<div>SD-Standard Deviation</div><div>M-Male</div><div>F-Female</div><div>Late response assessment</div><div>While analysing the outcomes at the second interim assessment, we found
that those who underwent PET-CT, satisfactory response (CR) was found in
64% patients whereas those who underwent CECT, satisfactory response
(CR + VGPR- 38.18% + 23.64%) was found in 61.82% patients. Therefore,
there was not much difference in the treatment recommendations
(alternate chemotherapy) based on the modality of scan at second interim
assessment.</div><div>Survival based on imaging modality</div><div>The 5 year OS of both groups- ERA based on CECT (91.8%) vs PET-CT
(94.1%) was comparable (p value=0.391) and so was the 5 year EFS (86.7
vs 85.5%, p value=0.724).</div><div>EFS and OS for early-stage disease patients who underwent CECT vs PET-CT
at ERA were similar (EFS-96.8 vs 92.4%, p value=0.288, OS-98.4 vs 97%,
p value=0.563). Similarly, there was also no significant difference in
the EFS and OS for advanced stage children who underwent CECT vs PET-CT
at ERA (EFS-82.1 vs 81.7%, p value=0.926, OS-88.8 vs 92.5%, p
value=0.316). Even the survival outcomes for bulky and non-bulky disease
based on imaging modality did not differ statistically (EFS of bulky
disease- CECT vs PET-CT-83.2 vs 84.7%, p value=0.77; OS of bulky
disease- CECT vs PET-CT-90.7 vs 94.4%, p value=0.355. EFS of non- bulky
disease; CECT vs PET-CT-91 vs 86%, p value=0.268, OS of non-bulky
disease, CECT vs PET-CT-93.3 vs 93.9%, p value=0.869)</div>