Literature search Search strategy (general) Study selection ......Literature search For each group of questions, a different search strategy was used, but the study selection strategy

Literature search

For each group of questions, a different search strategy was used, but the study selection strategy was similar.

Search strategy (general)

The literature search was performed using PubMed database (last search: April 30, 2020). For the search string we have used a combination of text words related to the review

questions without using PubMed filters to increase sensitivity of the literature search.

Study selection (general)

In first instance systematic reviews, meta-analyses, evidence-based guidelines and evidence-based documents (evidence-based articles) related to the review question published

from 2010 in English language were considered. If updated systematic reviews were retrieved, primary studies were not considered. If out of date systematic reviews were found,

the search for primary studies were limited to those studies published after the last search date of the most recently published systematic review. If no systematic reviews were

found, a search of recent primary studies was performed.

Available ESMO guidelines on haematological malignancies were also retrieved for comparison.

Quality assessment (AMSTAR 2)* of the included systematic reviews (general)

Items judged of critical importance: comprehensiveness of the literature search (item 4); included studies described in adequate detail (item 8); adequacy of risk of bias assessment

of primary studies (item 9); appropriateness of meta-analytical methods (item 11); consideration of risk of bias when interpreting the results of the review (item 13). According to

the responses to critical items, a final overall judgment of the whole review can be:

High quality: No or one non-critical weakness: the systematic review provides an accurate and comprehensive summary of the results of the available studies that address the

question of interest

Moderate quality: More than one non-critical weakness but no critical flaws. It may provide an accurate summary of the results of the available studies that were included in the

review

Low quality: One critical flaw with or without non-critical weaknesses: the review may not provide an accurate and comprehensive summary of the available studies that address

the question of interest

Critically low quality: More than one critical flaw with or without non-critical weaknesses: the review should not be relied on to provide an accurate and comprehensive summary

of the available studies

*Shea, B.J., et al., AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. BMJ, 2017. 358: p. j4008

Track 1: Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma (NHL)

Question group 1: NHL patient eligibility for staging using [18F]FDG PET/CT

Search strategy

Search string: ((lymphoma) OR (lymphomas) OR (lymphoproliferative) OR (NHL)) AND ((PET) OR (positron emission tomography) OR (FDG) OR (fluorodeoxyglucose)) AND

((systematic review) OR (meta-analysis))

Search results

Among 88 records retrieved, 59 were excluded because not in the field of interest and 29 articles (18 evidence-based articles and 11 primary studies) were included. We included

15 systematic reviews or meta-analyses evaluating the role of [18F]FDG PET/CT in detecting bone marrow involvement in patients with NHL (Chen 2011 and Adams 2014), staging

of follicular lymphoma (Adams 2017), staging of mantle cell lymphoma (Albano 2020), staging of NK/T cell lymphoma (Zhou 2014), evaluating primary central nervous system

lymphoma (Yang 2017, Zou 2017), detecting marginal zone (MALT) lymphoma (Albano 2020, Treglia 2015), detecting Richter syndrome (Molica 2010), detecting post-transplant

lymphoproliferative disorders (Kim 2020, Ballova 2020, Montes de Jesus 2018), staging Burkitt lymphoma (Albano 2020), and comparing the diagnostic performance of [18F]FDG

PET/CT and whole-body magnetic resonance imaging (WB-MRI) in patients with lymphoma including a population of patients with NHL (Wang 2018). Three evidence-based

consensus documents (Cheson 2014, Barrington 2014, Nanni 2017) were included. Eleven recent primary studies evaluating NHL patient eligibility for staging using [18F]FDG

PET/CT were also included.

Quality assessment of the included systematic reviews

n AMSTAR-2 criteria Adams 2014 Adams 2017 Albano 2020

(BL)

Albano 2020

(MALT)

Albano 2020

(MCL)

Ballova 2020 Chen 2011 Kim 2020

1 Research questions and inclusion

criteria include components of

PICO

yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes

2 Review methods established prior

to the conduct of the review

(protocol) and deviations justified

no no no no no no no no

3 Selection of study design

explained


4 Comprehensive literature search

strategy

yes no (only one

database

screened)

yes yes yes yes yes yes

5 Study selection in duplicate not reported not reported yes yes yes yes yes yes

6 Data extraction in duplicate not reported not reported yes yes yes yes yes yes

7 List of excluded studies and

justification of the exclusions

yes, partial yes, partial yes, partial yes, partial yes, partial yes, partial yes, partial yes, partial

8 Included studies described in

adequate detail


9 Technique for assessing the risk of

bias satisfactory

yes yes not reported not reported not reported yes yes yes

10 Sources of funding for the primary

studies reported

no no no no no no no no

11 Appropriate methods for meta-

analysis

yes yes meta-analysis not

performed

meta-analysis not

performed

meta-analysis not

performed

yes yes yes

12 Potential impact of risk of bias

results on meta-analysis assessed

yes yes meta-analysis not

performed

meta-analysis not

performed

meta-analysis not

performed

yes yes yes

13 Risk of bias results accounted for

in discussion/conclusion


14 Satisfactory discussion and

explanation of observed

heterogeneity, if any


15 Adequate investigation of

publication bias

no no no no no yes no yes

16 Conflict of interest of review

authors and funding received for

conducting the review reported


Overall methodological quality moderate low low low low moderate moderate moderate

n AMSTAR-2 criteria Molica 2010 Montes de

Jesus 2018

Treglia 2015 Wang 2018 Yang 2017 Zhou 2014 Zou 2017

1 Research questions and inclusion

criteria include components of

PICO

yes yes yes yes yes yes yes

2 Review methods established prior

to the conduct of the review

(protocol) and deviations justified

no no no no no no no


explained


4 Comprehensive literature search

strategy

no (only one

database screened)


5 Study selection in duplicate no not reported yes yes yes yes yes

6 Data extraction in duplicate no not reported yes yes yes yes yes



yes, partial yes, partial yes, partial yes, partial yes, partial yes, partial yes, partial


adequate detail


9 Technique for assessing the risk of

bias satisfactory

no yes yes yes yes yes yes

10 Sources of funding for the primary

studies reported

no no no no no no no


analysis

meta-analysis not

performed



results on meta-analysis assessed

meta-analysis not

performed


13 Risk of bias results accounted for

in discussion/conclusion







publication bias

no no yes yes yes no no


authors and funding received for

conducting the review reported


Overall methodological quality critically low moderate moderate moderate moderate moderate moderate

Question group 2: Use of non-imaging biomarkers in NHL (including circulating tumour DNA, protein biomarkers, and tissue genotyping)

Search strategy

Search string: ((lymphoma) OR (lymphomas) OR (lymphoproliferative) OR (Hodgkin)) AND ((blood based biomarker*) OR (protein biomarker*) OR (genotyp*) OR (liquid

biopsy) OR (DNA)) AND ((systematic review) OR (meta-analysis))

Search results

Among 176 records retrieved, 163 were excluded because not in the field of interest and 13 articles were included. In particular, 6 evidence-based articles (including 2 systematic

reviews) on blood-based biomarkers (Arzuaga-Mendez 2019, Condoluci 2019, Galimberti 2019, Melani 2018, Ohmoto 2020, van Westrhenen 2018) and 7 recent primary studies

were included.


n AMSTAR-2 criteria Arzuaga-Mendez 2019 van Westrhenen 2018

1 Research questions and inclusion criteria include components of PICO yes yes

2 Review methods established prior to the conduct of the review (protocol) and deviations

justified

no no

3 Selection of study design explained yes yes

4 Comprehensive literature search strategy no (only one database screened) no (only one database screened)

5 Study selection in duplicate yes not reported

6 Data extraction in duplicate yes not reported

7 List of excluded studies and justification of the exclusions yes, partial yes, partial

8 Included studies described in adequate detail yes yes

9 Technique for assessing the risk of bias satisfactory no yes

10 Sources of funding for the primary studies reported no no

11 Appropriate methods for meta-analysis meta-analysis not performed meta-analysis not performed

12 Potential impact of risk of bias results on meta-analysis assessed meta-analysis not performed meta-analysis not performed

13 Risk of bias results accounted for in discussion/conclusion yes yes

14 Satisfactory discussion and explanation of observed heterogeneity, if any yes no

15 Adequate investigation of publication bias no no

16 Conflict of interest of review authors and funding received for conducting the review reported yes yes

Overall methodological quality low low

Question group 3: [18F]FDG PET/CT response assessment in NHL

Search strategy



Search results


20 systematic reviews or meta-analyses that evaluated the role of interim and end of therapy [18F]FDG PET/CT in patients with different types of NHL (Adams 2015, Adams 2016,

Adams 2016 (2), Adams 2016 (3), Adams 2017, Adams 2020, Albano 2020, Albano 2020 (2), Albano 2020 (3), Burggraaf 2019, Liao 2017, Montes de Jesus 2018, Poulou 2010,

Pyo 2013, Sun 2015, Terasawa 2010, Wang 2016, Wang 2018, Zhu 2013, Zhu 2015). Four additional consensus documents (Cheson 2014, Barrington 2014, Nanni 2017, Younes

2017) have been included. Eleven additional primary studies were also included.


n AMSTAR-2 criteria Adams 2015 Adams 2016 Adams 2016

(DLBCL)

Adams 2016

(FL)

Adams 2017 Adams 2020 Albano 2020

(BL)

Albano 2020

(MALT)

Albano 2020

(MCL)

1 Research questions and

inclusion criteria include

components of PICO

yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes

2 Review methods established

prior to the conduct of the

review (protocol) and

deviations justified

no no no no no no no no no


explained


4 Comprehensive literature

search strategy

no (only one

database

screened)

no (only one

database

screened)

yes no (only one

database

screened)

no (only one

database

screened)

no (only one

database

screened)

yes yes yes

5 Study selection in duplicate not reported not reported not reported not reported not reported not reported yes yes yes

6 Data extraction in duplicate not reported not reported not reported not reported not reported not reported yes yes yes



yes, partial yes, partial yes, partial yes, partial yes, partial yes, partial yes, partial yes, partial yes, partial


adequate detail

yes yes yes yes yes not available yes yes yes

9 Technique for assessing the

risk of bias satisfactory

yes yes yes yes yes not available not reported not reported not reported

10 Sources of funding for the

primary studies reported

no no no no no not available no no no


analysis

yes yes yes meta-analysis not

performed

yes meta-analysis

not performed

meta-analysis not

performed

meta-analysis not

performed

meta-analysis not

performed


results on meta-analysis

assessed

yes yes yes meta-analysis not

performed

yes meta-analysis

not performed

meta-analysis not

performed

meta-analysis not

performed

meta-analysis not

performed

13 Risk of bias results accounted

for in discussion/conclusion







publication bias

no no no no no no no no no


authors and funding received

for conducting the review

reported


Overall methodological quality low low moderate low low low low low low

n AMSTAR-2 criteria Burggraaff

2019

Liao 2017 Montes de

Jesus 2018

Poulou

2010

Pyo 2013 Sun 2015 Terasawa

2010

Wang 2016 Wang 2018 Zhu 2013 Zhu 2015



components of PICO

yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes

2 Review methods

established prior to the

conduct of the review

(protocol) and deviations

justified

no no no no no no no no no no no


explained



search strategy

yes yes yes no (only

one

database

screened)

yes yes no (only

one

database

screened)

yes yes yes yes

5 Study selection in

duplicate

yes yes not

reported


6 Data extraction in

duplicate

yes yes not

reported


7 List of excluded studies

and justification of the

exclusions

yes, partial yes, partial yes, partial yes, partial yes, partial yes, partial yes, partial yes, partial yes, partial yes, partial yes, partial

8 Included studies described

in adequate detail


9 Technique for assessing

the risk of bias satisfactory

yes yes yes no yes yes yes yes yes yes no



no no no no no no no no no no no

11 Appropriate methods for

meta-analysis


12 Potential impact of risk of

bias results on meta-

analysis assessed

yes yes yes no yes yes yes yes yes yes no

13 Risk of bias results

accounted for in

discussion/conclusion

yes yes yes no yes yes yes yes yes yes yes

14 Satisfactory discussion

and explanation of

observed heterogeneity, if

any



publication bias

yes yes no no yes no no yes no yes yes

16 Conflict of interest of

review authors and

funding received for

conducting the review

reported


Overall methodological

quality

moderate moderate moderate low moderate moderate low moderate moderate moderate low

Question group 4: [18F]FDG PET/CT in decision-making for using radiotherapy in NHL

Search strategy


((radiotherapy) OR (radiation therapy)) AND ((systematic review) OR (meta-analysis))

Search results

Among 13 records retrieved, 6 were excluded because not in the field of interest and 7 articles (2 evidence-based articles and 5 primary studies) were included. In particular, we

have included two guidelines (Mikhaeel 2019, Illidge 2014). No systematic reviews were retrieved; five recent primary studies on the role of [18F]FDG PET/CT in decision-making

for using radiotherapy in NHL were included.

Question group 5: Ann Arbor classification in staging NHL

Search strategy

Search string: ((lymphoma) OR (lymphomas) OR (lymphoproliferative) OR (NHL)) AND ((Ann Arbor) OR (MTV) OR (TLG) OR (metabolic tumour volume) OR (metabolic

tumor volume) OR (total lesion glycolysis)) AND ((systematic review) OR (meta-analysis))

Search results


one systematic review (Guo 2019) two consensus documents (Cheson 2014, Barrington 2019), and 32 recent primary studies focused on the prognostic role of baseline PET

parameters in NHL were also included.


n AMSTAR-2 criteria Guo 2019

1 Research questions and inclusion criteria include components of PICO yes


justified

no

3 Selection of study design explained yes

4 Comprehensive literature search strategy yes

5 Study selection in duplicate yes

6 Data extraction in duplicate yes

7 List of excluded studies and justification of the exclusions yes, partial

8 Included studies described in adequate detail yes

9 Technique for assessing the risk of bias satisfactory yes

10 Sources of funding for the primary studies reported no

11 Appropriate methods for meta-analysis yes

12 Potential impact of risk of bias results on meta-analysis assessed yes

13 Risk of bias results accounted for in discussion/conclusion yes

14 Satisfactory discussion and explanation of observed heterogeneity, if any yes

15 Adequate investigation of publication bias yes

16 Conflict of interest of review authors and funding received for conducting the review reported yes

Overall methodological quality moderate

Question group 6: Follow-up methods for NHL

Search strategy

Search string: ((lymphoma) OR (lymphomas) OR (lymphoproliferative) OR (NHL)) AND ((follow-up) OR (surveillance)) AND ((systematic review) OR (meta-analysis))

Search results


one systematic review (Cohen 2017) and five evidence-based articles including guidelines or consensus documents (Cheson 2014, Dührsen 2019, Gonzalez-Barca 2018, Kallam

2020, Rutherford 2019). Two recent primary studies were also included.


n AMSTAR-2 criteria Cohen 2017



justified

no





7 List of excluded studies and justification of the exclusions no


9 Technique for assessing the risk of bias satisfactory no


11 Appropriate methods for meta-analysis meta-analysis not performed

12 Potential impact of risk of bias results on meta-analysis assessed meta-analysis not performed

13 Risk of bias results accounted for in discussion/conclusion no

14 Satisfactory discussion and explanation of observed heterogeneity, if any no

15 Adequate investigation of publication bias no


Overall methodological quality low

Question group 7: Follow-up methods in suspected NHL relapse

Search strategy

Search string: ((lymphoma) OR (lymphomas) OR (lymphoproliferative) OR (NHL)) AND ((relapse) OR (restaging)) AND ((systematic review) OR (meta-analysis))

Search results


one systematic review (Cohen 2017) and five evidence-based articles including guidelines or consensus documents (Cheson 2014, Dührsen 2019, Gonzalez-Barca 2018, Kallam

2020, Rutherford 2019). Two recent primary studies were also included.





justified

no
















Track 2: Hodgkin Lymphoma (HL)

Question group 8: HL patient eligibility for staging using [18F]FDG PET/CT

Search strategy

Search string: ((lymphoma) OR (lymphomas) OR (lymphoproliferative) OR (HL) OR (Hodgkin)) AND ((PET) OR (positron emission tomography) OR (FDG) OR

(fluorodeoxyglucose)) AND ((systematic review) OR (meta-analysis))

Search results

Among 88 records retrieved, 55 were excluded because not in the field of interest and three systematic reviews (Wang 2018, Adams 2014, Cheng 2013), five consensus documents

or guidelines (Bröckelmann 2018, Herst 2017, Cheson 2014, Barrington 2014, Nanni 2017) and 25 recent primary studies evaluating the role of [18F]FDG PET/CT in staging

patients with HL were included.


n AMSTAR-2 criteria Adams 2014 Cheng 2013 Wang 2018

1 Research questions and inclusion criteria include components of PICO yes yes yes


justified

no no no

3 Selection of study design explained yes yes yes

4 Comprehensive literature search strategy yes no (only one database screened) yes

5 Study selection in duplicate not reported not reported yes

6 Data extraction in duplicate not reported not reported yes

7 List of excluded studies and justification of the exclusions yes, partial yes yes, partial

8 Included studies described in adequate detail yes yes yes

9 Technique for assessing the risk of bias satisfactory yes no yes

10 Sources of funding for the primary studies reported no no no

11 Appropriate methods for meta-analysis yes yes yes

12 Potential impact of risk of bias results on meta-analysis assessed yes no yes

13 Risk of bias results accounted for in discussion/conclusion yes yes yes

14 Satisfactory discussion and explanation of observed heterogeneity, if any yes yes yes

15 Adequate investigation of publication bias no no yes

16 Conflict of interest of review authors and funding received for conducting the review reported yes yes yes

Overall methodological quality moderate low moderate

Question group 9: Use of non-imaging biomarkers in HL (including circulating tumour DNA, protein biomarkers, and tissue genotyping)

Search strategy

Search string: ((lymphoma) OR (lymphomas) OR (lymphoproliferative) OR (Hodgkin)) AND ((blood based biomarker*) OR (protein biomarker*) OR (genotyp*) OR (liquid

biopsy) OR (DNA)) AND ((systematic review) OR (meta-analysis))

Search results

Among 176 records retrieved, 171 were excluded because not in the field of interest and two evidence-based articles on blood-based biomarkers (Cirillo 2020, Condoluci 2019),

three recent primary studies but no systematic reviews were included.

Question group 10: The role of [18F]FDG PET/CT for HL response assessment

Search strategy



Search results

Among 88 records retrieved, 50 were excluded because not in the field of interest. We included 15 systematic reviews on meta-analyses on the role of interim and/or end of therapy

[18F]FDG PET/CT in patients with HL (Adams 2015, Adams 2015 (2), Adams 2016, Adams 2016 (2), Adams 2016 (3), Adams 2020, Aldin 2020, Amitai 2018, Poulou 2010,

Sickinger 2015, Sickinger 2016, Spinner 2018, Terasawa 2010, Wang 2016, Ziakas 2012), 6 guidelines or consensus documents (Bröckelmann 2018, Herst 2017, Cheson 2014,

Barrington 2014, Nanni 2017, Younes 2017) and 17 recent primary studies.


n AMSTAR-2 criteria Adams

2015 (1)

Adams

2015 (2)

Adams

2016 (1)

Adams

2016 (2)

Adams

2016 (3)

Adams

2020

Aldin

2020

Amitai

2018

Poulou

2010

Sickinger

2015

Sickinger

2016

Terasawa

2010

Wang 2016 Ziakas

2012



components of PICO

yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes

2 Review methods

established prior to the

conduct of the review

(protocol) and deviations

justified

no no no no no no yes no no yes yes no no no


explained



search strategy

no (only

one

database

screened)

no (only

one

database

screened)

no (only

one

database

screened)

no (only

one

database

screened)

no (only

one

database

screened)

no (only

one

database

screened)

yes yes no (only

one

database

screened)

yes yes no (only

one

database

screened)

yes yes

5 Study selection in

duplicate

not

reported

not

reported

not

reported

not

reported

not

reported

not reported yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes

6 Data extraction in

duplicate

not

reported

not

reported

not

reported

not

reported

not

reported

not reported yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes

7 List of excluded studies

and justification of the

exclusions

yes,

partial

yes,

partial

yes,

partial

yes,

partial

yes,

partial

yes, partial yes yes, partial yes, partial yes yes, partial yes, partial yes, partial yes, partial

8 Included studies described

in adequate detail

yes yes yes yes yes not

available


9 Technique for assessing

the risk of bias satisfactory


available

yes yes no yes yes yes yes yes



no no no no no not

available

yes no no yes no no no no

11 Appropriate methods for

meta-analysis

yes yes yes yes yes meta-

analysis not

performed

yes meta-

analysis

not

performed


12 Potential impact of risk of

bias results on meta-

analysis assessed

yes yes yes yes yes meta-

analysis not

performed

yes meta-

analysis

not

performed

no yes yes yes yes yes

13 Risk of bias results

accounted for in

discussion/conclusion


available

yes yes no yes yes yes yes yes

14 Satisfactory discussion

and explanation of

observed heterogeneity, if

any


available



publication bias

no no no no no no yes no no yes yes no yes no

16 Conflict of interest of

review authors and

funding received for

conducting the review

reported


Overall methodological

quality

low low low low low low high moderate low high high low moderate moderate

Question group 11: [18F]FDG PET/CT in decision-making for using radiotherapy for HL

Search strategy


(fluorodeoxyglucose)) AND ((radiotherapy) OR (radiation therapy)) AND ((systematic review) OR (meta-analysis))

Search results

Among 33 records retrieved, 5 were excluded because not in the field of interest and three systematic reviews (Shaikh 2020, Sickinger 2015, Sickinger 2016); three guidelines

(Mikhaeel 2019, Bröckelmann 2018, Herst 2017) and 22 recent primary studies on the role of [18F]FDG PET/CT in decision-making for using radiotherapy in HL were included.


n AMSTAR-2 criteria Shaikh 2020 Sickinger 2015 Sickinger 2016

1 Research questions and inclusion criteria include components of PICO yes yes yes


justified

no yes yes

3 Selection of study design explained yes yes yes

4 Comprehensive literature search strategy yes yes yes

5 Study selection in duplicate yes yes yes

6 Data extraction in duplicate yes yes yes

7 List of excluded studies and justification of the exclusions yes yes yes, partial

8 Included studies described in adequate detail yes yes yes

9 Technique for assessing the risk of bias satisfactory yes yes yes

10 Sources of funding for the primary studies reported no yes no

11 Appropriate methods for meta-analysis yes yes yes

12 Potential impact of risk of bias results on meta-analysis assessed yes yes yes

13 Risk of bias results accounted for in discussion/conclusion yes yes yes

14 Satisfactory discussion and explanation of observed heterogeneity, if any yes yes yes

15 Adequate investigation of publication bias yes yes yes

16 Conflict of interest of review authors and funding received for conducting the review reported yes yes yes

Overall methodological quality moderate high high

Question group 12: Ann Arbor classification in staging HL

Search strategy

Search string: ((lymphoma) OR (lymphomas) OR (lymphoproliferative) OR (Hodgkin)) AND AND ((Ann Arbor) OR (MTV) OR (TLG) OR (metabolic tumour volume) OR

(metabolic tumor volume) OR (total lesion glycolysis)) AND ((systematic review) OR (meta-analysis))

Search results

Among 1100 records retrieved, 1092 were excluded because not in the field of interest. We included one systematic review (Guo 2019), two consensus documents (Cheson 2014,

Barrington 2019) and 5 recent primary studies focused on the prognostic role of baseline PET parameters in HL.


n AMSTAR-2 criteria Guo 2019



justified

no





7 List of excluded studies and justification of the exclusions yes, partial


9 Technique for assessing the risk of bias satisfactory yes


11 Appropriate methods for meta-analysis yes

12 Potential impact of risk of bias results on meta-analysis assessed yes

13 Risk of bias results accounted for in discussion/conclusion yes

14 Satisfactory discussion and explanation of observed heterogeneity, if any yes

15 Adequate investigation of publication bias yes


Overall methodological quality moderate

Question group 13: Follow-up methods in HL

Search strategy

Search string: ((lymphoma) OR (lymphomas) OR (lymphoproliferative) OR (Hodgkin)) AND ((follow-up) OR (surveillance)) AND ((systematic review) OR (meta-analysis))

Search results

Among 870 records retrieved, 861 were excluded because not in the field of interest. We included one systematic review (Cohen 2017), four consensus or evidence-based guidelines

(Dührsen 2019, Rutherford 2019, Cheson 2014, Bröckelmann 2018) and four recent primary studies.





justified

no
















Question group 14: Follow-up methods in cases of suspected HL relapse

Search strategy

Search string: ((lymphoma) OR (lymphomas) OR (lymphoproliferative) OR (Hodgkin)) AND ((relapse) OR (restaging)) AND ((systematic review) OR (meta-analysis))

Search results

Among 870 records retrieved, 860 were excluded because not in the field of interest. We included one systematic review (Cohen 2017), four consensus or evidence-based guidelines

(Dührsen 2019, Rutherford 2019, Cheson 2014, Bröckelmann 2018) and five recent primary studies.





justified

no
















Track 3: Myeloma

Question group 15: Suspected active multiple Myeloma (MM) patients’ eligibility for staging using [18F]FDG PET/CT

Search strategy

Search string: ((myeloma) OR (plasmacytoma) OR (plasma cell)) AND ((PET) OR (positron emission tomography) OR (FDG) OR (fluorodeoxyglucose)) AND ((systematic

review) OR (meta-analysis))

Search results

Among 2172 records retrieved, 2136 were excluded because not in the field of interest. We included retrieved six systematic reviews (Caers 2014, Gariani 2018, Lu 2012, Regelink

2013, van Lammeren 2012, Weng 2014), four consensus documents or guidelines (Cavo 2017, Chantry 2017, Hillengass 2019, Mosebach 2019) and 26 recent primary studies

evaluating the role of [18F]FDG PET/CT in staging patients with active multiple myeloma were included.


n AMSTAR-2 criteria Caers 2014 Gariani 2018 Lu 2012 Regelink 2013 van Lammeren

2012

Weng 2014



components of PICO






no no no no no no


explained



search strategy


5 Study selection in duplicate not reported yes yes yes yes yes

6 Data extraction in duplicate not reported yes yes yes yes yes



no yes, partial yes, partial yes, partial yes, partial yes, partial


adequate detail







no no no no no no


analysis

yes meta-analysis

not performed

yes meta-analysis not

performed

meta-analysis not

performed

yes



assessed

no meta-analysis

not performed


performed

meta-analysis not

performed

yes









publication bias

no no no no no no




reported


Overall methodological quality low moderate moderate moderate moderate moderate

Question group 16: Suspected Smouldering Myeloma (SM) patient eligibility for [18F]FDG PET/CT

Search strategy

Search string: ((smouldering) OR (smoldering) OR (indolent) OR (asymptomatic)) AND ((myeloma) OR (plasmacytoma) OR (plasma cell)) AND ((PET) OR (positron emission

tomography) OR (FDG) OR (fluorodeoxyglucose)) AND ((systematic review) OR (meta-analysis))

Search results

Among 2172 records retrieved, 2163 were excluded because not in the field of interest. Two systematic reviews (Caers 2014, Gariani 2018), four consensus documents or guidelines

(Cavo 2017, Chantry 2017, Hillengass 2019, Mosebach 2019) and three recent primary studies evaluating the role of [18F]FDG PET/CT in suspicious smouldering myeloma were

included.


n AMSTAR-2 criteria Caers 2014 Gariani 2018



components of PICO

yes yes





no no


explained

yes yes


search strategy

yes yes

5 Study selection in duplicate not reported yes

6 Data extraction in duplicate not reported yes



no yes, partial


adequate detail

yes yes



no yes



no no


analysis

yes meta-analysis

not performed



assessed

no meta-analysis

not performed



no yes




no yes


publication bias

no no




reported

yes yes

Overall methodological quality low moderate

Question group 17: MGUS patient with eligibility for [18F]FDG PET/CT

Search strategy

Search string: ((monoclonal gammopathy) OR (MGUS)) AND ((PET) OR (positron emission tomography) OR (FDG) OR (fluorodeoxyglucose)) AND ((systematic review) OR

(meta-analysis))

Search results

Among 2172 records retrieved, 2163 were excluded because not in the field of interest. Five systematic reviews (Caers 2014, Gariani 2018, Regelink 2013, van Lammeren 2012,

Weng 2014), three evidence-based guidelines or consensus documents (Chantry 2017, Hillengass 2019, Mosebach 2019) and one recent primary study evaluating the role of

[18F]FDG PET/CT in MGUS were included.


n AMSTAR-2 criteria Caers 2014 Gariani 2018 Regelink 2013 van Lammeren

2012

Weng 2014



components of PICO

yes yes yes yes yes





no no no no no


explained

yes yes yes yes yes


search strategy

yes yes yes yes yes

5 Study selection in duplicate not reported yes yes yes yes

6 Data extraction in duplicate not reported yes yes yes yes



no yes, partial yes, partial yes, partial yes, partial


adequate detail

yes yes yes yes yes



no yes yes yes yes



no no no no no


analysis

yes meta-analysis

not performed

meta-analysis not

performed

meta-analysis not

performed

yes



assessed

no meta-analysis

not performed

meta-analysis not

performed

meta-analysis not

performed

yes



no yes yes yes yes




no yes yes yes yes


publication bias

no no no no no




reported

yes yes yes yes yes

Overall methodological quality low moderate moderate moderate moderate

Question group 18: Sequence of [18F]FDG PET/CT scans in patients with active MM

Search strategy

Search string: ((sequence) OR (timepoint)) AND ((myeloma) OR (plasmacytoma) OR (plasma cell)) AND ((PET) OR (positron emission tomography) OR (FDG) OR


Search results

Among 2172 records retrieved, 2168 were excluded because not in the field of interest. No systematic reviews were found but four evidence-based guidelines or consensus

documents evaluating the sequence of [18F]FDG PET/CT in myeloma were included (Cavo 2017, Chantry 2017, Hillengass 2019, Mosebach 2019).

Question group 19: Staging outcomes reporting for Active MM patients

Search strategy

Search string: ((report*) OR (interpretation)) AND ((myeloma) OR (plasmacytoma) OR (plasma cell)) AND ((PET) OR (positron emission tomography) OR (FDG) OR


Search results

Among 2172 records retrieved, 2163 were excluded because not in the field of interest. No systematic reviews were found; four evidence-based articles guidelines or consensus

documents (Cavo 2017, Chantry 2017, Hillengass 2019, Mosebach 2019) and five recent primary studies that evaluated the [18F]FDG PET/CT reporting for multiple myeloma at

staging were included.

Question group 20: Outcome reporting for MM patients during or after therapy

Search strategy



Search results

Among 2172 records retrieved, 2156 were excluded because not in the field of interest. No systematic reviews were found; six evidence-base guidelines or consensus documents

(Cavo 2017, Chantry 2017, Hillengass 2019, Kumar 2016, Mosebach 2019, Nanni 2017) and ten recent primary studies evaluating the PET/CT reporting for multiple myeloma

during or after therapy were included.

Question group 21: Suspected SPB (Solitary Plasmacytoma of the bone) patient eligibility criteria to undergo [18F]FDG PET/CT

Search strategy

Search string: ((plasmacytoma) OR (plasmacytomas)) AND ((PET) OR (positron emission tomography) OR (FDG) OR (fluorodeoxyglucose)) AND ((systematic review) OR

(meta-analysis))

Search results

Among 2172 records retrieved, 2161 were excluded because not in the field of interest. Four systematic reviews (Caers 2014, Regelink 2013, van Lammeren 2012, Weng 2014),

four evidence-based guidelines or consensus documents (Caers 2018, Cavo 2017, Chantry 2017, Hillengass 2019) and three recent primary studies that evaluated the eligibility

criteria for patients with solitary plasmacytoma of the bone to undergo [18F]FDG PET/CT were included.


n AMSTAR-2 criteria Caers 2014 Regelink 2013 van Lammeren

2012

Weng 2014



components of PICO

yes yes yes yes





no no no no


explained

yes yes yes yes


search strategy

yes yes yes yes

5 Study selection in duplicate not reported yes yes yes

6 Data extraction in duplicate not reported yes yes yes



no yes, partial yes, partial yes, partial


adequate detail

yes yes yes yes



no yes yes yes



no no no no


analysis


performed

meta-analysis not

performed

yes



assessed

no meta-analysis not

performed

meta-analysis not

performed

yes



no yes yes yes




no yes yes yes


publication bias

no no no no




reported

yes yes yes yes

Overall methodological quality low moderate moderate moderate

Question group 22: Active MM patient eligibility criteria for PET imaging with [18F]F/[11C]C-Choline or [11C]C-Methionine for staging active MM

Search strategy

Search string: ((myeloma) OR (plasmacytoma) OR (plasma cell)) AND ((PET) OR (positron emission tomography)) AND ((choline) OR (methionine)) AND ((systematic review)

OR (meta-analysis))

Search results

Among 2172 records retrieved, 2158 were excluded because not in the field of interest. No useful records were found; two consensus documents (Cavo 2017, Hillengass 2019) and

12 recent primary studies that evaluated multiple myeloma patient eligibility for PET imaging with [18F]F/[11C]C-Choline or [11C]C-Methionine were included.

Question group 23: The PET Field of View in the context of MM affecting the skeleton and extramedullary sites

Search strategy

Search string: ((field of view) OR (FOV)) AND ((myeloma) OR (plasmacytoma) OR (plasma cell)) AND ((PET) OR (positron emission tomography)) AND ((systematic review)

OR (meta-analysis))

Search results

Among 2172 records retrieved, 2169 were excluded because not in the field of interest. No systematic reviews were found; two consensus documents (Cavo 2017, Hillengass 2019)

and one primary study that evaluated the PET field of view in the context of multiple myeloma were included.

Question group 24: Diffuse BM (Bone Marrow) uptake pathology reporting

Search strategy

Search string: (bone marrow) AND (diffuse) AND ((myeloma) OR (plasmacytoma) OR (plasma cell)) AND ((PET) OR (positron emission tomography) OR (FDG) OR


Search results

Among 2172 records retrieved, 2160 were excluded because not in the field of interest. No systematic reviews were found; four guidelines or consensus documents (Cavo 2017,

Chantry 2017, Hillengass 2019, Mosebach 2019) and eight recent primary studies that evaluated diffuse bone marrow uptake reporting in MM patients were included.

Question group 25: Measurement of MTV (Metabolic Tumour Volume) and TLG (Total Lesion Glycolysis) with [18F]FDG PET/CT in MM patients

Search strategy

Search string: ((MTV) OR (TLG) OR (metabolic tumour volume) OR (metabolic tumor volume) OR (total lesion glycolysis)) AND ((myeloma) OR (plasmacytoma) OR (plasma

cell)) AND ((PET) OR (positron emission tomography) OR (FDG) OR (fluorodeoxyglucose)) AND ((systematic review) OR (meta-analysis))

Search results

Among 2172 records retrieved, 2163 were excluded because not in the field of interest. No systematic reviews were found. Two consensus documents (Cavo 2017, Barrington

2019) and seven recent primary studies that evaluated MTV and TLG with [18F]FDG PET/CT in MM patients were included.

Question group 26: Definitions of complete normalization of [18F]FDG PET/CT in MM at the end of therapy

Search strategy



Search results

Among 2172 records retrieved, 2157 were excluded because not in the field of interest. No systematic reviews were found. Six consensus documents (Cavo 2017, Chantry 2017,

Hillengass 2019, Kumar 2016, Mosebach 2019, Nanni 2017) and nine recent primary studies that evaluated the complete normalization of [18F]FDG PET/CT in MM at the end of

therapy were included.

Track 4: Therapies in haematological malignancies

Question group 27: [68Ga]Ga-CXCR-4 imaging in active MM

Search strategy

Search string: ((myeloma) OR (plasmacytoma) OR (plasma cell)) AND ((CXCR-4) OR (CXCR4) OR (Pentixafor) OR (chemokine)) AND ((PET) OR (positron emission

tomography)) AND ((systematic review) OR (meta-analysis))

Search results

Among 45 records retrieved, 39 were excluded because not in the field of interest. No systematic reviews were found. One consensus document (Cavo 2017) and five recent primary

studies on the role of [68Ga]Ga-CXCR-4 imaging in active myeloma were included.

Question group 28: The role of [90Y]Y- ibritumomab tiuxetan (ZEVALIN) and [177Lu]Lu-lilotomab satetraxetan in lymphoma therapy

Search strategy

Search string: ((ibritumomab) OR (zevalin) OR (lilotomab) OR (betalutin) OR (radioimmunotherapy)) AND ((lymphoma) OR (lymphomas) OR (lymphoproliferative)) AND


Search results

Among 1490 records retrieved, 1448 were excluded because not in the field of interest. Four systematic reviews (Beygi 2018, Colosia 2014, Auger-Quittet 2014, Rose 2012) and

38 recent primary studies that evaluated [90Y]Y-ibritumomab tiuxetan or [177Lu]Lu-lilotomab satetraxetan in lymphoma patients were included.


n AMSTAR-2 criteria Auger-Quittet

2014

Beygi 2018 Colosia 2014 Rose 2012



components of PICO

yes yes yes yes





no no no no


explained

yes yes yes yes


search strategy

yes yes yes yes

5 Study selection in duplicate yes yes yes yes

6 Data extraction in duplicate yes yes yes yes



yes, partial yes, partial yes, partial yes, partial


adequate detail

yes yes yes yes



yes no yes yes



no no no no


analysis


performed

yes yes



assessed


performed

yes yes



yes no yes yes




yes no yes yes


publication bias

yes no no yes




reported

yes yes yes yes

Overall methodological quality moderate low moderate moderate

Question group 29: Evaluation of HL patients under immunotherapy with [18F]FDG PET/CT

Search strategy

Search string: ((lymphoma) OR (lymphomas) OR (lymphoproliferative) OR (Hodgkin)) AND (immunotherapy) AND ((PET) OR (positron emission tomography)) AND


Search results

Among 270 records retrieved, 265 were excluded because not in the field of interest. No systematic reviews were found; two evidence-based articles or consensus documents (Lopci

2020, Younes 2017) and three recent primary studies that evaluated HL patients under immunotherapy with [18F]FDG PET/CT were included.

Track 5: New Targets for therapy and diagnosis

Question group 30: New imaging targets, radiomics, artificial intelligence, machine learning and standardisation of PET/CT

Search strategy

Search string: ((lymphoma) OR (lymphomas) OR (lymphoproliferative) OR (myeloma)) AND ((radiomics) OR (radiomic) OR (artificial intelligence) OR (machine learning) OR

(texture) OR (standardisation) OR (standardization)) AND ((PET) OR (positron emission tomography)) AND ((systematic review) OR (meta-analysis))

Search results

Among 1590 records retrieved, 1545 were excluded because not in the field of interest. We included 43 recent primary studies on the role of radiomics, artificial intelligence,

machine learning and standardisation of PET/CT in patients with lymphoma or myeloma. One evidence-based article on new targets for PET imaging (Verhoeff 2020) and one

consensus document on standardisation of PET/CT (Barrington 2019) were also included.

Question group 31: The possible role of [68Ga]Ga-FAPI PET/CT in lymphoma patients once more evidence becomes available

Search strategy

Search string: ((lymphoma) OR (lymphomas) OR (lymphoproliferative) OR (myeloma)) AND (FAPI) AND ((PET) OR (positron emission tomography)) AND ((systematic review)

OR (meta-analysis))

Search results

One recent primary study was retrieved and included even if not focused on the role of [68Ga]Ga-FAPI PET/CT in lymphoma patients.

Question group 32: The role for [18F]F-Fluciclovine PET/CT in lymphoma patients

Search strategy

Search string: ((lymphoma) OR (lymphomas) OR (lymphoproliferative) OR (myeloma)) AND ((fluciclovine) OR (FACBC)) AND ((PET) OR (positron emission tomography))

AND ((systematic review) OR (meta-analysis))

Search results

One recent primary study was retrieved and included even if not focused on the role for [18F]F-Fluciclovine PET/CT in lymphoma patients.

Documents

Literature search Search strategy (general) Study selection ......Literature search For each group of questions, a different search strategy was used, but the study selection strategy