literature search search strategy (general) study selection ......literature search for each group...
TRANSCRIPT
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 If out of date systematic reviews were found,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
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
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
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
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
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
14 Satisfactory discussion and
explanation of observed
heterogeneity, if any
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
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
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
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
3 Selection of study design
explained
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
4 Comprehensive literature search
strategy
no (only one
database screened)
yes yes yes yes yes yes
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
7 List of excluded studies and
justification of the exclusions
yes, partial yes, partial yes, partial yes, partial yes, partial yes, partial yes, partial
8 Included studies described in
adequate detail
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
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
11 Appropriate methods for meta-
analysis
meta-analysis not
performed
yes yes yes yes yes yes
12 Potential impact of risk of bias
results on meta-analysis assessed
meta-analysis not
performed
yes yes yes yes yes yes
13 Risk of bias results accounted for
in discussion/conclusion
no yes yes yes yes yes yes
14 Satisfactory discussion and
explanation of observed
heterogeneity, if any
no yes yes yes yes yes yes
15 Adequate investigation of
publication bias
no no yes yes yes no no
16 Conflict of interest of review
authors and funding received for
conducting the review reported
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
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.
Quality assessment of the included systematic reviews
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 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, 53 were excluded because not in the field of interest and 35 articles (24 evidence-based articles and 11 primary studies) were included. We included
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.
Quality assessment of the included systematic reviews
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
3 Selection of study design
explained
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
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
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
8 Included studies described in
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
11 Appropriate methods for meta-
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
12 Potential impact of risk of bias
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
yes yes yes yes yes not available yes yes yes
14 Satisfactory discussion and
explanation of observed
heterogeneity, if any
yes yes yes yes yes not available yes yes yes
15 Adequate investigation of
publication bias
no no no no no no no no no
16 Conflict of interest of review
authors and funding received
for conducting the review
reported
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
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
1 Research questions and
inclusion criteria include
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
3 Selection of study design
explained
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
4 Comprehensive literature
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
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
6 Data extraction in
duplicate
yes yes 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, partial yes, partial yes, partial yes, partial yes, partial
8 Included studies described
in adequate detail
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
9 Technique for assessing
the risk of bias satisfactory
yes yes yes no yes yes yes yes yes yes no
10 Sources of funding for the
primary studies reported
no no no no no no no no no no no
11 Appropriate methods for
meta-analysis
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
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
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
15 Adequate investigation of
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
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
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
Search string: ((lymphoma) OR (lymphomas) OR (lymphoproliferative) OR (NHL)) AND ((PET) OR (positron emission tomography) OR (FDG) OR (fluorodeoxyglucose)) AND
((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
Among 1100 records retrieved, 1065 were excluded because not in the field of interest and 35 articles (3 evidence-based articles and 32 primary studies) were included. We included
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.
Quality assessment of the included systematic reviews
n AMSTAR-2 criteria Guo 2019
1 Research questions and inclusion criteria include components of PICO yes
2 Review methods established prior to the conduct of the review (protocol) and deviations
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
Among 870 records retrieved, 862 were excluded because not in the field of interest and 8 articles (6 evidence-based articles and 2 primary studies) were included. We included
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.
Quality assessment of the included systematic reviews
n AMSTAR-2 criteria Cohen 2017
1 Research questions and inclusion criteria include components of PICO yes
2 Review methods established prior to the conduct of the review (protocol) and deviations
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 no
8 Included studies described in adequate detail yes
9 Technique for assessing the risk of bias satisfactory no
10 Sources of funding for the primary studies reported 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
16 Conflict of interest of review authors and funding received for conducting the review reported yes
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
Among 870 records retrieved, 862 were excluded because not in the field of interest and 8 articles (6 evidence-based articles and 2 primary studies) were included. We included
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.
Quality assessment of the included systematic reviews
n AMSTAR-2 criteria Cohen 2017
1 Research questions and inclusion criteria include components of PICO yes
2 Review methods established prior to the conduct of the review (protocol) and deviations
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 no
8 Included studies described in adequate detail yes
9 Technique for assessing the risk of bias satisfactory no
10 Sources of funding for the primary studies reported 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
16 Conflict of interest of review authors and funding received for conducting the review reported yes
Overall methodological quality low
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.
Quality assessment of the included systematic reviews
n AMSTAR-2 criteria Adams 2014 Cheng 2013 Wang 2018
1 Research questions and inclusion criteria include components of PICO yes yes yes
2 Review methods established prior to the conduct of the review (protocol) and deviations
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 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, 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.
Quality assessment of the included systematic reviews
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
1 Research questions and
inclusion criteria include
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
3 Selection of study design
explained
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
4 Comprehensive literature
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
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
9 Technique for assessing
the risk of bias satisfactory
yes yes yes yes yes not
available
yes yes no yes yes yes yes yes
10 Sources of funding for the
primary studies reported
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
yes yes yes yes yes yes
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
yes yes yes yes yes not
available
yes yes no yes yes yes yes yes
14 Satisfactory discussion
and explanation of
observed heterogeneity, if
any
yes yes yes yes yes not
available
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
15 Adequate investigation of
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
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
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
Search string: ((lymphoma) OR (lymphomas) OR (lymphoproliferative) OR (HL) OR (Hodgkin)) AND ((PET) OR (positron emission tomography) OR (FDG) OR
(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.
Quality assessment of the included systematic reviews
n AMSTAR-2 criteria Shaikh 2020 Sickinger 2015 Sickinger 2016
1 Research questions and inclusion criteria include components of PICO yes yes yes
2 Review methods established prior to the conduct of the review (protocol) and deviations
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.
Quality assessment of the included systematic reviews
n AMSTAR-2 criteria Guo 2019
1 Research questions and inclusion criteria include components of PICO yes
2 Review methods established prior to the conduct of the review (protocol) and deviations
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 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.
Quality assessment of the included systematic reviews
n AMSTAR-2 criteria Cohen 2017
1 Research questions and inclusion criteria include components of PICO yes
2 Review methods established prior to the conduct of the review (protocol) and deviations
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 no
8 Included studies described in adequate detail yes
9 Technique for assessing the risk of bias satisfactory no
10 Sources of funding for the primary studies reported 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
16 Conflict of interest of review authors and funding received for conducting the review reported yes
Overall methodological quality low
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.
Quality assessment of the included systematic reviews
n AMSTAR-2 criteria Cohen 2017
1 Research questions and inclusion criteria include components of PICO yes
2 Review methods established prior to the conduct of the review (protocol) and deviations
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 no
8 Included studies described in adequate detail yes
9 Technique for assessing the risk of bias satisfactory no
10 Sources of funding for the primary studies reported 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
16 Conflict of interest of review authors and funding received for conducting the review reported yes
Overall methodological quality low
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.
Quality assessment of the included systematic reviews
n AMSTAR-2 criteria Caers 2014 Gariani 2018 Lu 2012 Regelink 2013 van Lammeren
2012
Weng 2014
1 Research questions and
inclusion criteria include
components of PICO
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
3 Selection of study design
explained
yes yes yes yes yes yes
4 Comprehensive literature
search strategy
yes yes yes yes yes yes
5 Study selection in duplicate not reported yes yes yes yes yes
6 Data extraction in duplicate not reported yes yes yes yes yes
7 List of excluded studies and
justification of the exclusions
no yes, partial yes, partial yes, partial yes, partial yes, partial
8 Included studies described in
adequate detail
yes yes yes yes yes yes
9 Technique for assessing the
risk of bias satisfactory
no yes yes yes yes yes
10 Sources of funding for the
primary studies reported
no no no no no no
11 Appropriate methods for meta-
analysis
yes meta-analysis
not performed
yes meta-analysis not
performed
meta-analysis not
performed
yes
12 Potential impact of risk of bias
results on meta-analysis
assessed
no meta-analysis
not performed
yes meta-analysis not
performed
meta-analysis not
performed
yes
13 Risk of bias results accounted
for in discussion/conclusion
no yes yes yes yes yes
14 Satisfactory discussion and
explanation of observed
heterogeneity, if any
no yes yes yes yes yes
15 Adequate investigation of
publication bias
no no no no no no
16 Conflict of interest of review
authors and funding received
for conducting the review
reported
yes yes yes yes yes yes
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.
Quality assessment of the included systematic reviews
n AMSTAR-2 criteria Caers 2014 Gariani 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
yes yes
5 Study selection in duplicate not reported yes
6 Data extraction in duplicate not reported yes
7 List of excluded studies and
justification of the exclusions
no 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
yes meta-analysis
not performed
12 Potential impact of risk of bias
results on meta-analysis
assessed
no meta-analysis
not performed
13 Risk of bias results accounted
for in discussion/conclusion
no yes
14 Satisfactory discussion and
explanation of observed
heterogeneity, if any
no yes
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 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.
Quality assessment of the included systematic reviews
n AMSTAR-2 criteria Caers 2014 Gariani 2018 Regelink 2013 van Lammeren
2012
Weng 2014
1 Research questions and
inclusion criteria include
components of PICO
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
3 Selection of study design
explained
yes yes yes yes yes
4 Comprehensive literature
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
7 List of excluded studies and
justification of the exclusions
no yes, partial yes, partial yes, partial yes, partial
8 Included studies described in
adequate detail
yes yes yes yes yes
9 Technique for assessing the
risk of bias satisfactory
no yes yes yes yes
10 Sources of funding for the
primary studies reported
no no no no no
11 Appropriate methods for meta-
analysis
yes meta-analysis
not performed
meta-analysis not
performed
meta-analysis not
performed
yes
12 Potential impact of risk of bias
results on meta-analysis
assessed
no meta-analysis
not performed
meta-analysis not
performed
meta-analysis not
performed
yes
13 Risk of bias results accounted
for in discussion/conclusion
no yes yes yes yes
14 Satisfactory discussion and
explanation of observed
heterogeneity, if any
no yes yes yes yes
15 Adequate investigation of
publication bias
no no no no no
16 Conflict of interest of review
authors and funding received
for conducting the review
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
(fluorodeoxyglucose)) AND ((systematic review) OR (meta-analysis))
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
(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; 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 string: ((report*) OR (interpretation)) 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, 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.
Quality assessment of the included systematic reviews
n AMSTAR-2 criteria Caers 2014 Regelink 2013 van Lammeren
2012
Weng 2014
1 Research questions and
inclusion criteria include
components of PICO
yes yes yes yes
2 Review methods established
prior to the conduct of the
review (protocol) and
deviations justified
no no no no
3 Selection of study design
explained
yes yes yes yes
4 Comprehensive literature
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
7 List of excluded studies and
justification of the exclusions
no yes, partial yes, partial yes, partial
8 Included studies described in
adequate detail
yes yes yes yes
9 Technique for assessing the
risk of bias satisfactory
no yes yes yes
10 Sources of funding for the
primary studies reported
no no no no
11 Appropriate methods for meta-
analysis
yes meta-analysis not
performed
meta-analysis not
performed
yes
12 Potential impact of risk of bias
results on meta-analysis
assessed
no meta-analysis not
performed
meta-analysis not
performed
yes
13 Risk of bias results accounted
for in discussion/conclusion
no yes yes yes
14 Satisfactory discussion and
explanation of observed
heterogeneity, if any
no yes yes yes
15 Adequate investigation of
publication bias
no no no no
16 Conflict of interest of review
authors and funding received
for conducting the review
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
(fluorodeoxyglucose)) AND ((systematic review) OR (meta-analysis))
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 string: ((report*) OR (interpretation)) 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, 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
((systematic review) OR (meta-analysis))
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.
Quality assessment of the included systematic reviews
n AMSTAR-2 criteria Auger-Quittet
2014
Beygi 2018 Colosia 2014 Rose 2012
1 Research questions and
inclusion criteria include
components of PICO
yes yes yes yes
2 Review methods established
prior to the conduct of the
review (protocol) and
deviations justified
no no no no
3 Selection of study design
explained
yes yes yes yes
4 Comprehensive literature
search strategy
yes yes yes yes
5 Study selection in duplicate yes yes yes yes
6 Data extraction in duplicate yes yes yes yes
7 List of excluded studies and
justification of the exclusions
yes, partial yes, partial yes, partial yes, partial
8 Included studies described in
adequate detail
yes yes yes yes
9 Technique for assessing the
risk of bias satisfactory
yes no yes yes
10 Sources of funding for the
primary studies reported
no no no no
11 Appropriate methods for meta-
analysis
yes meta-analysis not
performed
yes yes
12 Potential impact of risk of bias
results on meta-analysis
assessed
yes meta-analysis not
performed
yes yes
13 Risk of bias results accounted
for in discussion/conclusion
yes no yes yes
14 Satisfactory discussion and
explanation of observed
heterogeneity, if any
yes no yes yes
15 Adequate investigation of
publication bias
yes no no yes
16 Conflict of interest of review
authors and funding received
for conducting the review
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
((systematic review) OR (meta-analysis))
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.