Voorhees, Timothy

Abstract Introduction: Older adults (OAs) with classic Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL) have inferior survival compared with younger patients (pts). NAVD has been widely adopted in clinical practice for frontline (1L) treatment of OAs with advanced stage cHL based on the subset analysis of S1826 study (Rutherford et al, JCO 2025) showing a 1-year progression-free survival (PFS) of 93% and 1-year overall survival (OS) of 95% after NAVD (n = 50) which remained durable on longer-term follow up. Another phase 2 study (Torka et al, JCO 2025) showed that NAVD is a highly effective and well-tolerated 1L regimen in OAs with cHL (n=40) across a wide range of geriatric impairments. Adverse events (AEs) and efficacy have not been reported in OAs treated with NAVD outside of a clinical trial. Hence, we sought to evaluate safety profile and efficacy outcomes of OAs with cHL treated with 1L NAVD in a real-world setting (RWS). Methods This is a multicenter retrospective cohort study of adults (≥18 years) with cHL treated with 1L NAVD between 2023 and 2025 at 20 US academic sites. Baseline characteristics and outcomes of pts ≥60 years were evaluated as a pre-planned subset analysis. The safety evaluable cohort received at least 1 cycle of NAVD and included pts who had not yet completed treatment. The efficacy evaluable cohort had completed 6 cycles of treatment including end of treatment (EOT) PET-CT and included pts who intended to complete treatment but died or discontinued due to progressive disease or AEs. The primary endpoint was EOT overall response rate (ORR). Secondary endpoints included EOT complete response rate (CRR), PFS and OS. PFS and OS were analyzed using the Kaplan Meier method. Results Among 311 pts, 81 were OAs (26%). Median age of the OA cohort was 70 (range 60-88) yrs, 65% male, 84% Caucasian, 71% nodular sclerosis subtype, 58% stage 4 disease, 59% B symptoms, 14% bulky disease (>7.5 cm), 69% extranodal sites, 41% EBV positive, 54% hypoalbuminemia, 49% IPS ≥ 4 and10% had an autoimmune disease. G-CSF was given in 81% pts. All 81 pts were evaluable for safety; 74% experienced a grade 3+ (≥G3) AE, 54% had ≥G3 hematological AE, 48% had ≥G3 neutropenia, 17% had febrile neutropenia. Infection rate was 28% with 10% ≥G3, neuropathy rate was 23% with 4% ≥G3. One infusion reaction was noted. Treatment related hospitalizations rate was 23% with median duration of 7 (range 1-16) days. There were 24 immune related AEs (IrAE) (30%) of which 5 were ≥G3. Most common IrAE was hypothyroidism (n=5), followed by inflammatory arthritis (n=4), pneumonitis (n=2, ≥G3, n=1), hepatitis (n=2, both ≥G3), adrenal insufficiency (n=2, ≥G3, n=1), colitis (n=2), and rash (n=2). One patient each had autoimmune neutropenia, sarcoidosis of lung/skin and myocarditis (≥G3). Overall, 15% pts required steroids with resolution of IrAEs in 56% cases, 30% (n=7) pts required continued therapy (levothyroxine in 4 pts, steroids in 3 pts, medical tx for heart failure in 1 pt). Treatment was interrupted in 22%, reduced in 22%, and discontinued in 23% pts. Nivolumab was discontinued in 14% pts. Among all pts (n=81), 81% had an interim PET-CT after 2-4 cycles. The ORR and CR rate at interim PET-CT were 100% and 81%, respectively. In the efficacy evaluable pts (n=52; 24 still on therapy), the EOT ORR and CRR were 93.2% and 84% in OAs compared to 96.8% and 91.7% in pts <60yrs, respectively. At a median follow up of 10.2 mo (range 0.27-28.52), the 1-yr PFS was 90.6% (95% CI: 82.7%-99.3%) in OAs and 95.5% (95% CI: 91.6%- 99.6%) in pts <60 yrs (p=0.044). 1-yr OS was 97.5% (95% CI: 94.1-100%) and not evaluable in pts <60yrs (p=0.017). None of the baseline features were predictive of response, additional analysis to understand impact on AEs and survival is ongoing. Among the 5 pts with progression/relapse, 4 were primary refractory. 4 pts received 2nd line (2L) therapy.79 pts are alive at data cut off, 2 deaths occurred- 1 infection-related and other unknown; both after the 1st cycle. Conclusions In this largest RWS cohort of OAs treated with NAVD we showed comparable response rates, AEs and 1-year survival outcomes to those in the pivotal S1826 trial. Notably, rates of ≥G3 AEs including infections, neuropathy and IrAEs remained low and manageable. Although survival significantly improved with NAVD compared to historical data, outcomes of OAs remained inferior compared to pts <60 yrs. Our data reinforces the use of NAVD as the preferred 1L option for OAs with advanced stage cHL.

Abstract Introduction: NAVD has become a standard-of-care for frontline (1L) treatment (tx) of advanced stage cHL, based on the results of the S1826 study. S1826 demonstrated a 1-year progression free survival (PFS) of 94% for NAVD compared to 86% for brentuximab vedotin-AVD, which remained durable at 2 years (Herrera et al, NEJM 2024). Adverse events (AEs) and efficacy have not been reported in patients (pts) treated with NAVD outside of a clinical trial. Hence, we sought to evaluate safety profile and efficacy outcomes of pts with cHL treated with 1L NAVD in a real-world setting (RWS). Methods: In this multicenter retrospective cohort study, we included pts ≥18 years with cHL treated with 1L standard of care NAVD between 2023 and 2025 at 20 US academic sites. The safety evaluable cohort received at least 1 cycle of NAVD and included pts who have not completed tx. The efficacy evaluable cohort had completed 6 cycles of tx including end of treatment (EOT) PET-CT and included pts who intended to complete tx but died or discontinued due to progressive disease or AEs. The primary endpoint was EOT overall response rate (ORR). Secondary endpoints included EOT complete response rate (CRR), PFS and overall survival (OS). PFS and OS were calculated from the start date of tx and analyzed using the Kaplan Meier method. Results: A total of 311 pts with cHL were treated with NAVD with 26% of pts with tx ongoing (n=83) and 73% with tx completed (n=228). Baseline demographics included 55% male pts, 60% with stage IV disease (stage IIB, n=4) and 84% with nodular sclerosis subtype. Median age was 37 years (range 18-88), 29% had bulky disease (>7.5 cm), 28% were EBV positive (n=74/268), 8% had history of an autoimmune disease, and 31% had an IPS 4-7. G-CSF was given in 64% of pts. All patients were safety evaluable. Tx was interrupted (any length) in 24%, reduced in 12%, and discontinued in 14%. The most common reason for dose reduction was neuropathy in 4%. Nivolumab was discontinued in 10% and all therapy in 3.7% due to toxicity. Any AE and any grade 3 or higher AE (>G3) were observed in 92% and 62%, respectively. Neutropenia of any grade occurred in 68% (48% >G3), infection in 25% (10% >G3), and neuropathy in 30% (2.8% >G3). Hospitalization for an AE occurred in 20% (4.5% febrile neutropenia). Among pts with complete data (n=305), any immune related AE (irAE) occurred in 78 pts (25.6%) with any >G3 irAE in 23 pts (7.5%). The most common irAEs included hypothyroidism (7.9%, all grade 1-2), hepatotoxicity (1.6% G1/G2, 3.3% >G3), inflammatory arthritis (3% G1/G2, 0.6% >G3), rash (2.6%, all grade 1-2), and colitis (1% G1/G2, 1% >G3). Other notable >G3 irAEs included adrenal insufficiency (n=2), AKI/ATN (n=1), myocarditis (n=1), diabetes (n=1) and pancreatitis (n=1). Of 84 irAE events, 47 (56%) have had complete resolution. Among all pts, 14.4% (n=45) required systemic steroids at any time (intravenous in 4.1%), 3.2% (n=10) require ongoing steroids/immunosuppression and 8.3% other therapy for an irAE (n=23 levothyroxine, n=1 hemodialysis, n=1 heart failure tx, n=1 insulin). Among all pts, 265 (85%) had an interim PET-CT after 2-4 cycles. The ORR and CRR at interim PET-CT were 97% and 78%, respectively. In the efficacy evaluable population (n=228), the EOT ORR and CRR were 96% and 90%. The median follow up was 10.2 mo (range 0.27-28.52). The 1-year PFS and OS estimates were 93.8% (95% CI: 90.8-98.4%) and 99.1% (95% CI: 97.9-100%), respectively. In multivariable analysis (MVA), only IPS score (OR 0.6, 95%CI: 0.59-0.60) was associated with lower CRR. In Cox univariable analysis, EBV+ status (HR=14.8, 95% CI: 3.2-69.2), IPS score (HR=1.5, 95% CI: 1.0-2.2), and ESR (HR=1.02, 95% CI: 1.00-1.04) were associated with worse PFS. Among the 11 pts with progression/relapse, 9 were primary refractory. 10 pts were started on second line (2L) therapy, and all pts are alive (1 pt pending 2L tx initiation). There were 2 deaths: one related to infectious complications and other unknown and both occurred after the first cycle of therapy. Conclusions: Pts treated with NAVD in a large RWS showed comparable response rates and 1-year survival outcomes to those in the pivotal S1826 trial. Most AEs were similar and grade 1-2, but close monitoring of irAEs is necessary given the potential long-term toxicity of checkpoint inhibitors and potential for ≥G3 irAEs (7.5%) in this young patient population. Our data supports the use of NAVD for 1L advanced stage cHL.

Abstract Background Chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) and bispecific antibody (BsAb) therapies are both effective for patients with relapsed/refractory (R/R) follicular lymphoma (FL), but differ in treatment schedules and associated “time toxicity,” or contact days spent physically interacting with the healthcare system. While contact days can be estimated from clinical trials, real-world data provides a more nuanced depiction of treatment-related time burden, which may guide treatment decision-making. The comparative time toxicity of CAR-T vs BsAb in R/R FL is not defined. Methods We conducted a multicenter retrospective study of adults with R/R grade 1-3A FL who received standard-of-care CAR-T (axi-cel, tisa-cel, liso-cel) or BsAb (mosunetuzumab, epcoritamab) in the third-line or later setting before Jan 1, 2025. Time toxicity was defined as outpatient or inpatient days with physical health care system contact, counting multiple visits on the same day as only one day. All days after treatment initiation were counted, regardless of disease progression, therapy completion, or relation to FL therapy. Median contact days over 1-year time horizon were compared, stratified by CAR-T vs BsAb, prior lines of therapy (LOT, 2 vs 3+), and time intervals (0-1, 1-3, 3-6, 6-9, and 9-12 months). Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were calculated from day of CAR-T infusion or day 1, cycle 1 for BsAb. Cox regression and propensity matching (by age, ECOG, refractory to prior LOT, POD24) were used to assess predictors and survival associations with contact days. Results Among 209 patients from 15 U.S. academic centers, median age was 64, 37% were female, 61% received CAR-T (80% axi-cel, 7% liso-cel, 13% tisa-cel) and 39% BsAb (93% mosun, 7% epcor). Most had Grade 1-2 FL (72%), advanced stage (84%), and extranodal disease (51%). Median prior LOT was 3 (range 2-15), 41% were refractory to prior LOT, and 52% had POD24. Median number of BsAb doses was 10 (range 1-36). Patients receiving BsAb were significantly older (p<.01) and had higher CIRS comorbidity scores (p<.02) in both 2 and 3+ prior LOT cohorts, and had higher ECOG scores (p=.01) and were less likely to be refractory to prior LOT (p=.029) in 3+ LOT cohort. There were no differences in POD24 rates between CAR-T and BsAb. Median PFS for the entire cohort was 3.6 yrs; median OS was not reached. In the 2 prior LOT cohort (N=75), 60% received CAR-T and 40% BsAb. With median follow-up of 1.5 years, median PFS was not reached for CAR-T and 1.6 yrs for BsAb (p<.0001). In the 3+ prior LOT cohort (N=134), 62% received CAR-T and 38% BsAb. With median follow-up of 2 yrs, median PFS was 3.6 yrs for CAR-T and 1.6 yrs for BsAb (p=.0044). In propensity matched analysis, PFS was shorter for BsAb in both 2 LOT (HR 9.0, 95% CI 1.14-71.04, p=.037) and 3+ LOT (HR 3.25, 95% CI 1.06-9.97, p=.039) cohorts as compared to CAR-T. There were no significant differences in OS between CAR-T and BsAb. Median contact days were significantly higher for CAR-T vs BsAb in the 0-1 month interval: 19 vs 8 days in 2 LOT (p<.0001) and 18 vs 7 days in 3+ LOT (p<.0001) cohorts. There were no differences in contact days between CAR-T vs BsAb in subsequent time intervals. Over 1 year, CAR-T had significantly more time toxicity than BsAb: median 51 vs 36 contact days in 2 LOT (p<.0001) and 64 vs 38 days in 3L+ LOT (p<.0001) cohorts; these remained significant in the matched analysis. B symptoms (p=.04) and Grade ≥3 cytopenias (p=.007) were associated with higher contact days in 3+ LOT cohort in univariable analysis. Higher contact days were associated with inferior PFS (HR 1.01, 95% CI 1.00-1.02, p=.032) and OS (HR 1.01, 95% CI 1.00-1.02, p=.038) in 3+ LOT cohort regardless of treatment type. Discussion In this large real-world cohort of patients with R/R FL, CAR-T therapy resulted in better PFS but more time toxicity over the first year as compared to BsAb therapy. Excess time toxicity from CAR-T was driven by more contact days in the first month of treatment. This study provides benchmark data for counseling patients about expected time burden of CAR-T (51-64 days) and BsAb (36-38 days) over the first year of these therapies. Further, with superior PFS of CAR-T in this study and minimal impact of time toxicity on survival outcomes, these data can be used to better support shared decision-making in R/R FL by addressing patient preferences regarding both contact days as well as duration of disease control.

AbstractCheckpoint inhibitor (CPI) therapy with anti–PD-1 antibodies has been associated with mixed outcomes in small cohorts of patients with relapsed aggressive B-cell lymphomas after CAR-T failure. To define CPI therapy efficacy more definitively in this population, we retrospectively evaluated clinical outcomes in a large cohort of 96 patients with aggressive B-cell lymphomas receiving CPI therapy after CAR-T failure across 15 US academic centers. Most patients (53%) had diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, were treated with axicabtagene ciloleucel (53%), relapsed early (≤180 days) after CAR-T (83%), and received pembrolizumab (49%) or nivolumab (43%). CPI therapy was associated with an overall response rate of 19% and a complete response rate of 10%. Median duration of response was 221 days. Median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were 54 and 159 days, respectively. Outcomes to CPI therapy were significantly improved in patients with primary mediastinal B-cell lymphoma. PFS (128 vs 51 days) and OS (387 vs 131 days) were significantly longer in patients with late (>180 days) vs early (≤180 days) relapse after CAR-T. Grade ≥3 adverse events occurred in 19% of patients treated with CPI. Most patients (83%) died, commonly because of progressive disease. Only 5% had durable responses to CPI therapy. In the largest cohort of patients with aggressive B-cell lymphoma treated with CPI therapy after CAR-T relapse, our results reveal poor outcomes, particularly among those relapsing early after CAR-T. In conclusion, CPI therapy is not an effective salvage strategy for most patients after CAR-T, where alternative approaches are needed to improve post–CAR-T outcomes.

Abstract We performed a multicenter retrospective analysis across 10 US academic medical centers to evaluate treatment patterns and outcomes in patients age ≥60 years with classic Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL) from 2010-2018. Among 244 eligible patients, median age was 68, 63% had advanced stage (III/IV), 96% had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (PS) 0-2, and 12% had documented loss of ≥1 activity of daily living (ADL). Medical comorbidities were assessed by the Cumulative Illness Rating Scale–Geriatric (CIRS-G), where n = 44 (18%) had total scores ≥10. Using multivariable Cox models, only ADL loss predicted shorter progression-free (PFS; hazard ratio [HR] 2.13, P = .007) and overall survival (OS; HR 2.52, P = .02). Most patients (n = 203, 83%) received conventional chemotherapy regimens, including doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (ABVD; 56%), AVD (14%), and AVD with brentuximab vedotin (BV; 9%). Compared to alternative therapies, conventional regimens significantly improved PFS (HR 0.46, P = .0007) and OS (HR 0.31, P = .0003). Survival was similar following conventional chemotherapy in those ages 60-69 vs ≥70: PFS HR 0.88, P = .63; OS HR 0.73, P = .55. Early treatment discontinuation due to toxicity was more common with CIRS-G ≥10 (28% vs 12%, P = .016) or documented geriatric syndrome (28% vs 13%, P = .02). A competing risk analysis demonstrated improved disease-related survival with conventional therapy (HR 0.29, P = .02) and higher mortality from causes other than disease or treatment with high CIRS-G or geriatric syndromes. This study suggests conventional chemotherapy regimens remain a standard of care in fit older patients with cHL, and highlights the importance of geriatric assessments in defining fitness for cHL therapy going forward.

Introduction Approximately 20% of patients (pts) with classical Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL) are age ≥ 60 years (yrs) at diagnosis (dx). Standard anthracycline-based therapies (ABTx) have historically shown lower efficacy and greater toxicity in this older population compared with younger pts, especially for unfit or frail pts. However, prior analyses have pre-dated the use of brentuximab vedotin (BV) and other novel targeted agents in the front-line setting and there remains no clearly defined or unified standard of care for this pt population. Studies in older lymphoma pts have also defined specific categories of pt fitness that may potentially guide therapy, although continued validation of these definitions in cHL are needed. We performed a large, multicenter retrospective study to identify current practice patterns in the US in older untreated cHL pts with specific attention to pt fitness using established definitions and to outcomes with ABTx versus non-ABTx. Methods Following IRB approval at each site, detailed pathologic and clinical data, including geriatric assessments (GAs) for the latter, were collected across 10 US academic medical centers. Eligible pts included: cHL dx on or after 1/1/2010, age ≥ 60 yrs at dx, and no preceding hematologic malignancy. Subjects with inadequate clinicopathologic and outcomes data or with dx other than cHL were excluded. A multivariable Cox proportional hazards model was developed to study the association of PFS and OS with various factors of interest, and survival rates were estimated by Kaplan-Meier using SPSS. Associations were considered significant for two-sided P values ≤ 0.05. Results Among 254 eligible older cHL pts with newly diagnosed disease, clinical features included: median age 67 yrs (range 60-90+), 54% male, 64% stage III/IV, 46% B symptoms, and 86.1% ECOG PS 0-1. 68.9% had nodular sclerosis, 18.9% mixed cellularity, and 12.2% other subtypes; EBV was detectable by IHC or peripheral blood in 39.3% of evaluable cases (n=98). In terms of geriatric measures, 31 pts (12.2%) had loss of at least one ADL; 40 (15.8%) had a geriatric syndrome; and 16 (6.3%) had both. Of note, only one pt underwent a comprehensive GA prior to treatment. Using established fitness definitions in lymphoma (Tucci et al, 2015), pts were classified as "Fit" (n=129; 50.8%), "Unfit" (n=8; 3.2%), or "Frail" (n=112 (44.1%); 5 (2%) were unclassifiable due to incomplete data (Table 1). Front-line regimens included ABVD (n=145; 57.1%), AVD (n=33; 13.0%), and CHOP (n=18; 7.1%). 6 pts (2.4%) received BV monotherapy; 21 (8.3%) received BV with AVD, the latter either concurrently (N=11) or sequentially (n=10). 11 pts did not receive systemic tx, of whom 9 received radiation alone; 58 pts received radiation with systemic tx. ABVD recipients received an average of 7.4 doses of bleomycin (range 1-14) and 18.4% (n=26) had pulmonary toxicity. In addition, 56.7% (n=130) of pts experienced at least one tx-related toxicity, which was similar across all fitness groups (Table 1). 15.1% (n=38) of pts stopped tx due to toxicity, which was noted more often in "frail" pts though it was relatively uncommon. 11 pts (4.3%) experienced treatment-related mortality (TRM). Compared with pts receiving non-ABTx, ABTx was associated with significantly improved PFS (HR 0.391, P=0.008) and OS (HR 0.195, P=0.0004). ECOG PS >1 was associated with inferior PFS (HR=1.96, P=0.017) and OS (HR=3.09, P=0.002). Pts defined as "frail" had no apparent difference in PFS compared with fit pts (Figure 1A;P=0.169), although decreased OS was seen (Figure 1B; P=0.01). Discussion To the best of our knowledge, these data represent one of the largest analyses of older cHL pts in the modern era. Our real-world analysis shows that in those who are able to receive them, anthracyclines provide meaningful survival benefit in this older cHL patient population and can be well-tolerated for many pts. The impact of dose intensity and backbone regimen are not yet known. In addition, current definitions of "fitness" incompletely identified pts at risk for poor outcomes or greater toxicity. Further studies are planned to better delineate fitness in this population. Disclosures Bartlett: Celgene: Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Immune Design: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Millenium: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Forty Seven: Research Funding; Genenetech: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding. Grover:Seattle Genetics: Consultancy. Bennani:Adicet Bio: Other: Advisory board; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Adicet Bio: Other: Advisory board; Seattle Genetics: Other: Advisory board; Seattle Genetics: Other: Advisory board; Purdue Pharma: Other: Advisory board; Seattle Genetics: Other: Advisory board; Purdue Pharma: Other: Advisory board; Kite Pharma: Other: Advisory board; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Other: Advisory board; Kite Pharma: Other: Advisory board; Purdue Pharma: Other: Advisory board; Adicet Bio: Other: Advisory board. Hill:Kite: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celegene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; TG therapeutics: Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding. Advani:Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead Sciences, Inc./Kite Pharma, Inc.: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millennium: Research Funding; Kura: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Autolus: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bayer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Infinity Pharma: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Celmed: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Forty-Seven: Research Funding; Roche/Genentech: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Kyowa Kirin Pharmaceutical Developments, Inc.: Consultancy; Agensys: Research Funding; Stanford University: Employment, Equity Ownership; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Cell Medica, Ltd: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Svoboda:AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Celgene: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kyowa: Consultancy; Merck: Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding. Magarelli:Tevan Oncology: Speakers Bureau. Feldman:Takeda: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses, Speakers Bureau; AbbVie: Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses, Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Kite Pharma: Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses, Speakers Bureau; Bayer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Research Funding; Cell Medica: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Corvus: Research Funding; Eisai: Research Funding; Kyowa Hakko Kirin: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Portola Pharma: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Viracta: Research Funding. Cohen:Astra Zeneca: Research Funding; ASH: Research Funding; UNUM: Research Funding; Hutchison: Research Funding; Takeda Pharmaceuticals North America, Inc.: Research Funding; Gilead/Kite: Consultancy; Lymphoma Research Foundation: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol-Meyers Squibb Company: Research Funding; Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Genentech, Inc.: Consultancy, Research Funding. Evens:Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Tesaro: Research Funding; Epizyme: Consultancy, Honoraria; Verastem: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Honoraria. Portell:AbbVie: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kite: Consultancy, Research Funding; Acerta/AstraZeneca: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Xencor: Research Funding; Roche/Genentech: Research Funding; Infinity: Research Funding.