MK, Torri V, Stewart L. Extracting summary statistics to perform meta-analyses of the published literature for survival endpoints. Statistics in Medicine 1998;17(24):2815-34.

Peat G, Riley RD, Croft P, Morley KI, Kyzas PA, Moons KG, et al. Improving the transparency of prognosis research: the role of reporting, data sharing, registration, and protocols. PLOS Medicine 2014;11(7):e1001671.

Radford J, Illidge T, Counsell N, Hancock B, Pettengell R, Johnson P, et al. Results of a trial of PET-directed therapy for early-stage Hodgkin's lymphoma. New England Journal of Medicine 2015;372(1):1598-607.

Rancea M, Monsef I, von Tresckow B, Engert A, Skoetz N. High-dose chemotherapy followed by autologous stem cell transplantation for patients with relapsed/refractory Hodgkin lymphoma. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2013, Issue 6. Art. No: CD009411. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009411.pub2] [PMID: 23784872]

Rancea M, Engert A, von Tresckow B, Halbsguth T, Behringer K, Skoetz N. Hodgkin's lymphoma in adults: diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Deutsches Arzteblatt International 2013;110(11):177-83, 183e1-3. [PMID: 23555321]

Google Scholar

Re D, Thomas RK, Behringer K, Diehl V. From Hodgkin disease to Hodgkin lymphoma: biologic insights and therapeutic potential. Blood 2005;105(12):4553-60. [PMID: 15728122]

Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane CollaborationReview Manager 5 (RevMan 5). Version 5.3. Copenhagen: Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2014.

Riley RD, Hayden JA, Steyerberg EW, Moons KG, Abrams K, Kyzas PA, et al. Prognosis Research Strategy (PROGRESS) 2: prognostic factor research. PLOS Medicine 2013;10(2):e1001380. [PMID: 23393429]

Riley RD, Moons KG, Snell KE, Ensor J, Hooft L, Altman DG, et al. A guide to systematic review and meta-analysis of prognostic factor studies. BMJ 2019;364:k4597.

Riley RD, van der Windt D, Croft P, Moons KGM. Prognosis Research in Healthcare. Concepts, Methods, and Impact. Oxford University Press, 2019.

Sauerbrei W. Prognostic factors. Confusion caused by bad quality design, analysis and reporting of many studies. Advances in Oto-Rhino-Laryngology 2005;62:184-200. [PMID: 15608428]

Google Scholar

Sickinger MT, von Tresckow B, Kobe C, Engert A, Borchmann P, Skoetz N. Positron emission tomography-adapted therapy for first-line treatment in individuals with Hodgkin lymphoma. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2015, Issue 1. Art. No: CD010533. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010533.pub2]

Skoetz N, Trelle S, Rancea M, Haverkamp H, Diehl V, Engert A, et al. Effect of initial treatment strategy on survival of patients with advanced-stage Hodgkin's lymphoma: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Lancet. Oncology 2013;14(10):943-52. [PMID: 23948348]

Skoetz N, Will A, Monsef I, Brillant C, Engert A, von Tresckow B. Comparison of first-line chemotherapy including escalated BEACOPP versus chemotherapy including ABVD for people with early unfavourable or advanced stage Hodgkin lymphoma. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2017, Issue 5. Art. No: CD007941. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007941.pub3]

Steyerberg EW, Moons KG, van der Windt DA, Hayden JA, Perel P, Schroter S, et al. Prognosis Research Strategy (PROGRESS) 3: prognostic model research. PLOS Medicine 2013;10(2):e1001381.

Swerdlow SH, Campo E, Harris NL, Jaffe ES, Pileri SA, Stein H, et al. WHO Classification of Tumours of the Haematopoietic and Lymphoid Tissues. Fourth edition. Vol. 2. Lyon: WHO Press, 1211 Geneva 27, Switzerland, 2008. [ISBN-13: 9789283224310]

Thomas RK, Re D, Zander T, Wolf J, Diehl V. Epidemiology and etiology of Hodgkin's lymphoma. Annals of Oncology 2002;13:147-52. [PMID: 12401681]

Tierney JF, Stewart LA, Ghersi D, Burdett S, Sydes MR. Practical methods for incorporating summary time-to-event data into meta-analysis. Trials 2007;8:16.

Trivella M. Systematic Reviews of Prognostic Factor Studies (Section: Estimating the Hazard Ratio) [DPhil]. University of Oxford (Altman DG, thesis advisor) June 10th 2006:219.

von Tresckow B, Plutschow A, Fuchs M, Klimm B, Markova J, Lohri A, et al. Dose-intensification in early unfavorable Hodgkin's lymphoma: final analysis of the German Hodgkin study group HD14 trial. Journal of Clinical Oncology 2012;30(9):907-13. [PMID: 22271480]

Weiler-Sagie M, Bushelev O, Epelbaum R, Dann EJ, Haim N, Avivi I, et al. (18)F-FDG avidity in lymphoma readdressed: a study of 766 patients. Journal of Nuclear Medicine 2010;51(1):25-30.

Referencias de otras versiones publicadas de esta revisión

Ir a:

estudios incluidos
estudios excluidos
estudios a la espera de valoración
estudios en curso
otras referencias

Skoetz N, Collins G, Moons K, Estcourt LJ, Engert A, Kobe C, et al. Interim PET for prognosis in adults with Hodgkin lymphoma: a prognostic factor exemplar review. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2017, Issue 4. Art. No: CD012643. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012643]

Characteristics of studies

Characteristics of included studies [ordered by study ID]

Ir a:

estudios excluidos
estudios a la espera de clasificación
estudios en curso

Andre 2017

*Study characteristics*
Methods	Secondary citation(s) Raemarkers 2014, Cottereau 2018 Language of publication English Study design Prospective, multi‐centre, phase III randomised trial Study centre(s) Various Countries Belgium, Croatia, Denmark, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Slovakia, Switzerland Median follow‐up time (range) 55 months
Participants	Number of included participants Total: 1925 Randomised to standard treatment without change in protocol because of interim PET: 954 Inclusion criteria Previously untreated Classic supradiaphragmic stage I and II HL Age 15 to 70 years Exclusion criteria Previous laparotomy Concomitant or previous cancer other than basal‐cell carcinoma of the skin or in situ carcinoma of the cervix Concomitant severe illness that would reduce life expectancy Social circumstances not allowing for proper treatment and follow‐up Positivity for the human immunodeficiency virus (exclusion criteria reported in Fermé 2007¹) Consent Yes; written informed consent Recruitment period November 2006 to June 2011 Age (range, in years) Favourable, standard treatment group median: 31 (15‐49) Unfavourable, standard treatment group median: 32 (15‐70) Ethnic group(s) Not reported Stages of disease Early stages (I and II) Comorbidities Not reported, except for the exclusion criteria Therapy regimen ABVD and radiotherapy depending on treatment arm, favourable/unfavourable disease, and early PET (ePET) positivity
Prognostic factor(s)	Prognostic factor(s) Early PET (ePET) Definition of prognostic factor(s) Not reported Timing of prognostic factor measurement After 2 ABVD cycles Method for measurement (use of specific scale and cut‐off) International Harmonization Project criteria. According to these criteria: PET‐negative corresponds to Deauville score 1 (no uptake) and score 2 (uptake ≤ mediastinum) Central review performed online (up to 6 experts, and one local expert) Was the same definition and method for measurement used in all participants? Central review started later for 2 centres in Italy due to technical difficulties, only 75% of ePET were centrally reviewed 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 random assignment to date of progression (as experiencing relapse after previous complete remission, progressive disease, or death from any cause) Secondary outcome(s) and definition(s) Overall survival (OS), not defined 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 inunivariateanalysis for each outcome PFS: all OS: all Statistical method Kaplan‐Meier method HR (95% CI) Randomised arms were compared using the log‐rank test stratified by Ann Arbor stage and availability of a baseline FDG‐PET scan 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. Study attrition Low risk Length of follow‐up reported. Exclusion of participants due to safety amendment during the study. Prognostic factor measurement Moderate risk Adequate measurement and description. Central review only for 75% of scans and delayed in the case of 2 centres due to technical difficulties. Outcome: Overall survival Not reported Outcome: Progression‐free survival Outcome measurement Low risk No definition of outcome. Outcome measured the same way for all participants. 'Other prognostic factors (covariates)' Low risk Statistical analysis and reporting Low risk Statistical method appropriate for the data. Outcome: Adverse events Not reported
Notes	Conflict of interest Casasnovas O: honoraria received from Genentech, Takeda, Gilead Sciences, Sanofi; consulting or advisory role at Genentech, Takeda, Gilead Sciences; research funding received from Genentech; travel, accomodation, expenses received from Genentech, Takeda, Gilead Sciences Brice P: research funding received from Merck Sharp & Dohme Oncology, Takeda; travel, accomodation, expenses received from Takeda Specht L: consulting or advisory role at Takeda; research funding received from Varian Medical Systems; travel, accomodation, expenses received from Takeda Delarue R: honoraria received from Servier, Gilead Sciences, Roche, Celgene, Takeda; consulting or advisory role at Gilead Sciences, Roche; Speakers' Bureau at Karyopharm Therapeutics; travel, accomodation, expenses received from Roche, Takeda, Celgene Hutchings M: consulting or advisory role at Takeda, Genentech, Celgene, Bayer; research funding received from Takeda, Janssen‐Cilag, Genentech, Celgene; travel, accomodation, expenses received from Takeda, Bristol‐Myers, Squibb, Janssen‐Cilag Funding Supported by European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (Belgium), LYmphoma Study Association (France), Fondazione Italiana Limfomi (Italy), Fondation Belge Contre le Cancer (Belgium), Dutch Cancer Society (the Netherlands), Institut National du Cancer (France), Assistance Publique des Hopitaux de Paris (France), Societe Française de Medecine Nucleaire et Imagerie Moleculaire (France), Associazone Angela Serra (Italy), van Vlissingen Lymfoom Fonds (the Netherlands), and Chugai Pharmaceutical (Japan). [1] Fermé C, Eghbali H, Meerwaldt JH, Rieux C, Bosq J, Berger F, et al. Chemotherapy plus involved‐field radiation in early‐stage Hodgkin’s disease. New England Journal of Medicine 2007;357:1916‐1927

Annunziata 2016

*Study characteristics*
Methods	Secondary citation(s) NA Language of publication English Study design Retrospective, single‐centre study Study centre(s) Not reported Country Italy Median follow‐up time (range) Not reported
Participants	Number of included participants 68 Inclusion criteria HL diagnosis Exclusion criteria Not reported Consent Not reported Recruitment period January 2007 to December 2014 Age (range, in years) 39 (16‐72) Ethnic group(s) Not reported Stages of disease All stages Comorbidities Not reported Therapy regimen ABVD according to the presence of risk factors defined by the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Favourable group (age < 50 years with ≤ 3 involved nodal areas, absence of mediastinal bulk (mediastinum‐to‐thorax ratio < 0.35), and erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) < 50 mm without B symptoms or ESR < 30 mm with B symptoms): 3 cycles ABVD followed by radiotherapy, or 4 cycles ABVD without radiotherapy Unfavourable group (age ≥ 50 years, > 4 involved nodal areas, presence of mediastinal bulk (mediastinum to‐thorax ratio ≥ 0.35), or ESR ≥ 50 mm without B symptoms or ESR ≥ 30 mm with B symptoms): 4 cycles ABVD followed by radiotherapy, or 6 cycles ABVD without radiotherapy (therapy regimen reported in Raemaekers 2014¹)
Prognostic factor(s)	Prognostic factor(s) Interim PET Definition of prognostic factor(s) Half‐body PET scan (base of the skull to mid‐thigh) Timing of prognostic factor measurement Around day 25 (mean, range 22‐27) after cycle 1 of ABVD Method for measurement (use of specific scale and cut‐off) Deauville 5‐point scoring system Scores of 1‐3 considered negative, scores of 4‐5 considered positive 2 nuclear medicine physicians interpreted all scans 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), with progression during treatment, lack of complete remission at the end of first‐line treatment, and relapse counted as adverse events (AE) Secondary outcome(s) and definition(s) None 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 univariable analysis for each outcome PFS: all Statistical method Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) approach Kaplan‐Meier (survival analysis) Log‐rank (differences between groups) Cox proportional hazards model How was the prognostic factor treated? Binary Multivariable analysis: No
Risk of bias (QUIPS)	Study participation Unclear Clear description of participants and study characteristics. No inclusion and exclusion criteria provided. Study attrition Unclear risk No loss to follow‐up reported. No length of follow‐up reported. 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)' High risk Stated in methods section that multiple factors were taken into account for analysis, but unclear which variables and how adjustment was conducted. Disease stage not accounted for. Statistical analysis and reporting High risk Poorly reported. Unclear whether multivariable analysis was reported. Outcome: Adverse events Not reported
Notes	Conflict of interest The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest. Funding Not reported [1] Raemaekers JM, André MP, Federico M, Girinsky T, Oumedaly R, Brusamolino E, et al. Omitting radiotherapy in early positron emission tomography–negative stage I/II Hodgkin lymphoma is associated with an increased risk of early relapse: clinical results of the preplanned interim analysis of the randomised EORTC/LYSA/FIL H10 trial. Journal of Clinical Oncology 2014;32(12):1188‐1194

Barnes 2011

*Study characteristics*
Methods	Secondary citation(s) Sher 2009 Language of publication English Study design Retrospective, multi‐centre study (2 centres) Study centre(s) Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center and Dana‐Farber Cancer Institute, Massachusetts, USA Country USA Median follow‐up time (range) 46 months
Participants	Number of included participants 96 Inclusion criteria Diagnosed with classic, histology‐proven HL Adults Limited‐stage non‐bulky disease (mass < 10 cm) ABVD chemotherapy Availability of interim PET and end‐of‐treatment PET Exclusion criteria Nodular lymphocyte predominant HL Consent Not reported Recruitment period January 2000 to December 2008 Age (range, in years) 34 (18‐77) Ethnic group(s) Not reported Stages of disease Early stages (I to IIB) Comorbidities Not reported Therapy regimen 4 or 6 cycles of ABVD with or without IFRT
Prognostic factor(s)	Prognostic factor(s) Interim PET Definition of prognostic factor(s) Whole‐body PET scan (base of the skull to mid‐thighs) Timing of prognostic factor measurement After 2 to 4 treatment cycles Method for measurement (use of specific scale and cut‐off) 2 nuclear medicine physicians interpreted all scans, final result based on consensus Grading on a 4‐point scale with scores 0 or 1 considered negative and scores 2 to 4 considered 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)? Not reported
Outcome(s)	Primary outcome(s) and definition(s) Overall survival (OS), defined as the time from initial pathological diagnosis to death from any cause Progression‐free survival (PFS), defined as time from diagnosis to progression or death from any cause Secondary outcome(s) and definition(s) Overall response rate (ORR), defined as number of subjects with either complete response (CR) or partial response (PR) Primary refractory disease, defined as progressive disease on treatment or relapse within 3 months of completing therapy Timing of outcome measurement Unclear: 4 years reported in text, 10 years reported in figure 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? Not reported If yes, how were missing data handled? Not applicable
Analysis	Univariable analysis: Yes Total number of participants included in univariable analysis for each outcome OS: all PFS: all Statistical method Kaplan‐Meier (survival analysis) Log‐rank test Fisher’s exact test (CR) How was the prognostic factor treated? Binary Multivariable analysis: No
Risk of bias (QUIPS)	Study participation Unclear risk Description of participants provided. Missing interim and end‐of‐treatment PET was part of the exclusion criteria. No comparison of baseline study sample (n = 155) and participants (n = 96) included. No reasons for missing scans provided. Study attrition Low risk No loss to follow‐up. Prognostic factor measurement Moderate risk Adequate measurement and description. No standardised criteria, but description of scoring system used. Prognostic factor measured the same way for all participants. Blinding not reported. Outcome: Overall survival Outcome measurement High risk Clear definition. Reporting of timing inconsistent (4 vs. 10 years). 'Other prognostic factors (covariates)' Low risk Statistical analysis and reporting High risk Statistical method appropriate for the data, but discrepancies between text and graphs detected. Outcome: Progression‐free survival Outcome measurement High risk Clear definition. Reporting of timing inconsistent (4 vs. 10 years). 'Other prognostic factors (covariates)' Low risk Statistical analysis and reporting High risk Statistical method appropriate for the data, but discrepancies between text and graphs detected. Outcome: Adverse events Not reported
Notes	Conflict of interest There are no relevant conflicts of interests to disclose. Funding Not reported

Casasnovas 2019

*Study characteristics*
Methods	Secondary citation(s) Casasnovas 2018 Language of publication English Study design Open‐label, randomised phase 3 trial Study centre(s) Multicentre (90 centres) Countries Belgium, France Median follow‐up time (range) 50.4 months (IQR: 42.9‐59.3) for all participants, not reported separately for standard treatment group
Participants	Number of included participants 823 in total 413 in standard treatment group Inclusion criteria Age 16‐60 years Newly diagnosed HL ECOG performance status score < 3 Minimum life expectancy of 3 months Ann Arbor disease stage III, IV, or IIB with a mediastinum‐to‐thorax ratio of 0.33 or greater or extranodal localisation No previous treatment for HL Baseline PET (PET0) with at least one hypermetabolic lesion Negative HIV, hepatitis C virus, and human T‐lymphotropic serology Normal liver, renal, and haematological functions except for abnormalities related to HL Exclusion criteria Nodular lymphocyte predominant subtype Severe cardiopulmonary or metabolic disease Consent Written, informed consent Recruitment period 19 May 2011 to 29 April, 2014 Age (range, in years) 31 (IQR; ranges 23 ‐ 41) Ethnic group(s) Not reported Stages of disease II to IV, with B symptoms Comorbidities Not reported Therapy regimen Standard treatment group: 4 cycles of BEACOPP_escalated, irrespective of PET2 result. After PET4: If PET4‐negative: 2 further cycles of BEACOPP_escalated, if PET4‐positive: salvage therapy.
Prognostic factor(s)	Prognostic factor(s) Interim PET Definition of prognostic factor(s) Whole‐body PET scan (groin to head) Timing of prognostic factor measurement 2 to 4 weeks after completion of cycles 2 and 4 of chemotherapy Method for measurement (use of specific scale and cut‐off) Deauville criteria, with scores 1 to 3 considered negative, and scores 4 or 5 considered positive; Independent central review by 3 expert reviewers, final decision was based on at least two concordant responses Was the same definition and method for measurement used in all participants? Yes; participants were scanned on the same camera for all PET scans Were prognostic factor(s) assessed blinded for outcome(s), and for each other (if relevant)? Presumably yes, but not explicitly mentioned
Outcome(s)	Primary outcome(s) and definition(s) Progression‐free survival (PFS), defined as the time from randomisation to first progression, relapse, or death from any cause or last follow‐up Secondary outcome(s) and definition(s) Safety, not defined Overall response, not defined Event‐free survival, defined as the time from randomisation to the first documented disease progression, relapse, start of a new anti‐lymphoma therapy, death from any cause, or last follow‐up Disease‐free survival, defined as the time that complete response was recorded to the date of first documented disease progression, relapse or death related to lymphoma, toxicity from the study treatment (including treatment‐related secondary cancer), unknown cause or last follow‐up Overall survival, defined as the time from randomisation to death from any cause or last follow‐up Timing of outcome measurement PFS: 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? Yes; N = 11 stopped treatment before PET2, and further N = 14 stopped treatment before PET4 If yes, how were missing data handled? All 413 participants included in ITT analysis, N = 412 included in safety analysis, N = 372 included in per‐protocol analysis
Analysis	Univariable analysis: Yes Total number of participants included in univariable analysis for each outcome PFS, OS: N = 413 in ITT analysis, N = 372 in per‐protocol analysis Statistical method Kaplan‐Meier (survival analysis) Log‐rank test Cox proportional hazard regression models How was the prognostic factor treated? Binary Multivariable analysis: Yes Total number of participants included in multivariable analysis for each outcome PFS: 759 (all participants that had reviewed PET2 and PET4 scans; not reported separately for standard group after PET2 without treatment modification) OS: not reported Statistical method Cox proportional hazards regression model How was the prognostic factor treated? Binary Number of candidate covariates 8 List of all candidate covariates PET assessment (PET2 and PET4) Sex Age Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group score B symptoms Ann Arbor disease stage Bulky disease International Prognosis Score
Risk of bias (QUIPS)	Study participation Low risk Adequate description of study population and recruitment. Detailed inclusion criteria. Study attrition Low risk Reasons for loss to follow‐up provided for most participants with missing data. Prognostic factor measurement Low risk Adequate measurement and description. Prognostic factor measured the same way for all participants. Outcome: Overall survival Outcome measurement Low risk Clear definition. 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 methods appropriate and analysis fully reported. Outcome: Progression‐free survival Outcome measurement Low risk Clear definition. Outcome determined based on investigator assessment. 'Other prognostic factors (covariates)' Low risk Only advanced stages included. Multivariable analysis conducted. Statistical analysis and reporting Low risk Statistical methods appropriate and analysis fully reported. Outcome: Adverse events Not reported
Notes	Conflict of interest R‐OC has received grants, personal fees and non‐financial support from Gilead, Roche, and Takeda, personal fees and non‐financial support from Bristol‐Myers Squibb, Celegne, and Merck Sharpe & Dohme, and personal fees from Abbvie. PB has received personal fees from Bristol‐Myers Squibb, Merck Sharpe & Dohme, and Takeda, grants from Takeda Millenium, and non‐financial support from Roche. AS has received personal fees from Takeda. EN‐V has received personal fees from Keocyt and Sanofi. FM has received personal fees from Celegne, Gilead, Janssen, and Roche/Genentech. RD has received personal fees from Bristol‐Myers Squibb, Celegne, Gilead, Janssen, Karyopharm, Roche, Sanofi, and Takeda. MM has received personal fees from Roche China. The other authors declare no competing interests. Funding Programme Hospitalier de Recherche Clinique

Cerci 2010

*Study characteristics*
Methods	Secondary citation(s) NA Language of publication English Study design Prospective, single‐centre study Study centre(s) São Paulo University Clinics Hospital, Brazil Country Brazil Median follow‐up time (range) 36 months (32‐40)
Participants	Number of included participants 104 Inclusion criteria Newly diagnosed, biopsy‐proven, classic HL Exclusion criteria Pregnancy Consent Yes; written Recruitment period August 2005 to December 2007 Age (range, in years) 28 (13‐82) Ethnic group(s) Not reported Stages of disease All stages Comorbidities Not reported Therapy regimen ABVD 4‐6 cycles (stage I and II), 6‐8 cycles (stage III), 8 cycles (stage IV) Radiation therapy (stage I or II with no adverse risk factors and treated with 4 cycles ABVD; participants with bulky disease)
Prognostic factor(s)	Prognostic factor(s) Interim PET Definition of prognostic factor(s) Whole‐body PET scan Timing of prognostic factor measurement After 2 cycles of ABVD, as late as possible within the week before start of cycle 3 Method for measurement (use of specific scale and cut‐off) No specific scale indicated 2 board‐certified nuclear medicine physicians interpreted all scans PET‐negative defined as no pathologic 18F‐FDG uptake at any site; PET‐positive defined as presence of focal 18F‐FDG uptake not attributed to physiologic biodistribution 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) 3‐year event‐free survival (EFS), defined as the time from diagnosis to treatment failure (incomplete response after first‐line treatment, progression during therapy, relapse or death) or last follow‐up Secondary outcome(s) and definition(s) 3‐year overall survival (OS) Timing of outcome measurement At 3 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 EFS: all OS: all Statistical method Log‐rank (probability of treatment failure) Kaplan‐Meier (survival curves) 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, consecutive sampling and no participants excluded based on interim‐PET availability. Study attrition Low risk Loss to follow‐up reported. Prognostic factor measurement Low risk Adequate measurement and description. Prognostic factor measured the same way for all participants. Outcome: Overall survival Outcome measurement Low risk No definition. Outcome measured the same way for all participants. 'Other prognostic factors (covariates)' High risk Univariable analysis for multiple prognostic factors showed significance of factor of interest, but no multivariable analysis performed. Disease stage not accounted for. Statistical analysis and reporting High risk Statistical method in univariable analysis appropriate for the data, but no figures, only table with prognostic values, sensitivity and specificity. Discrepancies detected between text and graphs. Outcome: Event‐free survival Outcome measurement Low risk Clear definition. Outcome measured the same way for all participants. 'Other prognostic factors (covariates)' High risk Univariable analysis for multiple prognostic factors showed significance of factor of interest, but no multivariable analysis performed. Disease stage not accounted for. Statistical analysis and reporting High risk Statistical method in univariable analysis appropriate for the data, but no figures, only table with prognostic values, sensitivity and specificity. Discrepancies detected between text and graphs. Outcome: Adverse events Not reported
Notes	Conflict of interest Not reported Funding Not reported

Gallamini 2014

*Study characteristics*
Methods	Secondary citation(s) Agostinelli 2016, Biggi 2013, Gallamini 2006, Gallamini 2007 Language of publication English Study design Retrospective, international, multi‐centre study (17 centres) Study centre(s) 17 academic institutions worldwide Countries Various Median follow‐up time (range) 37 months (2‐110)
Participants	Number of included participants 260 Inclusion criteria HL participants with early stage unfavourable disease (IIA with adverse prognostic factors) or advanced stage disease (IIB – IVB) Staging with PET‐CT at baseline and after 2 courses of ABVD No change of treatment according to PET2 Minimum follow‐up of 1 year after completion of first treatment Exclusion criteria Missing CT data, baseline PET, interim PET, CT or PET slices; poor quality PET images; miscellaneous reasons (n=9) Consent No; due to retrospective study design Recruitment period January 2002 to December 2009 Age (range, in years) 37.3 (14‐82) Ethnic group(s) Not reported Stages of disease Early stage unfavourable (IIA HL with adverse prognostic factors) Advanced stages (IIB – IVB) Comorbidities Not reported Therapy regimen 4‐8 cycles ABVD with or without involved‐field radiotherapy or consolidation radiotherapy
Prognostic factor(s)	Prognostic factor(s) Interim PET Definition of prognostic factor(s) Not reported Timing of prognostic factor measurement A median of 12.3 days (range, 7‐22) after cycle 2 of ABVD Method for measurement (use of specific scale and cut‐off) Deauville 5‐point scoring system PET negative defined as scores 1‐3, PET positive defined as scores 4 or 5 6 reviewers interpreted all scans independently 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) Disease progression, defined as new disease within 6 months of first‐line treatment Relapse, defined as disease occurring 6 months or longer after achieving complete remission Progression‐free survival (PFS), defined as time from diagnosis to either disease progression or relapse, or to death as a result of any cause, whichever occurred first Overall survival (OS), defined as the time from diagnosis to death from any cause Secondary outcome(s) and definition(s) Inter‐observer agreement using the 5‐PS for PET2 interpretation Timing of outcome measurement At 3 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)? Yes
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: 260 Statistical method Kaplan Meier survival curves with Mantel‐Haenszel, log‐rank, Wilcoxon and Tarone‐Ware tests Univariable regression analyses How was the prognostic factor treated? Binary Multivariable analysis: Yes Total number of participants included in multivariable analysis for each outcome PFS: 260 Statistical method Cox proportional hazards regression model How was the prognostic factor treated? Binary Number of candidate covariates 9 List of all candidate covariates Bulky disease Lymphocyte Albumin White blood cells IPS (0‐2 vs. ≥3) Continued complete remission (CR) vs. no CR Lactate dehydrogenase Bone marrow involvement PET2
Risk of bias (QUIPS)	Study participation Low risk Clear description of participants and study characteristics. Study attrition Low risk Length of follow‐up reported. Prognostic factor measurement Low risk Adequate measurement and description. Blinding not reported. Outcome: Overall survival Outcome measurement Low risk Clear definition. Outcome measured the same way for all participants. Blinding not reported. 'Other prognostic factors (covariates)' Low risk Only unfavourable and advances stages included. 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. Blinding not reported. 'Other prognostic factors (covariates)' Low risk Only unfavourable and advances stages included. Statistical analysis and reporting Low risk Statistical method appropriate for the data. Outcome: Adverse events Not reported
Notes	Conflict of interest Not reported Funding Reporting incomplete The authors would like to thank: ... Keosys company for providing the Positoscope (R) network to distribute images to reviewers.

Gandikota 2015

*Study characteristics*
Methods	Secondary citation(s) NA Language of publication English Study design Retrospective study Study centre(s) Not reported Country/Countries Not reported Median follow‐up time (range) 46 months (24‐126)
Participants	Number of included participants 78 Inclusion criteria Biopsy‐proven, early‐stage (IA to IIB) classic HL of any subtype with or without bulky disease Age > 18 years Completion of planned ABVD and radiation therapy At least 24 months of follow‐up or until proven relapse if earlier Exclusion criteria None Consent No Recruitment period January 2000 to December 2012 Age (range, in years) 43 (median; 22‐86) Ethnic group(s) Not reported Stages of disease Early stages (IA to IIB) Comorbidities Not reported Therapy regimen ABVD (number of cycles based on risk factors and institutional guidelines) followed by involved‐field or extended‐field radiotherapy
Prognostic factor(s)	Prognostic factor(s) Interim PET Definition of prognostic factor(s) PET‐CT scan (from base of the skull to upper thigh) Timing of prognostic factor measurement After ABVD cycle 2 to 4 or at the end of chemotherapy Method for measurement (use of specific scale and cut‐off) 5‐point scale PET negative defined as a score ≤ 3 Staff physicians who were unaware of patient outcomes reviewed all scans 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) Outcomes relevant to this review were not explored in the study Secondary outcome(s) and definition(s) Not applicable Timing of outcome measurement Not applicable Was the same definition and method for measurement used in all participants? Not applicable Was/were outcome(s) assessed blinded for prognostic factor(s), and for each other (if relevant)? Not applicable
Missing data	Participants with any missing value? Yes: one patient without baseline PET due to pregnancy; one patient without detectable disease on the baseline scan (excision of single site disease) If yes, how were missing data handled? One patient without detectable disease on the baseline scan did not receive follow‐up PET since not considered necessary
Analysis	Univariable analysis: No Multivariable analysis: No
Risk of bias (QUIPS)	No risk of bias assessment, since outcomes relevant to this review were not explored in the study.
Notes	Conflict of interest The authors made no disclosure. Funding No specific funding was disclosed.

Hutchings 2005

*Study characteristics*
Methods	Secondary citation(s) NA Language of publication English Study design Not reported Study centre(s) Guy’s and St. Thomas’ Hospital, London Country UK Median follow‐up time (range) 40.2 months (6‐125)
Participants	Number of included participants 85 Inclusion criteria Histologically‐confirmed HL Early interim FDG‐PET scans Exclusion criteria None Consent Not reported Recruitment period May 1993 to January 2004 Age (range, in years) 36.7 (15‐73) Ethnic group(s) Not reported Stages of disease All stages Comorbidities Not reported Therapy regimen According to departmental protocols: mainly ABVD, number of cycles not reported; additional radiotherapy depending on stage and site of HL Alternative therapy for participants without satisfactory remission during initial chemotherapy
Prognostic factor(s)	Prognostic factor(s) Interim PET Definition of prognostic factor(s) Half‐body PET scan (mid‐brain to upper thigh) Timing of prognostic factor measurement After 2 or 3 cycles of chemotherapy, within the second week of the interval between cycles or as late as possible before administration of the next cycle Method for measurement (use of specific scale and cut‐off) No specific scale indicated 2 experienced nuclear medicine physicians interpreted all scans, differences decided by consensus PET‐negative defined as no evidence of disease; PET‐positive defined as increased uptake suspicious for malignant disease; Minimal residual uptake (MRU) defined as low‐grade uptake not likely to represent malignancy 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 first evidence of progression or relapse, or to disease‐related death Overall survival (OS), defined as the time from diagnosis to death from any cause Secondary outcome(s) and definition(s) None Timing of outcome measurement At 2 and 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 univariable analysis for each outcome PFS: all OS: not reported Statistical method Kaplan‐Meier (survival curves) Log‐rank (differences between groups) Proportional hazards Cox regression analysis How was the prognostic factor treated? Binary Multivariable analysis: Yes Total number of participants included in multivariable analysis for each outcome PFS: all OS: none Statistical method Kaplan‐Meier (survival curves) Log‐rank (differences between groups) Proportional hazards Cox regression analysis How was the prognostic factor treated? Binary Number of candidate covariates 4 List of all candidate covariates Early interim PET Ann Arbor stage PET‐MRU vs. PET‐negative PET‐positive vs. PET‐negative
Risk of bias (QUIPS)	Study participation Unclear risk All eligible participants included. Clear description of participants and study characteristics. No inclusion / exclusion criteria provided. No comparison to baseline population, and no explanation of missing scans provided. Study attrition Moderate risk Loss to follow‐up (8 participants), but reasons not provided. Prognostic factor measurement Low risk Adequate description. PET results separated into negative, positive and low MRU, which sometimes was considered negative (clearly stated in these cases). No clear cut‐off in numbers. Outcome: Overall survival Outcome measurement Low risk Clear definition. Outcome measured the same way for all participants. Participants lost to follow‐up were still included in analysis. 'Other prognostic factors (covariates)' High risk Disease stage not accounted for. Statistical analysis and reporting Low risk Statistical method in univariable analysis appropriate for the data. Outcome: Progression‐free survival Outcome measurement Low risk Clear definition. Outcome measured the same way for all participants. Participants lost to follow‐up were still included in analysis. '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 Not reported Funding Not reported

Hutchings 2006

*Study characteristics*
Methods	Secondary citation(s) NA Language of publication English Study design Prospective, multi‐centre study (4 centres) Study centre(s) Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, Herlev Hospital, Aarhus University Hospital Country Denmark Median follow‐up time (range) 22.8 months (6.1‐40.8)
Participants	Number of included participants Total: 99 With Interim‐PET: 77 Inclusion criteria Newly diagnosed HL Adults (≥18 years of age) Exclusion criteria Diabetes mellitus Pregnancy Consent Yes; written Recruitment period November 2001 to June 2004 Age (range, in years) 36.2 (18.6 – 74.0) Ethnic group(s) Not reported Stages of disease All stages Comorbidities Not reported Therapy regimen Various therapy regimens: ABVD (91%), ABV/MOPP (3%), ABVD/COPP (3%), BEACOPPesc. (3%), PVAG (1%)
Prognostic factor(s)	Prognostic factor(s) Interim PET Definition of prognostic factor(s) Half‐body PET scan (mid‐brain to upper thigh) Timing of prognostic factor measurement Within the last week before start of cycle 3 (PET2) and before cycle 5 (PET4) Method for measurement (use of specific scale and cut‐off) No specific scale indicated 2 experienced nuclear medicine physicians interpreted all scans, differences in interpretation decided by consensus Definitions for PET‐positive and PET–negative not reported 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; nuclear medicine physicians were blinded from all clinical information except diagnosis
Outcome(s)	Primary outcome(s) and definition(s) Progression‐free survival (PFS), defined as the time from diagnosis to first evidence of progression or relapse, or to disease‐related death Overall survival (OS), defined as the time from diagnosis to death from any cause Secondary outcome(s) and definition(s) None 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)? Yes; clinicians were blinded from the results of PET
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 OS: not reported Statistical method Kaplan‐Meier (survival curves) Log‐rank (differences between groups) Proportional hazards Cox regression analysis How was the prognostic factor treated? Binary Multivariable analysis: Yes Total number of participants included in multivariable analysis for each outcome PFS: all OS: not reported Statistical method Kaplan‐Meier (survival curves) Log‐rank (differences between groups) Proportional hazards Cox regression analysis How was the prognostic factor treated? Binary Number of candidate covariates 3 List of all candidate covariates Interim PET Clinical stage Extranodal disease
Risk of bias (QUIPS)	Study participation High risk Significant number of participants without PET (n = 22 out of total n = 99). Imbalance between groups with or without PET scan regarding stage of disease. Study attrition Low risk Lack of compliance in a small number of participants (n = 7 out of n = 99), but not in the subjects included in PET2 analysis. Prognostic factor measurement Low risk Adequate measurement and description. Significant number of participants without PET (n = 22 out of n = 99). Outcome: Overall survival Outcome measurement Low risk Clear definition of outcome. 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 of outcome. Outcome measured the same way for all participants. '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 The authors have no financial interests in products studied in this work. Funding Not reported

Hutchings 2014

*Study characteristics*
Methods	Secondary citation(s) NA Language of publication English Study design Prospective, multi‐centre study Study centre(s) Not reported Countries USA, Italy, Poland, Denmark Median follow‐up time (range) 29 months
Participants	Number of included participants 126* *Potential overlap of Danish participants with those included in Hutchings 2006 Inclusion criteria Newly diagnosed classic HL Exclusion criteria None Consent Yes; written Recruitment period Not reported Age (range, in years) 34.1 (median, 16.8‐76.7) Ethnic group(s) Not reported Stages of disease All stages Comorbidities Not reported Therapy regimen Early‐stage disease: 2‐4 cycles ABVD followed by radiotherapy, or 6 cycles ABVD Advanced‐stage disease: 6‐8 cycles ABVD with or without consolidation radiotherapy, with exceptions (5 Danish participants treated with BEACOPPesc)
Prognostic factor(s)	Prognostic factor(s) Interim PET Definition of prognostic factor(s) Whole‐body PET scan Timing of prognostic factor measurement Within the last 5 days of cycle 1 (PET1) and cycle 2 (PET2) (US and Italian participants had PET2 only if PET1 was positive) Method for measurement (use of specific scale and cut‐off) Deauville 5‐point scoring system Scores of 1‐3 considered negative, scores of 4‐5 considered positive Baseline interpretation by an expert with access to clinical information, second interpretation by an independent expert from another country blinded to clinical information Was the same definition and method for measurement used in all participants? No; not all participants received PET2 Were prognostic factor(s) assessed blinded for outcome(s), and for each other (if relevant)? Yes; experts in both stages blinded to clinical outcome, baseline experts also blinded to clinical information
Outcome(s)	Primary outcome(s) and definition(s) Progression‐free survival (PFS), not defined Overall survival (OS), not defined Secondary outcome(s) and definition(s) None Timing of outcome measurement At 2 and 3 years Was the same definition and method for measurement used in all participants? Not reported; unclear due to multi‐national study design 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: all Statistical method Kaplan‐Meier (survival analysis) Log‐rank (differences between groups) How was the prognostic factor treated? Binary Multivariable analysis: Yes Total number of participants included in multivariable analysis for each outcome PFS: all OS: none Statistical method Kaplan‐Meier (survival analysis) Log‐rank (differences between groups) How was the prognostic factor treated? Binary Number of candidate covariates 3 List of all candidate covariates Interim PET (positive or negative) Extranodal involvement Disease stage (early or advanced stage)
Risk of bias (QUIPS)	Study participation Low risk Description of participants and study characteristics given. No inclusion and exclusion criteria. Consecutive sampling and no exclusion based on interim PET availability. Detailed description of treatment regimen. 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 Outcome measurement Low risk Adequate measurement and description. Prognostic factor 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 in univariable analysis appropriate for the data. Outcome: Progression‐free survival Outcome measurement Low risk No definition of outcome. 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 in univariable analysis appropriate for the data. Outcome: Adverse events Not reported
Notes	Conflict of interest The author(s) indicated no potential conflicts of interest. Funding Not reported

Kobe 2018

*Study characteristics*
Methods	Secondary citation(s) Borchmann 2017 Language of publication English Study design Open‐label, international, randomised phase 3 trial Study centre(s) 301 hospitals and private practices in five European countries Countries Germany, Switzerland, Austria, the Netherlands, Czech Republic Median follow‐up time (range) Not reported for entire study population
Participants	Number of included participants Total: 2101 Qualified for randomisation: 1945 Inclusion criteria Histologically proven primary diagnosis of HL Advanced stages: stage IIB with one or both of the risk factors large mediastinal mass and extranodal lesions, or stage III or IV No previous treatment for HL Age 18‐60 years at inclusion Normal organ function, except for HL‐related impairments Negative HIV test Negative pregnancy test Life expectancy > 3 months Exclusion criteria Incomplete diagnosis of the disease stage Prior or concurrent disease that prevents treatment according to protocol HL as part of a composite lymphoma Prior chemotherapy or radiation Malignant disease within the last 5 years (exceptions: basalioma, carcinoma in situ of the cervix uteri, completely resected melanoma TNMpT1) Pregnancy, lactation Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status > 2 Long‐term ingestion of corticosteroids or antineoplastic drugs Patient's lack of accountability, inability to appreciate the nature, meaning and consequences of the trial and to formulate his/her own wishes correspondingly Noncompliance: refusal of blood products during treatment, epilepsy, drug dependency, change of residence to abroad, prior cerebral injury or similar circumstances that appear to make protocol treatment or long‐term follow‐up impossible Antiepileptic treatment General intolerance of any protocol medication Unsafe contraceptive methods Relationship of dependence or employer‐employee relationship to the sponsor or the investigator Commitment to an institution on judicial or official order Participation in another interventional trial that could interact with this trial Consent Yes; written, including consent to participate in the trial and to storage of data and tissue samples Recruitment period 14 May, 2008 to 18 July 2014 Age (range, in years) Not reported for entire study population (Borchmann 2017) Ethnic group(s) Not reported Stages of disease Advanced stages: stage III‐IV, or stage II with B symptoms and one or both risk factors of large mediastinal mass Comorbidities None, due to exclusion criteria Therapy regimen 6 or 8 cycles of eBEACOPP (standard arm) 4 cycles of eBEACOPP or 8 cycles of eBEACOPP with rituximab (experimental arm)
Prognostic factor(s)	Prognostic factor(s) Interim PET Definition of prognostic factor(s) Not reported Timing of prognostic factor measurement Between day 17 and day 21 of cycle 2 of chemotherapy Method for measurement (use of specific scale and cut‐off) Deauville 5‐point scoring system PET negative defined as scores 1 or 2, PET positive defined as scores 3 to 5 A multidisciplinary panel of experts centrally interpreted all scans 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)? No; assessors who were masked to local findings, centrally reviewed PET‐2 and CT scans as well as x‐rays and clinical information (Borchmann 2017)
Outcome(s)	Primary outcome(s) and definition(s) Progression‐free survival (PFS), defined as the time from completion of staging until progression, relapse, or death from any cause Secondary outcome(s) and definition(s) Overall survival (OS), defined as time from completion of staging until death from any cause Timing of outcome measurement At 3 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? Participants with progressive disease, denoted by DS5 (Deauville score 5), were taken off protocol 505 participants treated before the protocol amendment in June 2011 were excluded from survival analysis If yes, how were missing data handled? Participants with missing data were excluded from analysis
Analysis	Univariable analysis: Yes Total number of participants included in univariable analysis for each outcome OS: 722 PFS: 722 Statistical method Kaplan‐Meier (survival analysis) Cox regression analysis (hazard ratios) How was the prognostic factor treated? Binary Multivariable analysis: Yes Total number of participants included in multivariable analysis for each outcome OS: 722 PFS: 722 Statistical method Kaplan‐Meier (survival analysis) Cox regression analysis (hazard ratios) How was the prognostic factor treated? Binary Number of candidate covariates 9 List of all candidate covariates Clinical stage B symptoms Large mediastinal mass Extra‐nodal involvement Involvement of 3 or more nodal areas Elevated erythrocyte sedimentation rate International Prognosis Score HL subtype PET positivity (DS4 vs. 1‐3)
Risk of bias (QUIPS)	Study participation Low risk Clear description of participants and study characteristics. Study attrition Low risk Length of follow‐up reported. Exclusion of participants due to safety amendment during the study. Prognostic factor measurement Low risk Adequate measurement and description. Outcome: Overall survival Outcome measurement Low risk Clear definition. 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 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)' Low risk Only advanced stages included. Statistical analysis and reporting Low risk Statistical method appropriate for the data. Outcome: Adverse events Not reported
Notes	Conflict of interest We declare no competing interests. Funding The HD18 trial was funded by the Deutsche Krebshilfe (No. 107957 and 110617) and the Swiss State Secretariat for Education, Research and Innovation (SERI), and supported by Roche Pharma AG (No. ML‐21683).

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

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.

Oki 2014

*Study characteristics*
Methods	Secondary citation(s) NA Language of publication English Study design Retrospective, single‐centre study Study centre(s) MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA Country USA Median follow‐up time (range) 45 months
Participants	Number of included participants Total: 325 229 participants with PET2 analysed 96 participants with PET3 excluded post‐hoc Inclusion criteria Classic HL Treatment with ABVD Availability of interim PET scan Exclusion criteria Additional treatment (e.g. with brentuximab vedotin or rituximab) except for radiotherapy Consent Not reported Recruitment period January 2001 to May 2011 Age (range, in years) Group I (early‐stage non‐bulky): 32 (median, 18‐77) Group II (stage II bulky): 36 (20‐60) Group III (advanced stage IPS ≤ 2): 30 (19‐79) Group IV (advanced stage IPS ≥ 3): 49 (19‐84) Ethnic group(s) Not reported Stages of disease All stages Comorbidities Not reported Therapy regimen 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 or 3 cycles of ABVD Method for measurement (use of specific scale and cut‐off) Deauville 5‐point scoring system Scores of 1‐3 considered negative, scores of 4‐5 considered positive Independent assessment by 3 nuclear medicine physicians Was the same definition and method for measurement used in all participants? No, 10 participants had only PET without CT scan 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 disease progression, relapse or death from any cause Secondary outcome(s) and definition(s) None Timing of outcome measurement At 3 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)? No
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 curves with log‐rank test per subgroup Univariable Cox proportional hazard models 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. 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. 'Other prognostic factors (covariates)' High risk Disease stage not accounted for. Statistical analysis and reporting High risk Exclusion of participants with PET3 during analysis due to lack of prognostic value. Stratification according to disease stage resulted in small sample sizes per subgroup. Outcome: Adverse events Not reported
Notes	Conflict of interest No conflict of interest to disclose for the study. Funding Not reported

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

Orlacchio 2012

*Study characteristics*
Methods	Secondary citation(s) NA Language of publication English Study design Retrospective, single‐centre study Study centre(s) Policlinico Universitario TorVergata, Rome, Italy Country Italy Median follow‐up time (range) Not reported
Participants	Number of included participants 132 Inclusion criteria HL diagnosis based on biochemical tests and bone marrow biopsy PET‐MDCT staging examination, interim PET‐MDCT and end of treatment PET‐MDCT performed Exclusion criteria None Consent Not reported Recruitment period January 2005 to June 2010 Age (range, in years) 34 (mean, 16‐74) Ethnic group(s) Not reported Stages of disease All stages Comorbidities Not reported Therapy regimen ABVD dose dependent on disease stage: stages I‐IIA 4x ABVD with radiotherapy; stages IIB‐IV 6‐8x ABVD with radiotherapy
Prognostic factor(s)	Prognostic factor(s) Interim PET Definition of prognostic factor(s) PET scan from pelvis to head Timing of prognostic factor measurement At the end of the second ABVD cycle Method for measurement (use of specific scale and cut‐off) International Harmonization Project guidelines Rated by a radiologist and nuclear medicine specialist, confirmation by semi‐quantitative analysis 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) Complete remission, defined as the disappearance of symptoms and metabolic activity at any nodal or extranodal site with negative bone marrow biopsy Partial remission, defined as persistence of significant metabolic activity at one site only, with at least 50% reduction in volume of the nodal masses or parenchymal nodular formations and persistence of disease at bone marrow level Stable disease, defined as unchanged metabolic findings Disease progression, defined as the appearance of new sites of pathological uptake and as a 50% increase in volume of nodal masses or previously detected parenchymal localisations Secondary outcome(s) and definition(s) None Timing of outcome measurement At the end of treatment 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 Outcomes selected for univariable analysis unclear Statistical method Sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV How was the prognostic factor treated? Binary Multivariable analysis: No
Risk of bias (QUIPS)	No risk of bias assessment, since outcomes relevant to this review were not explored in this study.
Notes	Conflict of interest None Funding Not reported

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

Simon 2016

*Study characteristics*
Methods	Secondary citation(s) Miltenyi 2015 Language of publication English Study design Retrospective study Study centre(s) Not reported Country Hungary Median follow‐up time (range) 47.52 months (11‐80)
Participants	Number of included participants 121 Inclusion criteria Newly diagnosed HL No previous treatment Exclusion criteria Immunosuppressive medications Immunodeficiency Consent No Recruitment period 2007 to 2013 Age (range, in years) 36.7 (mean, 17‐79) Ethnic group(s) Not reported Stages of disease All stages Comorbidities None due to exclusion criteria Therapy regimen ABVD dependent on disease stage: 6 or 8 cycles of ABVD, or 4 or 6 cycles of ABVD combined with radiotherapy
Prognostic factor(s)	Prognostic factor(s) Interim PET Definition of prognostic factor(s) Not reported Timing of prognostic factor measurement After cycle 2 of ABVD between days 11 and 14 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 Person(s) interpreting the scans not reported 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) Overall survival (OS), not defined Progression‐free survival (PFS), not defined Secondary outcome(s) and definition(s) None Timing of outcome measurement At 5 years after diagnosis 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 univariable analysis for each outcome OS: all PFS: all Statistical method Kaplan‐Meier (survival analysis) Log‐rank test (comparison between groups) Cox proportional hazard model (effect of variants on survival) How was the prognostic factor treated? Binary Multivariable analysis: Yes Total number of participants included in multivariable analysis for each outcome OS: all PFS: all Statistical method Kaplan‐Meier (survival analysis) Log‐rank test (comparison between groups) Cox proportional hazard model (effect of variants on survival How was the prognostic factor treated? Binary Number of candidate covariates 8 List of all candidate covariates Age Disease stage Gender B symptoms Bulky disease Treatment PET2 positivity Lymphocyte/monocyte ratio (LMR)
Risk of bias (QUIPS)	Study participation Unclear risk Description of participants provided, but no in‐ and exclusion criteria provided. Not clear how many participants were sampled and included from the baseline sample. Study attrition Low risk No dropouts. Prognostic factor measurement Low risk Adequate measurement and description. Prognostic factor measured the same way for all participants. Outcome: Overall survival Outcome measurement Low risk Outcome measured the same way for all participants. 'Other prognostic factors (covariates)' High risk Disease stage not accounted for. Statistical analysis and reporting High risk Statistical analysis appropriate for the data. All primary outcomes reported, but discrepancies between text and graphs/tables detected. Outcome: Progression‐free survival Outcome measurement Low risk Outcome measured the same way for all participants. 'Other prognostic factors (covariates)' High risk Disease stage not accounted for. Statistical analysis and reporting High risk Statistical analysis appropriate for the data and all primary outcomes reported. However, discrepancies between text and graphs/tables detected. Outcome: Adverse events Not reported
Notes	Conflict of interest None of the authors have any competing interest in the manuscript. Funding Not reported

Straus 2011

*Study characteristics*
Methods	Secondary citation(s) Kostakoglu 2012 Language of publication English Study design Prospective phase 2, multi‐centre (29 centres), clinical trial Study centre(s) 29 Cancer and Leukemia Group B (CALGB) institutions Country/Countries Not reported Median follow‐up time (range) Not reported
Participants	Number of included participants Total: 99 With interim‐PET: 88 Inclusion criteria Previously untreated, histologically confirmed, classic HL with clinical stages I or II, measurable through physical examination or imaging studies Exclusion criteria Bulky disease Consent Yes; written Recruitment period 15 May 2004 to 29 September 2006 Age (range, in years) 37 (18‐80) Ethnic group(s) Not reported Stages of disease Stages I ‐ IIB Comorbidities Not reported Therapy regimen 6 cycles of AVG administered on days 1 and 15 per cycle
Prognostic factor(s)	Prognostic factor(s) Interim PET Definition of prognostic factor(s) Not reported Timing of prognostic factor measurement 1 to 2 weeks after completion of cycle 2 of AVG Method for measurement (use of specific scale and cut‐off) Visual assessment was performed using International Harmonization Project criteria Central review by 2 independent reviewers and an adjudicator 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) Complete response, defined as complete remission or complete remission unconfirmed after 6 cycles of chemotherapy Secondary outcome(s) and definition(s) Progression‐free survival (PFS), measured from study entry until relapse Adverse events (AEs), defined as toxicity including grade 3 or greater myelosuppression Timing of outcome measurement At 3 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? None
Analysis	Univariable analysis: Yes Total number of participants included in univariable analysis for each outcome Complete response: none PFS: 88 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 Clear description of participants and study characteristics. Study attrition Low risk Loss to follow‐up reported (n = 2). Prognostic factor measurement Low risk Adequate measurement and description. PET2 available for n = 88 out of a total of n = 99 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 stages I ‐ IIB included. Statistical analysis and reporting Low risk Statistical method in univariable analysis appropriate for the data.
Notes	Conflict of interest The publication costs of this article were defrayed in part by page charge payment. Therefore, and solely to indicate this fact, this article is hereby marked ‘‘advertisement’’ in accordance with 18 USC section 1734.The authors declare no competing financial interests. Funding This work was supported by the National Cancer Institute: CA77651 (D.J.S., H.S.), CA33601 (J.L.J.), CA32291 (A.S.L., G.P.C.), CA77440 (N.L.B.), CA04457 (L.K.), CA77658 (N.C.H., S.‐H.J.), CA32291 (R.W.T.), CA47642 (M.E.J.), and CA77597 (B.D.C.). This work was supported in part by the Lymphoma Foundation, Adam Spector Fund for Hodgkin Research, the Ernest & Jeanette Dicker Charitable Foundation, and Mr Daniel Moon and Family (for D.J.S.). This work was also supported by CALGB (National Cancer Institute) with partial support by Eli Lilly and Company. The research for CALGB 50203 was supported in part by grants from the National Cancer Institute (CA31946) to the CALGB (Dr Monica M. Bertagnolli, Chair) and to the CALGB Statistical Center (Dr Stephen George, CA33601). The content of this manuscript is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Cancer Institute.

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.

Ying 2014

*Study characteristics*
Methods	Secondary citation(s) NA Language of publication Chinese, translated to English Study design Retrospective study Study centre(s) Peking University Cancer Hospital Country People’s Republic of China Median follow‐up time (range) 29.4 months (12.2‐52.4)* *For the whole population (n = 50), but only 35 participants underwent interim PET
Participants	Number of included participants Total: 50 With interim PET: 35 Inclusion criteria Newly diagnosed HL according to the 2008 WHO Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Tissue Classification Exclusion criteria Not reported Consent Not reported Recruitment period September 2009 to December 2012 Age (range, in years) 33 (14‐74) Ethnic group(s) Not reported Stages of disease All stages Comorbidities Not reported Therapy regimen ABVD or BEACOPP with or without radiotherapy
Prognostic factor(s)	Prognostic factor(s) Interim PET Definition of prognostic factor(s) From the top of the head to the middle thigh, the entire lower extremity was scanned if necessary Timing of prognostic factor measurement After 2 to 4 cycles of treatment Method for measurement (use of specific scale and cut‐off) Interpretation of scans by 2 experienced PET‐CT physicians Scale and cut‐off not reported Was the same definition and method for measurement used in all participants? Not reported 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 interval from diagnosis to first signs of tumour progression, patient death, or end of follow‐up Secondary outcome(s) and definition(s) None Timing of outcome measurement At 3 years Was the same definition and method for measurement used in all participants? Unclear, follow‐up was conducted via telephone and/or outpatient visits 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? Only 35/50 participants underwent interim PET If yes, how were missing data handled? Not reported
Analysis	Univariable analysis: Yes Total number of participants included in univariable analysis for each outcome PFS: 35 Statistical method Kaplan‐Meier curves and life tables (survival analysis) Log‐rank tests (comparison between groups) 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. Study attrition Low risk No loss to follow‐up. Length of follow‐up reported. Prognostic factor measurement Moderate risk Adequate measurement and description, but no standardised criteria for PET scan evaluation. Outcome: Overall survival Not reported Outcome: Progression‐free survival Outcome measurement Low risk Clear definition. Outcome assessed differently for some participants (via telephone and/or outpatient visits). 'Other prognostic factors (covariates)' High risk Disease stage not accounted for. Statistical analysis and reporting High risk Poor reporting of univariable analysis. Outcome: Adverse events Not reported
Notes	Translated from Chinese to English by Yu‐Tian Xiao. Conflict of interest Not reported Funding This study was funded by Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) grant no. 81470328 and Youth Fund of NSFC grant no. 81600162, 81600130.

Zaucha 2017

*Study characteristics*
Methods	Secondary citation(s) NA Language of publication English Study design Prospective, observational, multi‐centre study (11 centres) Study centre(s) 11 haemato‐oncology centres Country Poland Median follow‐up time (range) 44.7 months (12.7–90.2)* *Data for surviving participants only
Participants	Number of included participants 310 registered participants, out of which 24 were excluded from analysis due to treatment intensification based on PET1 and/or clinical symptoms of active HL Inclusion criteria Newly diagnosed with classic HL Exclusion criteria Absent/poor‐quality PET‐CT images Consent Yes; written informed consent Recruitment period January 2008 to October 2014 Age (range, in years) 30.8 (median, 18–80) Ethnic group(s) Not reported Stages of disease All stages Comorbidities Not reported Therapy regimen ABVD dependent on disease stage: stages I‐IIA 2‐4x ABVD with radiotherapy or 6x ABVD; stages IIB‐IV 6‐8x ABVD with or without radiotherapy
Prognostic factor(s)	Prognostic factor(s) Interim PET Definition of prognostic factor(s) Whole‐body scan (mandibular angle to one third upper femur) Timing of prognostic factor measurement 11‐13 days after end of ABVD cycle 1 (PET1) Additional scan after ABVD cycle 2 for participants with a PET1 score of 3‐5 (PET2) 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 6 reviewers interpreted all scans using the blinded independent central review method, disagreements were resolved in a joint session Was the same definition and method for measurement used in all participants? No; PET2 only administered to participants with a PET1 score of 3‐5 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), not defined Secondary outcome(s) and definition(s) Kinetics of response Timing of outcome measurement At 3 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)? Yes
Missing data	Participants with any missing value? Yes; only 198 participants had PET2 scans If yes, how were missing data handled? Not reported
Analysis	Univariable analysis: Yes Total number of participants included in univariable analysis for each outcome 286 (PET1) / 198 (PET2) Statistical method Kaplan‐Meier (survival analysis) Cox proportional hazard regression analysis (HR between treatment groups) 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. Study attrition Low risk Prognostic factor measurement Moderate risk Adequate measurement and description. Prognostic factor measured the same way for all participants. However, while PET1 scans were available for all participants, the availability of PET2 scans was dependent on the result of PET1. No further scans were performed if PET1 was negative Outcome: Overall survival Not reported as a primary endpoint in the publication. IPD data were available and used to calculate the HR and SE for this outcome. Outcome: Progression‐free survival Outcome measurement High risk No definition of outcome. 'Other prognostic factors (covariates)' High risk Disease stage not accounted for. Statistical analysis and reporting High risk No detailed description of analysis. Outcome: Adverse events Not reported
Notes	Conflict of interest The authors have declared no conflicts of interest. Funding No funders to report.

Zinzani 2012

*Study characteristics*
Methods	Secondary citation(s) Zinzani 2006 Language of publication English Study design Retrospective, multi‐centre study (2 centres) Study centre(s) Bologna and Florence, Italy Country Italy Median follow‐up time (range) 45 months (6‐100)
Participants	Number of included participants 304 Inclusion criteria Diagnosed with HL Exclusion criteria Other treatment regimens than ABVD Secondary lymphomas Continuation of therapy during data analysis Consent Yes; written informed consent Recruitment period June 1997 to June 2009 Age (range, in years) 32 (13‐78) Ethnic group(s) Not reported Stages of disease All stages Comorbidities Assessed, but not reported Therapy regimen ABVD dependent on disease stage: early stages 6x ABVD or 4x ABVD with radiotherapy; advanced stages 6x ABVD
Prognostic factor(s)	Prognostic factor(s) Interim PET Definition of prognostic factor(s) Not reported Timing of prognostic factor measurement After cycle 2 of ABVD Method for measurement (use of specific scale and cut‐off) Juweid criteria PET positive considered if focal FDG uptake that could not be attributed to physiological biodistribution, benign uptake or normal anatomy, with clearly increased activity relative to the background, excluding participants with minimal residual uptake 2 experienced board‐certified nuclear medicine physicians interpreted all scans 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)? No
Outcome(s)	Primary outcome(s) and definition(s) Response at the end of first‐line treatment and at follow‐up Secondary outcome(s) and definition(s) Progression‐free survival (PFS), defined as time from diagnosis to first observation of progressive disease or death from any cause Overall survival (OS), defined as time from diagnosis to time of most recent visit or death Timing of outcome measurement At 9 years (for PFS and OS) 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)? No
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 OS: 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 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. No blinding of assessors. Outcome: Overall survival Outcome measurement Low risk Clear definition of outcome. 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 of outcome. 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 None Funding This work was partially supported by BolognAIL (Bologna, Italy).

ABVD: adriamycin/doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine and dacarbazine; BEACOPP: bleomycin, etoposide, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, vincristine, procarbazine and prednisone; ePET: early positron emission tomography; FDG: [18F]‐fluorodeoxy‐D‐glucose; HL: Hodgkin lymphoma; HR: hazard ratio; IF‐RT: involved‐field radiation therapy; ITT: intention‐to‐treat; IQR: interquartile range; NPV: negative predictive value; OS: overall survival; PET: positron emission tomography; PET‐CT: positron emission tomography computed tomography; PFS: progression‐free survival; PPV: positive predictive value.

Characteristics of excluded studies [ordered by study ID]

Ir a:

estudios incluidos
estudios a la espera de clasificación
estudios en curso

Study	Reason for exclusion
Adams 2016	Wrong publication type. Letter to the editor.
Adams 2017	Wrong publication type. Letter to the editor.
Adams 2018	Wrong publication type. Letter to the editor.
Adams 2018a	Wrong publication type. Letter to the editor.
Adams 2018b	Wrong publication type. Letter to the editor.
Adams 2019	Wrong publication type. Letter to the editor.
Advani 2007	Reported only end‐of‐chemotherapy PET scan results.
Afanasyev 2017	Wrong publication type. Protocol.
Albano 2017	PET‐adapted outcomes.
Albano 2018	PET‐adapted outcomes. Treatment was modified according to PET2 results.
Altamirano 2008	Wrong study population. Includes non‐Hodgkin lymphoma patients.
Ansell 2016	Wrong publication type. Article.
Awan 2013	Wrong patient population. Patients with any lymphoma were included; no separate data for Hodgkin lymphoma patients.
Bar‐Shalom 2003	Wrong study design. Comparison FDG PET and 67Ga scintigraphy.
Barrington 2011a	Wrong publication type. Meeting abstract.
Barrington 2017	Wrong publication type. Commentary.
Basu 2009	Wrong publication type. Commentary.
Becherer 2002	Wrong study design. End‐of‐chemotherapy PET. Includes non‐Hodgkin lymphoma.
Bednaruk‐Mlynski 2015	Wrong study design. Role of baseline PET/CT.
Biggi 2012	Wrong publication type. Conference abstract.
Biggi 2017	PET‐adapted outcomes. Treatment was modified according to PET2 results.
Bishop 2015	Wrong publication type. Commentary.
Bjurberg 2006	Wrong treatment. Retrospective study of patients with residual tumour or suspected relapse after therapy.
Blum 2002	Wrong patient population. Non‐Hodgkin lymphoma patients
Bodet‐Milin 2008	Wrong patient population. Non‐Hodgkin lymphoma patients.
Bodet‐Milin 2009	Wrong publication type. Article.
Boisson 2007	Wrong publication type. Article.
Borchmann 2016	Wrong study design. Literature review.
Bucerius 2006	Wrong publication type. Conference abstract.
Carras 2018	PET‐adapted outcomes. Treatment was modified according to PET2 results.
Ciammella 2016	PET‐adapted outcomes.
Cremerius 1999	Wrong study design. Retrospective study to validate the clinical value of FDG‐PET for therapy control.
Cremerius 2001	Wrong patient population. Patients with any lymphoma were included; no separate data for Hodgkin lymphoma patients.
Cuccaro 2016	PET‐adapted outcomes. Positive interim PET results led to change in therapy in three patients; data from these patients was not reported separately from the study population in analysis.
D'Urso 2018	Wrong study design. Analysis of metabolic parameters.
Damlaj 2017	PET‐adapted outcomes. Treatment was modified according to PET2 results.
Damlaj 2019	Pet‐adapted outcomes.
Danilov 2017	PET‐adapted outcomes. Treatment was modified according to interim PET results.
Dann 2009	PET‐adapted outcomes.
Dann 2010	PET‐adapted outcomes. Treatment was modified according to interim PET results.
Dann 2010a	PET‐adapted outcomes.Treatment was modified according to PET2 results.
Dann 2012	PET‐adapted outcomes.Treatment was modified according to PET2 results.
Dann 2013	PET‐adapted outcomes.Treatment was modified according to PET2 results.
Dann 2016	PET‐adapted outcomes. Treatment was modified according to PET2 results.
Dann 2017	PET‐adapted outcomes. Treatment was modified according to PET2 results.
Dann 2018	Wrong publication type. Response to letter.
deAndres‐Galiana 2015	Wrong study design. Prognostic factor identification study.
Diehl 2007	Wrong study design. The aim was to specify the negative predictive value of PET in patients with residual tumour mass after chemotherapy.
El‐Galaly 2012	Wrong study design. The study evaluated the utility of PET scans for post‐therapy routine surveillance imaging.
Evens 2014	Wrong publication type. Article.
Fanti 2008	Wrong study design. Case study.
Filmont 2003	Wrong patient population. Patients with aggressive lymphoma undergoing salvage therapy.
Fornecker 2017	PET‐adapted outcomes. Treatment was modified according to interim PET results.
Freudenberg 2004	Wrong patient population. Patients with any lymphoma were included; no separate data for Hodgkin lymphoma patients.
Friedberg 2002	Wrong study design. The study intended to compare FDG‐PET to gallium scintigraphy in the staging and follow‐up of newly diagnosed patients with Hodgkin lymphoma.
Friedberg 2004	Wrong study design. The study intended to compare FDG‐PET to gallium scintigraphy in the staging and follow‐up of newly diagnosed patients with Hodgkin lymphoma.
Front 1999	Wrong treatment. The study investigated the utility of gallium scintigraphy performed early during treatment as a means to predict outcome and optimise treatment in Hodgkin lymphoma patients.
Fruchart 2006	Wrong patient population. Patients with B‐cell lymphoma.
Gallamini 2008	Wrong publication type. Article.
Gallamini 2017	PET‐adapted outcomes. Treatment was modified according to interim PET results.
Gallamini 2018	PET‐adapted outcomes. Treatment was modified according to interim PET results.
Gallamini 2018a	Wrong publication type. Reply to letter.
Gallowitsch 2008	Wrong publication type. Commentary.
Goldschmidt 2011	Wrong patient population. Relapsed, aggressive non‐Hodgkin lymphoma.
Greil 2018	PET‐adapted outcomes. Treatment was modified according to interim PET results.
Guidez 2016	Wrong publication type. No abstract or full text.
Hagtvedt 2015	Wrong study design. Comparison between FDG‐PET and diffusion‐weighted magnetic resonance imaging for assessment of early treatment response in lymphoma.
Haioun 2005	Wrong patient population. Patients with any lymphoma were included; no separate data for Hodgkin lymphoma patients.
Hartmann 2012	Wrong study design. The study investigated protein expression patterns in different Hodgkin lymphoma subtypes.
Hartridge‐Lambert 2013	Wrong study design. The study evaluated the risk of disease recurrence and the value of radiologic surveillance in patients treated with ABVD alone who achieved a complete remission according to post‐treatment PET. PET was not treated as a prognostic factor.
Honda 2014	Wrong patient population. Letter to the editor, presenting the case of one patient with pulmonary Hodgkin lymphoma.
Hueltenschmidt 2001	Baseline and end‐of‐chemotherapy PET results.
Huic 2006	Wrong treatment. Patients within three months after completion of conventional initial therapy or salvage therapy with high‐dose chemotherapy were included in the study population; no subgroup analysis was reported.
Hutchings 2007	End‐of‐chemotherapy PET.
Iagaru 2008	Wrong patient population. Patients with any lymphoma were included; no separate data for Hodgkin lymphoma patients.
Illidge 2015	PET‐adapted outcomes. Commentary on a research news article about PET‐adapted treatment in Hodgkin lymphoma patients.
Jerusalem 2003	End‐of‐chemotherapy PET.
Johnson 2015	PET‐adapted outcomes.
Johnson 2016	PET‐adapted outcomes.
Kamran 2016	PET‐adapted outcomes.
Kamran 2018	PET‐adapted outcomes. Treatment was modified according to PET2 results. Data was not reported separately for PET‐positive and PET‐negative patients.
Kobe 2008	Wrong study design. The study evaluated the negative predictive value of PET scans in advanced‐stage Hodgkin lymphoma patients.
Kobe 2014	Wrong study design. The study evaluated how computed tomography might help improve the positive predictive value of PET in identifying potential high‐risk patients.
Kostakoglu 2006	Wrong patient population. Patients with either diffuse large cell lymphoma or Hodgkin lymphoma were included; no separate data for Hodgkin lymphoma patients.
Li 2013	Wrong patient population. The study population consisted of patients with mature T‐cell and natural killer cell lymphomas.
Lowe 2002	Wrong study design. Commentary.
Milgrom 2017	Wrong study design. The study population consisted mostly of PET‐positive patients. The study compared data from PET‐positive patients who received salvage chemotherapy or autologous stem cell transplantation with patients who received radiotherapy only.
Mocikova 2010	Wrong study design. The study evaluated the routine use of PET scans in Hodgkin lymphoma patients during follow‐up and in cases of suspected relapse.
Mocikova 2011	Wrong treatment. The study evaluated the prognostic significance of pre‐transplant PET scans after salvage chemotherapy before autologous stem cell transplant in patients with relapsed or refractory Hodgkin lymphoma.
Molnar 2010	End‐of‐chemotherapy PET.
Moskowitz 2015	PET‐adapted outcomes. Treatment was modified according to interim PET results.
Naumann 2001	End‐of‐chemotherapy PET.
NCT00784537	PET‐adapted outcomes. Treatment was modified according to interim PET results.
NCT00795613	PET‐adapted outcomes. Treatment was modified according to interim PET results.
NCT01358747	PET‐adapted outcomes. Treatment was modified according to interim PET results.
NCT01652261	PET‐adapted outcomes. Study closed due to lack of recruitment.
NCT02292979	Wrong study design.
Nguyen 2017	PET‐adapted outcomes. Treatment was modified according to interim PET results.
Panizo 2004	End of chemotherapy PET.
Paolini 2007	PET‐adapted outcomes.
Pavlovsky 2019	PET‐adapted outcomes.
Pichler 2000	Wrong study design. Comparison of FDG‐Hybrid‐PET scans.
Reinhardt 2005	Wrong study design. The study evaluated the accuracy of computed tomography and FDG‐PET for prediction of progression‐free survival of Hodgkin lymphoma and non‐Hodgkin lymphoma patients after completion of therapy.
Rigacci 2002	Wrong study design. Letter.
Rigacci 2017	Wrong study design. Letter.
Rubello 2015	Wrong study design. The study evaluated the variability of FDG liver uptake in patients with Hodgkin lymphoma.
Sakr 2017	Wrong study design.
Schot 2007	Wrong treatment. The study population included patients with recurring lymphoma who were treated with second‐line chemotherapy followed by autologous stem cell transplantation.
Simontacchi 2015	PET‐adapted outcomes. Treatment was modified according to interim PET results.
Slaby 2002	Wrong patient population. Patients with any lymphoma were included; no separate data for Hodgkin lymphoma patients.
Spaepen 2001	Reported only end‐of‐chemotherapy PET scan results.
Specht 2007	Wrong publication type. Article.
Spinner 2018	Wrong publication type. Article.
Straus 2018	PET‐adapted outcomes. Treatment was modified according to interim PET results.
Strigari 2016	Wrong study design. The aim of the study was to present a novel quantitative tool to refine the risk‐class assessment of the Deauville criteria.
Sucak 2011	Wrong treatment. The study population included patients with relapsed or refractory lymphoma post‐autologous stem cell transplantation.
Tirelli 2015	Wrong publication type. Article.
Tomita 2015	Wrong patient population. The study population consisted of patients with peripheral T cell lymphoma.
Torizuka 2004	PET‐adapted outcomes. Includes non‐Hodgkin lymphoma patients.
Trotman 2017	PET‐adapted outcomes. Treatment was modified according to interim PET results.
Tseng 2012	Wrong patient population. The study population included relapsed patients.
Villa 2018	PET‐adapted outcomes. Treatment was modified according to interim PET results.
Weidmann 1999	Wrong patient population. Includes relapsed patients.
Wilson 2018	Wrong publication type. Commentary.
Xie 2018	Wrong publication type. Review.
Yasgur 2015	Wrong publication type. Commentary.
Yoshimi 2008	Wrong treatment. The study population included lymphoma patients with a poor prognosis who had received FDG‐PET scans within one month before allogeneic stem cell transplantation.
Zabrocka 2016	Wrong study design. The study evaluated the current usage of PET scans and its clinical usefulness at different points in Hodgkin lymphoma management based on a single‐institution experience.
Zaucha 2009	Wrong publication type. Review.
Zinzani 1999	Wrong patient population. Includes non‐Hodgkin lymphoma patients.
Zinzani 2002	Wrong patient population. Includes non‐Hodgkin lymphoma patients.
Zinzani 2016	PET‐adapted outcomes. Treatment was modified according to interim PET results.

ABVD: adriamycin/doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine and dacarbazine; FDG: [18F]‐fluorodeoxy‐D‐glucose; PET: positron emission tomography; PET‐CT: positron emission tomography computed tomography.

Characteristics of studies awaiting classification [ordered by study ID]

Ir a:

estudios incluidos
estudios excluidos
estudios en curso

Abramson 2010

Notes

Title: End of treatment but not interim PET scan predicts outcome in non‐bulky limited stage Hodgkin lymphoma. (Conference abstract)

Aim

To establish the prognostic value of interim PET scans in limited stage patients with non‐bulky disease

Study design

Retrospective

Country/treatment centre(s)

USA (Massachusetts General Hospital, Dana‐Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston MA)

Number of included participants

96

Inclusion criteria

Non‐bulky limited stage cHL treated at the institutions between 2000 and 2008; Bulk was defined as a mass >=10 cm or >=1/3 of the intrathoracic diameter.

Exclusion criteria

None

Treatment

4 to 6 cycles of ABVD with or without IFRT

Primary outcome measure(s)

Overall survival
Progression‐free survival

Algrin 2010

Notes

Title: Interim‐positron emission tomography with [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose (interim‐PET) evaluation in mediastinal lymphoma including Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) and primary mediastinal large B‐cell lymphoma (PMBL).

(Conference abstract)

Aim

To investigate the prognostic value of qualitative and semi‐quantitative evaluations of interim‐PET in mediastinal lymphoma

Study design

Retrospective

Country/treatment centre(s)

Not reported

Number of included participants

48

Inclusion criteria

Previously untreated, age under 60 at diagnosis and at least one interim‐PET evaluation available

Exclusion criteria

Individuals with sub‐diaphragmatic or medullar localisations of lymphoma

Treatment

Not reported

Primary outcome measure(s)

Event‐free survival

Arce‐Calisaya 2013

Notes

Title: Interim FDG PET‐CT in Hodgkin's lymphoma ‐ Does binary response assessment criteria have any prognostic value?

(Conference abstract)

Aim

To evaluate whether binary response assessment criteria (positive or negative) has any prognostic significance after 2 cycles of ABVD therapy

Study design

Retrospective

Country/treatment centre(s)

UK

Number of included participants

99

Inclusion criteria

Newly diagnosed adults with advanced‐stage HL undergoing baseline and interim (post‐2 cycles ABVD) 18F‐FDG PET‐CT

Exclusion criteria

None

Treatment

ABVD

Primary outcome measure(s)

Recurrence‐free survival after 1 year

Baratto 2015

Notes

Title: Interim‐PET in Hodgkin lymphoma: Deauville criteria and metabolic parameters as prognostic factors.

(Conference abstract)

Aim

To explore the prognostic role of i‐PET in individuals with HL

Study design

Retrospective

Country/treatment centre(s)

Italy

Number of included participants

83

Inclusion criteria

Newly diagnosed HL, stage I‐IV disease

Exclusion criteria

None

Treatment

Not reported

Primary outcome measure(s)

Overall survival
Disease‐free survival

Barna 2011

Notes

Title: Prognostic value of interim 18FDG‐PET‐CT in patients with Hodgkin's lymphoma using different 5‐point visual scales for interpretation.

(Conference abstract)

Aim

To compare the effect on prognosis of the currently applied MRU definitions

Study design

Prospective

Country/treatment centre(s)

Hungary

Number of included participants

82

Inclusion criteria

Newly‐diagnosed HL

Exclusion criteria

None

Treatment

6 courses of ABVB/EBVD, additional radiotherapy according to the protocol

Primary outcome measure(s)

Overall survival
Progression‐free survival

Barrington 2011

Notes

Title: Are the Deauville criteria a reliable tool for assessment of interim PET in Hodgkin lymphoma?

(Conference abstract)

Aim

To measure agreement between experienced reporters reading interim PET‐CT scans from an international cohort of patients according to the Deauville criteria
To measure progression‐free survival in advanced HL according to interim PET

Study design

Not reported

Country/treatment centre(s)

International study

Number of included participants

262

Inclusion criteria

Individuals diagnosed with stage IIB‐IV HL

Exclusion criteria

None

Treatment

ABVD

Primary outcome measure(s)

Progression‐free survival

Bentur 2017

Notes

Title: The predictive value of interim PET‐CT in elderly patients with Hodgkin lymphoma.

This is an abstract only and a lot of relevant information is missing. A full‐text has not been published yet. It is particularly unclear whether participants have received treatment adaptation based on the interim PET result. Authors need to be contacted for more information.

Aim

To evaluate the significance of iPET in elderly individuals with HL

Study design

Retrospective study (1998 to 2016)

Country/treatment centre(s)

Unclear, multicentre study (5 centres)

Number of included participants

95

Inclusion criteria

Individuals diagnosed with HL between 1998 to 2016
Older adults (>= 60 years)

Exclusion criteria

Not reported

Treatment

Fifty‐nine participants received first‐line treatment with ABVD, in 13 participants chemotherapy was followed by IVRT (treatment unclear for the remaining participants)

Primary outcome measure(s)

Overall survival
Progression‐free survival
Time frame: five years

Berenger 2010

Notes

Title: Prognostic value of interim 18F‐FDG PET‐CT in mediastinal bulky Hodgkin lymphoma.

(Conference abstract)

Aim

To determine if Negative Predictive Value (NPV) remains high in individuals who present with mediastinal bulky disease

Study design

Retrospective

Country/treatment centre(s)

France

Number of included participants

38

Inclusion criteria

Previously untreated individuals with HL, with localiSed mediastinal bulky disease

Exclusion criteria

None

Treatment

Chemotherapy with or without additional radiotherapy

Primary outcome measure(s)

Progression‐free survival
NPV and PPV of iPET

Bhatwadekar 2017

Notes

Title: Excellent outcome in Hodgkin lymphoma with ABVD and CMT: A single‐centre retrospective analysis.

(Conference abstract)

Aim

To evaluate the outcome of individuals with HL receiving ABVD alone or in combination with RT

Study design

Retrospective

Country/treatment centre(s)

India (Haemato Oncology Care Centre, Vadodara)

Number of included participants

63

Inclusion criteria

Not reported

Exclusion criteria

Not reported

Treatment

ABVD alone or in combination with RT

Primary outcome measure(s)

Overall survival
Progression‐free survival

Cimino 2014

Notes

Title: The complementary prognostic role of baseline and interim PET in predicting treatment outcome in advanced‐stage Hodgkin lymphoma.

(Conference abstract)

Aim

To evaluate the contribution of PET combined with computed tomography (PET‐CT) and contrast enhanced computed tomography (ceCT) in the staging and in the prognostication of untreated advanced HL

Study design

Retrospective

Country/treatment centre(s)

Italy, Poland, Denmark (multicentre)

Number of included participants

162

Inclusion criteria

Not reported

Exclusion criteria

Not reported

Treatment

ABVD with or without RT

Primary outcome measure(s)

Overall survival
Event‐free survival

Cocorocchio 2009

Notes

Title: Prognostic role of interim 18FDG‐PET in Hodgkin lymphoma: A single‐center experience.

(Conference abstract)

Aim

Single‐centre experience with using 18FDG‐PET as a prognostic factor for long term complete remission (CR)

Study design

Retrospective

Country/treatment centre(s)

Italy

Number of included participants

65

Inclusion criteria

Newly diagnosed with HL

Exclusion criteria

Not reported

Treatment

VBM or ChlVPP/ABVVP followed by IFRT

Primary outcome measure(s)

Complete remission
Freedom from treatment failure

Cocorocchio 2011

Notes

Title: Evaluation of interim 18FDG‐PET in advanced Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) patients (PTS) treated with ChlVPP/ABVVP regimen.

(Conference abstract)

Aim

To evaluate the prognostic value of interim 18 FDG‐PET in advanced HL patients treated with intensified ChlVPP/ABVVP

Study design

Not reported

Country/treatment centre(s)

Italy

Number of included participants

70

Inclusion criteria

Not reported

Exclusion criteria

Not reported

Treatment

6 cycles of ChlVPP/ABVVP

Primary outcome measure(s)

Overall survival
Freedom from treatment failure

Copeland 2010

Notes

Title: Single institution experience with interim PET evaluation in newly diagnosed CHL receiving ABVD chemotherapy: Need for standardization.

(Conference abstract)

Aim

To evaluate the use of interim PET for the identification of individuals with classic HL, who are at risk for relapse after first‐line therapy

Study design

Retrospective

Country/treatment centre(s)

USA (MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston TX)

Number of included participants

57

Inclusion criteria

Newly diagnosed cHL

Exclusion criteria

Not reported

Treatment

ABVD

Primary outcome measure(s)

Event‐free survival

Cuzzocrea 2015

Notes

Title: The Deauville criteria and metabolic parameters as prognostic factors in interim PET in Hodgkin lymphoma: A single centre experience.

(Conference abstract)

Aim

To explore the prognostic role of i‐PET in individuals with HL

Study design

Retrospective

Country/treatment centre(s)

Italy

Number of included participants

83

Inclusion criteria

Newly diagnosed HL, stage I‐IV disease

Exclusion criteria

Not reported

Treatment

Not reported

Primary outcome measure(s)

Overall survival
Disease‐free survival

De Rueda 2013

Notes

Title: Prognostic value of 18F‐FDG PET‐CT in Hodgkin lymphoma.

(Conference abstract)

Aim

To determine the value of 18F‐FDG PET‐CT after the second and sixth cycle of first line therapy with ABVD or BEACOPP in the outcome of individuals with HL

Study design

Retrospective, January 2007 to December 2012

Country/treatment centre(s)

Spain

Number of included participants

79

Inclusion criteria

HL diagnosis

Exclusion criteria

Not reported

Treatment

ABVD or BEACOPP

Primary outcome measure(s)

Progression‐free survival

Fabbri 2011

Notes

Title: 'Early FDG‐PET' predicts clinical course of Hodgkin's lymphoma although does not correlate with macrophages infiltration in diagnostic specimens.

(Conference abstract)

Aim

To verify the prognostic role both of "early‐FDG PET" and of macrophagic infiltration, and to test if "early‐FDG PET" positivity could correlate with high macrophagic infiltration in diagnostic specimens

Study design

Retrospective, February 2007 to July 2010

Country/treatment centre(s)

Italy (Siena and Florence haematology departments)

Number of included participants

52

Inclusion criteria

Diagnosed HL

Exclusion criteria

Not reported

Treatment

4 to 6 cycles of ABVD with or without IFRT

Primary outcome measure(s)

Complete remission
CD68 expression

Fiore 2010

Notes

Title: Early interim FDG‐PET during intensified BEACOPP therapy for advanced‐stage Hodgkin disease shows a lower positive predictive value than during ABVD.

(Conference abstract)

Aim

To examine the predictive role on treatment outcome of early interim FDG‐PET in individuals with HL, treated with BEACOPP (4 escalated + 4 baseline cycles)

Study design

Retrospective

Country/treatment centre(s)

Italy (8 haematological institutions)

Number of included participants

44

Inclusion criteria

Diagnosed HL, advanced stage (IIB to IVB, or IIA with adverse prognostic factors)

Exclusion criteria

Not reported

Treatment

BEACOPP

Primary outcome measure(s)

Complete remission
Failure‐free survival

Gallegos 2012

Notes

Title: The importance of PET‐CT as method of evaluation of early response to treatment in HL.

(Conference abstract)

Aim

To assess the importance of PET‐CT as method of evaluation of early response to treatment in HL

Study design

Retrospective, 2002 to 2011

Country/treatment centre(s)

Spain (The Miguel Servet's Hospital, Zaragoza)

Number of included participants

61

Inclusion criteria

Diagnosed HL, first‐line therapy

Exclusion criteria

Not reported

Treatment

ABVD or BEACOPP

Primary outcome measure(s)

Progression‐free survival

Hohaus 2015

Notes

Title: The risk of progression of Hodgkin lymphoma in patients with negative interim PET: A role for the number of tumor‐infiltrating macrophages (CD68+ cell counts) and B symptoms.

(Conference abstract)

Aim

To evaluate if integration of the response evaluation with iPET with parameters available at diagnosis could add prognostic information, allowing a better risk‐stratification of individuals with HL

Study design

Retrospective, 2007 to 2014

Country/treatment centre(s)

Italy (Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome)

Number of included participants

102

Inclusion criteria

Diagnosed classic HL

Exclusion criteria

Not reported

Treatment

ABVD

Primary outcome measure(s)

Progression‐free survival

Hutchings 2010

Notes

Title: correlation of FDG‐PET results after one cycle and after two cycles of chemotherapy in Hodgkin lymphoma.

(Conference abstract)

Aim

To study the correlation of PET results after one cycle and after two cycles of chemotherapy, and to investigate if the high predictive value of PET after two cycles is obtainable already after one cycle of chemotherapy

Study design

Prospective trial

Country/treatment centre(s)

Denmark (Copenhagen), USA (New York)

Number of included participants

36

Inclusion criteria

Diagnosed HL

Exclusion criteria

Not reported

Treatment

ABVD or BEACOPPesc

Primary outcome measure(s)

Negative predictive value

Knight‐Greenfield 2013

Notes

Title: Interim FDG PET‐CT to predict progression‐free survival (PFS) better than clinical and baseline metabolic measurements in Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL).

(Conference abstract)

Aim

To determine the best predictor of PFS among various variables of tumour metabolic measurements at baseline and at interim PET‐CT compared to conventional methods in individuals with classic HL

Study design

Retrospective

Country/treatment centre(s)

Not reported

Number of included participants

58

Inclusion criteria

Diagnosed classic HL, ABVD therapy, minimal follow‐up of 2 years

Exclusion criteria

Not reported

Treatment

ABVD

Primary outcome measure(s)

Progression‐free survival

Leontjeva 2016

Notes

Title: Significance of early interim PET results in advanced Hodgkin lymphoma treated intensive program EACOPP‐14.

(Conference abstract)

Aim

To evaluate the use of interim PET to guide treatment in advanced stage individuals with classic HL

Study design

Not reported, December 2009 to December 2013

Country/treatment centre(s)

Russia

Number of included participants

36

Inclusion criteria

Newly diagnosed classic HL (stages IIB to IV, or IIA with bulk), adults

Exclusion criteria

Not reported

Treatment

EACOPP‐14 with or without RT

Primary outcome measure(s)

Progression‐free survival

Luminari 2010

Notes

Title: The use of FDG positron emission tomography (FDG‐PET) in patients with Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) in the "real world": A population based study from northern Italy.

(Conference abstract)

Aim

To assess how FDG‐PET is currently used in individuals with HL

Study design

Unclear, 2006 to 2008

Country/treatment centre(s)

Italy (Cancer Registries in Modena, Ferrara, Parma and Reggio Emilia)

Number of included participants

136

Inclusion criteria

Diagnosed HL, adults (18 to 75 years), HIV negative

Exclusion criteria

None

Treatment

Not reported

Primary outcome measure(s)

Overall survival
Relapse‐free survival
Failure‐free survival

Luminari 2011

Notes

Title: Use of 2‐[¹⁸F]fluoro‐2‐deoxy‐D‐glucose positron emission tomography in patients with Hodgkin lymphoma in daily practice: a population‐based study from Northern Italy

Authors need to be contacted to clarify whether the treatment has been adapted based on the interim PET results.

Aim

To investigate how PET is currently used in daily practice and whether results obtained in clinical trials and retrospective series can be generalised to all individuals with HL.

Study design

Retrospective

Country/treatment centre(s)

Italy
Participants were identified from archives of four population‐based Italian cancer registries

Number of included participants

Total: 136

Inclusion criteria

Registration in one of the four population‐based Italian cancer registries (Modena, Reggio Emilia, Parma, Ferrara)
Histologicallyconfirmed diagnosis of HL between 1 January 2006 and 31 December 2008, age between 18 and 75 years, and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) negativity

Exclusion criteria

Missing data

Treatment

N = 116 (85%) participants received ABVD chemotherapy, 11 participants (8%) received intensified regimens such as BEACOPP or COPP/EBV/CAD, six participants (4%) received chemotherapy without anthracycline such as VBM or MOPP, and three participants (3%) received other therapies such as radiotherapy alone

Primary outcome measure(s)

Failure‐free survival
Overall survival

Medvedovskaya 2016

Notes

Title: The impact of outcome of interim PET‐CT on advanced Hodgkin lymphoma treated with EACOPP‐14.

(Conference abstract)

Aim

To assess the role of interim PET‐CT and compare it with PET‐CT results after the end of treatment in individuals with advanced stage classic HL

Study design

Not reported

Country/treatment centre(s)

Russia

Number of included participants

114

Inclusion criteria

Newly diagnosed classic HL

Exclusion criteria

None

Treatment

6 cycles of EACOPP‐14 with or without RT

Primary outcome measure(s)

Complete metabolic response

Molnar 2011

Notes

Title: The value of interim 18F‐FDG PET‐CT in Hodgkin lymphoma.

(Conference abstract)

Aim

To summarise our experience with 18F‐FDG PET‐CT in HL

Study design

Retrospective, November 2006 to January 2010

Country/treatment centre(s)

Hungary (National Institute of Oncology, Budapest)

Number of included participants

60

Inclusion criteria

Not reported

Exclusion criteria

Not reported

Treatment

ABVD or BEACOPPesc, with or without RT

Primary outcome measure(s)

Prognostic value

Molnar 2011a

Notes

Title: Interim FDG PET‐CT examinations in advanced stage Hodgkin lymphoma.

(Conference abstract)

Aim

To summarise our experience with 18F‐FDG PET‐CT in interim staging

Study design

Retrospective, November 2007 to January 2010

Country/treatment centre(s)

Hungary (National Institute of Oncology, Budapest)

Number of included participants

19

Inclusion criteria

Not reported

Exclusion criteria

Not reported

Treatment

ABVD or BEACOPPesc, with or without RT

Primary outcome measure(s)

Prognostic value

Moreira 2013

Notes

Title: Prognostic value of interim vs. end‐of‐treatment PET scan in Hodgkin's lymphoma.

(Confernece abstract)

Aim

To evaluate the prognostic value of interim PET scan (PET2) and end‐of‐treatment PET (PET6) in the outcome of individuals with HL

Study design

Retrospective, January 2004 to December 2011

Country/treatment centre(s)

Portugal (Porto, single‐centre)

Number of included participants

261

Inclusion criteria

Diagnosed HL

Exclusion criteria

PET‐guided treatment adaptation

Treatment

ABVD, BEACOPPesc or CVP/CEB

Primary outcome measure(s)

Complete remission
Overall survival
Progression‐free survival

Perrone 2009

Notes

Title: Role of positron emission tomography (PET) after 2 and 4 courses of chemotherapy in patients with Hodgkin's lymphoma: A single center experience.

(Conference abstract)

Aim

To investigate the value of PET performed after 2 (PET2) and 4 (PET4) cycles of therapy for the management of patients with HL

Study design

Not reported, September 2006 to September 2008

Country/treatment centre(s)

Italy (University of Bari)

Number of included participants

26

Inclusion criteria

Newly diagnosed HL

Exclusion criteria

None

Treatment

ABVD

Primary outcome measure(s)

Complete remission
Partial remission
Progression‐free survival

Pophali 2014

Notes

Title: Bulky disease does not adversely affect overall survival in early stage Hodgkin lymphoma: Role of interim PET and possible omission of radiotherapy in select patients.

(Conference abstract)

Aim

To assess the impact of disease bulk, interim PET and treatment modality on outcomes

Study design

Retrospective, 1995 to 2011

Country/treatment centre(s)

USA (Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland OH)

Number of included participants

121

Inclusion criteria

Previously untreated HL, early stages (I and II)

Exclusion criteria

Missing clinical data

Treatment

ABVD or other chemotherapy (not specified)

Primary outcome measure(s)

Overall survival
Progression‐free survival

Rusconi 2010

Notes

Title: Baseline and dynamic prognostic factors in newly diagnosed classical Hodgkin's lymphoma.

(Conference abstract)

Aim

To identify characteristics, both at baseline and during therapy, predictive for survival outcomes in HL

Study design

Retrospective

Country/treatment centre(s)

Italy (Niguarda Hospital, Milan)

Number of included participants

105

Inclusion criteria

Diagnosed HL

Exclusion criteria

None

Treatment

3 to 8 cycles of ABVD with or without IFRT

Primary outcome measure(s)

Overall survival
Event‐free survival
Relapse‐free survival

Spallino 2017

Notes

Title: The Deauville criteria and QPET as prognostic factors in interim PET in adult Hodgkin lymphoma: A single centre experience.

(Conference abstract)

Aim

To explore the prognostic role of iPET in individuals with HL by correlating Deauville criteria and qPET to DFS and OS

Study design

Retrospective

Country/treatment centre(s)

Italy

Number of included participants

131

Inclusion criteria

Newly diagnosed HL, disease stages I to IV

Exclusion criteria

None

Treatment

Not reported

Primary outcome measure(s)

Overall survival
Disease‐free survival

Yaghmour 2012

Notes

Title: PET‐negative at 2, 3 or 4 cycles of ABVD in Hodgkin's lymphoma is still good.

(Conference abstract)

Aim

To assess the prognostic value of anytime negative PET scan in the course of first line treatment in individuals with HL receiving ABVD

Study design

Retrospective

Country/treatment centre(s)

USA (Henry Ford Health System, Detroit MI)

Number of included participants

32

Inclusion criteria

Newly diagnosed HL

Exclusion criteria

Not reported

Treatment

ABVD

Primary outcome measure(s)

Overall survival

Zanoni 2011

Notes

Title: The predictive value of interim PET and immunohistochemical markers in Hodgkin lymphoma (HL).

(Conference abstract)

Aim

To compare iPET with a series of histological and immunohistochemical parameters obtained on tissue‐micro‐arrays as possible predictive factors

Study design

Retrospective

Country/treatment centre(s)

Italy (Bologna)

Number of included participants

209

Inclusion criteria

Biopsy‐proven HL, complete clinical and iPET data

Exclusion criteria

None

Treatment

Not reported

Primary outcome measure(s)

Overall survival
Progression‐free survival

ABVD: adriamycin/doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine and dacarbazine; BEACOPP: bleomycin, etoposide, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, vincristine, procarbazine and prednisone; EBVD: epirubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine and dacarbazine; FDG: [18F]‐fluorodeoxy‐D‐glucose; HL: Hodgkin lymphoma; IF‐RT: involved‐field radiation therapy; iPET: interim positron emission tomography; MOPP: mustargen, Oncovin, procarbazine and prednisone; NPV: negative predictive value; PET: positron emission tomography; PET‐CT: positron emission tomography computed tomography; RT: radiotherapy.

Characteristics of ongoing studies [ordered by study ID]

Ir a:

estudios incluidos
estudios excluidos
estudios a la espera de clasificación

NCT00736320

Study name	HD16 for Early Stages ‐ Treatment optimisation trial in the first‐line treatment of early stage Hodgkin lymphoma; treatment stratification by means of FDG‐PET
Starting date	November 2009
Contact information	Prof. Dr. Andreas Engert, University of Cologne, Germany
Notes	Study design Randomised clinical trial (phase III) including 1150 participants with HL Country/treatment centre 1st Department of Medicine, Cologne University Hospital, Cologne, Germany Number of included participants Total: 1150 Inclusion criteria Hodgkin lymphoma Adults (18 to 75 years) CS I and II without risk factors (large mediastinal mass (> 1/3 of maximum transverse thorax diameter), extranodal involvement, elevated ESR, three or more involved nodal areas) Written informed consent Exclusion criteria Leukocytes < 3000/µl Platelets < 100000/µl Hodgkin lymphoma as composite lymphoma Activity index (WHO) > 2 Arms and interventions Active comparator (A): two cycles ABVD followed by 20 Gy IF‐RT, irrespective of FDG‐PET results after chemotherapy Expertimental (B): two cycles ABVD followed by 20 Gy IF‐RT if FDG‐PET is positive after chemotherapy; 2 cycles ABVD and treatment stop if FDG‐PET is negative after chemotherapy Primary outcome measure(s) Progression‐free survival Time frame: five years Secondary outcome measure(s) Overall survival Acute toxicity Late toxicity Complete response rate Time frame: five years Estimated study completion date May 2020

ESR: erythrocyte sedimentation rate; FDG: [18F]‐fluorodeoxy‐D‐glucose; HL: Hodgkin lymphoma; IF‐RT :involved‐field radiation therapy; MDCT: multi detector computed tomography; WHO: World Health Organization

Data and analyses

Open in table viewer

Comparison 1. Univariable comparison of PET+ve vs. PET‐ve

Outcome or subgroup title	No. of studies	No. of participants	Statistical method	Effect size
1.1 Overall survival Show forest plot	9	1802	Hazard Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)	5.09 [2.64, 9.81]
Open in figure viewer Analysis 1.1 Comparison 1: Univariable comparison of PET+ve vs. PET‐ve, Outcome 1: Overall survival
1.2 Progression‐free survival Show forest plot	14	2079	Hazard Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)	4.90 [3.47, 6.90]
Open in figure viewer Analysis 1.2 Comparison 1: Univariable comparison of PET+ve vs. PET‐ve, Outcome 2: Progression‐free survival

Open in table viewer

Comparison 2. Subgroups in univariable comparison of OS: PET+ve vs. PET‐ve

Outcome or subgroup title	No. of studies	No. of participants	Statistical method	Effect size
2.1 OS by radiotherapy Show forest plot	9	1802	Hazard Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)	5.09 [2.64, 9.81]
Open in figure viewer Analysis 2.1 Comparison 2: Subgroups in univariable comparison of OS: PET+ve vs. PET‐ve, Outcome 1: OS by radiotherapy
2.1.1 Involved node and/or site	3	548	Hazard Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)	3.45 [1.22, 9.72]
2.1.2 involved field	4	428	Hazard Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)	12.75 [4.98, 32.68]
2.1.3 not specified	2	826	Hazard Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)	2.80 [1.17, 6.67]
2.2 OS by study design Show forest plot	8	1717	Hazard Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)	4.63 [2.43, 8.80]
Open in figure viewer Analysis 2.2 Comparison 2: Subgroups in univariable comparison of OS: PET+ve vs. PET‐ve, Outcome 2: OS by study design
2.2.1 Prospective	3	406	Hazard Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)	5.35 [1.07, 26.68]
2.2.2 Retrospective	4	589	Hazard Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)	7.12 [3.14, 16.14]
2.2.3 RCT	1	722	Hazard Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)	2.60 [1.03, 6.56]
2.3 OS by chemotherapy Show forest plot	9	1802	Hazard Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)	5.09 [2.64, 9.81]
Open in figure viewer Analysis 2.3 Comparison 2: Subgroups in univariable comparison of OS: PET+ve vs. PET‐ve, Outcome 3: OS by chemotherapy
2.3.1 ABVD	5	801	Hazard Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)	5.19 [2.11, 12.72]
2.3.2 ABVD and/or other	3	279	Hazard Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)	10.30 [1.71, 62.13]
2.3.3 BEACOPP	1	722	Hazard Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)	2.60 [1.03, 6.56]
2.4 OS for PET/CT vs PET Show forest plot	8	1706	Hazard Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)	5.01 [2.50, 10.02]
Open in figure viewer Analysis 2.4 Comparison 2: Subgroups in univariable comparison of OS: PET+ve vs. PET‐ve, Outcome 4: OS for PET/CT vs PET
2.4.1 PET/CT	5	595	Hazard Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)	4.70 [1.86, 11.86]
2.4.2 PET only	3	1111	Hazard Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)	6.99 [1.58, 30.90]
2.5 OS by disease stage Show forest plot	9	1802	Odds Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)	5.09 [2.64, 9.81]
Open in figure viewer Analysis 2.5 Comparison 2: Subgroups in univariable comparison of OS: PET+ve vs. PET‐ve, Outcome 5: OS by disease stage
2.5.1 Stages I and II with A and B symptoms	1	96	Odds Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)	9.21 [0.71, 120.03]
2.5.2 All stages	7	984	Odds Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)	6.28 [2.62, 15.05]
2.5.3 Advanced	1	722	Odds Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)	2.60 [1.03, 6.56]
2.6 Timing of interim PET Show forest plot	9	1802	Hazard Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)	5.09 [2.64, 9.81]
Open in figure viewer Analysis 2.6 Comparison 2: Subgroups in univariable comparison of OS: PET+ve vs. PET‐ve, Outcome 6: Timing of interim PET
2.6.1 PET2	6	1495	Hazard Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)	3.53 [1.97, 6.32]
2.6.2 Other (including mixed)	3	307	Hazard Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)	20.13 [5.04, 80.38]
2.7 OS by HR type of estimation Show forest plot	9	1802	Hazard Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)	5.09 [2.64, 9.81]
Open in figure viewer Analysis 2.7 Comparison 2: Subgroups in univariable comparison of OS: PET+ve vs. PET‐ve, Outcome 7: OS by HR type of estimation
2.7.1 precise	7	1638	Hazard Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)	5.70 [2.60, 12.48]
2.7.2 Imprecise	2	164	Hazard Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)	3.60 [0.89, 14.64]

Open in table viewer

Comparison 3. Subgroups in univariable comparison of PFS: PET+ve vs. PET‐ve

Outcome or subgroup title	No. of studies	No. of participants	Statistical method	Effect size
3.1 PFS by study design Show forest plot	13	1349	Hazard Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)	5.66 [4.02, 7.97]
Open in figure viewer Analysis 3.1 Comparison 3: Subgroups in univariable comparison of PFS: PET+ve vs. PET‐ve, Outcome 1: PFS by study design
3.1.1 prospective	3	357	Hazard Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)	3.95 [2.23, 7.00]
3.1.2 retrospective	8	827	Hazard Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)	6.85 [4.66, 10.08]
3.1.3 RCT	2	165	Hazard Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)	6.21 [2.87, 13.42]
3.2 PFS by chemotherapy Show forest plot	14	2079	Hazard Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)	4.90 [3.47, 6.90]
Open in figure viewer Analysis 3.2 Comparison 3: Subgroups in univariable comparison of PFS: PET+ve vs. PET‐ve, Outcome 2: PFS by chemotherapy
3.2.1 ABVD	7	945	Hazard Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)	5.13 [3.18, 8.27]
3.2.2 ABVD and/or other	4	265	Hazard Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)	7.07 [3.40, 14.70]
3.2.3 other NON‐ABVD chemo	3	869	Hazard Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)	3.64 [1.83, 7.24]
3.3 PFS for PET/CT vs PET Show forest plot	13	1983	Hazard Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)	5.08 [3.57, 7.21]
Open in figure viewer Analysis 3.3 Comparison 3: Subgroups in univariable comparison of PFS: PET+ve vs. PET‐ve, Outcome 3: PFS for PET/CT vs PET
3.3.1 PET/CT	8	707	Hazard Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)	6.03 [3.68, 9.90]
3.3.2 PET only	5	1276	Hazard Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)	4.06 [2.33, 7.08]
3.4 PFS by disease stage Show forest plot	14	2079	Hazard Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)	4.90 [3.47, 6.90]
Open in figure viewer Analysis 3.4 Comparison 3: Subgroups in univariable comparison of PFS: PET+ve vs. PET‐ve, Outcome 4: PFS by disease stage
3.4.1 Stages I and II with A and B symptoms	2	184	Hazard Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)	3.88 [1.54, 9.83]
3.4.2 All stages	11	1173	Hazard Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)	5.81 [3.93, 8.57]
3.4.3 Advanced	1	722	Hazard Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)	2.27 [1.35, 3.82]
3.5 PFS by radiotherapy Show forest plot	14	2079	Hazard Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)	4.90 [3.47, 6.90]
Open in figure viewer Analysis 3.5 Comparison 3: Subgroups in univariable comparison of PFS: PET+ve vs. PET‐ve, Outcome 5: PFS by radiotherapy
3.5.1 Involved node and/or site	5	651	Hazard Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)	5.35 [2.94, 9.75]
3.5.2 Involved field	6	514	Hazard Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)	7.06 [4.15, 12.00]
3.5.3 Not specified	2	826	Hazard Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)	2.97 [1.48, 5.98]
3.5.4 None	1	88	Hazard Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)	5.09 [1.95, 13.29]
3.6 Timing of interim PET Show forest plot	14	2079	Hazard Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)	4.90 [3.47, 6.90]
Open in figure viewer Analysis 3.6 Comparison 3: Subgroups in univariable comparison of PFS: PET+ve vs. PET‐ve, Outcome 6: Timing of interim PET
3.6.1 PET2	9	1677	Hazard Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)	4.68 [3.14, 6.98]
3.6.2 Other (including mixed)	5	402	Hazard Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)	6.32 [3.40, 11.75]
3.7 PFS by HR type of estimation Show forest plot	14	2079	Hazard Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)	4.90 [3.47, 6.90]
Open in figure viewer Analysis 3.7 Comparison 3: Subgroups in univariable comparison of PFS: PET+ve vs. PET‐ve, Outcome 7: PFS by HR type of estimation
3.7.1 precise	9	1450	Hazard Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)	4.69 [2.84, 7.73]
3.7.2 Imprecise	5	629	Hazard Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)	5.66 [3.65, 8.77]

Figure 1

Study flow diagram according to PRISMA

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Figure 2

'Risk of bias' assessment according to QUIPS (Quality in Prognostic Studies) by outcome.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Figure 3

Forest plot of comparison: 1 Univariable comparison of PET+ve vs. PET‐ve, outcome: 1.1 Overall survival

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Figure 4

Forest plot of comparison: 1 Univariable comparison of PET+ve vs. PET‐ve, outcome: 1.2 Progression‐free survival

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 1.1

Comparison 1: Univariable comparison of PET+ve vs. PET‐ve, Outcome 1: Overall survival

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 1.2

Comparison 1: Univariable comparison of PET+ve vs. PET‐ve, Outcome 2: Progression‐free survival

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 2.1

Comparison 2: Subgroups in univariable comparison of OS: PET+ve vs. PET‐ve, Outcome 1: OS by radiotherapy

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 2.2

Comparison 2: Subgroups in univariable comparison of OS: PET+ve vs. PET‐ve, Outcome 2: OS by study design

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 2.3

Comparison 2: Subgroups in univariable comparison of OS: PET+ve vs. PET‐ve, Outcome 3: OS by chemotherapy

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 2.4

Comparison 2: Subgroups in univariable comparison of OS: PET+ve vs. PET‐ve, Outcome 4: OS for PET/CT vs PET

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 2.5

Comparison 2: Subgroups in univariable comparison of OS: PET+ve vs. PET‐ve, Outcome 5: OS by disease stage

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 2.6

Comparison 2: Subgroups in univariable comparison of OS: PET+ve vs. PET‐ve, Outcome 6: Timing of interim PET

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 2.7

Comparison 2: Subgroups in univariable comparison of OS: PET+ve vs. PET‐ve, Outcome 7: OS by HR type of estimation

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 3.1

Comparison 3: Subgroups in univariable comparison of PFS: PET+ve vs. PET‐ve, Outcome 1: PFS by study design

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 3.2

Comparison 3: Subgroups in univariable comparison of PFS: PET+ve vs. PET‐ve, Outcome 2: PFS by chemotherapy

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 3.3

Comparison 3: Subgroups in univariable comparison of PFS: PET+ve vs. PET‐ve, Outcome 3: PFS for PET/CT vs PET

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 3.4

Comparison 3: Subgroups in univariable comparison of PFS: PET+ve vs. PET‐ve, Outcome 4: PFS by disease stage

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 3.5

Comparison 3: Subgroups in univariable comparison of PFS: PET+ve vs. PET‐ve, Outcome 5: PFS by radiotherapy

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 3.6

Comparison 3: Subgroups in univariable comparison of PFS: PET+ve vs. PET‐ve, Outcome 6: Timing of interim PET

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 3.7

Comparison 3: Subgroups in univariable comparison of PFS: PET+ve vs. PET‐ve, Outcome 7: PFS by HR type of estimation

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Summary of findings 1. Comparison of interim PET‐negative and interim PET‐positive individuals with Hodgkin Lymphoma

Outcomes	*Anticipated absolute effects^ (95% CI)**		Relative effect (95% CI)	№ of participants (studies)	Certainty of the evidence (GRADE)	Comments
Comparison of interim PET‐positive and interim PET‐negative participants with Hodgkin lymphoma
Population: Individuals with Hodgkin lymphoma Setting: Eleven studies recruited participants from a total of 28 haemato‐oncology treatment centres/hospitals in Brazil (N = 1), China (N = 1), Denmark (N = 4), France (N = 4), Italy (N = 3), Poland (N = 11), UK (N = 2) and the USA (N = 2). One study (Straus 2011) included participants from 29 institutions, but did not report the countries. One study (Simon 2016) reported the country (Hungary) but not the number of centres. One multi‐centre study (Hutchings 2014) recruited participants from four countries (USA, Italy, Poland and Denmark). One RCT (Kobe 2018) included participants from 301 hospitals and private practices in Germany, Switzerland, Austria, the Netherlands, and the Czech Republic.
Outcomes	Risk with Interim PET‐negative	Risk with Interim PET‐positive	Relative effect (95% CI)	№ of participants (studies)	Certainty of the evidence (GRADE)	Comments
Overall survival Follow up: 3 years	Low		HR 5.09 (2.64 to 9.81)	1802 (9 studies)	⊕⊕⊕⊝ MODERATE ^{2 3 4}
	900 per 1.000 ¹	585 per 1.000¹ (356 to 757)
	High
	980 per 1.000 ¹	902 per 1.000¹ (820 to 948)
Progression‐free survival Follow up: 3 years	Low		HR 4.90 (3.47 to 6.90)	2079 (14 studies)	⊕⊝⊝⊝ VERY LOW^{6 7 8}
	850 per 1.000 ⁵	451 per 1.000 ⁵ (326 to 569)
	High
	940 per 1.000 ⁵	738 per 1.000 ⁵ (653 to 807)
Adverse events associated with PET ‐ not reported	No study measured PET‐associated adverse events.		‐	‐	‐
Overall survival (adjusted effect estimate)	Two studies reported an adjusted effect estimate for overall survival after interim PET2: a hazard ratio of 3.2 (95% CI 1.3 to 8.4, P = 0.02) (Kobe 2018) and 11.51 (95% CI 3.14 to 42.86, P < 0.001) (Simon 2015) indicates the independent prognostic value of interim PET over and above other clinically relevant prognostic factors.		‐	843 (2 studies)	⊕⊕⊕⊝ MODERATE ⁹
Progression‐free survival (adjusted effect estimate)	Eight studies conducted a multivariable analysis to test the independent prognostic value of interim PET over and above other clinically relevant prognostic factors. Four of these studies reported a hazard ratio as the adjusted effect estimate, of which the value ranges from 2.4 to 36.89, indicating the independent prognostic value of interim PET2.¹⁰		‐	996 (4 studies)¹⁰	⊕⊕⊝⊝ LOW ^{11 12}
*The survival in the PET‐positive group (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed survival in the PET‐negative group. CI: Confidence interval; HR: Hazard ratio; PET: positron emission tomography
GRADE Working Group grades of evidence High certainty: We are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect Moderate certainty: We are moderately confident in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different Low certainty: Our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: The true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect Very low certainty: We have very little confidence in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect
¹ The assumed event‐free survival in the control group is based on the survival rate of the interim PET‐negative participants at 3 years in the studies included (the lowest survival rate from Cerci 2010 and the highest survival rate from Kobe 2018). ² High risk of bias in seven studies for the domain 'other prognostic factors (covariates)', and high risk of bias in three studies for the domain 'statistical analysis and reporting'. Downgraded by 1 point for risk of bias. ³ For one study we used the reported hazard ratio. For seven studies we had to estimate the hazard ratio and for one study we re‐calculated it (Trivella 2006). Downgraded by 1 point for imprecision. ⁴ Upgraded by one point due to the large effect showing the large difference between interim PET‐negative and interim PET‐positive participants (HR 5.09, CI 2.64 to 9.81). ⁵ The assumed event‐free survival in the control group is based on the survival rate of the interim PET‐negative participants at 3 years in the studies included (the lowest survival rate from Rossi 2014 and the highest survival rate from Kobe 2018). ⁶ High risk of bias in eight studies for the domain 'other prognostic factors (covariates)', and high risk of bias in six studies for the domain 'statistical analysis and reporting'. Downgraded by 1 point for risk of bias. ⁷The definition of PFS varied across studies, downgraded by 1 point for inconsistency ⁸ For three studies we used the reported hazard ratio. For ten studies we had to estimate the value, and for one study we had to re‐calculate it (Trivella 2006). Downgraded by 1 point for imprecision. ⁹ High risk of bias for the domains 'other prognostic factors (covariates)' and statistical analysis and reporting for one study (Simon 2016). Downgraded by 1 point for risk of bias. ¹⁰Hutchings 2006; Kobe 2018; Mesguich 2016; Simon 2016. ¹¹ High risk of bias for the domains 'other prognostic factors (covariates)' and statistical analysis and reporting for one study (Simon 2016). Also high risk of bias for the domain study participation in one study (Hutchings 2006). Downgraded by 1 point for risk of bias. ¹² Studies included a heterogenous set of covariates in the adjusted analyses. Downgraded by 1 point for inconsistency.

Summary of findings 1. Comparison of interim PET‐negative and interim PET‐positive individuals with Hodgkin Lymphoma

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

Comparison 1. Univariable comparison of PET+ve vs. PET‐ve

Outcome or subgroup title	No. of studies	No. of participants	Statistical method	Effect size
1.1 Overall survival Show forest plot	9	1802	Hazard Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)	5.09 [2.64, 9.81]

1.2 Progression‐free survival Show forest plot	14	2079	Hazard Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)	4.90 [3.47, 6.90]

Comparison 1. Univariable comparison of PET+ve vs. PET‐ve

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

Comparison 2. Subgroups in univariable comparison of OS: PET+ve vs. PET‐ve

Outcome or subgroup title	No. of studies	No. of participants	Statistical method	Effect size
2.1 OS by radiotherapy Show forest plot	9	1802	Hazard Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)	5.09 [2.64, 9.81]

2.1.1 Involved node and/or site	3	548	Hazard Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)	3.45 [1.22, 9.72]
2.1.2 involved field	4	428	Hazard Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)	12.75 [4.98, 32.68]
2.1.3 not specified	2	826	Hazard Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)	2.80 [1.17, 6.67]
2.2 OS by study design Show forest plot	8	1717	Hazard Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)	4.63 [2.43, 8.80]

2.2.1 Prospective	3	406	Hazard Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)	5.35 [1.07, 26.68]
2.2.2 Retrospective	4	589	Hazard Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)	7.12 [3.14, 16.14]
2.2.3 RCT	1	722	Hazard Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)	2.60 [1.03, 6.56]
2.3 OS by chemotherapy Show forest plot	9	1802	Hazard Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)	5.09 [2.64, 9.81]

2.3.1 ABVD	5	801	Hazard Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)	5.19 [2.11, 12.72]
2.3.2 ABVD and/or other	3	279	Hazard Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)	10.30 [1.71, 62.13]
2.3.3 BEACOPP	1	722	Hazard Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)	2.60 [1.03, 6.56]
2.4 OS for PET/CT vs PET Show forest plot	8	1706	Hazard Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)	5.01 [2.50, 10.02]

2.4.1 PET/CT	5	595	Hazard Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)	4.70 [1.86, 11.86]
2.4.2 PET only	3	1111	Hazard Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)	6.99 [1.58, 30.90]
2.5 OS by disease stage Show forest plot	9	1802	Odds Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)	5.09 [2.64, 9.81]

2.5.1 Stages I and II with A and B symptoms	1	96	Odds Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)	9.21 [0.71, 120.03]
2.5.2 All stages	7	984	Odds Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)	6.28 [2.62, 15.05]
2.5.3 Advanced	1	722	Odds Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)	2.60 [1.03, 6.56]
2.6 Timing of interim PET Show forest plot	9	1802	Hazard Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)	5.09 [2.64, 9.81]

2.6.1 PET2	6	1495	Hazard Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)	3.53 [1.97, 6.32]
2.6.2 Other (including mixed)	3	307	Hazard Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)	20.13 [5.04, 80.38]
2.7 OS by HR type of estimation Show forest plot	9	1802	Hazard Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)	5.09 [2.64, 9.81]

2.7.1 precise	7	1638	Hazard Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)	5.70 [2.60, 12.48]
2.7.2 Imprecise	2	164	Hazard Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)	3.60 [0.89, 14.64]

Comparison 2. Subgroups in univariable comparison of OS: PET+ve vs. PET‐ve

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

Comparison 3. Subgroups in univariable comparison of PFS: PET+ve vs. PET‐ve

Outcome or subgroup title	No. of studies	No. of participants	Statistical method	Effect size
3.1 PFS by study design Show forest plot	13	1349	Hazard Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)	5.66 [4.02, 7.97]

3.1.1 prospective	3	357	Hazard Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)	3.95 [2.23, 7.00]
3.1.2 retrospective	8	827	Hazard Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)	6.85 [4.66, 10.08]
3.1.3 RCT	2	165	Hazard Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)	6.21 [2.87, 13.42]
3.2 PFS by chemotherapy Show forest plot	14	2079	Hazard Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)	4.90 [3.47, 6.90]

3.2.1 ABVD	7	945	Hazard Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)	5.13 [3.18, 8.27]
3.2.2 ABVD and/or other	4	265	Hazard Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)	7.07 [3.40, 14.70]
3.2.3 other NON‐ABVD chemo	3	869	Hazard Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)	3.64 [1.83, 7.24]
3.3 PFS for PET/CT vs PET Show forest plot	13	1983	Hazard Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)	5.08 [3.57, 7.21]

3.3.1 PET/CT	8	707	Hazard Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)	6.03 [3.68, 9.90]
3.3.2 PET only	5	1276	Hazard Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)	4.06 [2.33, 7.08]
3.4 PFS by disease stage Show forest plot	14	2079	Hazard Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)	4.90 [3.47, 6.90]

3.4.1 Stages I and II with A and B symptoms	2	184	Hazard Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)	3.88 [1.54, 9.83]
3.4.2 All stages	11	1173	Hazard Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)	5.81 [3.93, 8.57]
3.4.3 Advanced	1	722	Hazard Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)	2.27 [1.35, 3.82]
3.5 PFS by radiotherapy Show forest plot	14	2079	Hazard Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)	4.90 [3.47, 6.90]

3.5.1 Involved node and/or site	5	651	Hazard Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)	5.35 [2.94, 9.75]
3.5.2 Involved field	6	514	Hazard Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)	7.06 [4.15, 12.00]
3.5.3 Not specified	2	826	Hazard Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)	2.97 [1.48, 5.98]
3.5.4 None	1	88	Hazard Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)	5.09 [1.95, 13.29]
3.6 Timing of interim PET Show forest plot	14	2079	Hazard Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)	4.90 [3.47, 6.90]

3.6.1 PET2	9	1677	Hazard Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)	4.68 [3.14, 6.98]
3.6.2 Other (including mixed)	5	402	Hazard Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)	6.32 [3.40, 11.75]
3.7 PFS by HR type of estimation Show forest plot	14	2079	Hazard Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)	4.90 [3.47, 6.90]

3.7.1 precise	9	1450	Hazard Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)	4.69 [2.84, 7.73]
3.7.2 Imprecise	5	629	Hazard Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)	5.66 [3.65, 8.77]

Comparison 3. Subgroups in univariable comparison of PFS: PET+ve vs. PET‐ve

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

	Idioma de la Revisión Cochrane Escoja su idioma de preferencia para las revisiones Cochrane y otros contenidos. Las secciones sin una traducción aparecerán en inglés.

	Idioma de la web Escoja su idioma de preferencia para la web de la Biblioteca Cochrane.

Idioma de la Revisión Cochrane

Idioma de la web

Referencias

Referencias de los estudios incluidos en esta revisión

Andre 2017 {published data only}

Annunziata 2016 {published data only}

Barnes 2011 {published data only}

Casasnovas 2019 {published data only}

Cerci 2010 {published data only}

Gallamini 2014 {published data only}

Gandikota 2015 {published data only}

Hutchings 2005 {published data only}

Hutchings 2006 {published data only}

Hutchings 2014 {published data only}

Kobe 2018 {published data only}

Markova 2012 {published data only}

Mesguich 2016 {published data only}

Oki 2014 {published data only}

Okosun 2012 {published data only}

Orlacchio 2012 {published data only}

Rossi 2014 {published data only}

Simon 2016 {published data only}

Straus 2011 {published data only}

Touati 2014 {published data only}

Ying 2014 {published data only}

Zaucha 2017 {published data only}

Zinzani 2012 {published data only}

Referencias de los estudios excluidos de esta revisión

Adams 2016 {published data only}

Adams 2017 {published data only}

Adams 2018 {published data only}

Adams 2018a {published data only}

Adams 2018b {published data only}

Adams 2019 {published data only}

Advani 2007 {published data only}

Afanasyev 2017 {published data only}

Albano 2017 {published data only}

Albano 2018 {published data only}

Altamirano 2008 {published data only}

Ansell 2016 {published data only}

Awan 2013 {published data only}

Barrington 2011a {published data only}

Barrington 2017 {published data only}

Bar‐Shalom 2003 {published data only}

Basu 2009 {published data only}

Becherer 2002 {published data only}

Bednaruk‐Mlynski 2015 {published data only}

Biggi 2012 {published data only}

Biggi 2017 {published data only}

Bishop 2015 {published data only}

Bjurberg 2006 {published data only}

Blum 2002 {published data only}

Bodet‐Milin 2008 {published data only}

Bodet‐Milin 2009 {published data only}

Boisson 2007 {published data only}

Borchmann 2016 {published data only}

Bucerius 2006 {published data only}

Carras 2018 {published data only}

Ciammella 2016 {published data only}

Cremerius 1999 {published data only}

Cremerius 2001 {published data only}

Cuccaro 2016 {published data only}

D'Urso 2018 {published data only}

Damlaj 2017 {published data only}

Damlaj 2019 {published data only}

Danilov 2017 {published data only}

Dann 2009 {published data only}

Dann 2010 {published data only}

Dann 2010a {published data only}

Dann 2012 {published data only}

Dann 2013 {published data only}

Dann 2016 {published data only}

Dann 2017 {published data only}

Dann 2018 {published data only}

deAndres‐Galiana 2015 {published data only}

Diehl 2007 {published data only}

El‐Galaly 2012 {published data only}

Evens 2014 {published data only}

Fanti 2008 {published data only}

Filmont 2003 {published data only}