Trial Outcomes & Findings for B-CD30 + Hodgkin Lymphoma International Multi-center Retrospective Study of Treatment Practices and Outcomes (NCT NCT03327571)

Last Updated: 2021-06-25

Results Overview

PFS was defined as time from initiation of frontline regimen to first documentation of relapse or disease progression or death, censored at date of most recent follow-up/contact. Progressive disease (PD) was defined as any new lesion or increase by \>=50% of previously involved site from nadir, and was evaluated based on International Working Group (IWG) criteria (Cheson et al 2007). Median PFS was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method.

Recruitment status

COMPLETED

Target enrollment

1770 participants

Primary outcome timeframe

From initiation of first treatment until first documentation of relapse/PD/until date of death (or date when participant was last alive), whichever occurred first (observed retrospectively from 2010 until date of data collection [up to 9 years 10 months])

Results posted on

2021-06-25

Participant Flow

Data abstraction took place in Argentina, Australia, China, Colombia, Hong Kong, Mexico, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Province Of China, Turkey, Singapore and Republic of Korea from 21 November 2017 to 31 October 2019. Participants diagnosed with high-risk stage IIb-IV classical Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL) (Group 1) or with relapsed/refractory classical Hodgkin lymphoma (RRHL) (Group 2) between 2010 and 2013 were observed in this study.

1770 participants were enrolled in this study, of which, 1703 were eligible for analysis set of the study. Out of 1703 participants, 1598 participants were eligible and enrolled in Group 1 (cHL) and further, 426 participants were eligible and enrolled in Group 2 (RRHL). Out of 426 participants in Group 2, 321 participants who were diagnosed with CHL, and subsequently RRHL between 2010 and 2013 were common in Group 1 and 2.

Participant milestones

Participant milestones
Measure	Group 1: cHL Participants diagnosed with high-risk stage IIb-IV cHL between 01 January 2010 and 31 December 2013, who received frontline treatment with chemotherapy with or without radiotherapy, and participants who were diagnosed with high-risk stage IIb-IV cHL and then were subsequently diagnosed with RRHL between 2010 and 2013 were observed retrospectively until the date of death or data collection, whichever occurred first.	Group 2: RRHL Participants diagnosed with RRHL between 01 January 2010 and 31 December 2013, and participants who were diagnosed with high-risk stage IIb-IV cHL and then were subsequently diagnosed with RRHL between 2010 and 2013 were observed retrospectively until the date of death or data collection, whichever occurred first.
Group 1: cHL STARTED	1598	0
Group 1: cHL COMPLETED	1598	0
Group 1: cHL NOT COMPLETED	0	0
Group 2: RRHL STARTED	0	426
Group 2: RRHL Participants Were Counted in Both Groups	0	321
Group 2: RRHL COMPLETED	0	426
Group 2: RRHL NOT COMPLETED	0	0

Reasons for withdrawal

Withdrawal data not reported

Baseline Characteristics

B-CD30 + Hodgkin Lymphoma International Multi-center Retrospective Study of Treatment Practices and Outcomes

Baseline characteristics by cohort

Baseline characteristics by cohort
Measure	Group 1: cHL n=1598 Participants Participants diagnosed with high-risk stage IIb-IV cHL between 01 January 2010 and 31 December 2013, who received frontline treatment with chemotherapy with or without radiotherapy, and participants who were diagnosed with high-risk stage IIb-IV cHL and then were subsequently diagnosed with RRHL between 2010 and 2013 were observed retrospectively until the date of death or data collection, whichever occurred first.	Group 2: RRHL n=105 Participants Participants diagnosed with RRHL between 01 January 2010 and 31 December 2013, and participants who were diagnosed with high-risk stage IIb-IV cHL and then were subsequently diagnosed with RRHL between 2010 and 2013 were observed retrospectively until the date of death or data collection, whichever occurred first.	Total n=1703 Participants Total of all reporting groups
Age, Customized Less than (<) 60 years	1382 Participants n=5 Participants	94 Participants n=7 Participants	1476 Participants n=5 Participants
Age, Customized Greater than or equal to (>=) 60 years	216 Participants n=5 Participants	11 Participants n=7 Participants	227 Participants n=5 Participants
Sex: Female, Male Female	719 Participants n=5 Participants	41 Participants n=7 Participants	760 Participants n=5 Participants
Sex: Female, Male Male	879 Participants n=5 Participants	64 Participants n=7 Participants	943 Participants n=5 Participants
Race/Ethnicity, Customized Black or African American	62 Participants n=5 Participants	2 Participants n=7 Participants	64 Participants n=5 Participants
Race/Ethnicity, Customized American Indian or Alaska Native	22 Participants n=5 Participants	0 Participants n=7 Participants	22 Participants n=5 Participants
Race/Ethnicity, Customized Asian	560 Participants n=5 Participants	29 Participants n=7 Participants	589 Participants n=5 Participants
Race/Ethnicity, Customized White or Caucasian	525 Participants n=5 Participants	57 Participants n=7 Participants	582 Participants n=5 Participants
Race/Ethnicity, Customized Not Reported	197 Participants n=5 Participants	12 Participants n=7 Participants	209 Participants n=5 Participants
Race/Ethnicity, Customized Other	232 Participants n=5 Participants	5 Participants n=7 Participants	237 Participants n=5 Participants

PRIMARY outcome

Timeframe: From initiation of first treatment until first documentation of relapse/PD/until date of death (or date when participant was last alive), whichever occurred first (observed retrospectively from 2010 until date of data collection [up to 9 years 10 months])

Population: The FAS included all participants who were eligible for RRHL group including the common participants in both the groups.

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure	Group 2: RRHL n=426 Participants Participants diagnosed with RRHL between 01 January 2010 and 31 December 2013, and participants who were diagnosed with high-risk stage IIb-IV cHL and then were subsequently diagnosed with RRHL between 2010 and 2013 were observed retrospectively until the date of death or data collection, whichever occurred first.	Group 2: RRHL Participants diagnosed with RRHL between 01 January 2010 and 31 December 2013, and participants who were diagnosed with high-risk stage IIb-IV cHL and then were subsequently diagnosed with RRHL between 2010 and 2013 were observed retrospectively until the date of death or data collection, whichever occurred first.
Group 2, RRHL: Progression Free Survival (PFS)	13.17 months Interval 9.92 to 20.17	—

SECONDARY outcome

Timeframe: Day 1 at cHL diagnosis

Population: The FAS included all participants who were eligible for cHL group including the common participants in both the groups.

The Ann Arbor staging system of lymphomas is used to summarize the extent of the cancer's spread. Stages are classified by Roman numerals I (lessspread) to IV (more spread). Additional sub staging variables include: A, asymptomatic; and B, presence of B symptoms (including fever, night sweats and weight loss of \>=10 percent \[%\] of body weight over 6 months).

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure	Group 2: RRHL n=1598 Participants Participants diagnosed with RRHL between 01 January 2010 and 31 December 2013, and participants who were diagnosed with high-risk stage IIb-IV cHL and then were subsequently diagnosed with RRHL between 2010 and 2013 were observed retrospectively until the date of death or data collection, whichever occurred first.	Group 2: RRHL Participants diagnosed with RRHL between 01 January 2010 and 31 December 2013, and participants who were diagnosed with high-risk stage IIb-IV cHL and then were subsequently diagnosed with RRHL between 2010 and 2013 were observed retrospectively until the date of death or data collection, whichever occurred first.
Group 1, cHL: Number of Participants Based on Clinical Staging According to Ann Arbor Staging at Diagnosis Stage I-A	0 Participants	—
Group 1, cHL: Number of Participants Based on Clinical Staging According to Ann Arbor Staging at Diagnosis Stage I-B	0 Participants	—
Group 1, cHL: Number of Participants Based on Clinical Staging According to Ann Arbor Staging at Diagnosis Stage II-A	0 Participants	—
Group 1, cHL: Number of Participants Based on Clinical Staging According to Ann Arbor Staging at Diagnosis Stage II-B	441 Participants	—
Group 1, cHL: Number of Participants Based on Clinical Staging According to Ann Arbor Staging at Diagnosis Stage III-A	207 Participants	—
Group 1, cHL: Number of Participants Based on Clinical Staging According to Ann Arbor Staging at Diagnosis Stage III-B	356 Participants	—
Group 1, cHL: Number of Participants Based on Clinical Staging According to Ann Arbor Staging at Diagnosis Stage IV-A	161 Participants	—
Group 1, cHL: Number of Participants Based on Clinical Staging According to Ann Arbor Staging at Diagnosis Stage IV-B	433 Participants	—
Group 1, cHL: Number of Participants Based on Clinical Staging According to Ann Arbor Staging at Diagnosis Stage unknown	0 Participants	—

SECONDARY outcome

Timeframe: Day 1 at RRHL diagnosis

Population: The FAS included all participants who were eligible for RRHL group including the common participants in both the groups.

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure	Group 2: RRHL n=426 Participants Participants diagnosed with RRHL between 01 January 2010 and 31 December 2013, and participants who were diagnosed with high-risk stage IIb-IV cHL and then were subsequently diagnosed with RRHL between 2010 and 2013 were observed retrospectively until the date of death or data collection, whichever occurred first.	Group 2: RRHL Participants diagnosed with RRHL between 01 January 2010 and 31 December 2013, and participants who were diagnosed with high-risk stage IIb-IV cHL and then were subsequently diagnosed with RRHL between 2010 and 2013 were observed retrospectively until the date of death or data collection, whichever occurred first.
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants Based on Clinical Staging According to Ann Arbor Staging at Diagnosis Stage II-A	24 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants Based on Clinical Staging According to Ann Arbor Staging at Diagnosis Stage I-A	7 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants Based on Clinical Staging According to Ann Arbor Staging at Diagnosis Stage I-B	2 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants Based on Clinical Staging According to Ann Arbor Staging at Diagnosis Stage II-B	61 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants Based on Clinical Staging According to Ann Arbor Staging at Diagnosis Stage III-A	52 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants Based on Clinical Staging According to Ann Arbor Staging at Diagnosis Stage III-B	78 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants Based on Clinical Staging According to Ann Arbor Staging at Diagnosis Stage IV-A	53 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants Based on Clinical Staging According to Ann Arbor Staging at Diagnosis Stage IV-B	107 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants Based on Clinical Staging According to Ann Arbor Staging at Diagnosis Stage unknown	42 Participants	—

SECONDARY outcome

Timeframe: At second, third, fourth, and fifth relapse (up to 9 years 10 months)

The Ann Arbor staging system of lymphomas is used to summarize the extent of the cancer's spread. Stages are classified by Roman numerals I (less spread) to IV (more spread). Additional sub staging variables include: A, asymptomatic; and B, presence of B symptoms (including fever, night sweats and weight loss of \>=10% of body weight over 6 months).

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure	Group 2: RRHL n=79 Participants Participants diagnosed with RRHL between 01 January 2010 and 31 December 2013, and participants who were diagnosed with high-risk stage IIb-IV cHL and then were subsequently diagnosed with RRHL between 2010 and 2013 were observed retrospectively until the date of death or data collection, whichever occurred first.	Group 2: RRHL Participants diagnosed with RRHL between 01 January 2010 and 31 December 2013, and participants who were diagnosed with high-risk stage IIb-IV cHL and then were subsequently diagnosed with RRHL between 2010 and 2013 were observed retrospectively until the date of death or data collection, whichever occurred first.
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants Based on Clinical Staging According to Ann Arbor Staging at Relapse After First Relapse or Refractory Diagnosis Clinical stage at 5th relapse · Stage III-B	0 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants Based on Clinical Staging According to Ann Arbor Staging at Relapse After First Relapse or Refractory Diagnosis Clinical stage at 2nd relapse · Stage I-A	1 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants Based on Clinical Staging According to Ann Arbor Staging at Relapse After First Relapse or Refractory Diagnosis Clinical stage at 2nd relapse · Stage I-B	0 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants Based on Clinical Staging According to Ann Arbor Staging at Relapse After First Relapse or Refractory Diagnosis Clinical stage at 2nd relapse · Stage II-A	6 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants Based on Clinical Staging According to Ann Arbor Staging at Relapse After First Relapse or Refractory Diagnosis Clinical stage at 2nd relapse · Stage II-B	9 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants Based on Clinical Staging According to Ann Arbor Staging at Relapse After First Relapse or Refractory Diagnosis Clinical stage at 2nd relapse · Stage III-A	9 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants Based on Clinical Staging According to Ann Arbor Staging at Relapse After First Relapse or Refractory Diagnosis Clinical stage at 2nd relapse · Stage III-B	15 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants Based on Clinical Staging According to Ann Arbor Staging at Relapse After First Relapse or Refractory Diagnosis Clinical stage at 2nd relapse · Stage IV-A	9 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants Based on Clinical Staging According to Ann Arbor Staging at Relapse After First Relapse or Refractory Diagnosis Clinical stage at 2nd relapse · Stage IV-B	14 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants Based on Clinical Staging According to Ann Arbor Staging at Relapse After First Relapse or Refractory Diagnosis Clinical stage at 2nd relapse · Stage unknown	16 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants Based on Clinical Staging According to Ann Arbor Staging at Relapse After First Relapse or Refractory Diagnosis Clinical stage at 3rd relapse · Stage I-A	0 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants Based on Clinical Staging According to Ann Arbor Staging at Relapse After First Relapse or Refractory Diagnosis Clinical stage at 3rd relapse · Stage I-B	0 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants Based on Clinical Staging According to Ann Arbor Staging at Relapse After First Relapse or Refractory Diagnosis Clinical stage at 3rd relapse · Stage II-A	2 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants Based on Clinical Staging According to Ann Arbor Staging at Relapse After First Relapse or Refractory Diagnosis Clinical stage at 3rd relapse · Stage II-B	4 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants Based on Clinical Staging According to Ann Arbor Staging at Relapse After First Relapse or Refractory Diagnosis Clinical stage at 3rd relapse · Stage III-A	2 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants Based on Clinical Staging According to Ann Arbor Staging at Relapse After First Relapse or Refractory Diagnosis Clinical stage at 3rd relapse · Stage III-B	4 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants Based on Clinical Staging According to Ann Arbor Staging at Relapse After First Relapse or Refractory Diagnosis Clinical stage at 3rd relapse · Stage IV-A	1 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants Based on Clinical Staging According to Ann Arbor Staging at Relapse After First Relapse or Refractory Diagnosis Clinical stage at 3rd relapse · Stage IV-B	3 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants Based on Clinical Staging According to Ann Arbor Staging at Relapse After First Relapse or Refractory Diagnosis Clinical stage at 3rd relapse · Stage unknown	6 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants Based on Clinical Staging According to Ann Arbor Staging at Relapse After First Relapse or Refractory Diagnosis Clinical stage at 4th relapse · Stage I-A	1 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants Based on Clinical Staging According to Ann Arbor Staging at Relapse After First Relapse or Refractory Diagnosis Clinical stage at 4th relapse · Stage I-B	0 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants Based on Clinical Staging According to Ann Arbor Staging at Relapse After First Relapse or Refractory Diagnosis Clinical stage at 4th relapse · Stage II-A	1 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants Based on Clinical Staging According to Ann Arbor Staging at Relapse After First Relapse or Refractory Diagnosis Clinical stage at 4th relapse · Stage II-B	0 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants Based on Clinical Staging According to Ann Arbor Staging at Relapse After First Relapse or Refractory Diagnosis Clinical stage at 4th relapse · Stage III-A	0 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants Based on Clinical Staging According to Ann Arbor Staging at Relapse After First Relapse or Refractory Diagnosis Clinical stage at 4th relapse · Stage III-B	1 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants Based on Clinical Staging According to Ann Arbor Staging at Relapse After First Relapse or Refractory Diagnosis Clinical stage at 4th relapse · Stage IV-A	1 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants Based on Clinical Staging According to Ann Arbor Staging at Relapse After First Relapse or Refractory Diagnosis Clinical stage at 4th relapse · Stage IV-B	2 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants Based on Clinical Staging According to Ann Arbor Staging at Relapse After First Relapse or Refractory Diagnosis Clinical stage at 4th relapse · Stage unknown	2 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants Based on Clinical Staging According to Ann Arbor Staging at Relapse After First Relapse or Refractory Diagnosis Clinical stage at 5th relapse · Stage I-A	0 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants Based on Clinical Staging According to Ann Arbor Staging at Relapse After First Relapse or Refractory Diagnosis Clinical stage at 5th relapse · Stage I-B	0 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants Based on Clinical Staging According to Ann Arbor Staging at Relapse After First Relapse or Refractory Diagnosis Clinical stage at 5th relapse · Stage II-A	1 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants Based on Clinical Staging According to Ann Arbor Staging at Relapse After First Relapse or Refractory Diagnosis Clinical stage at 5th relapse · Stage II-B	0 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants Based on Clinical Staging According to Ann Arbor Staging at Relapse After First Relapse or Refractory Diagnosis Clinical stage at 5th relapse · Stage III-A	0 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants Based on Clinical Staging According to Ann Arbor Staging at Relapse After First Relapse or Refractory Diagnosis Clinical stage at 5th relapse · Stage IV-A	0 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants Based on Clinical Staging According to Ann Arbor Staging at Relapse After First Relapse or Refractory Diagnosis Clinical stage at 5th relapse · Stage IV-B	0 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants Based on Clinical Staging According to Ann Arbor Staging at Relapse After First Relapse or Refractory Diagnosis Clinical stage at 5th relapse · Stage unknown	1 Participants	—

SECONDARY outcome

Timeframe: Day 1 at cHL diagnosis

IPS score was calculated based on following factors: age \>=45 years, male sex, stage IV disease, albumin\<4 gram per liter (g/L), white blood cell (WBC)\>=15\*10\^9 per liter (/L), haemoglobin \<10.5 g/L, and lymphocyte count\<0.6\*10\^6/L or \<8% of differential. One point was assigned for each of above factors. The sum of points allotted correlates with following risk groups: good risk (0-1 points)-5 year survival of 89-90%; fair risk (2 to 3 points)-5 year survival of 78-81%; poor risk (4-7 points)-5 year survival of 56-61%. Total score range is 0 to 7, lower scores indicate higher survival rate.

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure	Group 2: RRHL n=1087 Participants Participants diagnosed with RRHL between 01 January 2010 and 31 December 2013, and participants who were diagnosed with high-risk stage IIb-IV cHL and then were subsequently diagnosed with RRHL between 2010 and 2013 were observed retrospectively until the date of death or data collection, whichever occurred first.	Group 2: RRHL Participants diagnosed with RRHL between 01 January 2010 and 31 December 2013, and participants who were diagnosed with high-risk stage IIb-IV cHL and then were subsequently diagnosed with RRHL between 2010 and 2013 were observed retrospectively until the date of death or data collection, whichever occurred first.
Group 1, cHL: Number of Participants Based on Each International Prognostic Score (IPS) Category Good risk (IPS 0-1)	289 Participants	—
Group 1, cHL: Number of Participants Based on Each International Prognostic Score (IPS) Category Fair risk (IPS 2-3)	504 Participants	—
Group 1, cHL: Number of Participants Based on Each International Prognostic Score (IPS) Category Poor risk (IPS 4-7)	294 Participants	—

SECONDARY outcome

Timeframe: Day 1 at cHL diagnosis

Population: The FAS included all participants who were eligible for cHL group including the common participants in both the groups.

The Ann Arbor staging system of lymphomas is used to summarize the extent of the cancer's spread. Stages are classified by Roman numerals I (less spread) to IV (more spread). If the following symptoms (B-symptoms) are present, a "B" classification is added to the stage: fever, night sweats and weight loss of \>=10% of body weight over 6 months. B-symptoms indicate the presence of systemic symptoms. The presence or absence of B-symptoms has prognostic significance and is reflected in the staging of these lymphomas.

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure	Group 2: RRHL n=1598 Participants Participants diagnosed with RRHL between 01 January 2010 and 31 December 2013, and participants who were diagnosed with high-risk stage IIb-IV cHL and then were subsequently diagnosed with RRHL between 2010 and 2013 were observed retrospectively until the date of death or data collection, whichever occurred first.	Group 2: RRHL Participants diagnosed with RRHL between 01 January 2010 and 31 December 2013, and participants who were diagnosed with high-risk stage IIb-IV cHL and then were subsequently diagnosed with RRHL between 2010 and 2013 were observed retrospectively until the date of death or data collection, whichever occurred first.
Group 1, cHL: Number of Participants With B Symptoms at Diagnosis Presence of B-symptoms	1230 Participants	—
Group 1, cHL: Number of Participants With B Symptoms at Diagnosis Absence of B-symptoms	368 Participants	—

SECONDARY outcome

Timeframe: Day 1 at RRHL diagnosis

Population: The FAS included all participants who were eligible for RRHL group including the common participants in both the groups.

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure	Group 2: RRHL n=426 Participants Participants diagnosed with RRHL between 01 January 2010 and 31 December 2013, and participants who were diagnosed with high-risk stage IIb-IV cHL and then were subsequently diagnosed with RRHL between 2010 and 2013 were observed retrospectively until the date of death or data collection, whichever occurred first.	Group 2: RRHL Participants diagnosed with RRHL between 01 January 2010 and 31 December 2013, and participants who were diagnosed with high-risk stage IIb-IV cHL and then were subsequently diagnosed with RRHL between 2010 and 2013 were observed retrospectively until the date of death or data collection, whichever occurred first.
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants With B Symptoms at Diagnosis Presence of B-symptoms	248 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants With B Symptoms at Diagnosis Absence of B-symptoms	178 Participants	—

SECONDARY outcome

Timeframe: Day 1 at RRHL diagnosis

Number of participants were categorized based on prior therapies for HL at each line of treatment.

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure	Group 2: RRHL n=425 Participants Participants diagnosed with RRHL between 01 January 2010 and 31 December 2013, and participants who were diagnosed with high-risk stage IIb-IV cHL and then were subsequently diagnosed with RRHL between 2010 and 2013 were observed retrospectively until the date of death or data collection, whichever occurred first.	Group 2: RRHL Participants diagnosed with RRHL between 01 January 2010 and 31 December 2013, and participants who were diagnosed with high-risk stage IIb-IV cHL and then were subsequently diagnosed with RRHL between 2010 and 2013 were observed retrospectively until the date of death or data collection, whichever occurred first.
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants Categorized Based on Prior Therapies for Hodgkin Lymphoma (HL) at Each Line of Treatment Frontline treatment	425 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants Categorized Based on Prior Therapies for Hodgkin Lymphoma (HL) at Each Line of Treatment Second line treatment	17 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants Categorized Based on Prior Therapies for Hodgkin Lymphoma (HL) at Each Line of Treatment Third line treatment	1 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants Categorized Based on Prior Therapies for Hodgkin Lymphoma (HL) at Each Line of Treatment Pre-SCT line treatment	1 Participants	—

SECONDARY outcome

Timeframe: Day 1 at RRHL diagnosis

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure	Group 2: RRHL n=425 Participants Participants diagnosed with RRHL between 01 January 2010 and 31 December 2013, and participants who were diagnosed with high-risk stage IIb-IV cHL and then were subsequently diagnosed with RRHL between 2010 and 2013 were observed retrospectively until the date of death or data collection, whichever occurred first.	Group 2: RRHL Participants diagnosed with RRHL between 01 January 2010 and 31 December 2013, and participants who were diagnosed with high-risk stage IIb-IV cHL and then were subsequently diagnosed with RRHL between 2010 and 2013 were observed retrospectively until the date of death or data collection, whichever occurred first.
Group 2, RRHL: Median Number of Previous Treatment Regimens (Chemotherapies) Received	1.0 previous treatment regimen Interval 1.0 to 4.0	—

SECONDARY outcome

Timeframe: From initial diagnosis until the date of death (or the date when the participant was last known to be alive) (observed retrospectively from 2010 until date of data collection [up to 9 years 10 months])

Population: The FAS included all participants who were eligible for cHL group including the common participants in both the groups.

Therapy regimens were numbered as 1: Doxorubicin (Doxo) + Bleomycin (bleo) + Vinblastine (Vinbl) + Decarbazine (Dacar) (ABVD); 3: Doxo + Vinbl + Mechlorethamine + Etoposide (Eto) + Vincristilne (Vinc) + Bleo + Prednisone (Pred) (Stanford V); 6: Cyclophophamide (Cyclo) + Vinc + Procarbazine (Procarb) + Pred (C-MOPP); 7: Dexamethasone + Cytarabine + Cisplatin (DHAP); 8: Eto + Methylprednisolone + Cytarabine + Cisplatin (ESHAP); 10: Ifosfamide+ Carboplatin + Eto (ICE); 11: Ifosfamide + Gemcitabine +Vinorelbine + Pred (IGEV); 17: Rituximab; 18: Brentuximab vedotin; 4: Bleo + Eto + Doxo + Cyclo + Vinc + Procarb + Pred (BEACOPP); 14: Cycl + Doxo + Vinc + Pred (CHOP); 15: Cycl + Vinc + Pred (CVP); 2: ABVD + Doxo + Bleo + Vinbl + Dacar then Bleo + Eto + Doxo + Cycl + Vinc + Procarb+ Pred ( Escalated BEACOPP); 24: Other.

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure	Group 2: RRHL n=1598 Participants Participants diagnosed with RRHL between 01 January 2010 and 31 December 2013, and participants who were diagnosed with high-risk stage IIb-IV cHL and then were subsequently diagnosed with RRHL between 2010 and 2013 were observed retrospectively until the date of death or data collection, whichever occurred first.	Group 2: RRHL Participants diagnosed with RRHL between 01 January 2010 and 31 December 2013, and participants who were diagnosed with high-risk stage IIb-IV cHL and then were subsequently diagnosed with RRHL between 2010 and 2013 were observed retrospectively until the date of death or data collection, whichever occurred first.
Group 1, cHL: Number of Participants Categorized Based on Frontline Treatment Regimens Therapy regimen 1	1363 Participants	—
Group 1, cHL: Number of Participants Categorized Based on Frontline Treatment Regimens Therapy regimen 3	1 Participants	—
Group 1, cHL: Number of Participants Categorized Based on Frontline Treatment Regimens Therapy regimen 6	2 Participants	—
Group 1, cHL: Number of Participants Categorized Based on Frontline Treatment Regimens Therapy regimen 7	9 Participants	—
Group 1, cHL: Number of Participants Categorized Based on Frontline Treatment Regimens Therapy regimen 8	11 Participants	—
Group 1, cHL: Number of Participants Categorized Based on Frontline Treatment Regimens Therapy regimen 10	3 Participants	—
Group 1, cHL: Number of Participants Categorized Based on Frontline Treatment Regimens Therapy regimen 11	1 Participants	—
Group 1, cHL: Number of Participants Categorized Based on Frontline Treatment Regimens Therapy regimen 17	2 Participants	—
Group 1, cHL: Number of Participants Categorized Based on Frontline Treatment Regimens Therapy regimen 18	1 Participants	—
Group 1, cHL: Number of Participants Categorized Based on Frontline Treatment Regimens Therapy regimen 4	104 Participants	—
Group 1, cHL: Number of Participants Categorized Based on Frontline Treatment Regimens Therapy regimen 14	15 Participants	—
Group 1, cHL: Number of Participants Categorized Based on Frontline Treatment Regimens Therapy regimen 15	4 Participants	—
Group 1, cHL: Number of Participants Categorized Based on Frontline Treatment Regimens Therapy regimen 2	33 Participants	—
Group 1, cHL: Number of Participants Categorized Based on Frontline Treatment Regimens Therapy regimen 24	114 Participants	—

SECONDARY outcome

Population: The FAS included all participants who were eligible for cHL group including the common participants in both the groups. Here "overall number of participants" analyzed are those who were evaluable for this outcome measure. Here number analyzed "n" are the participants who were evaluable for the outcome measure at given categories.

Therapy regimens were numbered as 1: ABVD; 3: Stanford V; 6: C-MOPP; 7: DHAP; 8: ESHAP; 10: ICE; 11: IGEV; 17: Rituximab; 18: Brentuximab vedotin; 4: BEACOPP; 14: CHOP; 15: CVP; 2: ABVD + Escalated BEACOPP; 24: Other.

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure	Group 2: RRHL n=1362 Participants Participants diagnosed with RRHL between 01 January 2010 and 31 December 2013, and participants who were diagnosed with high-risk stage IIb-IV cHL and then were subsequently diagnosed with RRHL between 2010 and 2013 were observed retrospectively until the date of death or data collection, whichever occurred first.	Group 2: RRHL Participants diagnosed with RRHL between 01 January 2010 and 31 December 2013, and participants who were diagnosed with high-risk stage IIb-IV cHL and then were subsequently diagnosed with RRHL between 2010 and 2013 were observed retrospectively until the date of death or data collection, whichever occurred first.
Group 1, cHL: Median Number of Treatment Cycles Associated With Each Frontline Treatment Regimen Therapy regimen 1	6.0 cycles Interval 6.0 to 6.0	—
Group 1, cHL: Median Number of Treatment Cycles Associated With Each Frontline Treatment Regimen Therapy regimen 3	5.0 cycles Interval 5.0 to 5.0	—
Group 1, cHL: Median Number of Treatment Cycles Associated With Each Frontline Treatment Regimen Therapy regimen 6	6.0 cycles Interval 6.0 to 6.0	—
Group 1, cHL: Median Number of Treatment Cycles Associated With Each Frontline Treatment Regimen Therapy regimen 7	2.0 cycles Interval 1.0 to 4.0	—
Group 1, cHL: Median Number of Treatment Cycles Associated With Each Frontline Treatment Regimen Therapy regimen 8	2.0 cycles Interval 2.0 to 6.0	—
Group 1, cHL: Median Number of Treatment Cycles Associated With Each Frontline Treatment Regimen Therapy regimen 10	2.0 cycles Interval 2.0 to 2.0	—
Group 1, cHL: Median Number of Treatment Cycles Associated With Each Frontline Treatment Regimen Therapy regimen 11	4.0 cycles Interval 4.0 to 4.0	—
Group 1, cHL: Median Number of Treatment Cycles Associated With Each Frontline Treatment Regimen Therapy regimen 17	7.0 cycles Interval 6.0 to 8.0	—
Group 1, cHL: Median Number of Treatment Cycles Associated With Each Frontline Treatment Regimen Therapy regimen 18	3.0 cycles Interval 3.0 to 3.0	—
Group 1, cHL: Median Number of Treatment Cycles Associated With Each Frontline Treatment Regimen Therapy regimen 4	6.0 cycles Interval 1.0 to 8.0	—
Group 1, cHL: Median Number of Treatment Cycles Associated With Each Frontline Treatment Regimen Therapy regimen 14	6.0 cycles Interval 1.0 to 8.0	—
Group 1, cHL: Median Number of Treatment Cycles Associated With Each Frontline Treatment Regimen Therapy regimen 15	3.5 cycles Interval 1.0 to 7.0	—
Group 1, cHL: Median Number of Treatment Cycles Associated With Each Frontline Treatment Regimen Therapy regimen 2	6.0 cycles Interval 4.0 to 11.0	—
Group 1, cHL: Median Number of Treatment Cycles Associated With Each Frontline Treatment Regimen Therapy regimen 24	6.0 cycles Interval 1.0 to 9.0	—

SECONDARY outcome

Therapy regimens were numbered as 1: ABVD; 6: C-MOPP; 7: DHAP; 8: ESHAP; 10: ICE; 11: IGEV; 12: Carmustine + Cytarabine + Etoposide + Melphalan (Mini-BEAM); 13: Etoposide + Ifosfamide + Mesna + Mitoxantrone (MINE); 18: Brentuximab vedotin; 16: Gemcitabine + Vinoreilbine + Pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (GVD); 4: BEACOPP; 14: CHOP; 24: Other.

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure	Group 2: RRHL n=63 Participants Participants diagnosed with RRHL between 01 January 2010 and 31 December 2013, and participants who were diagnosed with high-risk stage IIb-IV cHL and then were subsequently diagnosed with RRHL between 2010 and 2013 were observed retrospectively until the date of death or data collection, whichever occurred first.	Group 2: RRHL Participants diagnosed with RRHL between 01 January 2010 and 31 December 2013, and participants who were diagnosed with high-risk stage IIb-IV cHL and then were subsequently diagnosed with RRHL between 2010 and 2013 were observed retrospectively until the date of death or data collection, whichever occurred first.
Group 1, cHL: Number of Participants Who Received Treatments for HL After Completion of Frontline Therapy (Before Relapse) Therapy regimen 1	2 Participants	—
Group 1, cHL: Number of Participants Who Received Treatments for HL After Completion of Frontline Therapy (Before Relapse) Therapy regimen 6	1 Participants	—
Group 1, cHL: Number of Participants Who Received Treatments for HL After Completion of Frontline Therapy (Before Relapse) Therapy regimen 7	8 Participants	—
Group 1, cHL: Number of Participants Who Received Treatments for HL After Completion of Frontline Therapy (Before Relapse) Therapy regimen 8	15 Participants	—
Group 1, cHL: Number of Participants Who Received Treatments for HL After Completion of Frontline Therapy (Before Relapse) Therapy regimen 10	8 Participants	—
Group 1, cHL: Number of Participants Who Received Treatments for HL After Completion of Frontline Therapy (Before Relapse) Therapy regimen 11	6 Participants	—
Group 1, cHL: Number of Participants Who Received Treatments for HL After Completion of Frontline Therapy (Before Relapse) Therapy regimen 12	2 Participants	—
Group 1, cHL: Number of Participants Who Received Treatments for HL After Completion of Frontline Therapy (Before Relapse) Therapy regimen 13	1 Participants	—
Group 1, cHL: Number of Participants Who Received Treatments for HL After Completion of Frontline Therapy (Before Relapse) Therapy regimen 18	2 Participants	—
Group 1, cHL: Number of Participants Who Received Treatments for HL After Completion of Frontline Therapy (Before Relapse) Therapy regimen 16	6 Participants	—
Group 1, cHL: Number of Participants Who Received Treatments for HL After Completion of Frontline Therapy (Before Relapse) Therapy regimen 4	6 Participants	—
Group 1, cHL: Number of Participants Who Received Treatments for HL After Completion of Frontline Therapy (Before Relapse) Therapy regimen 14	2 Participants	—
Group 1, cHL: Number of Participants Who Received Treatments for HL After Completion of Frontline Therapy (Before Relapse) Therapy regimen 24	10 Participants	—

SECONDARY outcome

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure	Group 2: RRHL n=409 Participants Participants diagnosed with RRHL between 01 January 2010 and 31 December 2013, and participants who were diagnosed with high-risk stage IIb-IV cHL and then were subsequently diagnosed with RRHL between 2010 and 2013 were observed retrospectively until the date of death or data collection, whichever occurred first.	Group 2: RRHL Participants diagnosed with RRHL between 01 January 2010 and 31 December 2013, and participants who were diagnosed with high-risk stage IIb-IV cHL and then were subsequently diagnosed with RRHL between 2010 and 2013 were observed retrospectively until the date of death or data collection, whichever occurred first.
Group 1, cHL: Number of Participants Based on Radiotherapy (RT) Type and Site When Received at Frontline RT Site: Other	42 Participants	—
Group 1, cHL: Number of Participants Based on Radiotherapy (RT) Type and Site When Received at Frontline RT Type: Whole body	10 Participants	—
Group 1, cHL: Number of Participants Based on Radiotherapy (RT) Type and Site When Received at Frontline RT Type: Involved-field	244 Participants	—
Group 1, cHL: Number of Participants Based on Radiotherapy (RT) Type and Site When Received at Frontline RT Type: Involved-site	94 Participants	—
Group 1, cHL: Number of Participants Based on Radiotherapy (RT) Type and Site When Received at Frontline RT Type: Involved-node	60 Participants	—
Group 1, cHL: Number of Participants Based on Radiotherapy (RT) Type and Site When Received at Frontline RT Type: Other	1 Participants	—
Group 1, cHL: Number of Participants Based on Radiotherapy (RT) Type and Site When Received at Frontline RT Site: Abdominal nodes	8 Participants	—
Group 1, cHL: Number of Participants Based on Radiotherapy (RT) Type and Site When Received at Frontline RT Site: Axillary nodes	21 Participants	—
Group 1, cHL: Number of Participants Based on Radiotherapy (RT) Type and Site When Received at Frontline RT Site: Bone lesions	9 Participants	—
Group 1, cHL: Number of Participants Based on Radiotherapy (RT) Type and Site When Received at Frontline RT Site: Breast	3 Participants	—
Group 1, cHL: Number of Participants Based on Radiotherapy (RT) Type and Site When Received at Frontline RT Site: Cervix	3 Participants	—
Group 1, cHL: Number of Participants Based on Radiotherapy (RT) Type and Site When Received at Frontline RT Site: Inguinal nodes	7 Participants	—
Group 1, cHL: Number of Participants Based on Radiotherapy (RT) Type and Site When Received at Frontline RT Site: Larynx	1 Participants	—
Group 1, cHL: Number of Participants Based on Radiotherapy (RT) Type and Site When Received at Frontline RT Site: Lung	5 Participants	—
Group 1, cHL: Number of Participants Based on Radiotherapy (RT) Type and Site When Received at Frontline RT Site: Mediastinal nodes	197 Participants	—
Group 1, cHL: Number of Participants Based on Radiotherapy (RT) Type and Site When Received at Frontline RT Site: Neck nodes	69 Participants	—
Group 1, cHL: Number of Participants Based on Radiotherapy (RT) Type and Site When Received at Frontline RT Site: Pancreas	1 Participants	—
Group 1, cHL: Number of Participants Based on Radiotherapy (RT) Type and Site When Received at Frontline RT Site: Para-aortic nodes	6 Participants	—
Group 1, cHL: Number of Participants Based on Radiotherapy (RT) Type and Site When Received at Frontline RT Site: Para-iliac nodes	3 Participants	—
Group 1, cHL: Number of Participants Based on Radiotherapy (RT) Type and Site When Received at Frontline RT Site: Pelvic nodes	7 Participants	—
Group 1, cHL: Number of Participants Based on Radiotherapy (RT) Type and Site When Received at Frontline RT Site: Skin	3 Participants	—
Group 1, cHL: Number of Participants Based on Radiotherapy (RT) Type and Site When Received at Frontline RT Site: Soft tissue	2 Participants	—
Group 1, cHL: Number of Participants Based on Radiotherapy (RT) Type and Site When Received at Frontline RT Site: Spleen	7 Participants	—
Group 1, cHL: Number of Participants Based on Radiotherapy (RT) Type and Site When Received at Frontline RT Site: Supraclavicular nodes	14 Participants	—
Group 1, cHL: Number of Participants Based on Radiotherapy (RT) Type and Site When Received at Frontline RT Site: Thyroid	1 Participants	—

SECONDARY outcome

Assessment was done for RT's whether used for pre-planned frontline treatment or for residual Fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG)-avid disease.

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure	Group 2: RRHL n=409 Participants Participants diagnosed with RRHL between 01 January 2010 and 31 December 2013, and participants who were diagnosed with high-risk stage IIb-IV cHL and then were subsequently diagnosed with RRHL between 2010 and 2013 were observed retrospectively until the date of death or data collection, whichever occurred first.	Group 2: RRHL Participants diagnosed with RRHL between 01 January 2010 and 31 December 2013, and participants who were diagnosed with high-risk stage IIb-IV cHL and then were subsequently diagnosed with RRHL between 2010 and 2013 were observed retrospectively until the date of death or data collection, whichever occurred first.
Group 1, cHL: Number of Participants Categorized Based on RT Treatment Given as Pre-planned Frontline Treatment and RT Treatment Given for Residual Fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG)-Avid Disease RT for residual FDG-avid disease	115 Participants	—
Group 1, cHL: Number of Participants Categorized Based on RT Treatment Given as Pre-planned Frontline Treatment and RT Treatment Given for Residual Fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG)-Avid Disease RT for pre-planned frontline treatment	225 Participants	—

SECONDARY outcome

Population: The FAS included all participants who were eligible for RRHL group including the common participants in both the groups. Here "overall number of participants" analyzed are those who were evaluable for this outcome measure. Here number analyzed "n" are the participants who were evaluable for the outcome measure at given categories.

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure	Group 2: RRHL n=425 Participants Participants diagnosed with RRHL between 01 January 2010 and 31 December 2013, and participants who were diagnosed with high-risk stage IIb-IV cHL and then were subsequently diagnosed with RRHL between 2010 and 2013 were observed retrospectively until the date of death or data collection, whichever occurred first.	Group 2: RRHL Participants diagnosed with RRHL between 01 January 2010 and 31 December 2013, and participants who were diagnosed with high-risk stage IIb-IV cHL and then were subsequently diagnosed with RRHL between 2010 and 2013 were observed retrospectively until the date of death or data collection, whichever occurred first.
Group 2, RRHL: Percentage of Participants Categorized Based on ASCT Eligibility Assessment Eligible for ASCT	68.7 percentage of participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Percentage of Participants Categorized Based on ASCT Eligibility Assessment Ineligible for ASCT	31.3 percentage of participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Percentage of Participants Categorized Based on ASCT Eligibility Assessment Initially ineligible and became eligible for ASCT	7.6 percentage of participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Percentage of Participants Categorized Based on ASCT Eligibility Assessment Became eligible and received ASCT	60.0 percentage of participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Percentage of Participants Categorized Based on ASCT Eligibility Assessment Eligible and received ASCT	73.5 percentage of participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Percentage of Participants Categorized Based on ASCT Eligibility Assessment Eligible and did not receive ASCT	26.5 percentage of participants	—

SECONDARY outcome

Population: The FAS included all participants who were eligible for RRHL group including the common participants in both the groups. . Here "overall number of participants" analyzed are those who were evaluable for this outcome measure. Here number analyzed "n" are the participants who were evaluable for the outcome measure at given categories.

Therapy regimens were numbered as 1: ABVD; 6: C-MOPP; 8: ESHAP; 11: IGEV; 12: Mini-BEAM; 18: Brentuximab vedotin; 22: Nivolumab; 24: Other.

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure	Group 2: RRHL n=6 Participants Participants diagnosed with RRHL between 01 January 2010 and 31 December 2013, and participants who were diagnosed with high-risk stage IIb-IV cHL and then were subsequently diagnosed with RRHL between 2010 and 2013 were observed retrospectively until the date of death or data collection, whichever occurred first.	Group 2: RRHL Participants diagnosed with RRHL between 01 January 2010 and 31 December 2013, and participants who were diagnosed with high-risk stage IIb-IV cHL and then were subsequently diagnosed with RRHL between 2010 and 2013 were observed retrospectively until the date of death or data collection, whichever occurred first.
Group 2, RRHL: Median Number of Treatment Cycles Associated With Relapse/ Refractory Treatment Regimen for ASCT Therapy regimen 1	6.0 cycles Interval 1.0 to 8.0	—
Group 2, RRHL: Median Number of Treatment Cycles Associated With Relapse/ Refractory Treatment Regimen for ASCT Therapy regimen 6	8.0 cycles Interval 8.0 to 8.0	—
Group 2, RRHL: Median Number of Treatment Cycles Associated With Relapse/ Refractory Treatment Regimen for ASCT Therapy regimen 8	2.0 cycles Interval 2.0 to 4.0	—
Group 2, RRHL: Median Number of Treatment Cycles Associated With Relapse/ Refractory Treatment Regimen for ASCT Therapy regimen 11	3.0 cycles Interval 2.0 to 3.0	—
Group 2, RRHL: Median Number of Treatment Cycles Associated With Relapse/ Refractory Treatment Regimen for ASCT Therapy regimen 12	5.0 cycles Interval 5.0 to 5.0	—
Group 2, RRHL: Median Number of Treatment Cycles Associated With Relapse/ Refractory Treatment Regimen for ASCT Therapy regimen 18	4.0 cycles Interval 4.0 to 4.0	—
Group 2, RRHL: Median Number of Treatment Cycles Associated With Relapse/ Refractory Treatment Regimen for ASCT Therapy regimen 22	6.0 cycles Interval 6.0 to 6.0	—
Group 2, RRHL: Median Number of Treatment Cycles Associated With Relapse/ Refractory Treatment Regimen for ASCT Therapy regimen 24	2.0 cycles Interval 2.0 to 16.0	—

SECONDARY outcome

Population: The FAS included all participants who were eligible for RRHL group including common participants. Here "overall number of participants" analyzed are those who were evaluable for this outcome measure.

Reasons for ASCT-eligible participants for not undergoing ASCT included participant refusal, inability to mobilize stem cells, loss of response to chemotherapy, cumulative toxicities, comorbid conditions, others, and unknown.

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure	Group 2: RRHL n=80 Participants Participants diagnosed with RRHL between 01 January 2010 and 31 December 2013, and participants who were diagnosed with high-risk stage IIb-IV cHL and then were subsequently diagnosed with RRHL between 2010 and 2013 were observed retrospectively until the date of death or data collection, whichever occurred first.	Group 2: RRHL Participants diagnosed with RRHL between 01 January 2010 and 31 December 2013, and participants who were diagnosed with high-risk stage IIb-IV cHL and then were subsequently diagnosed with RRHL between 2010 and 2013 were observed retrospectively until the date of death or data collection, whichever occurred first.
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Non-ASCT Participants Categorized Based on Reasons for Not Undergoing ASCT Despite Being ASCT Eligible Comorbid conditions	2 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Non-ASCT Participants Categorized Based on Reasons for Not Undergoing ASCT Despite Being ASCT Eligible Cumulative Toxicities	1 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Non-ASCT Participants Categorized Based on Reasons for Not Undergoing ASCT Despite Being ASCT Eligible Other	11 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Non-ASCT Participants Categorized Based on Reasons for Not Undergoing ASCT Despite Being ASCT Eligible Unknown	29 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Non-ASCT Participants Categorized Based on Reasons for Not Undergoing ASCT Despite Being ASCT Eligible Participant refusal	21 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Non-ASCT Participants Categorized Based on Reasons for Not Undergoing ASCT Despite Being ASCT Eligible Inability to mobilize stem cells	3 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Non-ASCT Participants Categorized Based on Reasons for Not Undergoing ASCT Despite Being ASCT Eligible Loss of response to chemotherapy	13 Participants	—

SECONDARY outcome

Reasons for ASCT ineligibility included advanced age, comorbid conditions, chemoresistant disease, cumulative toxicities, and others.

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure	Group 2: RRHL n=201 Participants Participants diagnosed with RRHL between 01 January 2010 and 31 December 2013, and participants who were diagnosed with high-risk stage IIb-IV cHL and then were subsequently diagnosed with RRHL between 2010 and 2013 were observed retrospectively until the date of death or data collection, whichever occurred first.	Group 2: RRHL Participants diagnosed with RRHL between 01 January 2010 and 31 December 2013, and participants who were diagnosed with high-risk stage IIb-IV cHL and then were subsequently diagnosed with RRHL between 2010 and 2013 were observed retrospectively until the date of death or data collection, whichever occurred first.
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Non-ASCT Participants Based on Reasons for ASCT Ineligibility Loss of response to chemotherapy	4 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Non-ASCT Participants Based on Reasons for ASCT Ineligibility Unknown	55 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Non-ASCT Participants Based on Reasons for ASCT Ineligibility Advanced age	12 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Non-ASCT Participants Based on Reasons for ASCT Ineligibility Comorbid conditions	13 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Non-ASCT Participants Based on Reasons for ASCT Ineligibility Chemo-resistant disease	19 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Non-ASCT Participants Based on Reasons for ASCT Ineligibility Cumulative toxicities	1 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Non-ASCT Participants Based on Reasons for ASCT Ineligibility Other	11 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Non-ASCT Participants Based on Reasons for ASCT Ineligibility Participant refusal	5 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Non-ASCT Participants Based on Reasons for ASCT Ineligibility Inability to mobilize stem cells	1 Participants	—

SECONDARY outcome

Therapy regimens were numbered as 1: ABVD; 2: ABVD followed by Escalated BEACOPP; 3: Stanford V; 4: BEACOPP; 6: Cyclophosphamide C-MOPP; 7: DHAP; 8: ESHAP; 9: GCD; 10: ICE; 11: IGEV; 12: Mini-BEAM; 13: MINE; 14: CHOP; 15: CVP; 16: GVD; 17: Rituximab; 18: Brentuximab vedotin; 19: Bendamustine; 22: Nivolumab; 23: Pembrolizumab; 24: Other. More than one line of treatment or therapy was selected for each participant.

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure	Group 2: RRHL n=201 Participants Participants diagnosed with RRHL between 01 January 2010 and 31 December 2013, and participants who were diagnosed with high-risk stage IIb-IV cHL and then were subsequently diagnosed with RRHL between 2010 and 2013 were observed retrospectively until the date of death or data collection, whichever occurred first.	Group 2: RRHL Participants diagnosed with RRHL between 01 January 2010 and 31 December 2013, and participants who were diagnosed with high-risk stage IIb-IV cHL and then were subsequently diagnosed with RRHL between 2010 and 2013 were observed retrospectively until the date of death or data collection, whichever occurred first.
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Non-ASCT Participants Categorized Based on Treatment Regimens Received at Each Line of Treatment Second line: Therapy regimen 9	1 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Non-ASCT Participants Categorized Based on Treatment Regimens Received at Each Line of Treatment Frontline: Therapy regimen 1	161 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Non-ASCT Participants Categorized Based on Treatment Regimens Received at Each Line of Treatment Frontline: Therapy regimen 6	1 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Non-ASCT Participants Categorized Based on Treatment Regimens Received at Each Line of Treatment Second line: Therapy regimen 8	21 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Non-ASCT Participants Categorized Based on Treatment Regimens Received at Each Line of Treatment Second line: Therapy regimen 10	18 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Non-ASCT Participants Categorized Based on Treatment Regimens Received at Each Line of Treatment Second line: Therapy regimen 11	7 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Non-ASCT Participants Categorized Based on Treatment Regimens Received at Each Line of Treatment Second line: Therapy regimen 13	7 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Non-ASCT Participants Categorized Based on Treatment Regimens Received at Each Line of Treatment Second line: Therapy regimen 17	2 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Non-ASCT Participants Categorized Based on Treatment Regimens Received at Each Line of Treatment Second line: Therapy regimen 18	1 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Non-ASCT Participants Categorized Based on Treatment Regimens Received at Each Line of Treatment Frontline: Therapy regimen 3	1 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Non-ASCT Participants Categorized Based on Treatment Regimens Received at Each Line of Treatment Frontline: Therapy regimen 7	4 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Non-ASCT Participants Categorized Based on Treatment Regimens Received at Each Line of Treatment Frontline: Therapy regimen 11	1 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Non-ASCT Participants Categorized Based on Treatment Regimens Received at Each Line of Treatment Frontline: Therapy regimen 18	1 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Non-ASCT Participants Categorized Based on Treatment Regimens Received at Each Line of Treatment Front line: Therapy regimen 4	16 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Non-ASCT Participants Categorized Based on Treatment Regimens Received at Each Line of Treatment Frontline: Therapy regimen 14	3 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Non-ASCT Participants Categorized Based on Treatment Regimens Received at Each Line of Treatment Frontline: Therapy regimen 15	1 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Non-ASCT Participants Categorized Based on Treatment Regimens Received at Each Line of Treatment Frontline: Therapy regimen 2	6 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Non-ASCT Participants Categorized Based on Treatment Regimens Received at Each Line of Treatment Frontline: Therapy regimen 24	16 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Non-ASCT Participants Categorized Based on Treatment Regimens Received at Each Line of Treatment Second line: Therapy regimen 1	13 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Non-ASCT Participants Categorized Based on Treatment Regimens Received at Each Line of Treatment Second line: Therapy regimen 6	3 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Non-ASCT Participants Categorized Based on Treatment Regimens Received at Each Line of Treatment Second line: Therapy regimen 7	23 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Non-ASCT Participants Categorized Based on Treatment Regimens Received at Each Line of Treatment Second line: Therapy regimen 19	1 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Non-ASCT Participants Categorized Based on Treatment Regimens Received at Each Line of Treatment Second line: Therapy regimen 4	13 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Non-ASCT Participants Categorized Based on Treatment Regimens Received at Each Line of Treatment Second line: Therapy regimen 14	5 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Non-ASCT Participants Categorized Based on Treatment Regimens Received at Each Line of Treatment Second line: Therapy regimen 15	1 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Non-ASCT Participants Categorized Based on Treatment Regimens Received at Each Line of Treatment Second line: Therapy regimen 2	5 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Non-ASCT Participants Categorized Based on Treatment Regimens Received at Each Line of Treatment Second line: Therapy regimen 24	39 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Non-ASCT Participants Categorized Based on Treatment Regimens Received at Each Line of Treatment Third line: Therapy regimen 1	3 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Non-ASCT Participants Categorized Based on Treatment Regimens Received at Each Line of Treatment Third line: Therapy regimen 7	4 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Non-ASCT Participants Categorized Based on Treatment Regimens Received at Each Line of Treatment Third line: Therapy regimen 8	3 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Non-ASCT Participants Categorized Based on Treatment Regimens Received at Each Line of Treatment Third line: Therapy regimen 9	2 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Non-ASCT Participants Categorized Based on Treatment Regimens Received at Each Line of Treatment Third line: Therapy regimen 10	8 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Non-ASCT Participants Categorized Based on Treatment Regimens Received at Each Line of Treatment Third line: Therapy regimen 11	11 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Non-ASCT Participants Categorized Based on Treatment Regimens Received at Each Line of Treatment Third line: Therapy regimen 13	3 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Non-ASCT Participants Categorized Based on Treatment Regimens Received at Each Line of Treatment Third line: Therapy regimen 17	1 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Non-ASCT Participants Categorized Based on Treatment Regimens Received at Each Line of Treatment Third line: Therapy regimen 18	3 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Non-ASCT Participants Categorized Based on Treatment Regimens Received at Each Line of Treatment Third line: Therapy regimen 22	1 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Non-ASCT Participants Categorized Based on Treatment Regimens Received at Each Line of Treatment Third line: Therapy regimen 4	2 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Non-ASCT Participants Categorized Based on Treatment Regimens Received at Each Line of Treatment Third line: Therapy regimen 24	23 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Non-ASCT Participants Categorized Based on Treatment Regimens Received at Each Line of Treatment Other treatment: Therapy regimen 6	1 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Non-ASCT Participants Categorized Based on Treatment Regimens Received at Each Line of Treatment Other treatment: Therapy regimen 7	1 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Non-ASCT Participants Categorized Based on Treatment Regimens Received at Each Line of Treatment Other treatment: Therapy regimen 10	1 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Non-ASCT Participants Categorized Based on Treatment Regimens Received at Each Line of Treatment Other treatment: Therapy regimen 13	1 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Non-ASCT Participants Categorized Based on Treatment Regimens Received at Each Line of Treatment Other treatment: Therapy regimen 18	5 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Non-ASCT Participants Categorized Based on Treatment Regimens Received at Each Line of Treatment Other treatment: Therapy regimen 22	2 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Non-ASCT Participants Categorized Based on Treatment Regimens Received at Each Line of Treatment Other treatment: Therapy regimen 16	1 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Non-ASCT Participants Categorized Based on Treatment Regimens Received at Each Line of Treatment Other treatment: Therapy regimen 4	1 Participants	—

SECONDARY outcome

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure	Group 2: RRHL n=55 Participants Participants diagnosed with RRHL between 01 January 2010 and 31 December 2013, and participants who were diagnosed with high-risk stage IIb-IV cHL and then were subsequently diagnosed with RRHL between 2010 and 2013 were observed retrospectively until the date of death or data collection, whichever occurred first.	Group 2: RRHL Participants diagnosed with RRHL between 01 January 2010 and 31 December 2013, and participants who were diagnosed with high-risk stage IIb-IV cHL and then were subsequently diagnosed with RRHL between 2010 and 2013 were observed retrospectively until the date of death or data collection, whichever occurred first.
Group 2, RRHL: Percentage of Non-ASCT Participants for Whom Treatment is Palliative Palliative at Frontline	2.6 percentage of participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Percentage of Non-ASCT Participants for Whom Treatment is Palliative Palliative at Relapse	43.6 percentage of participants	—

SECONDARY outcome

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure	Group 2: RRHL n=118 Participants Participants diagnosed with RRHL between 01 January 2010 and 31 December 2013, and participants who were diagnosed with high-risk stage IIb-IV cHL and then were subsequently diagnosed with RRHL between 2010 and 2013 were observed retrospectively until the date of death or data collection, whichever occurred first.	Group 2: RRHL Participants diagnosed with RRHL between 01 January 2010 and 31 December 2013, and participants who were diagnosed with high-risk stage IIb-IV cHL and then were subsequently diagnosed with RRHL between 2010 and 2013 were observed retrospectively until the date of death or data collection, whichever occurred first.
Group 2, RRHL: Percentage of Non-ASCT Participants Receiving Positron Emission Tomography (PET) or Computed Tomography (CT) at Each Line of Treatment Pathway PET or PET-CT scan at Baseline	31.4 percentage of participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Percentage of Non-ASCT Participants Receiving Positron Emission Tomography (PET) or Computed Tomography (CT) at Each Line of Treatment Pathway PET or PET-CT scan at Frontline	59.3 percentage of participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Percentage of Non-ASCT Participants Receiving Positron Emission Tomography (PET) or Computed Tomography (CT) at Each Line of Treatment Pathway PET or PET-CT scan at Relapse	50 percentage of participants	—

SECONDARY outcome

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure	Group 2: RRHL n=201 Participants Participants diagnosed with RRHL between 01 January 2010 and 31 December 2013, and participants who were diagnosed with high-risk stage IIb-IV cHL and then were subsequently diagnosed with RRHL between 2010 and 2013 were observed retrospectively until the date of death or data collection, whichever occurred first.	Group 2: RRHL Participants diagnosed with RRHL between 01 January 2010 and 31 December 2013, and participants who were diagnosed with high-risk stage IIb-IV cHL and then were subsequently diagnosed with RRHL between 2010 and 2013 were observed retrospectively until the date of death or data collection, whichever occurred first.
Group 2, RRHL: Percentage of Non-ASCT Participants Receiving RT at Each Line of Treatment Pathway RT at Frontline	17.4 percentage of participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Percentage of Non-ASCT Participants Receiving RT at Each Line of Treatment Pathway RT at Relapse	22.9 percentage of participants	—

SECONDARY outcome

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure	Group 2: RRHL n=70 Participants Participants diagnosed with RRHL between 01 January 2010 and 31 December 2013, and participants who were diagnosed with high-risk stage IIb-IV cHL and then were subsequently diagnosed with RRHL between 2010 and 2013 were observed retrospectively until the date of death or data collection, whichever occurred first.	Group 2: RRHL Participants diagnosed with RRHL between 01 January 2010 and 31 December 2013, and participants who were diagnosed with high-risk stage IIb-IV cHL and then were subsequently diagnosed with RRHL between 2010 and 2013 were observed retrospectively until the date of death or data collection, whichever occurred first.
Group 2, RRHL: Median Frequency of PET or PET-CT Scan Assessment for Non-ASCT Participants Frequency of PET or PET-CT Scan at Baseline	1.0 scans Interval 1.0 to 2.0	—
Group 2, RRHL: Median Frequency of PET or PET-CT Scan Assessment for Non-ASCT Participants Frequency of PET or PET-CT Scan at Frontline	1.0 scans Interval 1.0 to 3.0	—
Group 2, RRHL: Median Frequency of PET or PET-CT Scan Assessment for Non-ASCT Participants Frequency of PET or PET-CT Scan at Relapse	1.0 scans Interval 1.0 to 9.0	—

SECONDARY outcome

Timeframe: From initiation of first treatment until first documentation of relapse/PD/until date of death( or date when participant was last alive), whichever occurred first (observed retrospectively from 2010 until date of data collection [up to 9 years 10 months])

Therapy regimens were numbered as 1: ABVD; 3: Stanford V; 6: C-MOPP; 7: DHAP; 11: IGEV; 19: Bendamustine; 4: BEACOPP; 13: MINE; 14: CHOP; 24: Other; 8: ESHAP; 9: Gemcitabine + Carboplatin + Dexamethasone (GCD); 10: ICE; 17: Rituximab; 18: Brentuximab vedotin; 15: CVP; 2: ABVD followed by Escalated BEACOPP; 22: Nivolumab; 16: GVD; 21: Lenalidomide; 24: Other.

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure	Group 2: RRHL n=161 Participants Participants diagnosed with RRHL between 01 January 2010 and 31 December 2013, and participants who were diagnosed with high-risk stage IIb-IV cHL and then were subsequently diagnosed with RRHL between 2010 and 2013 were observed retrospectively until the date of death or data collection, whichever occurred first.	Group 2: RRHL Participants diagnosed with RRHL between 01 January 2010 and 31 December 2013, and participants who were diagnosed with high-risk stage IIb-IV cHL and then were subsequently diagnosed with RRHL between 2010 and 2013 were observed retrospectively until the date of death or data collection, whichever occurred first.
Group 2, RRHL: Median Number of Treatment Cycles Received in Each Treatment Regimen at Each Line of Treatment in Non-ASCT Participants Frontline: Therapy regimen 1	6.0 cycles Interval 1.0 to 8.0	—
Group 2, RRHL: Median Number of Treatment Cycles Received in Each Treatment Regimen at Each Line of Treatment in Non-ASCT Participants Frontline: Therapy regimen 3	6.0 cycles Interval 6.0 to 6.0	—
Group 2, RRHL: Median Number of Treatment Cycles Received in Each Treatment Regimen at Each Line of Treatment in Non-ASCT Participants Frontline: Therapy regimen 6	6.0 cycles Interval 6.0 to 6.0	—
Group 2, RRHL: Median Number of Treatment Cycles Received in Each Treatment Regimen at Each Line of Treatment in Non-ASCT Participants Frontline: Therapy regimen 7	3.0 cycles Interval 1.0 to 4.0	—
Group 2, RRHL: Median Number of Treatment Cycles Received in Each Treatment Regimen at Each Line of Treatment in Non-ASCT Participants Frontline: Therapy regimen 11	4.0 cycles Interval 4.0 to 4.0	—
Group 2, RRHL: Median Number of Treatment Cycles Received in Each Treatment Regimen at Each Line of Treatment in Non-ASCT Participants Frontline: Therapy regimen 18	3.0 cycles Interval 3.0 to 3.0	—
Group 2, RRHL: Median Number of Treatment Cycles Received in Each Treatment Regimen at Each Line of Treatment in Non-ASCT Participants Frontline: Therapy regimen 4	6.5 cycles Interval 1.0 to 8.0	—
Group 2, RRHL: Median Number of Treatment Cycles Received in Each Treatment Regimen at Each Line of Treatment in Non-ASCT Participants Frontline: Therapy regimen 14	6.0 cycles Interval 6.0 to 6.0	—
Group 2, RRHL: Median Number of Treatment Cycles Received in Each Treatment Regimen at Each Line of Treatment in Non-ASCT Participants Frontline: Therapy regimen 15	7.0 cycles Interval 7.0 to 7.0	—
Group 2, RRHL: Median Number of Treatment Cycles Received in Each Treatment Regimen at Each Line of Treatment in Non-ASCT Participants Frontline: Therapy regimen 2	7.0 cycles Interval 6.0 to 8.0	—
Group 2, RRHL: Median Number of Treatment Cycles Received in Each Treatment Regimen at Each Line of Treatment in Non-ASCT Participants Frontline: Therapy regimen 24	3.0 cycles Interval 1.0 to 7.0	—
Group 2, RRHL: Median Number of Treatment Cycles Received in Each Treatment Regimen at Each Line of Treatment in Non-ASCT Participants Second line: Therapy regimen 1	4.0 cycles Interval 1.0 to 6.0	—
Group 2, RRHL: Median Number of Treatment Cycles Received in Each Treatment Regimen at Each Line of Treatment in Non-ASCT Participants Second line: Therapy regimen 6	5.0 cycles Interval 4.0 to 6.0	—
Group 2, RRHL: Median Number of Treatment Cycles Received in Each Treatment Regimen at Each Line of Treatment in Non-ASCT Participants Second line: Therapy regimen 7	2.0 cycles Interval 1.0 to 4.0	—
Group 2, RRHL: Median Number of Treatment Cycles Received in Each Treatment Regimen at Each Line of Treatment in Non-ASCT Participants Second line: Therapy regimen 8	2.0 cycles Interval 1.0 to 6.0	—
Group 2, RRHL: Median Number of Treatment Cycles Received in Each Treatment Regimen at Each Line of Treatment in Non-ASCT Participants Second line: Therapy regimen 9	2.0 cycles Interval 2.0 to 2.0	—
Group 2, RRHL: Median Number of Treatment Cycles Received in Each Treatment Regimen at Each Line of Treatment in Non-ASCT Participants Second line: Therapy regimen 10	3.0 cycles Interval 1.0 to 8.0	—
Group 2, RRHL: Median Number of Treatment Cycles Received in Each Treatment Regimen at Each Line of Treatment in Non-ASCT Participants Second line: Therapy regimen 11	4.0 cycles Interval 1.0 to 4.0	—
Group 2, RRHL: Median Number of Treatment Cycles Received in Each Treatment Regimen at Each Line of Treatment in Non-ASCT Participants Second line: Therapy regimen 13	4.0 cycles Interval 1.0 to 6.0	—
Group 2, RRHL: Median Number of Treatment Cycles Received in Each Treatment Regimen at Each Line of Treatment in Non-ASCT Participants Second line: Therapy regimen 24	3.0 cycles Interval 1.0 to 12.0	—
Group 2, RRHL: Median Number of Treatment Cycles Received in Each Treatment Regimen at Each Line of Treatment in Non-ASCT Participants Second line: Therapy regimen 17	3.0 cycles Interval 2.0 to 4.0	—
Group 2, RRHL: Median Number of Treatment Cycles Received in Each Treatment Regimen at Each Line of Treatment in Non-ASCT Participants Second line: Therapy regimen 18	6.0 cycles Interval 6.0 to 6.0	—
Group 2, RRHL: Median Number of Treatment Cycles Received in Each Treatment Regimen at Each Line of Treatment in Non-ASCT Participants Second line: Therapy regimen 19	2.0 cycles Interval 2.0 to 2.0	—
Group 2, RRHL: Median Number of Treatment Cycles Received in Each Treatment Regimen at Each Line of Treatment in Non-ASCT Participants Second line: Therapy regimen 4	4.0 cycles Interval 1.0 to 7.0	—
Group 2, RRHL: Median Number of Treatment Cycles Received in Each Treatment Regimen at Each Line of Treatment in Non-ASCT Participants Second line: Therapy regimen 14	3.0 cycles Interval 1.0 to 6.0	—
Group 2, RRHL: Median Number of Treatment Cycles Received in Each Treatment Regimen at Each Line of Treatment in Non-ASCT Participants Second line: Therapy regimen 15	5.0 cycles Interval 5.0 to 5.0	—
Group 2, RRHL: Median Number of Treatment Cycles Received in Each Treatment Regimen at Each Line of Treatment in Non-ASCT Participants Second line: Therapy regimen 2	6.0 cycles Interval 6.0 to 6.0	—
Group 2, RRHL: Median Number of Treatment Cycles Received in Each Treatment Regimen at Each Line of Treatment in Non-ASCT Participants Third line: Therapy regimen 1	3.0 cycles Interval 1.0 to 6.0	—
Group 2, RRHL: Median Number of Treatment Cycles Received in Each Treatment Regimen at Each Line of Treatment in Non-ASCT Participants Third line: Therapy regimen 7	4.0 cycles Interval 2.0 to 6.0	—
Group 2, RRHL: Median Number of Treatment Cycles Received in Each Treatment Regimen at Each Line of Treatment in Non-ASCT Participants Third line: Therapy regimen 8	2.0 cycles Interval 2.0 to 3.0	—
Group 2, RRHL: Median Number of Treatment Cycles Received in Each Treatment Regimen at Each Line of Treatment in Non-ASCT Participants Third line: Therapy regimen 9	4.5 cycles Interval 3.0 to 6.0	—
Group 2, RRHL: Median Number of Treatment Cycles Received in Each Treatment Regimen at Each Line of Treatment in Non-ASCT Participants Third line: Therapy regimen 10	3.5 cycles Interval 2.0 to 8.0	—
Group 2, RRHL: Median Number of Treatment Cycles Received in Each Treatment Regimen at Each Line of Treatment in Non-ASCT Participants Third line: Therapy regimen 11	2.0 cycles Interval 1.0 to 3.0	—
Group 2, RRHL: Median Number of Treatment Cycles Received in Each Treatment Regimen at Each Line of Treatment in Non-ASCT Participants Third line: Therapy regimen 13	6.0 cycles Interval 1.0 to 6.0	—
Group 2, RRHL: Median Number of Treatment Cycles Received in Each Treatment Regimen at Each Line of Treatment in Non-ASCT Participants Third line: Therapy regimen 18	2.0 cycles Interval 2.0 to 4.0	—
Group 2, RRHL: Median Number of Treatment Cycles Received in Each Treatment Regimen at Each Line of Treatment in Non-ASCT Participants Third line: Therapy regimen 17	12.0 cycles Interval 12.0 to 12.0	—
Group 2, RRHL: Median Number of Treatment Cycles Received in Each Treatment Regimen at Each Line of Treatment in Non-ASCT Participants Third line: Therapy regimen 22	43.0 cycles Interval 43.0 to 43.0	—
Group 2, RRHL: Median Number of Treatment Cycles Received in Each Treatment Regimen at Each Line of Treatment in Non-ASCT Participants Third line: Therapy regimen 4	3.5 cycles Interval 2.0 to 5.0	—
Group 2, RRHL: Median Number of Treatment Cycles Received in Each Treatment Regimen at Each Line of Treatment in Non-ASCT Participants Third line: Therapy regimen 24	3.0 cycles Interval 1.0 to 6.0	—
Group 2, RRHL: Median Number of Treatment Cycles Received in Each Treatment Regimen at Each Line of Treatment in Non-ASCT Participants Other treatments: Therapy regimen 6	1.0 cycles Interval 1.0 to 1.0	—
Group 2, RRHL: Median Number of Treatment Cycles Received in Each Treatment Regimen at Each Line of Treatment in Non-ASCT Participants Other treatments: Therapy regimen 8	2.0 cycles Interval 2.0 to 2.0	—
Group 2, RRHL: Median Number of Treatment Cycles Received in Each Treatment Regimen at Each Line of Treatment in Non-ASCT Participants Other treatments: Therapy regimen 10	4.0 cycles Interval 4.0 to 4.0	—
Group 2, RRHL: Median Number of Treatment Cycles Received in Each Treatment Regimen at Each Line of Treatment in Non-ASCT Participants Other treatments: Therapy regimen 13	6.0 cycles Interval 6.0 to 6.0	—
Group 2, RRHL: Median Number of Treatment Cycles Received in Each Treatment Regimen at Each Line of Treatment in Non-ASCT Participants Other treatments: Therapy regimen 18	6.0 cycles Interval 4.0 to 7.0	—
Group 2, RRHL: Median Number of Treatment Cycles Received in Each Treatment Regimen at Each Line of Treatment in Non-ASCT Participants Other treatments: Therapy regimen 22	12.0 cycles Interval 1.0 to 23.0	—
Group 2, RRHL: Median Number of Treatment Cycles Received in Each Treatment Regimen at Each Line of Treatment in Non-ASCT Participants Other treatments: Therapy regimen 16	4.0 cycles Interval 4.0 to 4.0	—
Group 2, RRHL: Median Number of Treatment Cycles Received in Each Treatment Regimen at Each Line of Treatment in Non-ASCT Participants Other treatments: Therapy regimen 4	5.0 cycles Interval 5.0 to 5.0	—
Group 2, RRHL: Median Number of Treatment Cycles Received in Each Treatment Regimen at Each Line of Treatment in Non-ASCT Participants Other treatments: Therapy regimen 24	6.0 cycles Interval 1.0 to 17.0	—

SECONDARY outcome

Timeframe: From initiation of first treatment until first documentation of relapse/PD/until date of death( or date when participant was last alive), whichever occurred first (observed retrospectively from 2010 until date of data collection [up to 9 years 10 months])

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure	Group 2: RRHL n=201 Participants Participants diagnosed with RRHL between 01 January 2010 and 31 December 2013, and participants who were diagnosed with high-risk stage IIb-IV cHL and then were subsequently diagnosed with RRHL between 2010 and 2013 were observed retrospectively until the date of death or data collection, whichever occurred first.	Group 2: RRHL Participants diagnosed with RRHL between 01 January 2010 and 31 December 2013, and participants who were diagnosed with high-risk stage IIb-IV cHL and then were subsequently diagnosed with RRHL between 2010 and 2013 were observed retrospectively until the date of death or data collection, whichever occurred first.
Group 2, RRHL: Duration of Each Line of Treatment in Non-ASCT Participants Frontline Treatment	5.4 months Interval 0.5 to 12.4	—
Group 2, RRHL: Duration of Each Line of Treatment in Non-ASCT Participants Second line Treatment	2.2 months Interval 0.0 to 8.5	—
Group 2, RRHL: Duration of Each Line of Treatment in Non-ASCT Participants Third line Treatment	2.1 months Interval 0.0 to 31.6	—
Group 2, RRHL: Duration of Each Line of Treatment in Non-ASCT Participants Other Treatment	9.7 months Interval 0.1 to 44.8	—

SECONDARY outcome

Therapy regimens were numbered as 1: ABVD; 3: Stanford V; 6: C-MOPP; 7: DHAP; 11: IGEV; 4: BEACOPP; 14: CHOP; 15: CVP; 2: ABVD followed by Escalated BEACOPP; 24: Other; 8: ESHAP; 9: GCD; 10: ICE; 13: MINE; 17: Rituximab; 18: Brentuximab vedotin; 19: Bendamustine; 22: Nivolumab. More than one line of treatment or therapy was selected for each participant

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure	Group 2: RRHL n=161 Participants Participants diagnosed with RRHL between 01 January 2010 and 31 December 2013, and participants who were diagnosed with high-risk stage IIb-IV cHL and then were subsequently diagnosed with RRHL between 2010 and 2013 were observed retrospectively until the date of death or data collection, whichever occurred first.	Group 2: RRHL Participants diagnosed with RRHL between 01 January 2010 and 31 December 2013, and participants who were diagnosed with high-risk stage IIb-IV cHL and then were subsequently diagnosed with RRHL between 2010 and 2013 were observed retrospectively until the date of death or data collection, whichever occurred first.
Group 2, RRHL: Percentage of Non-ASCT Participants Categorized Based on Dose Delays in Each Treatment Regimen at Each Line of Treatment Other treatment: Therapy regimen 8	0.0 percentage of participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Percentage of Non-ASCT Participants Categorized Based on Dose Delays in Each Treatment Regimen at Each Line of Treatment Other treatment: Therapy regimen 10	0.0 percentage of participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Percentage of Non-ASCT Participants Categorized Based on Dose Delays in Each Treatment Regimen at Each Line of Treatment Other treatment: Therapy regimen 13	0.0 percentage of participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Percentage of Non-ASCT Participants Categorized Based on Dose Delays in Each Treatment Regimen at Each Line of Treatment Frontline: Therapy regimen 1	14.3 percentage of participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Percentage of Non-ASCT Participants Categorized Based on Dose Delays in Each Treatment Regimen at Each Line of Treatment Frontline: Therapy regimen 3	0.0 percentage of participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Percentage of Non-ASCT Participants Categorized Based on Dose Delays in Each Treatment Regimen at Each Line of Treatment Frontline: Therapy regimen 6	0.0 percentage of participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Percentage of Non-ASCT Participants Categorized Based on Dose Delays in Each Treatment Regimen at Each Line of Treatment Frontline: Therapy regimen 7	0.0 percentage of participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Percentage of Non-ASCT Participants Categorized Based on Dose Delays in Each Treatment Regimen at Each Line of Treatment Frontline: Therapy regimen 11	0.0 percentage of participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Percentage of Non-ASCT Participants Categorized Based on Dose Delays in Each Treatment Regimen at Each Line of Treatment Frontline: Therapy regimen 18	0.0 percentage of participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Percentage of Non-ASCT Participants Categorized Based on Dose Delays in Each Treatment Regimen at Each Line of Treatment Frontline: Therapy regimen 4	6.3 percentage of participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Percentage of Non-ASCT Participants Categorized Based on Dose Delays in Each Treatment Regimen at Each Line of Treatment Frontline: Therapy regimen 15	0.0 percentage of participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Percentage of Non-ASCT Participants Categorized Based on Dose Delays in Each Treatment Regimen at Each Line of Treatment Frontline: Therapy regimen 14	0.0 percentage of participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Percentage of Non-ASCT Participants Categorized Based on Dose Delays in Each Treatment Regimen at Each Line of Treatment Frontline: Therapy regimen 2	0.0 percentage of participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Percentage of Non-ASCT Participants Categorized Based on Dose Delays in Each Treatment Regimen at Each Line of Treatment Frontline: Therapy regimen 24	12.5 percentage of participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Percentage of Non-ASCT Participants Categorized Based on Dose Delays in Each Treatment Regimen at Each Line of Treatment Second line: Therapy regimen 1	2.06 percentage of participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Percentage of Non-ASCT Participants Categorized Based on Dose Delays in Each Treatment Regimen at Each Line of Treatment Second line: Therapy regimen 6	0.0 percentage of participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Percentage of Non-ASCT Participants Categorized Based on Dose Delays in Each Treatment Regimen at Each Line of Treatment Second line: Therapy regimen 7	4.3 percentage of participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Percentage of Non-ASCT Participants Categorized Based on Dose Delays in Each Treatment Regimen at Each Line of Treatment Second line: Therapy regimen 8	0.0 percentage of participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Percentage of Non-ASCT Participants Categorized Based on Dose Delays in Each Treatment Regimen at Each Line of Treatment Second line: Therapy regimen 9	0.0 percentage of participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Percentage of Non-ASCT Participants Categorized Based on Dose Delays in Each Treatment Regimen at Each Line of Treatment Second line: Therapy regimen 10	5.6 percentage of participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Percentage of Non-ASCT Participants Categorized Based on Dose Delays in Each Treatment Regimen at Each Line of Treatment Second line: Therapy regimen 11	14.3 percentage of participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Percentage of Non-ASCT Participants Categorized Based on Dose Delays in Each Treatment Regimen at Each Line of Treatment Second line: Therapy regimen 13	42.9 percentage of participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Percentage of Non-ASCT Participants Categorized Based on Dose Delays in Each Treatment Regimen at Each Line of Treatment Second line: Therapy regimen 17	0.0 percentage of participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Percentage of Non-ASCT Participants Categorized Based on Dose Delays in Each Treatment Regimen at Each Line of Treatment Second line: Therapy regimen 18	0.0 percentage of participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Percentage of Non-ASCT Participants Categorized Based on Dose Delays in Each Treatment Regimen at Each Line of Treatment Second line: Therapy regimen 19	0.0 percentage of participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Percentage of Non-ASCT Participants Categorized Based on Dose Delays in Each Treatment Regimen at Each Line of Treatment Second line: Therapy regimen 14	0.0 percentage of participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Percentage of Non-ASCT Participants Categorized Based on Dose Delays in Each Treatment Regimen at Each Line of Treatment Second line: Therapy regimen 15	0.0 percentage of participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Percentage of Non-ASCT Participants Categorized Based on Dose Delays in Each Treatment Regimen at Each Line of Treatment Second line: Therapy regimen 2	0.0 percentage of participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Percentage of Non-ASCT Participants Categorized Based on Dose Delays in Each Treatment Regimen at Each Line of Treatment Second line: Therapy regimen 24	5.3 percentage of participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Percentage of Non-ASCT Participants Categorized Based on Dose Delays in Each Treatment Regimen at Each Line of Treatment Third line: Therapy regimen 1	33.3 percentage of participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Percentage of Non-ASCT Participants Categorized Based on Dose Delays in Each Treatment Regimen at Each Line of Treatment Third line: Therapy regimen 7	0.0 percentage of participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Percentage of Non-ASCT Participants Categorized Based on Dose Delays in Each Treatment Regimen at Each Line of Treatment Third line: Therapy regimen 8	0.0 percentage of participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Percentage of Non-ASCT Participants Categorized Based on Dose Delays in Each Treatment Regimen at Each Line of Treatment Third line: Therapy regimen 9	50.0 percentage of participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Percentage of Non-ASCT Participants Categorized Based on Dose Delays in Each Treatment Regimen at Each Line of Treatment Third line: Therapy regimen 10	0.0 percentage of participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Percentage of Non-ASCT Participants Categorized Based on Dose Delays in Each Treatment Regimen at Each Line of Treatment Third line: Therapy regimen 11	0.0 percentage of participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Percentage of Non-ASCT Participants Categorized Based on Dose Delays in Each Treatment Regimen at Each Line of Treatment Third line: Therapy regimen 13	33.3 percentage of participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Percentage of Non-ASCT Participants Categorized Based on Dose Delays in Each Treatment Regimen at Each Line of Treatment Third line: Therapy regimen 17	0.0 percentage of participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Percentage of Non-ASCT Participants Categorized Based on Dose Delays in Each Treatment Regimen at Each Line of Treatment Third line: Therapy regimen 18	0.0 percentage of participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Percentage of Non-ASCT Participants Categorized Based on Dose Delays in Each Treatment Regimen at Each Line of Treatment Third line: Therapy regimen 22	0.0 percentage of participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Percentage of Non-ASCT Participants Categorized Based on Dose Delays in Each Treatment Regimen at Each Line of Treatment Third line: Therapy regimen 4	0.0 percentage of participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Percentage of Non-ASCT Participants Categorized Based on Dose Delays in Each Treatment Regimen at Each Line of Treatment Third line: Therapy regimen 24	12.5 percentage of participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Percentage of Non-ASCT Participants Categorized Based on Dose Delays in Each Treatment Regimen at Each Line of Treatment Other treatment: Therapy regimen 6	0.0 percentage of participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Percentage of Non-ASCT Participants Categorized Based on Dose Delays in Each Treatment Regimen at Each Line of Treatment Other treatment: Therapy regimen 18	0.0 percentage of participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Percentage of Non-ASCT Participants Categorized Based on Dose Delays in Each Treatment Regimen at Each Line of Treatment Other treatment: Therapy regimen 22	0.0 percentage of participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Percentage of Non-ASCT Participants Categorized Based on Dose Delays in Each Treatment Regimen at Each Line of Treatment Other treatment: Therapy regimen 16	0.0 percentage of participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Percentage of Non-ASCT Participants Categorized Based on Dose Delays in Each Treatment Regimen at Each Line of Treatment Other treatment: Therapy regimen 4	100.0 percentage of participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Percentage of Non-ASCT Participants Categorized Based on Dose Delays in Each Treatment Regimen at Each Line of Treatment Other treatment: Therapy regimen 24	11.1 percentage of participants	—

SECONDARY outcome

Timeframe: From relapse after frontline treatment to first treatment post-relapse or until the date of death (or the date when the participant was last known to be alive) (observed retrospectively from 2010 until date of data collection [up to 9 years 10 months])

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure	Group 2: RRHL n=61 Participants Participants diagnosed with RRHL between 01 January 2010 and 31 December 2013, and participants who were diagnosed with high-risk stage IIb-IV cHL and then were subsequently diagnosed with RRHL between 2010 and 2013 were observed retrospectively until the date of death or data collection, whichever occurred first.	Group 2: RRHL Participants diagnosed with RRHL between 01 January 2010 and 31 December 2013, and participants who were diagnosed with high-risk stage IIb-IV cHL and then were subsequently diagnosed with RRHL between 2010 and 2013 were observed retrospectively until the date of death or data collection, whichever occurred first.
Group 2, RRHL: Time From Relapse (After Frontline Treatment) to First Treatment Post-relapse in Non-ASCT Participants	24.0 days Interval 1.0 to 902.0	—

SECONDARY outcome

Timeframe: From both relapse and from completion of previous treatment to initiation of each subsequent treatment (observed retrospectively from 2010 until date of data collection [up to 9 years 10 months])

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure	Group 2: RRHL n=17 Participants Participants diagnosed with RRHL between 01 January 2010 and 31 December 2013, and participants who were diagnosed with high-risk stage IIb-IV cHL and then were subsequently diagnosed with RRHL between 2010 and 2013 were observed retrospectively until the date of death or data collection, whichever occurred first.	Group 2: RRHL Participants diagnosed with RRHL between 01 January 2010 and 31 December 2013, and participants who were diagnosed with high-risk stage IIb-IV cHL and then were subsequently diagnosed with RRHL between 2010 and 2013 were observed retrospectively until the date of death or data collection, whichever occurred first.
Group 2, RRHL: Time to Initiation of Each Subsequent Treatment, From Relapse and Completion of Previous Treatment in Non-ASCT Participants From end of 1st treatment post 1st relapse to subsequent treatment	33.0 days Interval 1.0 to 148.0	—
Group 2, RRHL: Time to Initiation of Each Subsequent Treatment, From Relapse and Completion of Previous Treatment in Non-ASCT Participants From end of 2nd treatment post 1st relapse to subsequent treatment	36.5 days Interval 1.0 to 561.0	—

SECONDARY outcome

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure	Group 2: RRHL n=39 Participants Participants diagnosed with RRHL between 01 January 2010 and 31 December 2013, and participants who were diagnosed with high-risk stage IIb-IV cHL and then were subsequently diagnosed with RRHL between 2010 and 2013 were observed retrospectively until the date of death or data collection, whichever occurred first.	Group 2: RRHL Participants diagnosed with RRHL between 01 January 2010 and 31 December 2013, and participants who were diagnosed with high-risk stage IIb-IV cHL and then were subsequently diagnosed with RRHL between 2010 and 2013 were observed retrospectively until the date of death or data collection, whichever occurred first.
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants With Non-ASCT Assessed for RT Type, Site Received at Frontline RT Type: Whole body	1 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants With Non-ASCT Assessed for RT Type, Site Received at Frontline RT Type: Involved-field	19 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants With Non-ASCT Assessed for RT Type, Site Received at Frontline RT Type: Involved-site	9 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants With Non-ASCT Assessed for RT Type, Site Received at Frontline RT Type: Involved-node	10 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants With Non-ASCT Assessed for RT Type, Site Received at Frontline RT Site: Abdominal nodes	2 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants With Non-ASCT Assessed for RT Type, Site Received at Frontline RT Site: Axillary nodes	3 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants With Non-ASCT Assessed for RT Type, Site Received at Frontline RT Site: Breast	2 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants With Non-ASCT Assessed for RT Type, Site Received at Frontline RT Site: Inguinal nodes	3 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants With Non-ASCT Assessed for RT Type, Site Received at Frontline RT Site: Liver	1 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants With Non-ASCT Assessed for RT Type, Site Received at Frontline RT Site: Mediastinal nodes	13 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants With Non-ASCT Assessed for RT Type, Site Received at Frontline RT Site: Neck nodes	7 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants With Non-ASCT Assessed for RT Type, Site Received at Frontline RT Site: Para-iliac nodes	1 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants With Non-ASCT Assessed for RT Type, Site Received at Frontline RT Site: Pelvic nodes	1 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants With Non-ASCT Assessed for RT Type, Site Received at Frontline RT Site: Soft tissue	1 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants With Non-ASCT Assessed for RT Type, Site Received at Frontline RT Site: Other	5 Participants	—

SECONDARY outcome

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure	Group 2: RRHL n=55 Participants Participants diagnosed with RRHL between 01 January 2010 and 31 December 2013, and participants who were diagnosed with high-risk stage IIb-IV cHL and then were subsequently diagnosed with RRHL between 2010 and 2013 were observed retrospectively until the date of death or data collection, whichever occurred first.	Group 2: RRHL Participants diagnosed with RRHL between 01 January 2010 and 31 December 2013, and participants who were diagnosed with high-risk stage IIb-IV cHL and then were subsequently diagnosed with RRHL between 2010 and 2013 were observed retrospectively until the date of death or data collection, whichever occurred first.
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants With Non-ASCT Assessed for RT Type, Site at Relapse/ Refractory RT Type: Involved-site	20 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants With Non-ASCT Assessed for RT Type, Site at Relapse/ Refractory RT Type: Involved-node	10 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants With Non-ASCT Assessed for RT Type, Site at Relapse/ Refractory RT Type: Other	1 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants With Non-ASCT Assessed for RT Type, Site at Relapse/ Refractory RT Site: Abdominal nodes	2 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants With Non-ASCT Assessed for RT Type, Site at Relapse/ Refractory RT Site: Axillary nodes	4 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants With Non-ASCT Assessed for RT Type, Site at Relapse/ Refractory RT Site: Bone lesions	8 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants With Non-ASCT Assessed for RT Type, Site at Relapse/ Refractory RT Site: Brain	1 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants With Non-ASCT Assessed for RT Type, Site at Relapse/ Refractory RT Site: Cervix	1 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants With Non-ASCT Assessed for RT Type, Site at Relapse/ Refractory RT Site: Inguinal nodes	2 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants With Non-ASCT Assessed for RT Type, Site at Relapse/ Refractory RT Site: Mediastinal nodes	17 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants With Non-ASCT Assessed for RT Type, Site at Relapse/ Refractory RT Type: Whole body	0 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants With Non-ASCT Assessed for RT Type, Site at Relapse/ Refractory RT Type: Involved-field	24 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants With Non-ASCT Assessed for RT Type, Site at Relapse/ Refractory RT Site: Neck nodes	9 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants With Non-ASCT Assessed for RT Type, Site at Relapse/ Refractory RT Site: Para-iliac nodes	1 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants With Non-ASCT Assessed for RT Type, Site at Relapse/ Refractory RT Site: Pelvic nodes	3 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants With Non-ASCT Assessed for RT Type, Site at Relapse/ Refractory RT Site: Supraclavicular nodes	2 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants With Non-ASCT Assessed for RT Type, Site at Relapse/ Refractory RT Site: Other	5 Participants	—

SECONDARY outcome

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure	Group 2: RRHL n=31 Participants Participants diagnosed with RRHL between 01 January 2010 and 31 December 2013, and participants who were diagnosed with high-risk stage IIb-IV cHL and then were subsequently diagnosed with RRHL between 2010 and 2013 were observed retrospectively until the date of death or data collection, whichever occurred first.	Group 2: RRHL Participants diagnosed with RRHL between 01 January 2010 and 31 December 2013, and participants who were diagnosed with high-risk stage IIb-IV cHL and then were subsequently diagnosed with RRHL between 2010 and 2013 were observed retrospectively until the date of death or data collection, whichever occurred first.
Group 2, RRHL: Total Dose of Radiotherapies in Non-ASCT Participants Frontline	36.0 Gray Standard Deviation 9.77	—
Group 2, RRHL: Total Dose of Radiotherapies in Non-ASCT Participants Relapse/refractory	30.5 Gray Standard Deviation 10.37	—

SECONDARY outcome

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure	Group 2: RRHL n=70 Participants Participants diagnosed with RRHL between 01 January 2010 and 31 December 2013, and participants who were diagnosed with high-risk stage IIb-IV cHL and then were subsequently diagnosed with RRHL between 2010 and 2013 were observed retrospectively until the date of death or data collection, whichever occurred first.	Group 2: RRHL Participants diagnosed with RRHL between 01 January 2010 and 31 December 2013, and participants who were diagnosed with high-risk stage IIb-IV cHL and then were subsequently diagnosed with RRHL between 2010 and 2013 were observed retrospectively until the date of death or data collection, whichever occurred first.
Group 2, RRHL: Number of PET or CT Scan Assessments Baseline	1.1 scans Standard Deviation 0.23	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of PET or CT Scan Assessments Frontline	1.4 scans Standard Deviation 0.57	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of PET or CT Scan Assessments Relapse	2.0 scans Standard Deviation 1.58	—

SECONDARY outcome

Population: The FAS included all participants who were eligible for RRHL group including the common participants in both the groups, and who were undergoing ASCT. Here number analyzed "n" are the participants who were evaluable for the outcome measure at given categories.

Therapy regimens were numbered as 8: ESHAP; 10: ICE; 11: IGEV; 12: Mini-BEAM; 18: Brentuximab vedotin; 19: Bendamustine; 16: GVD; 24: Other. Conditioning regimens are BEAM (Carmustine + Etoposide + Cytarabine + Melphalan), CBV (cyclophosphamide + Carmustine + vp16) BeEAM (bendamustine) and Gemcitabine/Busulfan/Melphalan.

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure	Group 2: RRHL n=222 Participants Participants diagnosed with RRHL between 01 January 2010 and 31 December 2013, and participants who were diagnosed with high-risk stage IIb-IV cHL and then were subsequently diagnosed with RRHL between 2010 and 2013 were observed retrospectively until the date of death or data collection, whichever occurred first.	Group 2: RRHL Participants diagnosed with RRHL between 01 January 2010 and 31 December 2013, and participants who were diagnosed with high-risk stage IIb-IV cHL and then were subsequently diagnosed with RRHL between 2010 and 2013 were observed retrospectively until the date of death or data collection, whichever occurred first.
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants Categorized Based on Various Chemotherapeutic Regimen and Therapies Used in Participants Undergoing ASCT Salvage Regimens: Post-SCT, Therapy regimen 10	1 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants Categorized Based on Various Chemotherapeutic Regimen and Therapies Used in Participants Undergoing ASCT Salvage Regimens: Pre-SCT, Therapy regimen 8	1 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants Categorized Based on Various Chemotherapeutic Regimen and Therapies Used in Participants Undergoing ASCT Salvage Regimens: Pre-SCT, Therapy regimen 10	2 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants Categorized Based on Various Chemotherapeutic Regimen and Therapies Used in Participants Undergoing ASCT Salvage Regimens: Pre-SCT, Therapy regimen 11	1 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants Categorized Based on Various Chemotherapeutic Regimen and Therapies Used in Participants Undergoing ASCT Salvage Regimens: Pre-SCT, Therapy regimen 12	5 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants Categorized Based on Various Chemotherapeutic Regimen and Therapies Used in Participants Undergoing ASCT Salvage Regimens: Pre-SCT, Therapy regimen 18	3 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants Categorized Based on Various Chemotherapeutic Regimen and Therapies Used in Participants Undergoing ASCT Salvage Regimens: Pre-SCT, Therapy regimen 19	1 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants Categorized Based on Various Chemotherapeutic Regimen and Therapies Used in Participants Undergoing ASCT Salvage Regimens: Pre-SCT, Therapy regimen 16	1 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants Categorized Based on Various Chemotherapeutic Regimen and Therapies Used in Participants Undergoing ASCT Salvage Regimens: Pre-SCT, Therapy regimen 24	23 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants Categorized Based on Various Chemotherapeutic Regimen and Therapies Used in Participants Undergoing ASCT Salvage Regimens: Post-SCT, Therapy regimen 11	1 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants Categorized Based on Various Chemotherapeutic Regimen and Therapies Used in Participants Undergoing ASCT Salvage Regimens: Post-SCT, Therapy regimen 18	3 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants Categorized Based on Various Chemotherapeutic Regimen and Therapies Used in Participants Undergoing ASCT Salvage Regimens: Post-SCT, Therapy regimen 19	1 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants Categorized Based on Various Chemotherapeutic Regimen and Therapies Used in Participants Undergoing ASCT Salvage Regimens: Post-SCT, Therapy regimen 24	2 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants Categorized Based on Various Chemotherapeutic Regimen and Therapies Used in Participants Undergoing ASCT Conditioning Regimens: BEAM	132 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants Categorized Based on Various Chemotherapeutic Regimen and Therapies Used in Participants Undergoing ASCT Conditioning Regimens: CBV	22 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants Categorized Based on Various Chemotherapeutic Regimen and Therapies Used in Participants Undergoing ASCT Conditioning Regimens: BeEAM	6 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants Categorized Based on Various Chemotherapeutic Regimen and Therapies Used in Participants Undergoing ASCT Conditioning Regimens: Gemcitabine/Bu/Mel	1 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants Categorized Based on Various Chemotherapeutic Regimen and Therapies Used in Participants Undergoing ASCT Conditioning Regimens: Other	55 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants Categorized Based on Various Chemotherapeutic Regimen and Therapies Used in Participants Undergoing ASCT Conditioning Regimens: Unknown	3 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants Categorized Based on Various Chemotherapeutic Regimen and Therapies Used in Participants Undergoing ASCT Consolidation Therapy : Post -SCT	4 Participants	—

SECONDARY outcome

Known risk factors for relapse after ASCT included time to first relapse less than or equal to (\<=) 3 months, stage IV disease at relapse, bulky disease \>=5 centimeter (cm) at relapse, extranodal disease, inadequate response to salvage chemotherapy (partial remission \[PR\] or PET positivity), performance status (eastern Cooperative oncology group \[ECOG\]) \>=1. The ECOG assessment used a 3-point scale, including scores of 0 (fully active/able to carry on all pre-disease activities without restriction), 1 (restricted in physically strenuous activity but ambulatory/able to carry out light or sedentary work), or 2 (ambulatory for more than 50% of waking hours and capable of all self care but unable to carry out any work activities).

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure	Group 2: RRHL n=222 Participants Participants diagnosed with RRHL between 01 January 2010 and 31 December 2013, and participants who were diagnosed with high-risk stage IIb-IV cHL and then were subsequently diagnosed with RRHL between 2010 and 2013 were observed retrospectively until the date of death or data collection, whichever occurred first.	Group 2: RRHL Participants diagnosed with RRHL between 01 January 2010 and 31 December 2013, and participants who were diagnosed with high-risk stage IIb-IV cHL and then were subsequently diagnosed with RRHL between 2010 and 2013 were observed retrospectively until the date of death or data collection, whichever occurred first.
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants Categorized Based on With Known Risk Factors for Relapse Post ASCT in Participants Undergoing ASCT Time to first relapse <=3 months	19 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants Categorized Based on With Known Risk Factors for Relapse Post ASCT in Participants Undergoing ASCT Stage IV disease at relapse	81 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants Categorized Based on With Known Risk Factors for Relapse Post ASCT in Participants Undergoing ASCT Bulky disease >=5 cm at relapse	47 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants Categorized Based on With Known Risk Factors for Relapse Post ASCT in Participants Undergoing ASCT Extranodal disease	83 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants Categorized Based on With Known Risk Factors for Relapse Post ASCT in Participants Undergoing ASCT Inadequate response to salvage chemotherapy	63 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants Categorized Based on With Known Risk Factors for Relapse Post ASCT in Participants Undergoing ASCT Performance status (ECOG) >=1	73 Participants	—

SECONDARY outcome

Population: The FAS included all participants who were eligible for RRHL group including the common participants in both the groups, and who were undergoing ASCT. Here "overall number of participants" analyzed are those who were evaluable for this outcome measure. Here number analyzed "n" are the participants who were evaluable for the outcome measure at given categories.

Therapy regimens were numbered as 1: ABVD; 6: C-MOPP; 7: DHAP; 8: ESHAP; 9: GCD; 10: ICE; 11: IGEV; 12: Mini-BEAM; 13: Eto + Ifosfamide + Mesna + Mitoxantrone (MINE); 18: Brentuximab vedotin; 19: Bendamustine; 22: Nivolumab; 16: GVD; 4: BEACOPP; 14: CHOP; 2: ABVD + Escalated BEACOPP; 24: Other.

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure	Group 2: RRHL n=80 Participants Participants diagnosed with RRHL between 01 January 2010 and 31 December 2013, and participants who were diagnosed with high-risk stage IIb-IV cHL and then were subsequently diagnosed with RRHL between 2010 and 2013 were observed retrospectively until the date of death or data collection, whichever occurred first.	Group 2: RRHL Participants diagnosed with RRHL between 01 January 2010 and 31 December 2013, and participants who were diagnosed with high-risk stage IIb-IV cHL and then were subsequently diagnosed with RRHL between 2010 and 2013 were observed retrospectively until the date of death or data collection, whichever occurred first.
Group 2, RRHL: Median Number of Cycles Associated With Each Salvage Regimen in Participants Undergoing ASCT Therapy regimen 1	3.0 cycles Interval 1.0 to 8.0	—
Group 2, RRHL: Median Number of Cycles Associated With Each Salvage Regimen in Participants Undergoing ASCT Therapy regimen 6	5.5 cycles Interval 3.0 to 8.0	—
Group 2, RRHL: Median Number of Cycles Associated With Each Salvage Regimen in Participants Undergoing ASCT Therapy regimen 7	3.0 cycles Interval 1.0 to 6.0	—
Group 2, RRHL: Median Number of Cycles Associated With Each Salvage Regimen in Participants Undergoing ASCT Therapy regimen 8	3.0 cycles Interval 1.0 to 4.0	—
Group 2, RRHL: Median Number of Cycles Associated With Each Salvage Regimen in Participants Undergoing ASCT Therapy regimen 9	2.0 cycles Interval 1.0 to 4.0	—
Group 2, RRHL: Median Number of Cycles Associated With Each Salvage Regimen in Participants Undergoing ASCT Therapy regimen 10	3.0 cycles Interval 1.0 to 6.0	—
Group 2, RRHL: Median Number of Cycles Associated With Each Salvage Regimen in Participants Undergoing ASCT Therapy regimen 11	3.0 cycles Interval 1.0 to 4.0	—
Group 2, RRHL: Median Number of Cycles Associated With Each Salvage Regimen in Participants Undergoing ASCT Therapy regimen 12	1.0 cycles Interval 1.0 to 5.0	—
Group 2, RRHL: Median Number of Cycles Associated With Each Salvage Regimen in Participants Undergoing ASCT Therapy regimen 13	5.0 cycles Interval 1.0 to 6.0	—
Group 2, RRHL: Median Number of Cycles Associated With Each Salvage Regimen in Participants Undergoing ASCT Therapy regimen 17	8.0 cycles Interval 8.0 to 8.0	—
Group 2, RRHL: Median Number of Cycles Associated With Each Salvage Regimen in Participants Undergoing ASCT Therapy regimen 18	6.0 cycles Interval 2.5 to 16.0	—
Group 2, RRHL: Median Number of Cycles Associated With Each Salvage Regimen in Participants Undergoing ASCT Therapy regimen 19	4.0 cycles Interval 1.0 to 9.0	—
Group 2, RRHL: Median Number of Cycles Associated With Each Salvage Regimen in Participants Undergoing ASCT Therapy regimen 22	6.5 cycles Interval 5.0 to 8.0	—
Group 2, RRHL: Median Number of Cycles Associated With Each Salvage Regimen in Participants Undergoing ASCT Therapy regimen 23	21.0 cycles Interval 21.0 to 21.0	—
Group 2, RRHL: Median Number of Cycles Associated With Each Salvage Regimen in Participants Undergoing ASCT Therapy regimen 16	3.0 cycles Interval 2.0 to 6.0	—
Group 2, RRHL: Median Number of Cycles Associated With Each Salvage Regimen in Participants Undergoing ASCT Therapy regimen 4	4.0 cycles Interval 2.0 to 4.0	—
Group 2, RRHL: Median Number of Cycles Associated With Each Salvage Regimen in Participants Undergoing ASCT Therapy regimen 14	1.0 cycles Interval 1.0 to 1.0	—
Group 2, RRHL: Median Number of Cycles Associated With Each Salvage Regimen in Participants Undergoing ASCT Therapy regimen 2	2.0 cycles Interval 2.0 to 2.0	—
Group 2, RRHL: Median Number of Cycles Associated With Each Salvage Regimen in Participants Undergoing ASCT Therapy regimen 24	2.3 cycles Interval 1.0 to 16.0	—

SECONDARY outcome

Population: The FAS included all participants who were eligible for RRHL group including the common participants in both the groups, and who were undergoing ASCT.

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure	Group 2: RRHL n=222 Participants Participants diagnosed with RRHL between 01 January 2010 and 31 December 2013, and participants who were diagnosed with high-risk stage IIb-IV cHL and then were subsequently diagnosed with RRHL between 2010 and 2013 were observed retrospectively until the date of death or data collection, whichever occurred first.	Group 2: RRHL Participants diagnosed with RRHL between 01 January 2010 and 31 December 2013, and participants who were diagnosed with high-risk stage IIb-IV cHL and then were subsequently diagnosed with RRHL between 2010 and 2013 were observed retrospectively until the date of death or data collection, whichever occurred first.
Group 2, RRHL: Percentage of Participants Receiving Consolidation Therapy Post-ASCT in Participants Undergoing ASCT	1.4 percentage of participants	—

SECONDARY outcome

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure	Group 2: RRHL n=4 Participants Participants diagnosed with RRHL between 01 January 2010 and 31 December 2013, and participants who were diagnosed with high-risk stage IIb-IV cHL and then were subsequently diagnosed with RRHL between 2010 and 2013 were observed retrospectively until the date of death or data collection, whichever occurred first.	Group 2: RRHL Participants diagnosed with RRHL between 01 January 2010 and 31 December 2013, and participants who were diagnosed with high-risk stage IIb-IV cHL and then were subsequently diagnosed with RRHL between 2010 and 2013 were observed retrospectively until the date of death or data collection, whichever occurred first.
Group 2, RRHL: Median Duration of Treatment for Consolidation Therapies Used in Participants Undergoing ASCT	11.1 months Interval 6.3 to 14.5	—

SECONDARY outcome

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure	Group 2: RRHL n=219 Participants Participants diagnosed with RRHL between 01 January 2010 and 31 December 2013, and participants who were diagnosed with high-risk stage IIb-IV cHL and then were subsequently diagnosed with RRHL between 2010 and 2013 were observed retrospectively until the date of death or data collection, whichever occurred first.	Group 2: RRHL Participants diagnosed with RRHL between 01 January 2010 and 31 December 2013, and participants who were diagnosed with high-risk stage IIb-IV cHL and then were subsequently diagnosed with RRHL between 2010 and 2013 were observed retrospectively until the date of death or data collection, whichever occurred first.
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants Categorized Based on Source of ASCT Procedures in Participants Undergoing ASCT Bone marrow	36 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants Categorized Based on Source of ASCT Procedures in Participants Undergoing ASCT Peripheral	182 Participants	—

SECONDARY outcome

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure	Group 2: RRHL n=82 Participants Participants diagnosed with RRHL between 01 January 2010 and 31 December 2013, and participants who were diagnosed with high-risk stage IIb-IV cHL and then were subsequently diagnosed with RRHL between 2010 and 2013 were observed retrospectively until the date of death or data collection, whichever occurred first.	Group 2: RRHL Participants diagnosed with RRHL between 01 January 2010 and 31 December 2013, and participants who were diagnosed with high-risk stage IIb-IV cHL and then were subsequently diagnosed with RRHL between 2010 and 2013 were observed retrospectively until the date of death or data collection, whichever occurred first.
Group 2, RRHL: Median Time From Relapse (After End of Frontline Treatment) to ASCT in Participants Undergoing ASCT	182.5 days Interval 12.0 to 1021.0	—

SECONDARY outcome

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure	Group 2: RRHL n=93 Participants Participants diagnosed with RRHL between 01 January 2010 and 31 December 2013, and participants who were diagnosed with high-risk stage IIb-IV cHL and then were subsequently diagnosed with RRHL between 2010 and 2013 were observed retrospectively until the date of death or data collection, whichever occurred first.	Group 2: RRHL Participants diagnosed with RRHL between 01 January 2010 and 31 December 2013, and participants who were diagnosed with high-risk stage IIb-IV cHL and then were subsequently diagnosed with RRHL between 2010 and 2013 were observed retrospectively until the date of death or data collection, whichever occurred first.
Group 2, RRHL: CD34+ Count Administered in Participants Undergoing ASCT	211.2 cells per kilogram Standard Deviation 248.65	—

SECONDARY outcome

Population: The FAS included all participants who were eligible for RRHL group including common participants, and who relapsed after ASCT.

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure	Group 2: RRHL n=63 Participants Participants diagnosed with RRHL between 01 January 2010 and 31 December 2013, and participants who were diagnosed with high-risk stage IIb-IV cHL and then were subsequently diagnosed with RRHL between 2010 and 2013 were observed retrospectively until the date of death or data collection, whichever occurred first.	Group 2: RRHL Participants diagnosed with RRHL between 01 January 2010 and 31 December 2013, and participants who were diagnosed with high-risk stage IIb-IV cHL and then were subsequently diagnosed with RRHL between 2010 and 2013 were observed retrospectively until the date of death or data collection, whichever occurred first.
Group 2, RRHL: Time From ASCT to First Relapse in Participants Who Relapse After ASCT	9.9 months Interval 2.1 to 78.4	—

SECONDARY outcome

Population: The FAS included all participants who were eligible for RRHL group including common participants, and who relapsed after ASCT. Here number analyzed "n" are the participants who were evaluable for the outcome measure at given categories.

Therapy regimens were numbered as 1: ABVD; 7: DHAP; 10: ICE; 11: IGEV; 4: BEACOPP; 2: ABVD followed by Escalated BEACOPP; 8: ESHAP; 12: Mini-BEAM; 13: MINE; 18: Brentuximab vedotin; 22: Nivolumab; 23: Pembrolizumab; 16: GVD, 9: GCD; 24: other; 19: Bendamustine; 14: CHOP; 17: Rituximab.

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure	Group 2: RRHL n=63 Participants Participants diagnosed with RRHL between 01 January 2010 and 31 December 2013, and participants who were diagnosed with high-risk stage IIb-IV cHL and then were subsequently diagnosed with RRHL between 2010 and 2013 were observed retrospectively until the date of death or data collection, whichever occurred first.	Group 2: RRHL Participants diagnosed with RRHL between 01 January 2010 and 31 December 2013, and participants who were diagnosed with high-risk stage IIb-IV cHL and then were subsequently diagnosed with RRHL between 2010 and 2013 were observed retrospectively until the date of death or data collection, whichever occurred first.
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants Categorized Based on Post-ASCT Regimens Received at Each Line of Treatment in Participants Who Relapse After ASCT Other treatment: Therapy regimen 23	2 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants Categorized Based on Post-ASCT Regimens Received at Each Line of Treatment in Participants Who Relapse After ASCT Other treatment: Therapy regimen 16	1 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants Categorized Based on Post-ASCT Regimens Received at Each Line of Treatment in Participants Who Relapse After ASCT Other treatment: Therapy regimen 4	1 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants Categorized Based on Post-ASCT Regimens Received at Each Line of Treatment in Participants Who Relapse After ASCT Other treatment: Therapy regimen 24	15 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants Categorized Based on Post-ASCT Regimens Received at Each Line of Treatment in Participants Who Relapse After ASCT Frontline: Therapy regimen 1	57 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants Categorized Based on Post-ASCT Regimens Received at Each Line of Treatment in Participants Who Relapse After ASCT Frontline: Therapy regimen 7	1 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants Categorized Based on Post-ASCT Regimens Received at Each Line of Treatment in Participants Who Relapse After ASCT Frontline: Therapy regimen 10	1 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants Categorized Based on Post-ASCT Regimens Received at Each Line of Treatment in Participants Who Relapse After ASCT Frontline: Therapy regimen 11	1 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants Categorized Based on Post-ASCT Regimens Received at Each Line of Treatment in Participants Who Relapse After ASCT Frontline: Therapy regimen 4	4 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants Categorized Based on Post-ASCT Regimens Received at Each Line of Treatment in Participants Who Relapse After ASCT Frontline: Therapy regimen 2	2 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants Categorized Based on Post-ASCT Regimens Received at Each Line of Treatment in Participants Who Relapse After ASCT Frontline: Therapy regimen 24	3 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants Categorized Based on Post-ASCT Regimens Received at Each Line of Treatment in Participants Who Relapse After ASCT Second line: Therapy regimen 7	9 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants Categorized Based on Post-ASCT Regimens Received at Each Line of Treatment in Participants Who Relapse After ASCT Second line: Therapy regimen 8	28 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants Categorized Based on Post-ASCT Regimens Received at Each Line of Treatment in Participants Who Relapse After ASCT Second line: Therapy regimen 10	10 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants Categorized Based on Post-ASCT Regimens Received at Each Line of Treatment in Participants Who Relapse After ASCT Second line: Therapy regimen 11	4 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants Categorized Based on Post-ASCT Regimens Received at Each Line of Treatment in Participants Who Relapse After ASCT Second line: Therapy regimen 12	1 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants Categorized Based on Post-ASCT Regimens Received at Each Line of Treatment in Participants Who Relapse After ASCT Second line: Therapy regimen 13	2 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants Categorized Based on Post-ASCT Regimens Received at Each Line of Treatment in Participants Who Relapse After ASCT Second line: Therapy regimen 18	1 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants Categorized Based on Post-ASCT Regimens Received at Each Line of Treatment in Participants Who Relapse After ASCT Second line: Therapy regimen 4	4 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants Categorized Based on Post-ASCT Regimens Received at Each Line of Treatment in Participants Who Relapse After ASCT Second line: Therapy regimen 24	5 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants Categorized Based on Post-ASCT Regimens Received at Each Line of Treatment in Participants Who Relapse After ASCT Third line: Therapy regimen 7	2 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants Categorized Based on Post-ASCT Regimens Received at Each Line of Treatment in Participants Who Relapse After ASCT Third line: Therapy regimen 8	3 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants Categorized Based on Post-ASCT Regimens Received at Each Line of Treatment in Participants Who Relapse After ASCT Third line: Therapy regimen 9	3 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants Categorized Based on Post-ASCT Regimens Received at Each Line of Treatment in Participants Who Relapse After ASCT Third line: Therapy regimen 10	6 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants Categorized Based on Post-ASCT Regimens Received at Each Line of Treatment in Participants Who Relapse After ASCT Third line: Therapy regimen 11	9 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants Categorized Based on Post-ASCT Regimens Received at Each Line of Treatment in Participants Who Relapse After ASCT Third line: Therapy regimen 12	3 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants Categorized Based on Post-ASCT Regimens Received at Each Line of Treatment in Participants Who Relapse After ASCT Third line: Therapy regimen 13	1 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants Categorized Based on Post-ASCT Regimens Received at Each Line of Treatment in Participants Who Relapse After ASCT Third line: Therapy regimen 18	9 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants Categorized Based on Post-ASCT Regimens Received at Each Line of Treatment in Participants Who Relapse After ASCT Third line: Therapy regimen 22	1 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants Categorized Based on Post-ASCT Regimens Received at Each Line of Treatment in Participants Who Relapse After ASCT Third line: Therapy regimen 23	1 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants Categorized Based on Post-ASCT Regimens Received at Each Line of Treatment in Participants Who Relapse After ASCT Third line: Therapy regimen 16	4 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants Categorized Based on Post-ASCT Regimens Received at Each Line of Treatment in Participants Who Relapse After ASCT Third line: Therapy regimen 4	1 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants Categorized Based on Post-ASCT Regimens Received at Each Line of Treatment in Participants Who Relapse After ASCT Third line: Therapy regimen 24	13 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants Categorized Based on Post-ASCT Regimens Received at Each Line of Treatment in Participants Who Relapse After ASCT Pre-SCT: Therapy regimen 10	2 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants Categorized Based on Post-ASCT Regimens Received at Each Line of Treatment in Participants Who Relapse After ASCT Pre-SCT: Therapy regimen 12	3 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants Categorized Based on Post-ASCT Regimens Received at Each Line of Treatment in Participants Who Relapse After ASCT Pre-SCT: Therapy regimen 18	2 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants Categorized Based on Post-ASCT Regimens Received at Each Line of Treatment in Participants Who Relapse After ASCT Pre-SCT: Therapy regimen 19	1 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants Categorized Based on Post-ASCT Regimens Received at Each Line of Treatment in Participants Who Relapse After ASCT Pre-SCT: Therapy regimen 14	1 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants Categorized Based on Post-ASCT Regimens Received at Each Line of Treatment in Participants Who Relapse After ASCT Pre-SCT: Therapy regimen 24	9 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants Categorized Based on Post-ASCT Regimens Received at Each Line of Treatment in Participants Who Relapse After ASCT Post-SCT: Therapy regimen 18	2 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants Categorized Based on Post-ASCT Regimens Received at Each Line of Treatment in Participants Who Relapse After ASCT Other treatment: Therapy regimen 7	1 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants Categorized Based on Post-ASCT Regimens Received at Each Line of Treatment in Participants Who Relapse After ASCT Other treatment: Therapy regimen 9	1 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants Categorized Based on Post-ASCT Regimens Received at Each Line of Treatment in Participants Who Relapse After ASCT Other treatment: Therapy regimen 10	2 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants Categorized Based on Post-ASCT Regimens Received at Each Line of Treatment in Participants Who Relapse After ASCT Other treatment: Therapy regimen 11	1 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants Categorized Based on Post-ASCT Regimens Received at Each Line of Treatment in Participants Who Relapse After ASCT Other treatment: Therapy regimen 17	1 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants Categorized Based on Post-ASCT Regimens Received at Each Line of Treatment in Participants Who Relapse After ASCT Other treatment: Therapy regimen 18	7 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants Categorized Based on Post-ASCT Regimens Received at Each Line of Treatment in Participants Who Relapse After ASCT Other treatment: Therapy regimen 19	7 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants Categorized Based on Post-ASCT Regimens Received at Each Line of Treatment in Participants Who Relapse After ASCT Other treatment: Therapy regimen 22	5 Participants	—

SECONDARY outcome

Therapy regimens were numbered as 9: GVD; 10: ICE; 11: IGEV; 12: Mini-BEAM; 18: Brentuximab vedotin; 19: Bendamustine; 22: Nivolumab.

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure	Group 2: RRHL n=8 Participants Participants diagnosed with RRHL between 01 January 2010 and 31 December 2013, and participants who were diagnosed with high-risk stage IIb-IV cHL and then were subsequently diagnosed with RRHL between 2010 and 2013 were observed retrospectively until the date of death or data collection, whichever occurred first.	Group 2: RRHL Participants diagnosed with RRHL between 01 January 2010 and 31 December 2013, and participants who were diagnosed with high-risk stage IIb-IV cHL and then were subsequently diagnosed with RRHL between 2010 and 2013 were observed retrospectively until the date of death or data collection, whichever occurred first.
Group 2, RRHL: Percentage of Participants Who Relapse After ASCT Categorized Based on Palliative Therapy Regimens Therapy regimen 9	12.5 percentage of participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Percentage of Participants Who Relapse After ASCT Categorized Based on Palliative Therapy Regimens Therapy regimen 10	12.5 percentage of participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Percentage of Participants Who Relapse After ASCT Categorized Based on Palliative Therapy Regimens Therapy regimen 11	12.5 percentage of participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Percentage of Participants Who Relapse After ASCT Categorized Based on Palliative Therapy Regimens Therapy regimen 12	12.5 percentage of participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Percentage of Participants Who Relapse After ASCT Categorized Based on Palliative Therapy Regimens Therapy regimen 18	12.5 percentage of participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Percentage of Participants Who Relapse After ASCT Categorized Based on Palliative Therapy Regimens Therapy regimen 19	12.5 percentage of participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Percentage of Participants Who Relapse After ASCT Categorized Based on Palliative Therapy Regimens Therapy regimen 22	12.5 percentage of participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Percentage of Participants Who Relapse After ASCT Categorized Based on Palliative Therapy Regimens Other	75.0 percentage of participants	—

SECONDARY outcome

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure	Group 2: RRHL n=63 Participants Participants diagnosed with RRHL between 01 January 2010 and 31 December 2013, and participants who were diagnosed with high-risk stage IIb-IV cHL and then were subsequently diagnosed with RRHL between 2010 and 2013 were observed retrospectively until the date of death or data collection, whichever occurred first.	Group 2: RRHL Participants diagnosed with RRHL between 01 January 2010 and 31 December 2013, and participants who were diagnosed with high-risk stage IIb-IV cHL and then were subsequently diagnosed with RRHL between 2010 and 2013 were observed retrospectively until the date of death or data collection, whichever occurred first.
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Cycles Received at Each Line of Treatment for Each Treatment Regimen in Participants Who Relapse After ASCT Second line: Therapy regimen 11	3.0 cycles Interval 3.0 to 4.0	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Cycles Received at Each Line of Treatment for Each Treatment Regimen in Participants Who Relapse After ASCT Frontline: Therapy regimen 1	6.0 cycles Interval 2.0 to 8.0	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Cycles Received at Each Line of Treatment for Each Treatment Regimen in Participants Who Relapse After ASCT Frontline: Therapy regimen 7	2.0 cycles Interval 2.0 to 2.0	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Cycles Received at Each Line of Treatment for Each Treatment Regimen in Participants Who Relapse After ASCT Frontline: Therapy regimen 10	2.0 cycles Interval 2.0 to 2.0	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Cycles Received at Each Line of Treatment for Each Treatment Regimen in Participants Who Relapse After ASCT Frontline: Therapy regimen 11	2.0 cycles Interval 2.0 to 2.0	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Cycles Received at Each Line of Treatment for Each Treatment Regimen in Participants Who Relapse After ASCT Frontline: Therapy regimen 4	6.0 cycles Interval 6.0 to 8.0	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Cycles Received at Each Line of Treatment for Each Treatment Regimen in Participants Who Relapse After ASCT Frontline: Therapy regimen 2	7.0 cycles Interval 6.0 to 8.0	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Cycles Received at Each Line of Treatment for Each Treatment Regimen in Participants Who Relapse After ASCT Frontline: Therapy regimen 24	2.0 cycles Interval 1.0 to 4.0	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Cycles Received at Each Line of Treatment for Each Treatment Regimen in Participants Who Relapse After ASCT Second line: Therapy regimen 7	2.0 cycles Interval 1.0 to 6.0	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Cycles Received at Each Line of Treatment for Each Treatment Regimen in Participants Who Relapse After ASCT Second line: Therapy regimen 8	3.0 cycles Interval 1.0 to 6.0	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Cycles Received at Each Line of Treatment for Each Treatment Regimen in Participants Who Relapse After ASCT Second line: Therapy regimen 10	3.0 cycles Interval 1.0 to 3.0	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Cycles Received at Each Line of Treatment for Each Treatment Regimen in Participants Who Relapse After ASCT Second line: Therapy regimen 12	1.0 cycles Interval 1.0 to 1.0	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Cycles Received at Each Line of Treatment for Each Treatment Regimen in Participants Who Relapse After ASCT Second line: Therapy regimen 13	3.5 cycles Interval 1.0 to 6.0	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Cycles Received at Each Line of Treatment for Each Treatment Regimen in Participants Who Relapse After ASCT Second line: Therapy regimen 18	3.0 cycles Interval 3.0 to 3.0	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Cycles Received at Each Line of Treatment for Each Treatment Regimen in Participants Who Relapse After ASCT Second line: Therapy regimen 4	4.0 cycles Interval 2.0 to 6.0	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Cycles Received at Each Line of Treatment for Each Treatment Regimen in Participants Who Relapse After ASCT Second line: Therapy regimen 24	4.0 cycles Interval 2.0 to 8.0	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Cycles Received at Each Line of Treatment for Each Treatment Regimen in Participants Who Relapse After ASCT Third line: Therapy regimen 7	1.5 cycles Interval 1.0 to 2.0	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Cycles Received at Each Line of Treatment for Each Treatment Regimen in Participants Who Relapse After ASCT Third line: Therapy regimen 8	2.0 cycles Interval 2.0 to 3.0	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Cycles Received at Each Line of Treatment for Each Treatment Regimen in Participants Who Relapse After ASCT Third line: Therapy regimen 9	6.0 cycles Interval 2.0 to 6.0	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Cycles Received at Each Line of Treatment for Each Treatment Regimen in Participants Who Relapse After ASCT Third line: Therapy regimen 10	3.0 cycles Interval 1.0 to 6.0	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Cycles Received at Each Line of Treatment for Each Treatment Regimen in Participants Who Relapse After ASCT Third line: Therapy regimen 11	3.0 cycles Interval 1.0 to 4.0	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Cycles Received at Each Line of Treatment for Each Treatment Regimen in Participants Who Relapse After ASCT Third line: Therapy regimen 12	2.0 cycles Interval 1.0 to 4.0	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Cycles Received at Each Line of Treatment for Each Treatment Regimen in Participants Who Relapse After ASCT Third line: Therapy regimen 13	6.0 cycles Interval 6.0 to 6.0	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Cycles Received at Each Line of Treatment for Each Treatment Regimen in Participants Who Relapse After ASCT Third line: Therapy regimen 18	5.0 cycles Interval 3.0 to 16.0	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Cycles Received at Each Line of Treatment for Each Treatment Regimen in Participants Who Relapse After ASCT Third line: Therapy regimen 22	8.0 cycles Interval 8.0 to 8.0	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Cycles Received at Each Line of Treatment for Each Treatment Regimen in Participants Who Relapse After ASCT Third line: Therapy regimen 23	1.0 cycles Interval 1.0 to 1.0	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Cycles Received at Each Line of Treatment for Each Treatment Regimen in Participants Who Relapse After ASCT Third line: Therapy regimen 16	3.0 cycles Interval 3.0 to 6.0	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Cycles Received at Each Line of Treatment for Each Treatment Regimen in Participants Who Relapse After ASCT Third line: Therapy regimen 4	3.0 cycles Interval 3.0 to 3.0	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Cycles Received at Each Line of Treatment for Each Treatment Regimen in Participants Who Relapse After ASCT Pre-SCT: Therapy regimen 10	2.0 cycles Interval 2.0 to 2.0	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Cycles Received at Each Line of Treatment for Each Treatment Regimen in Participants Who Relapse After ASCT Pre-SCT: Therapy regimen 12	1.0 cycles Interval 1.0 to 1.0	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Cycles Received at Each Line of Treatment for Each Treatment Regimen in Participants Who Relapse After ASCT Pre-SCT: Therapy regimen 18	7.5 cycles Interval 5.0 to 10.0	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Cycles Received at Each Line of Treatment for Each Treatment Regimen in Participants Who Relapse After ASCT Pre-SCT: Therapy regimen 19	6.0 cycles Interval 6.0 to 6.0	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Cycles Received at Each Line of Treatment for Each Treatment Regimen in Participants Who Relapse After ASCT Pre-SCT: Therapy regimen 14	1.0 cycles Interval 1.0 to 1.0	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Cycles Received at Each Line of Treatment for Each Treatment Regimen in Participants Who Relapse After ASCT Pre-SCT: Therapy regimen 24	1.0 cycles Interval 1.0 to 1.0	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Cycles Received at Each Line of Treatment for Each Treatment Regimen in Participants Who Relapse After ASCT Post-SCT: Therapy regimen 18	9.0 cycles Interval 6.0 to 12.0	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Cycles Received at Each Line of Treatment for Each Treatment Regimen in Participants Who Relapse After ASCT Other treatment: Therapy regimen 7	3.0 cycles Interval 3.0 to 3.0	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Cycles Received at Each Line of Treatment for Each Treatment Regimen in Participants Who Relapse After ASCT Other treatment: Therapy regimen 9	4.0 cycles Interval 4.0 to 4.0	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Cycles Received at Each Line of Treatment for Each Treatment Regimen in Participants Who Relapse After ASCT Other treatment: Therapy regimen 10	2.5 cycles Interval 2.0 to 3.0	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Cycles Received at Each Line of Treatment for Each Treatment Regimen in Participants Who Relapse After ASCT Other treatment: Therapy regimen 11	4.0 cycles Interval 4.0 to 4.0	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Cycles Received at Each Line of Treatment for Each Treatment Regimen in Participants Who Relapse After ASCT Other treatment: Therapy regimen 17	8.0 cycles Interval 8.0 to 8.0	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Cycles Received at Each Line of Treatment for Each Treatment Regimen in Participants Who Relapse After ASCT Other treatment: Therapy regimen 18	12.0 cycles Interval 2.0 to 16.0	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Cycles Received at Each Line of Treatment for Each Treatment Regimen in Participants Who Relapse After ASCT Other treatment: Therapy regimen 19	4.0 cycles Interval 2.0 to 9.0	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Cycles Received at Each Line of Treatment for Each Treatment Regimen in Participants Who Relapse After ASCT Other treatment: Therapy regimen 22	7.0 cycles Interval 5.0 to 26.0	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Cycles Received at Each Line of Treatment for Each Treatment Regimen in Participants Who Relapse After ASCT Other treatment: Therapy regimen 23	23.0 cycles Interval 21.0 to 25.0	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Cycles Received at Each Line of Treatment for Each Treatment Regimen in Participants Who Relapse After ASCT Other treatment: Therapy regimen 16	2.0 cycles Interval 2.0 to 2.0	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Cycles Received at Each Line of Treatment for Each Treatment Regimen in Participants Who Relapse After ASCT Other treatment: Therapy regimen 4	2.0 cycles Interval 2.0 to 2.0	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Cycles Received at Each Line of Treatment for Each Treatment Regimen in Participants Who Relapse After ASCT Other treatment: Therapy regimen 24	4.0 cycles Interval 1.0 to 16.0	—

SECONDARY outcome

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure	Group 2: RRHL n=63 Participants Participants diagnosed with RRHL between 01 January 2010 and 31 December 2013, and participants who were diagnosed with high-risk stage IIb-IV cHL and then were subsequently diagnosed with RRHL between 2010 and 2013 were observed retrospectively until the date of death or data collection, whichever occurred first.	Group 2: RRHL Participants diagnosed with RRHL between 01 January 2010 and 31 December 2013, and participants who were diagnosed with high-risk stage IIb-IV cHL and then were subsequently diagnosed with RRHL between 2010 and 2013 were observed retrospectively until the date of death or data collection, whichever occurred first.
Group 2, RRHL: Duration of Each Line of Treatment for Participants Who Relapse After ASCT Frontline Treatment	5.9 months Interval 0.0 to 11.9	—
Group 2, RRHL: Duration of Each Line of Treatment for Participants Who Relapse After ASCT Second line Treatment	2.0 months Interval 0.0 to 9.4	—
Group 2, RRHL: Duration of Each Line of Treatment for Participants Who Relapse After ASCT Third line Treatment	2.0 months Interval 0.1 to 13.2	—
Group 2, RRHL: Duration of Each Line of Treatment for Participants Who Relapse After ASCT Pre-SCT Treatment	0.2 months Interval 0.0 to 6.0	—
Group 2, RRHL: Duration of Each Line of Treatment for Participants Who Relapse After ASCT Post-SCT Treatment	7.2 months Interval 5.6 to 8.8	—
Group 2, RRHL: Duration of Each Line of Treatment for Participants Who Relapse After ASCT Other Treatment	4.0 months Interval 0.7 to 18.5	—

SECONDARY outcome

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure	Group 2: RRHL n=52 Participants Participants diagnosed with RRHL between 01 January 2010 and 31 December 2013, and participants who were diagnosed with high-risk stage IIb-IV cHL and then were subsequently diagnosed with RRHL between 2010 and 2013 were observed retrospectively until the date of death or data collection, whichever occurred first.	Group 2: RRHL Participants diagnosed with RRHL between 01 January 2010 and 31 December 2013, and participants who were diagnosed with high-risk stage IIb-IV cHL and then were subsequently diagnosed with RRHL between 2010 and 2013 were observed retrospectively until the date of death or data collection, whichever occurred first.
Group 2, RRHL: Time From ASCT to First Treatment After Relapse in Participants Who Relapse After ASCT	16.0 months Interval 2.9 to 53.8	—

SECONDARY outcome

Population: The FAS included all participants who were eligible for RRHL group including common participants, and who relapsed after ASCT. Here "overall number of participants" analyzed are those who were evaluable for this outcome measure. Here number analyzed "n" are the participants who were evaluable for the outcome measure at given categories.

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure	Group 2: RRHL n=52 Participants Participants diagnosed with RRHL between 01 January 2010 and 31 December 2013, and participants who were diagnosed with high-risk stage IIb-IV cHL and then were subsequently diagnosed with RRHL between 2010 and 2013 were observed retrospectively until the date of death or data collection, whichever occurred first.	Group 2: RRHL Participants diagnosed with RRHL between 01 January 2010 and 31 December 2013, and participants who were diagnosed with high-risk stage IIb-IV cHL and then were subsequently diagnosed with RRHL between 2010 and 2013 were observed retrospectively until the date of death or data collection, whichever occurred first.
Group 2, RRHL: Time to Initiation of Each Subsequent Treatment, From ASCT and From Completion of Previous Treatment in Participants Who Relapse From ASCT From ASCT to 1st treatment	16.0 months Interval 2.9 to 53.8	—
Group 2, RRHL: Time to Initiation of Each Subsequent Treatment, From ASCT and From Completion of Previous Treatment in Participants Who Relapse From ASCT From ASCT to 2nd treatment	19.1 months Interval 9.1 to 87.4	—
Group 2, RRHL: Time to Initiation of Each Subsequent Treatment, From ASCT and From Completion of Previous Treatment in Participants Who Relapse From ASCT From ASCT to 3rd treatment	28.1 months Interval 17.7 to 90.9	—
Group 2, RRHL: Time to Initiation of Each Subsequent Treatment, From ASCT and From Completion of Previous Treatment in Participants Who Relapse From ASCT From completion of 1st treatment to next treatment	63.0 months Interval 25.0 to 1596.0	—
Group 2, RRHL: Time to Initiation of Each Subsequent Treatment, From ASCT and From Completion of Previous Treatment in Participants Who Relapse From ASCT From completion of 2nd treatment to next treatment	87.0 months Interval 59.0 to 544.0	—

SECONDARY outcome

Data for PET-CT scan and CT scans were assessed for baseline, frontline and relapse/or refractory, and radiotherapy was assessed for frontline and relapse/refractory, as planned.

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure	Group 2: RRHL n=63 Participants Participants diagnosed with RRHL between 01 January 2010 and 31 December 2013, and participants who were diagnosed with high-risk stage IIb-IV cHL and then were subsequently diagnosed with RRHL between 2010 and 2013 were observed retrospectively until the date of death or data collection, whichever occurred first.	Group 2: RRHL Participants diagnosed with RRHL between 01 January 2010 and 31 December 2013, and participants who were diagnosed with high-risk stage IIb-IV cHL and then were subsequently diagnosed with RRHL between 2010 and 2013 were observed retrospectively until the date of death or data collection, whichever occurred first.
Group 2, RRHL: Percentage of Participants Who Received PET-CT Scan, CT Scan and Radiotherapy at Each Stage of the Treatment Pathway in Participants Who Relapse After ASCT PET-CT scan: Baseline	23.6 percentage of participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Percentage of Participants Who Received PET-CT Scan, CT Scan and Radiotherapy at Each Stage of the Treatment Pathway in Participants Who Relapse After ASCT PET-CT scan: Frontline	54.5 percentage of participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Percentage of Participants Who Received PET-CT Scan, CT Scan and Radiotherapy at Each Stage of the Treatment Pathway in Participants Who Relapse After ASCT PET-CT scan: Relapse and /or refractory	60.0 percentage of participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Percentage of Participants Who Received PET-CT Scan, CT Scan and Radiotherapy at Each Stage of the Treatment Pathway in Participants Who Relapse After ASCT CT scan: Baseline	47.9 percentage of participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Percentage of Participants Who Received PET-CT Scan, CT Scan and Radiotherapy at Each Stage of the Treatment Pathway in Participants Who Relapse After ASCT CT scan: Frontline	60.4 percentage of participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Percentage of Participants Who Received PET-CT Scan, CT Scan and Radiotherapy at Each Stage of the Treatment Pathway in Participants Who Relapse After ASCT CT scan: Relapse and /or refractory	70.8 percentage of participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Percentage of Participants Who Received PET-CT Scan, CT Scan and Radiotherapy at Each Stage of the Treatment Pathway in Participants Who Relapse After ASCT Radiotherapy: Frontline	22.2 percentage of participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Percentage of Participants Who Received PET-CT Scan, CT Scan and Radiotherapy at Each Stage of the Treatment Pathway in Participants Who Relapse After ASCT Radiotherapy: Relapse/refractory	36.5 percentage of participants	—

SECONDARY outcome

Data for PET-CT scan and CT scans were assessed for baseline, frontline and relapse or refractory, as planned.

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure	Group 2: RRHL n=34 Participants Participants diagnosed with RRHL between 01 January 2010 and 31 December 2013, and participants who were diagnosed with high-risk stage IIb-IV cHL and then were subsequently diagnosed with RRHL between 2010 and 2013 were observed retrospectively until the date of death or data collection, whichever occurred first.	Group 2: RRHL Participants diagnosed with RRHL between 01 January 2010 and 31 December 2013, and participants who were diagnosed with high-risk stage IIb-IV cHL and then were subsequently diagnosed with RRHL between 2010 and 2013 were observed retrospectively until the date of death or data collection, whichever occurred first.
Group 2, RRHL: Mean Frequency of PET or PET-CT Scan Assessments for Participants Who Relapse After ASCT PET or PET-CT scan: Baseline	1.0 scans Standard Deviation 0.00	—
Group 2, RRHL: Mean Frequency of PET or PET-CT Scan Assessments for Participants Who Relapse After ASCT PET or PET-CT scan: Frontline	2.0 scans Standard Deviation 1.26	—
Group 2, RRHL: Mean Frequency of PET or PET-CT Scan Assessments for Participants Who Relapse After ASCT PET or PET-CT scan: Relapse /refractory	5.6 scans Standard Deviation 3.62	—
Group 2, RRHL: Mean Frequency of PET or PET-CT Scan Assessments for Participants Who Relapse After ASCT CT Scan: Baseline	1.0 scans Standard Deviation 0.21	—
Group 2, RRHL: Mean Frequency of PET or PET-CT Scan Assessments for Participants Who Relapse After ASCT CT Scan: Frontline	2.6 scans Standard Deviation 2.26	—
Group 2, RRHL: Mean Frequency of PET or PET-CT Scan Assessments for Participants Who Relapse After ASCT CT Scan: Relapse/refractory	4.3 scans Standard Deviation 4.37	—

SECONDARY outcome

Timeframe: From initial diagnosis and until death or date of data collected, whichever occurred first (observed retrospectively from 2010 until date of data collection [up to 9 years 10 months])

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure	Group 2: RRHL n=23 Participants Participants diagnosed with RRHL between 01 January 2010 and 31 December 2013, and participants who were diagnosed with high-risk stage IIb-IV cHL and then were subsequently diagnosed with RRHL between 2010 and 2013 were observed retrospectively until the date of death or data collection, whichever occurred first.	Group 2: RRHL Participants diagnosed with RRHL between 01 January 2010 and 31 December 2013, and participants who were diagnosed with high-risk stage IIb-IV cHL and then were subsequently diagnosed with RRHL between 2010 and 2013 were observed retrospectively until the date of death or data collection, whichever occurred first.
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants With Types of Radiotherapies Received at Frontline and at Relapse/Refractory in Participants Who Relapse After ASCT Frontline: Whole body	1 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants With Types of Radiotherapies Received at Frontline and at Relapse/Refractory in Participants Who Relapse After ASCT Frontline: Involved-field radiotherapy	8 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants With Types of Radiotherapies Received at Frontline and at Relapse/Refractory in Participants Who Relapse After ASCT Frontline: Involved-site radiotherapy	4 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants With Types of Radiotherapies Received at Frontline and at Relapse/Refractory in Participants Who Relapse After ASCT Frontline: Involved-node radiotherapy	2 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants With Types of Radiotherapies Received at Frontline and at Relapse/Refractory in Participants Who Relapse After ASCT Relapse/refractory: Whole body	1 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants With Types of Radiotherapies Received at Frontline and at Relapse/Refractory in Participants Who Relapse After ASCT Relapse/refractory: Involved-field radiotherapy	21 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants With Types of Radiotherapies Received at Frontline and at Relapse/Refractory in Participants Who Relapse After ASCT Relapse/refractory: Involved-site radiotherapy	4 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants With Types of Radiotherapies Received at Frontline and at Relapse/Refractory in Participants Who Relapse After ASCT Relapse/refractory: Involved-node radiotherapy	3 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants With Types of Radiotherapies Received at Frontline and at Relapse/Refractory in Participants Who Relapse After ASCT Relapse/refractory: Other	1 Participants	—

SECONDARY outcome

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure	Group 2: RRHL n=23 Participants Participants diagnosed with RRHL between 01 January 2010 and 31 December 2013, and participants who were diagnosed with high-risk stage IIb-IV cHL and then were subsequently diagnosed with RRHL between 2010 and 2013 were observed retrospectively until the date of death or data collection, whichever occurred first.	Group 2: RRHL Participants diagnosed with RRHL between 01 January 2010 and 31 December 2013, and participants who were diagnosed with high-risk stage IIb-IV cHL and then were subsequently diagnosed with RRHL between 2010 and 2013 were observed retrospectively until the date of death or data collection, whichever occurred first.
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants Categorized Based on Anatomical Site of Radiotherapies in Participants Who Relapse After ASCT at Frontline and at Relapse/Refractory Relapse/refractory: Mediastinal nodes	12 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants Categorized Based on Anatomical Site of Radiotherapies in Participants Who Relapse After ASCT at Frontline and at Relapse/Refractory Relapse/refractory: Neck nodes	5 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants Categorized Based on Anatomical Site of Radiotherapies in Participants Who Relapse After ASCT at Frontline and at Relapse/Refractory Relapse/refractory: Other	2 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants Categorized Based on Anatomical Site of Radiotherapies in Participants Who Relapse After ASCT at Frontline and at Relapse/Refractory Frontline: Axillary nodes	1 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants Categorized Based on Anatomical Site of Radiotherapies in Participants Who Relapse After ASCT at Frontline and at Relapse/Refractory Frontline: Bone lesions	1 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants Categorized Based on Anatomical Site of Radiotherapies in Participants Who Relapse After ASCT at Frontline and at Relapse/Refractory Frontline: Mediastinal nodes	4 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants Categorized Based on Anatomical Site of Radiotherapies in Participants Who Relapse After ASCT at Frontline and at Relapse/Refractory Frontline: Neck nodes	2 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants Categorized Based on Anatomical Site of Radiotherapies in Participants Who Relapse After ASCT at Frontline and at Relapse/Refractory Frontline: Other	7 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants Categorized Based on Anatomical Site of Radiotherapies in Participants Who Relapse After ASCT at Frontline and at Relapse/Refractory Relapse/refractory: Abdominal nodes	4 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants Categorized Based on Anatomical Site of Radiotherapies in Participants Who Relapse After ASCT at Frontline and at Relapse/Refractory Relapse/refractory: Axillary nodes	4 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants Categorized Based on Anatomical Site of Radiotherapies in Participants Who Relapse After ASCT at Frontline and at Relapse/Refractory Relapse/refractory: Bone lesions	3 Participants	—

SECONDARY outcome

Population: The FAS included all participants who were eligible for RRHL group including common participants, and who relapsed after ASCT.

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure	Group 2: RRHL n=63 Participants Participants diagnosed with RRHL between 01 January 2010 and 31 December 2013, and participants who were diagnosed with high-risk stage IIb-IV cHL and then were subsequently diagnosed with RRHL between 2010 and 2013 were observed retrospectively until the date of death or data collection, whichever occurred first.	Group 2: RRHL Participants diagnosed with RRHL between 01 January 2010 and 31 December 2013, and participants who were diagnosed with high-risk stage IIb-IV cHL and then were subsequently diagnosed with RRHL between 2010 and 2013 were observed retrospectively until the date of death or data collection, whichever occurred first.
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants Categorized Based on Intent of Treatment of Radiotherapies in Participants Who Relapse After ASCT Frontline: Radical/Cure Intent	14 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants Categorized Based on Intent of Treatment of Radiotherapies in Participants Who Relapse After ASCT Frontline: Other	1 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants Categorized Based on Intent of Treatment of Radiotherapies in Participants Who Relapse After ASCT Relapse/refractory: Radical/Cure Intent	23 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants Categorized Based on Intent of Treatment of Radiotherapies in Participants Who Relapse After ASCT Relapse/refractory: Palliative Intent	5 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants Categorized Based on Intent of Treatment of Radiotherapies in Participants Who Relapse After ASCT Relapse/refractory: Other	2 Participants	—

SECONDARY outcome

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure	Group 2: RRHL n=20 Participants Participants diagnosed with RRHL between 01 January 2010 and 31 December 2013, and participants who were diagnosed with high-risk stage IIb-IV cHL and then were subsequently diagnosed with RRHL between 2010 and 2013 were observed retrospectively until the date of death or data collection, whichever occurred first.	Group 2: RRHL Participants diagnosed with RRHL between 01 January 2010 and 31 December 2013, and participants who were diagnosed with high-risk stage IIb-IV cHL and then were subsequently diagnosed with RRHL between 2010 and 2013 were observed retrospectively until the date of death or data collection, whichever occurred first.
Group 2, RRHL: Total Dose of Radiotherapies Received at Frontline and Relapse/Refractory in Participants Who Relapse After ASCT Total Dose of RT at Frontline	32.0 Gray Standard Deviation 7.28	—
Group 2, RRHL: Total Dose of Radiotherapies Received at Frontline and Relapse/Refractory in Participants Who Relapse After ASCT Total Dose of RT at Relapse/refractory	33.0 Gray Standard Deviation 6.96	—

SECONDARY outcome

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure	Group 2: RRHL n=20 Participants Participants diagnosed with RRHL between 01 January 2010 and 31 December 2013, and participants who were diagnosed with high-risk stage IIb-IV cHL and then were subsequently diagnosed with RRHL between 2010 and 2013 were observed retrospectively until the date of death or data collection, whichever occurred first.	Group 2: RRHL Participants diagnosed with RRHL between 01 January 2010 and 31 December 2013, and participants who were diagnosed with high-risk stage IIb-IV cHL and then were subsequently diagnosed with RRHL between 2010 and 2013 were observed retrospectively until the date of death or data collection, whichever occurred first.
Group 2, RRHL: Percentage of Participants Undergoing Subsequent ASCTs and Allogeneic Stem Cell Transplantation (Allo-SCT) Undergoing subsequent ASCTs	38.1 percentage of participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Percentage of Participants Undergoing Subsequent ASCTs and Allogeneic Stem Cell Transplantation (Allo-SCT) Undergoing allo-SCT	4.8 percentage of participants	—

SECONDARY outcome

Population: The FAS included all participants who were eligible for RRHL group including common participants, and who relapsed after ASCT.

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure	Group 2: RRHL n=63 Participants Participants diagnosed with RRHL between 01 January 2010 and 31 December 2013, and participants who were diagnosed with high-risk stage IIb-IV cHL and then were subsequently diagnosed with RRHL between 2010 and 2013 were observed retrospectively until the date of death or data collection, whichever occurred first.	Group 2: RRHL Participants diagnosed with RRHL between 01 January 2010 and 31 December 2013, and participants who were diagnosed with high-risk stage IIb-IV cHL and then were subsequently diagnosed with RRHL between 2010 and 2013 were observed retrospectively until the date of death or data collection, whichever occurred first.
Group 2, RRHL: Group 2, RRHL: Median Number of ASCTs for Each Participant Who Relapse After ASCT	1.0 ASCTs Interval 1.0 to 2.0	—

SECONDARY outcome

Timeframe: From initiation of frontline regimen to first documentation of relapse/PD/until date of death (or date when participant was last alive), whichever occurred first (observed retrospectively from 2010 until date of data collection [up to 9 years 10 months])

Population: The FAS included all participants who were eligible for cHL group including the common participants in both the groups.

PFS was defined as time from initiation of frontline regimen to first documentation of relapse or disease progression or death, censored at date of most recent follow-up/contact. PD was defined as any new lesion or increase by \>= 50% of previously involved site from nadir, and was evaluated based on IWG criteria (Cheson et al 2007). Median PFS was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method.

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure	Group 2: RRHL n=1598 Participants Participants diagnosed with RRHL between 01 January 2010 and 31 December 2013, and participants who were diagnosed with high-risk stage IIb-IV cHL and then were subsequently diagnosed with RRHL between 2010 and 2013 were observed retrospectively until the date of death or data collection, whichever occurred first.	Group 2: RRHL Participants diagnosed with RRHL between 01 January 2010 and 31 December 2013, and participants who were diagnosed with high-risk stage IIb-IV cHL and then were subsequently diagnosed with RRHL between 2010 and 2013 were observed retrospectively until the date of death or data collection, whichever occurred first.
Group 1, cHL: Median PFS	NA months Median, lower and upper limit of 95% confidence interval (CI) could not be calculated because insufficient number of participants had events.	—

SECONDARY outcome

Timeframe: From post completion of frontline treatment until the date of death (or the date when the participant was last known to be alive) (observed retrospectively from 2010 until date of data collection [up to 9 years 10 months])

Population: The FAS included all participants who were eligible for cHL group including the common participants in both the groups.

Best clinical response as complete remission (CR), partial remission (PR), stable disease (SD), or PD was evaluated based on IWG criteria (Cheson et al 2007). CR was the disappearance of all evidence of disease. PR was the regression of measurable disease and no new sites. SD was defined by failure to achieve CR, PR, or PD. PD was defined as any new lesion or increase by \>=50% of previously involved sites from nadir.

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure	Group 2: RRHL n=1598 Participants Participants diagnosed with RRHL between 01 January 2010 and 31 December 2013, and participants who were diagnosed with high-risk stage IIb-IV cHL and then were subsequently diagnosed with RRHL between 2010 and 2013 were observed retrospectively until the date of death or data collection, whichever occurred first.	Group 2: RRHL Participants diagnosed with RRHL between 01 January 2010 and 31 December 2013, and participants who were diagnosed with high-risk stage IIb-IV cHL and then were subsequently diagnosed with RRHL between 2010 and 2013 were observed retrospectively until the date of death or data collection, whichever occurred first.
Group 1, cHL: Number of Participants Based on Best Clinical Response Post Completion of Frontline Treatment Other	85 participants	—
Group 1, cHL: Number of Participants Based on Best Clinical Response Post Completion of Frontline Treatment CR	968 participants	—
Group 1, cHL: Number of Participants Based on Best Clinical Response Post Completion of Frontline Treatment PR	356 participants	—
Group 1, cHL: Number of Participants Based on Best Clinical Response Post Completion of Frontline Treatment SD	80 participants	—
Group 1, cHL: Number of Participants Based on Best Clinical Response Post Completion of Frontline Treatment PD	109 participants	—

SECONDARY outcome

Population: The FAS included all participants who were eligible for RRHL group including the common participants in both the groups. Here number analyzed "n" are the participants who were evaluable for the outcome measure at given categories.

Best clinical response as CR, PR, SD, or PD was evaluated based on IWG criteria (Cheson et al 2007). CR was the disappearance of all evidence of disease. PR was the regression of measurable disease and no new sites. SD was defined by failure to achieve CR, PR, or PD. PD was defined as any new lesion or increase by \>=50% of previously involved sites from nadir.

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure	Group 2: RRHL n=426 Participants Participants diagnosed with RRHL between 01 January 2010 and 31 December 2013, and participants who were diagnosed with high-risk stage IIb-IV cHL and then were subsequently diagnosed with RRHL between 2010 and 2013 were observed retrospectively until the date of death or data collection, whichever occurred first.	Group 2: RRHL Participants diagnosed with RRHL between 01 January 2010 and 31 December 2013, and participants who were diagnosed with high-risk stage IIb-IV cHL and then were subsequently diagnosed with RRHL between 2010 and 2013 were observed retrospectively until the date of death or data collection, whichever occurred first.
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants With Best Clinical Response Post Completion of Each Line of Treatment Frontline: CR	131 participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants With Best Clinical Response Post Completion of Each Line of Treatment Frontline: PR	133 participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants With Best Clinical Response Post Completion of Each Line of Treatment Second line: Other	42 participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants With Best Clinical Response Post Completion of Each Line of Treatment Post-SCT: PR	1 participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants With Best Clinical Response Post Completion of Each Line of Treatment Post-SCT: SD	1 participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants With Best Clinical Response Post Completion of Each Line of Treatment Post-SCT: PD	2 participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants With Best Clinical Response Post Completion of Each Line of Treatment Post-SCT: Other	1 participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants With Best Clinical Response Post Completion of Each Line of Treatment Other line: CR	17 participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants With Best Clinical Response Post Completion of Each Line of Treatment Other line: PR	17 participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants With Best Clinical Response Post Completion of Each Line of Treatment Other line: SD	10 participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants With Best Clinical Response Post Completion of Each Line of Treatment Other line: PD	15 participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants With Best Clinical Response Post Completion of Each Line of Treatment Other line: Other	10 participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants With Best Clinical Response Post Completion of Each Line of Treatment Frontline: SD	40 participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants With Best Clinical Response Post Completion of Each Line of Treatment Frontline: PD	98 participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants With Best Clinical Response Post Completion of Each Line of Treatment Frontline: Other	24 participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants With Best Clinical Response Post Completion of Each Line of Treatment Second line: CR	107 participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants With Best Clinical Response Post Completion of Each Line of Treatment Second line: PR	113 participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants With Best Clinical Response Post Completion of Each Line of Treatment Second line: SD	32 participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants With Best Clinical Response Post Completion of Each Line of Treatment Second line: PD	80 participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants With Best Clinical Response Post Completion of Each Line of Treatment Third line: CR	46 participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants With Best Clinical Response Post Completion of Each Line of Treatment Third line: PR	38 participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants With Best Clinical Response Post Completion of Each Line of Treatment Third line: SD	22 participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants With Best Clinical Response Post Completion of Each Line of Treatment Third line: PD	48 participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants With Best Clinical Response Post Completion of Each Line of Treatment Third line: Other	24 participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants With Best Clinical Response Post Completion of Each Line of Treatment Pre-SCT: CR	14 participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants With Best Clinical Response Post Completion of Each Line of Treatment Pre-SCT: PR	12 participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants With Best Clinical Response Post Completion of Each Line of Treatment Pre-SCT: SD	2 participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants With Best Clinical Response Post Completion of Each Line of Treatment Pre-SCT: PD	4 participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants With Best Clinical Response Post Completion of Each Line of Treatment Post-SCT: CR	5 participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants With Best Clinical Response Post Completion of Each Line of Treatment Pre-SCT: Other	18 participants	—

SECONDARY outcome

Timeframe: From CR or PR until first documentation of relapse or disease progression or until the date of death (or the date when the participant was last known to be alive) (observed retrospectively from 2010 until date of data collection [up to 9 years 10 months])

Population: The FAS included all participants who were eligible for cHL or RRHL group including the common participants in both the groups. Here "overall number of participants" analyzed are those who were evaluable for this outcome measure.

Duration of best response was defined as the time from when the criteria for response (CR or PR) were met to first documentation of relapse or disease progression, and was evaluated based on IWG criteria (Cheson et al 2007). CR was the disappearance of all evidence of disease. PR was the regression of measurable disease and no new sites. PD was defined as any new lesion or increase by \>=50% of previously involved sites from nadir.

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure	Group 2: RRHL n=1452 Participants Participants diagnosed with RRHL between 01 January 2010 and 31 December 2013, and participants who were diagnosed with high-risk stage IIb-IV cHL and then were subsequently diagnosed with RRHL between 2010 and 2013 were observed retrospectively until the date of death or data collection, whichever occurred first.	Group 2: RRHL n=298 Participants Participants diagnosed with RRHL between 01 January 2010 and 31 December 2013, and participants who were diagnosed with high-risk stage IIb-IV cHL and then were subsequently diagnosed with RRHL between 2010 and 2013 were observed retrospectively until the date of death or data collection, whichever occurred first.
Mean Duration of Best Response	NA months Median, lower and upper limit of 95% CI could not be calculated because insufficient number of participants had an event.	51.08 months Interval 27.07 to The upper 95% CI was not achieved due to high censoring rate.

SECONDARY outcome

Timeframe: From initial diagnosis until the date of death (or date when the participant was alive) (Group 1); From first relapse after frontline therapy to death (Group 2) (observed retrospectively from 2010 until date of data collection [up to 9 years 10 months])

Median OS was defined as the time from diagnosis of cHL to death(Group 1)/ time from first relapse after frontline therapy to death (Group 2), censored at date of most recent follow-up/contact.

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure	Group 2: RRHL n=1598 Participants Participants diagnosed with RRHL between 01 January 2010 and 31 December 2013, and participants who were diagnosed with high-risk stage IIb-IV cHL and then were subsequently diagnosed with RRHL between 2010 and 2013 were observed retrospectively until the date of death or data collection, whichever occurred first.	Group 2: RRHL n=249 Participants Participants diagnosed with RRHL between 01 January 2010 and 31 December 2013, and participants who were diagnosed with high-risk stage IIb-IV cHL and then were subsequently diagnosed with RRHL between 2010 and 2013 were observed retrospectively until the date of death or data collection, whichever occurred first.
Median Overall Survival (OS)	NA months Median, lower and upper limit of 95% CI could not be calculated because insufficient number of participants had an event.	NA months Median, lower and upper limit of 95% CI could not be calculated because insufficient number of participants had an event.

SECONDARY outcome

Timeframe: At 1 year and 5 years after diagnosis (observed retrospectively from 2010 until date of data collection [up to 9 years 10 months])

Population: The FAS included all participants who were eligible for cHL group including the common participants in both the groups.

Percentage of participants who were alive at 1 and 5 years after diagnosis in cHL participants are reported. 5 year overall survival data were reported only for participants who had \>5 year observation periods.

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure	Group 2: RRHL n=1598 Participants Participants diagnosed with RRHL between 01 January 2010 and 31 December 2013, and participants who were diagnosed with high-risk stage IIb-IV cHL and then were subsequently diagnosed with RRHL between 2010 and 2013 were observed retrospectively until the date of death or data collection, whichever occurred first.	Group 2: RRHL Participants diagnosed with RRHL between 01 January 2010 and 31 December 2013, and participants who were diagnosed with high-risk stage IIb-IV cHL and then were subsequently diagnosed with RRHL between 2010 and 2013 were observed retrospectively until the date of death or data collection, whichever occurred first.
Group 1, cHL: Overall Survival Rate After Diagnosis at 1 and 5 Years At 1 year	95.65 percentage of participants Interval 94.52 to 96.56	—
Group 1, cHL: Overall Survival Rate After Diagnosis at 1 and 5 Years At 5 years	84.74 percentage of participants Interval 82.75 to 86.52	—

SECONDARY outcome

Timeframe: At 1 year and 5 years after relapse (observed retrospectively from 2010 until date of data collection [up to 9 years 10 months])

Percentage of participants who were alive at 1 and 5 years after diagnosis in RRHL participants are reported. 5 year overall survival data were reported only for participants who had \>5 year observation periods.

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure	Group 2: RRHL n=249 Participants Participants diagnosed with RRHL between 01 January 2010 and 31 December 2013, and participants who were diagnosed with high-risk stage IIb-IV cHL and then were subsequently diagnosed with RRHL between 2010 and 2013 were observed retrospectively until the date of death or data collection, whichever occurred first.	Group 2: RRHL Participants diagnosed with RRHL between 01 January 2010 and 31 December 2013, and participants who were diagnosed with high-risk stage IIb-IV cHL and then were subsequently diagnosed with RRHL between 2010 and 2013 were observed retrospectively until the date of death or data collection, whichever occurred first.
Group 2, RRHL: Overall Survival Rate at 1 and 5 Years At 1 year	89.15 percentage of participants Interval 84.48 to 92.48	—
Group 2, RRHL: Overall Survival Rate at 1 and 5 Years At 5 years	70.68 percentage of participants Interval 64.1 to 76.28	—

SECONDARY outcome

Population: The FAS included all participants who were eligible for cHL group including common participants in both the groups.

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure	Group 2: RRHL n=1598 Participants Participants diagnosed with RRHL between 01 January 2010 and 31 December 2013, and participants who were diagnosed with high-risk stage IIb-IV cHL and then were subsequently diagnosed with RRHL between 2010 and 2013 were observed retrospectively until the date of death or data collection, whichever occurred first.	Group 2: RRHL Participants diagnosed with RRHL between 01 January 2010 and 31 December 2013, and participants who were diagnosed with high-risk stage IIb-IV cHL and then were subsequently diagnosed with RRHL between 2010 and 2013 were observed retrospectively until the date of death or data collection, whichever occurred first.
Group 1, cHL: Number of Participants Who Had Inpatient Hospital Admissions, Emergency Room Visits, and Outpatient Visits by Healthcare Professionals Related to HL Inpatient Hospital Admissions	864 Participants	—
Group 1, cHL: Number of Participants Who Had Inpatient Hospital Admissions, Emergency Room Visits, and Outpatient Visits by Healthcare Professionals Related to HL Emergency Room Visits	357 Participants	—
Group 1, cHL: Number of Participants Who Had Inpatient Hospital Admissions, Emergency Room Visits, and Outpatient Visits by Healthcare Professionals Related to HL Outpatient Visits	1135 Participants	—

SECONDARY outcome

Population: The FAS included all participants who were eligible for cHL group including common participants in both the groups, and who had HL inpatient hospitalizations.

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure	Group 2: RRHL n=864 Participants Participants diagnosed with RRHL between 01 January 2010 and 31 December 2013, and participants who were diagnosed with high-risk stage IIb-IV cHL and then were subsequently diagnosed with RRHL between 2010 and 2013 were observed retrospectively until the date of death or data collection, whichever occurred first.	Group 2: RRHL Participants diagnosed with RRHL between 01 January 2010 and 31 December 2013, and participants who were diagnosed with high-risk stage IIb-IV cHL and then were subsequently diagnosed with RRHL between 2010 and 2013 were observed retrospectively until the date of death or data collection, whichever occurred first.
Group 1, cHL: Number of Participants Categorized Based on Reasons for Inpatient Hospital Admissions Related to HL Chemotherapy	563 Participants	—
Group 1, cHL: Number of Participants Categorized Based on Reasons for Inpatient Hospital Admissions Related to HL Radiotherapy	39 Participants	—
Group 1, cHL: Number of Participants Categorized Based on Reasons for Inpatient Hospital Admissions Related to HL Stem cell transplant	146 Participants	—
Group 1, cHL: Number of Participants Categorized Based on Reasons for Inpatient Hospital Admissions Related to HL Adverse event	287 Participants	—
Group 1, cHL: Number of Participants Categorized Based on Reasons for Inpatient Hospital Admissions Related to HL Unknown	37 Participants	—
Group 1, cHL: Number of Participants Categorized Based on Reasons for Inpatient Hospital Admissions Related to HL Other	384 Participants	—

SECONDARY outcome

Population: The FAS included all participants who were eligible for cHL group including common participants in both the groups, and who had HL inpatient hospitalizations. Here number analyzed "n" are the participants who were evaluable for the outcome measure at given categories.

Length of stay by unit or ward included general, high dependency/intermediate, intensive care unit, bone marrow transplant unit, and emergency visits.

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure	Group 2: RRHL n=864 Participants Participants diagnosed with RRHL between 01 January 2010 and 31 December 2013, and participants who were diagnosed with high-risk stage IIb-IV cHL and then were subsequently diagnosed with RRHL between 2010 and 2013 were observed retrospectively until the date of death or data collection, whichever occurred first.	Group 2: RRHL Participants diagnosed with RRHL between 01 January 2010 and 31 December 2013, and participants who were diagnosed with high-risk stage IIb-IV cHL and then were subsequently diagnosed with RRHL between 2010 and 2013 were observed retrospectively until the date of death or data collection, whichever occurred first.
Group 1, cHL: Mean Overall Length of Stay and Length of Stay by Unit/Ward for Inpatient Hospital Admissions Related to HL Length of stay by unit/ward: High dependency/intermediate	20.2 days Standard Deviation 17.29	—
Group 1, cHL: Mean Overall Length of Stay and Length of Stay by Unit/Ward for Inpatient Hospital Admissions Related to HL Length of stay by unit/ward: Intensive Care Unit	28.0 days Standard Deviation 26.14	—
Group 1, cHL: Mean Overall Length of Stay and Length of Stay by Unit/Ward for Inpatient Hospital Admissions Related to HL Length of stay by unit/ward: Bone marrow transplant unit	32.7 days Standard Deviation 39.70	—
Group 1, cHL: Mean Overall Length of Stay and Length of Stay by Unit/Ward for Inpatient Hospital Admissions Related to HL Overall length of stay	15.1 days Standard Deviation 41.02	—
Group 1, cHL: Mean Overall Length of Stay and Length of Stay by Unit/Ward for Inpatient Hospital Admissions Related to HL Length of stay by unit/ward: General	13.2 days Standard Deviation 41.86	—

SECONDARY outcome

Population: The FAS included all participants who were eligible for cHL group including common participants in both the groups. Here number analyzed "n" are the participants who were evaluable for the outcome measure at given categories.

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure	Group 2: RRHL n=1598 Participants Participants diagnosed with RRHL between 01 January 2010 and 31 December 2013, and participants who were diagnosed with high-risk stage IIb-IV cHL and then were subsequently diagnosed with RRHL between 2010 and 2013 were observed retrospectively until the date of death or data collection, whichever occurred first.	Group 2: RRHL Participants diagnosed with RRHL between 01 January 2010 and 31 December 2013, and participants who were diagnosed with high-risk stage IIb-IV cHL and then were subsequently diagnosed with RRHL between 2010 and 2013 were observed retrospectively until the date of death or data collection, whichever occurred first.
Group 1, cHL: Number of Participants Categorized Based on Episodes of RT Received, Type of Scan or Procedure, and Who Received Granulocyte-colony Stimulating Factor (G-CSF) or High-cost Medicines and Pegylated G-CSF Related to HL RT received	357 Participants	—
Group 1, cHL: Number of Participants Categorized Based on Episodes of RT Received, Type of Scan or Procedure, and Who Received Granulocyte-colony Stimulating Factor (G-CSF) or High-cost Medicines and Pegylated G-CSF Related to HL Scan/procedure: Chest x-Ray	427 Participants	—
Group 1, cHL: Number of Participants Categorized Based on Episodes of RT Received, Type of Scan or Procedure, and Who Received Granulocyte-colony Stimulating Factor (G-CSF) or High-cost Medicines and Pegylated G-CSF Related to HL Scan/procedure: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)	92 Participants	—
Group 1, cHL: Number of Participants Categorized Based on Episodes of RT Received, Type of Scan or Procedure, and Who Received Granulocyte-colony Stimulating Factor (G-CSF) or High-cost Medicines and Pegylated G-CSF Related to HL Scan/procedure: Needle biopsy	273 Participants	—
Group 1, cHL: Number of Participants Categorized Based on Episodes of RT Received, Type of Scan or Procedure, and Who Received Granulocyte-colony Stimulating Factor (G-CSF) or High-cost Medicines and Pegylated G-CSF Related to HL Scan/procedure: Bone scan	19 Participants	—
Group 1, cHL: Number of Participants Categorized Based on Episodes of RT Received, Type of Scan or Procedure, and Who Received Granulocyte-colony Stimulating Factor (G-CSF) or High-cost Medicines and Pegylated G-CSF Related to HL Scan/procedure: Bone marrow aspiration	997 Participants	—
Group 1, cHL: Number of Participants Categorized Based on Episodes of RT Received, Type of Scan or Procedure, and Who Received Granulocyte-colony Stimulating Factor (G-CSF) or High-cost Medicines and Pegylated G-CSF Related to HL Scan/procedure: Flow cytometry	61 Participants	—
Group 1, cHL: Number of Participants Categorized Based on Episodes of RT Received, Type of Scan or Procedure, and Who Received Granulocyte-colony Stimulating Factor (G-CSF) or High-cost Medicines and Pegylated G-CSF Related to HL Scan/procedure: Other scan procedures	315 Participants	—
Group 1, cHL: Number of Participants Categorized Based on Episodes of RT Received, Type of Scan or Procedure, and Who Received Granulocyte-colony Stimulating Factor (G-CSF) or High-cost Medicines and Pegylated G-CSF Related to HL Received G-CSF/ other high cost medications	794 Participants	—
Group 1, cHL: Number of Participants Categorized Based on Episodes of RT Received, Type of Scan or Procedure, and Who Received Granulocyte-colony Stimulating Factor (G-CSF) or High-cost Medicines and Pegylated G-CSF Related to HL Received Pegylated G-CSF	143 Participants	—

SECONDARY outcome

Population: The FAS included all participants who were eligible for cHL group including common participants in both the groups. Here "overall number of participants" analyzed are those who were evaluable for this outcome measure. Here number analyzed "n" are the participants who were evaluable for the outcome measure at given categories.

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure	Group 2: RRHL n=792 Participants Participants diagnosed with RRHL between 01 January 2010 and 31 December 2013, and participants who were diagnosed with high-risk stage IIb-IV cHL and then were subsequently diagnosed with RRHL between 2010 and 2013 were observed retrospectively until the date of death or data collection, whichever occurred first.	Group 2: RRHL Participants diagnosed with RRHL between 01 January 2010 and 31 December 2013, and participants who were diagnosed with high-risk stage IIb-IV cHL and then were subsequently diagnosed with RRHL between 2010 and 2013 were observed retrospectively until the date of death or data collection, whichever occurred first.
Group 1, cHL: Mean Number of Courses of Treatment With G-CSF/Pegylated G-CSF or Other High-cost Medicines Related to HL Treatment Courses: G-CSF treatment/other high cost medicines	5.6 days Standard Deviation 6.99	—
Group 1, cHL: Mean Number of Courses of Treatment With G-CSF/Pegylated G-CSF or Other High-cost Medicines Related to HL Treatment Courses: Pegylated G-CSF	2.5 days Standard Deviation 2.99	—

SECONDARY outcome

Population: The FAS included all participants who were eligible for RRHL group including common participants in both the groups. Here "overall number of participants" analyzed are those who were evaluable for this outcome measure. Here number analyzed "n" are the participants who were evaluable for the outcome measure at given categories.

Each participant had more than one category presented for salvage therapy and ASCT.

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure	Group 2: RRHL n=333 Participants Participants diagnosed with RRHL between 01 January 2010 and 31 December 2013, and participants who were diagnosed with high-risk stage IIb-IV cHL and then were subsequently diagnosed with RRHL between 2010 and 2013 were observed retrospectively until the date of death or data collection, whichever occurred first.	Group 2: RRHL Participants diagnosed with RRHL between 01 January 2010 and 31 December 2013, and participants who were diagnosed with high-risk stage IIb-IV cHL and then were subsequently diagnosed with RRHL between 2010 and 2013 were observed retrospectively until the date of death or data collection, whichever occurred first.
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants Who Had Inpatient Hospital Admissions, Emergency Room Visits, and Outpatient Visits by Healthcare Professional Related to HL for Salvage Therapy and ASCT Salvage Therapy: Inpatient Hospital Admissions	175 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants Who Had Inpatient Hospital Admissions, Emergency Room Visits, and Outpatient Visits by Healthcare Professional Related to HL for Salvage Therapy and ASCT Salvage Therapy: Emergency Room Visits	44 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants Who Had Inpatient Hospital Admissions, Emergency Room Visits, and Outpatient Visits by Healthcare Professional Related to HL for Salvage Therapy and ASCT Salvage Therapy: Outpatient Visits	185 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants Who Had Inpatient Hospital Admissions, Emergency Room Visits, and Outpatient Visits by Healthcare Professional Related to HL for Salvage Therapy and ASCT ASCT: Inpatient Hospital Admissions	5 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants Who Had Inpatient Hospital Admissions, Emergency Room Visits, and Outpatient Visits by Healthcare Professional Related to HL for Salvage Therapy and ASCT ASCT: Emergency Room Visits	2 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants Who Had Inpatient Hospital Admissions, Emergency Room Visits, and Outpatient Visits by Healthcare Professional Related to HL for Salvage Therapy and ASCT ASCT: Outpatient Visits	4 Participants	—

SECONDARY outcome

Each participant had more than one category presented for salvage therapy and ASCT.

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure	Group 2: RRHL n=175 Participants Participants diagnosed with RRHL between 01 January 2010 and 31 December 2013, and participants who were diagnosed with high-risk stage IIb-IV cHL and then were subsequently diagnosed with RRHL between 2010 and 2013 were observed retrospectively until the date of death or data collection, whichever occurred first.	Group 2: RRHL Participants diagnosed with RRHL between 01 January 2010 and 31 December 2013, and participants who were diagnosed with high-risk stage IIb-IV cHL and then were subsequently diagnosed with RRHL between 2010 and 2013 were observed retrospectively until the date of death or data collection, whichever occurred first.
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants Categorized Based on Reasons for Inpatient Hospital Admissions Related to HL for Salvage Therapy and ASCT Salvage Therapy: Chemotherapy	144 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants Categorized Based on Reasons for Inpatient Hospital Admissions Related to HL for Salvage Therapy and ASCT Salvage Therapy: Radiotherapy	6 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants Categorized Based on Reasons for Inpatient Hospital Admissions Related to HL for Salvage Therapy and ASCT Salvage Therapy: Stem cell transplant	50 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants Categorized Based on Reasons for Inpatient Hospital Admissions Related to HL for Salvage Therapy and ASCT Salvage Therapy: Adverse event	36 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants Categorized Based on Reasons for Inpatient Hospital Admissions Related to HL for Salvage Therapy and ASCT Salvage Therapy: Unknown	6 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants Categorized Based on Reasons for Inpatient Hospital Admissions Related to HL for Salvage Therapy and ASCT Salvage Therapy: Other	51 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants Categorized Based on Reasons for Inpatient Hospital Admissions Related to HL for Salvage Therapy and ASCT ASCT: Chemotherapy	2 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants Categorized Based on Reasons for Inpatient Hospital Admissions Related to HL for Salvage Therapy and ASCT ASCT: Adverse event	3 Participants	—

SECONDARY outcome

Population: The FAS included all participants who were eligible for RRHL group including common participants in both the groups. Here number analyzed "n" are the participants who were evaluable for the outcome measure at given categories.

Length of stay by unit or ward included general, high dependency/intermediate, intensive care unit, bone marrow transplant unit, and emergency visits. Each participant had more than one category presented for salvage therapy and ASCT.

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure	Group 2: RRHL n=426 Participants Participants diagnosed with RRHL between 01 January 2010 and 31 December 2013, and participants who were diagnosed with high-risk stage IIb-IV cHL and then were subsequently diagnosed with RRHL between 2010 and 2013 were observed retrospectively until the date of death or data collection, whichever occurred first.	Group 2: RRHL Participants diagnosed with RRHL between 01 January 2010 and 31 December 2013, and participants who were diagnosed with high-risk stage IIb-IV cHL and then were subsequently diagnosed with RRHL between 2010 and 2013 were observed retrospectively until the date of death or data collection, whichever occurred first.
Group 2, RRHL: Mean Overall Length of Stay and Length of Stay by Unit/Ward for Inpatient Hospital Admissions Related to HL for Salvage Therapy and ASCT Salvage Therapy: Intensive Care Unit	13.0 days Standard Deviation 7.07	—
Group 2, RRHL: Mean Overall Length of Stay and Length of Stay by Unit/Ward for Inpatient Hospital Admissions Related to HL for Salvage Therapy and ASCT Salvage Therapy: Bone marrow transplant unit	25.8 days Standard Deviation 10.08	—
Group 2, RRHL: Mean Overall Length of Stay and Length of Stay by Unit/Ward for Inpatient Hospital Admissions Related to HL for Salvage Therapy and ASCT Salvage Therapy: Overall length of stay	13.6 days Standard Deviation 16.30	—
Group 2, RRHL: Mean Overall Length of Stay and Length of Stay by Unit/Ward for Inpatient Hospital Admissions Related to HL for Salvage Therapy and ASCT Salvage Therapy: General	11.4 days Standard Deviation 15.79	—
Group 2, RRHL: Mean Overall Length of Stay and Length of Stay by Unit/Ward for Inpatient Hospital Admissions Related to HL for Salvage Therapy and ASCT Salvage Therapy: High dependency/intermediate	25.8 days Standard Deviation 18.24	—
Group 2, RRHL: Mean Overall Length of Stay and Length of Stay by Unit/Ward for Inpatient Hospital Admissions Related to HL for Salvage Therapy and ASCT ASCT: Overall length of stay	7.8 days Standard Deviation 4.54	—
Group 2, RRHL: Mean Overall Length of Stay and Length of Stay by Unit/Ward for Inpatient Hospital Admissions Related to HL for Salvage Therapy and ASCT ASCT: General	4.9 days Standard Deviation 1.23	—
Group 2, RRHL: Mean Overall Length of Stay and Length of Stay by Unit/Ward for Inpatient Hospital Admissions Related to HL for Salvage Therapy and ASCT ASCT: High dependency/intermediate	10.5 days Standard Deviation 6.36	—
Group 2, RRHL: Mean Overall Length of Stay and Length of Stay by Unit/Ward for Inpatient Hospital Admissions Related to HL for Salvage Therapy and ASCT ASCT: Intensive Care Unit	18.0 days Standard Deviation NA Standard deviation could not be calculated because only one participant was evaluable.	—

SECONDARY outcome

Each participant had more than one category presented for salvage therapy and ASCT. Scan procedures included chest x-ray, magnetic resonance imaging, needle biopsy, bone scan, bone marrow aspiration, flow cytometry, and other scan procedures.

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure	Group 2: RRHL n=188 Participants Participants diagnosed with RRHL between 01 January 2010 and 31 December 2013, and participants who were diagnosed with high-risk stage IIb-IV cHL and then were subsequently diagnosed with RRHL between 2010 and 2013 were observed retrospectively until the date of death or data collection, whichever occurred first.	Group 2: RRHL Participants diagnosed with RRHL between 01 January 2010 and 31 December 2013, and participants who were diagnosed with high-risk stage IIb-IV cHL and then were subsequently diagnosed with RRHL between 2010 and 2013 were observed retrospectively until the date of death or data collection, whichever occurred first.
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants Categorized Based on Episodes of RT, Type of Scan or Procedure, and Who Received G-CSF or High-cost Medicines Related to HL for Salvage Therapy and ASCT Salvage Therapy: Bone marrow aspiration	43 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants Categorized Based on Episodes of RT, Type of Scan or Procedure, and Who Received G-CSF or High-cost Medicines Related to HL for Salvage Therapy and ASCT Salvage Therapy: Flow cytometry	4 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants Categorized Based on Episodes of RT, Type of Scan or Procedure, and Who Received G-CSF or High-cost Medicines Related to HL for Salvage Therapy and ASCT Salvage Therapy: Chest x-Ray	63 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants Categorized Based on Episodes of RT, Type of Scan or Procedure, and Who Received G-CSF or High-cost Medicines Related to HL for Salvage Therapy and ASCT Salvage Therapy: Magnetic resonance imaging	8 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants Categorized Based on Episodes of RT, Type of Scan or Procedure, and Who Received G-CSF or High-cost Medicines Related to HL for Salvage Therapy and ASCT Salvage Therapy: Needle biopsy	19 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants Categorized Based on Episodes of RT, Type of Scan or Procedure, and Who Received G-CSF or High-cost Medicines Related to HL for Salvage Therapy and ASCT Salvage Therapy: Bone scan	3 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants Categorized Based on Episodes of RT, Type of Scan or Procedure, and Who Received G-CSF or High-cost Medicines Related to HL for Salvage Therapy and ASCT Salvage Therapy: Other scan procedures	40 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants Categorized Based on Episodes of RT, Type of Scan or Procedure, and Who Received G-CSF or High-cost Medicines Related to HL for Salvage Therapy and ASCT Salvage Therapy: G-CSF/ other high cost medications	150 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants Categorized Based on Episodes of RT, Type of Scan or Procedure, and Who Received G-CSF or High-cost Medicines Related to HL for Salvage Therapy and ASCT Salvage Therapy: Pegylated G-CSF	17 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants Categorized Based on Episodes of RT, Type of Scan or Procedure, and Who Received G-CSF or High-cost Medicines Related to HL for Salvage Therapy and ASCT ASCT: G-CSF/ other high cost medications	6 Participants	—
Group 2, RRHL: Number of Participants Categorized Based on Episodes of RT, Type of Scan or Procedure, and Who Received G-CSF or High-cost Medicines Related to HL for Salvage Therapy and ASCT ASCT: Pegylated G-CSF	1 Participants	—

SECONDARY outcome

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure	Group 2: RRHL n=150 Participants Participants diagnosed with RRHL between 01 January 2010 and 31 December 2013, and participants who were diagnosed with high-risk stage IIb-IV cHL and then were subsequently diagnosed with RRHL between 2010 and 2013 were observed retrospectively until the date of death or data collection, whichever occurred first.	Group 2: RRHL Participants diagnosed with RRHL between 01 January 2010 and 31 December 2013, and participants who were diagnosed with high-risk stage IIb-IV cHL and then were subsequently diagnosed with RRHL between 2010 and 2013 were observed retrospectively until the date of death or data collection, whichever occurred first.
Group 2, RRHL: Group 2, RRHL: Mean Number of Courses of Treatment With G-CSF/Pegylated G-CSF or Other High-cost Medicines Related to HL Treatment for Salvage Therapy and ASCT Salvage Therapy: G-CSF treatment/other high cost medicines	2.8 days Standard Deviation 2.78	—
Group 2, RRHL: Group 2, RRHL: Mean Number of Courses of Treatment With G-CSF/Pegylated G-CSF or Other High-cost Medicines Related to HL Treatment for Salvage Therapy and ASCT Salvage Therapy: Pegylated G-CSF	2.6 days Standard Deviation 2.90	—
Group 2, RRHL: Group 2, RRHL: Mean Number of Courses of Treatment With G-CSF/Pegylated G-CSF or Other High-cost Medicines Related to HL Treatment for Salvage Therapy and ASCT ASCT: G-CSF treatment/other high cost medicines	4.2 days Standard Deviation 2.64	—
Group 2, RRHL: Group 2, RRHL: Mean Number of Courses of Treatment With G-CSF/Pegylated G-CSF or Other High-cost Medicines Related to HL Treatment for Salvage Therapy and ASCT ASCT: Pegylated G-CSF	6.0 days Standard Deviation NA Standard deviation could not be calculated because only one participant was evaluable.	—

Adverse Events

Group 1: cHL

Serious events: 303 serious events

Other events: 642 other events

Deaths: 243 deaths

Group 2: RRHL

Serious events: 103 serious events

Other events: 187 other events

Deaths: 136 deaths

Serious adverse events

Other adverse events

Additional Information

Medical Director

Takeda

Phone: +1-877-825-3327

Email: [email protected]

Results disclosure agreements

Principal investigator is a sponsor employee The first study related publication will be a multi-center publication submitted within 24 months after conclusion or termination of a study at all sites. After such multi site publication, all proposed site publications and presentations will be submitted to sponsor for review 60 days in advance of publication. Site will remove Sponsor confidential information unrelated to study results. Sponsor can delay a proposed publication for another 60 days to preserve intellectual property.
Publication restrictions are in place

Restriction type: OTHER