Muñoz, Javier

ABSTRACT Introduction Composite indolent B‐cell lymphomas may remain unrecognized when one component dominates the clinical presentation. Apparent relapse after therapy may, therefore, represent the emergence of a biologically distinct lymphoma rather than the recurrence of the original disease. Case Presentation An 82‐year‐old woman presented with systemic low‐grade B‐cell lymphoma that was most consistent with marginal zone lymphoma (MZL). Staging demonstrated peripheral blood involvement and multifocal FDG‐avid disease. Treatment with the CD20×CD3‐bispecific antibody mosunetuzumab resulted in complete metabolic remission. During surveillance, a new, isolated cervical lymph node developed despite sustained systemic response. Biopsy revealed follicular lymphoma (Grade 1–2) with a germinal center phenotype and a BCL2 rearrangement, findings discordant with recurrence of MZL. Retrospective review of the original specimen identified in situ follicular neoplasia within the initial biopsy. The disease course was, therefore, reinterpreted as a synchronous composite lymphoma in which treatment of the dominant MZL unmasked a previously clinically silent B‐cell neoplasm with follicular lineage. Local radiotherapy achieved remission of the follicular component. Conclusions New disease following treatment of an indolent lymphoma should not automatically be interpreted as relapse. Discordant clinical behavior, particularly focal progression after systemic response, warrants repeat biopsy and integrated pathologic reassessment. This case illustrates how therapy may reveal preexisting clonal heterogeneity and emphasizes the importance of temporality in distinguishing relapse from composite lymphoma. Trial Registration The authors have confirmed clinical trial registration is not needed for this submission

e19046 Background: While outcomes in pts with R/R FL have improved with current SOC treatments (Tx), there remains a need for safe, efficacious, and convenient Tx options. GOLCA is a potential, first-in-class, oral CELMoD designed for Tx of lymphoma, with preferential distribution to lymphoid organs and enhanced activity in lymphoma cell lines. GOLCA induces rapid and deep degradation of Ikaros and Aiolos, leading to direct cell killing and immunomodulatory activity. GOLCA + R was well tolerated and effective in heavily pretreated pts in the two-part Ph 1/2 study, CC-99282-NHL-001. Here, we provide longer f/u in pts with R/R FL from Part B of the study. Methods: Pts with R/R FL with ≥2 prior lines of Tx (≥1 if prior anti-CD20 Tx) received GOLCA orally, once daily at 0.2 mg (n=22) or 0.4 mg (n=38) ± R for up to 2 y or until progressive disease (PD)/unacceptable toxicity. Primary endpoints included safety and RP2D determination; secondary endpoints are preliminary efficacy and PK. Results: As of September 15, 2025, 60 pts were enrolled. In 0.2 and 0.4 mg groups, median prior Tx lines were 3 and 3, 32% and 32% had prior lenalidomide (LEN), 27% and 29% had prior T-cell–redirecting Tx (CAR T and/or bispecific antibody) and 32% and 32% were refractory to last regimen. Tx is ongoing in 6 (27%) and 17 (45%) pts at 0.2 and 0.4 mg, respectively; discontinuations (d/c) were mostly due to PD. Neutropenia, an on-target side effect of GOLCA, was the most common grade 3/4 Tx-emergent adverse event (TEAE) occurring in 59% and 68% of pts at 0.2 and 0.4 mg, followed by anemia (9% and 16%) and febrile neutropenia (9% and 8%). Median time to resolution of neutropenia was 8 days. Dose reductions occurred in 14% and 37% of pts at 0.2 and 0.4 mg, most commonly due to neutropenia (5% and 21%) and febrile neutropenia (5% and 5%). No d/c or deaths were from GOLCA-related TEAEs. Non-hematologic TEAEs were infrequent and mostly low grade. In efficacy-evaluable pts (GOLCA 0.2 and 0.4 mg + R, n=22 and n=36), median f/u was 14.03 months (mo), overall response rate (ORR) was 77% (complete response rate [CRR], 41%) at 0.2 mg, and 97% (CRR, 78%) at 0.4 mg. In the 0.4 mg group, responses were consistent in high-risk subsets including pts with prior LEN (ORR, 100%; CRR, 75%) and/or T-cell–redirecting Tx (ORR, 91%; CRR, 64%). GOLCA 0.4 mg + R demonstrated durable responses (median DOR, 9.17 mo; 91% of pts who achieved a CR remained in CR at cutoff). Conclusions: With longer f/u, GOLCA + R demonstrated promising efficacy with durable responses and no new safety signals. The 0.4 mg group had higher ORR and CRR than 0.2 mg, including in pts with prior LEN-based and/or T-cell–redirecting Tx, with a manageable safety profile at both doses. The results support the development of GOLCA + R as a fixed-duration, chemotherapy-free outpatient Tx in the Ph 3 GOLSEEK-4 study in 2L+ FL (NCT06911502). Clinical trial information: NCT03930953 .

Abstract Secondary central nervous system (CNS) large B-cell lymphoma (SCNSL) occurs in the de novo setting, as a CNS-isolated relapse, or synchronous (concomitant CNS and systemic) relapse. SCNSL is a devastating event without therapeutic consensus. Thus, we aimed to evaluate treatment outcomes in an international cohort. Progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and cumulative incidence of relapse (CIR, estimated using competing-risk models) were reported. Prognostic factors were identified in a 6-month landmark multivariate analysis. Outcomes after thiotepa autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) and chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy (CAR-T) delivered at relapse were compared after propensity score matching (PSM). A total of 1139 patients were included in the analysis (de novo: 537; relapsed SCNSL: 602). Two-year PFS estimates were 40.4%, 43.9%, and 16.2% for de novo SCNSL, CNS-isolated relapse, and synchronous relapse, respectively. Patients with CNS-isolated relapse demonstrated low rates of systemic recurrence (24-month CIR, 6%). Thiotepa-ASCT correlated with longer survival in de novo SCNSL (PFS: hazard ratio [HR], 0.57; P = .005; and OS: HR, 0.62; P = .023) and CNS-isolated relapses (PFS: HR, 0.55; P = .002; and OS: HR, 0.39; P< .0001). ASCT (thiotepa or no thiotepa) also associated with improved survival in synchronous relapses (PFS: HR, 0.57; P = .023; and OS: HR, 0.48; P = .019). Higher survival with thiotepa-ASCT than CAR-T was observed after PSM (PFS: HR, 0.45; P = .005 and OS: HR, 0.41; P = .014). These data support thiotepa-ASCT in eligible patients, particularly de novo disease and CNS-isolated relapses. CNS-isolated relapse was infrequently associated with systemic recurrence, supporting treatment regimens adopted from primary CNS lymphoma.

Abstract Background Primary central nervous system lymphoma (PCNSL) is a rare but aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphoma with limited prospective data to guide optimal therapy. This study evaluates real-world treatment patterns and survival outcomes using a large national cohort. Methods We analyzed data from the National Cancer Database (NCDB) for patients diagnosed with PCNSL between 2004 and 2020. Baseline demographics and treatment characteristics were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Survival outcomes were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared using log-rank tests. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards models were constructed to identify independent predictors of overall survival (OS). Results A total of 14,450 patients with PCNSL were included; 14,439 had first-line treatment data available, and 13,390 had survival data. Median age at diagnosis was 67 years (range 18-90), 49.2% were female, and 6.6% were African American. Chemotherapy alone was the modality of treatment for 81.6% (n=11,787), 12.2% (n=1,769) received chemoradiation, 3.8% (n=545) received chemotherapy and underwent autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) but no radiation, and 2.4% (n=348) received radiation only. The median follow-up time was 73.5 months (95% CI 71.4-75.6), and the median OS for the group was 17.4 months (95% CI 16.2-18.6). Survival differed significantly by age group (median OS: <65 yrs, 46.1 months [95% CI 41.7 -50.6]; 65-79 yrs, 12.5 months [95% CI 11.2-13.7]; ≥80 yrs, 3.2 months [95% CI 2.9-3.5]; p<0.001), by year of diagnosis (median OS: 2004-2009, 11.0 months [95% CI 9.9-12.1]; 2010-2015, 20.0 months [95% CI 17.4-22.6], 2016-2020, 29.7 months [95% CI 26.0-33.4]; p<0.001), and by frontline treatment strategy (p<0.001). Patients treated with chemotherapy followed by ASCT had the longest median OS (not reached), while those receiving radiation alone had the poorest outcomes with a median OS of 3.9 months (95% CI 3.2-4.7); chemoradiation patients had a median OS of 31.8 months (95% CI 27.5-36.1), and chemotherapy only patients had a median OS of 13.9 months (95% CI 12.7-15.1)(p<0.001). African American patients had an inferior outcome with a median OS of 10.2 months [95% CI 7.2-13.1], compared to “other” races with a median OS of 36.9 months [95% CI 27.6-46.1] (p<0.001), although this is more similar to the median outcome for white patients (17.0 months [95% CI 15.8-18.3]). Treatment at an academic center (25.7 vs 11.0 months) and a high case-volume center (defined as >median number of cases per facility) (18.6 vs 10.5 months), and lower Charlson-Deyo comorbidity scores (CDS) (defined as CDS 0-1) (21.7 vs 6.8 months) were also associated with superior OS (p<0.001). In multivariable analysis, increasing age ( 65-79 y.o HR 1.60 [1.52-1.1.68], ≥80 y.o HR 2.95 [2.75-3.17]), CDS≥2 (HR 1.36 [1.28-1.44]), and African American race (HR 1.12 [1.02-1.24]) were adverse predictors of OS (all p<0.001), while treatment strategy (ASCT [HR 0.17], chemoradiation [HR 0.53], chemotherapy only [HR 0.68] compared to radiation alone), more recent year of diagnosis (2010-2015 [HR 0.81], 2016-2020 [0.70]), and treatment at an academic center [HR 0.81] remained predictors of superior OS (all p<0.001). Conclusion In this large national cohort of patients with PCNSL, treatment with chemotherapy followed by ASCT was associated with the most favorable survival outcomes. Patients treated with chemoradiation or multi-agent chemotherapy also demonstrated improved survival compared to those receiving radiation monotherapy or single-agent chemotherapy alone, respectively. Age, comorbidities, race, and treatment at academic centers were also significant independent predictors of OS. These findings highlight substantial disparities in outcomes and underscore the importance of optimizing treatment strategies, improving access to high-intensity therapies, and supporting timely referral to academic or high case-volume centers, particularly for younger and medically fit patients.

Abstract Background: There remains an opportunity for new therapies to improve long-term outcomes for patients with low-tumor burden follicular lymphoma (FL). Mosunetuzumab is an off-the-shelf CD20xCD3 bispecific antibody, approved as an intravenous therapy for patients with relapsed/refractory FL after ≥2 lines of systemic therapy. Mosunetuzumab can be administered in the outpatient setting as a fixed-duration regimen. In an open-label, multicenter, Phase II study conducted mainly across US community sites (MorningSun; NCT05207670), mosunetuzumab administered subcutaneously (SC) induced high response rates with a manageable safety profile in patients with previously untreated low-tumor burden FL (Burke et al. ASH 2024). Here we present updated efficacy and safety data for mosunetuzumab SC in patients with previously untreated, low-tumor burden FL. Methods: Patients had untreated Grade 1 or 2 low-tumor burden FL per Groupe d'Etude des Lymphomes Folliculaires criteria, Ann Arbor stage III/IV disease, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) of 0–2. Mosunetuzumab SC was administered with step-up dosing in Cycle 1 (Day [D]1, 5mg; D8, 45mg; D15, 45mg), then 45mg on D1 of each 21-day cycle. Hospitalization was not mandatory. Patients with a complete metabolic response after 8 cycles could complete therapy and patients with a partial metabolic response or stable disease continued treatment for up to 17 cycles. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) at 24 months. Key secondary endpoints included objective response rate (ORR), time to response (TTR), overall survival (OS), duration of response (DOR), duration of complete response (DOCR), and safety. Exploratory analyses assessed pharmacodynamic changes in B-cell subsets. Here, we report interim data. Results: As of February 10, 2025 (clinical cut-off date), 101 patients were enrolled from US community (n=56) and academic (n=45) centers; 52 patients had completed treatment, 21 had discontinued (mainly due to adverse events [AEs; n=6] and progressive disease [n=5]), and 28 were ongoing on treatment. Median age was 65 years (range: 34–82). Most patients had an ECOG PS of 0 (81.2%) or 1 (18.8%) and 43 patients (42.6%) had extranodal involvement. Median duration of follow-up was 13.8 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 11.5–16.9) and median number of cycles received was 10 (range: 3–17). The ORR was 98.0% (95% CI: 93.0–99.8) and the complete response rate was 89.1% (95% CI: 81.3–94.4). Median TTR was 2.8 months (range: 1.4–8.3). Landmark DOR and DOCR rates at 12 months were 91.8% (95% CI: 81.5–96.5) and 95.7% (95% CI: 82.6–99.0), respectively. The 12-month PFS and OS rates were 92.0% (95% CI: 83.8‒96.1) and 99.0% (95% CI: 93.2‒99.9), respectively. The most common AE was injection-site reaction (ISR, 81.2%; Grade 1, 74.3%; Grade 2, 5.9%; Grade 3, 1.0%). Grade 3/4 AEs were reported in 51.5% of patients; the most common (≥10%) events were cytopenias (36.6%) and infections (11.9%). Cytokine release syndrome (CRS) was reported in 48.5% of patients (Grade 1, 40.6%; Grade 2, 7.9%). Overall,infections occurred in 63.4% of patients (Grade 1, 7.9%; Grade 2, 42.6%; Grade 3, 11.9%; Grade 5, 1.0%) with the most common (≥10%) being upper respiratory tract infection (21.8%), COVID-19 (17.8%), sinusitis (13.9%), and pneumonia (11.9%). At the time of data cut-off, ISR, CRS, and infection AEs were resolved at rates of 98.2%, 100%, and 89.0%, respectively. Two patients had a Grade 5 AE (sepsis, n=1; unknown cause, n=1).No immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome events were reported. B-cell depletion was observed following the first dose of mosunetuzumab, with subsequent B-cell recovery observed within six months of treatment completion. Conclusions: Fixed-duration mosunetuzumab SC demonstrates high efficacy rates with deep and sustained responses in patients with previously untreated, low-tumor burden FL. The manageable safety profile supports ease of outpatient administration without mandatory hospitalization, including in community oncology practices. Additionally, exploratory analyses demonstrating B-cell recovery after treatment completion also substantiate the use of mosunetuzumab SC as a fixed-duration regimen. These data support further evaluation of mosunetuzumab SC in patients with previously untreated, low-tumor burden FL.

Introduction: As previously reported, the combination of brentuximab vedotin with doxorubicin, vinblastine and dacarbazine (A+AVD) demonstrated a statistically significant improvement in modified progression free survival (modified PFS) compared with doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine and dacarbazine (ABVD) in patients with newly diagnosed Stage III or IV classical HL in the phase 3 ECHELON-1 trial (NCT01712490). The benefit of A+AVD in the ITT population observed in the primary analysis was maintained at 3-years median follow-up [3-year PFS: A+AVD: 83.1% (79.9-85.9), ABVD: 76% (72.4-79.2)] and appears independent of interim PET status, disease stage, and prognostic risk factors. Here we present the efficacy and safety results of longer follow-up at a median 43.3 months. Methods: Newly diagnosed patients with Stage III or IV cHL were randomized 1:1 to receive A+AVD (n=664) or ABVD (n=670) intravenously on days 1 and 15 of each 28-day cycle for up to 6 cycles. The primary endpoint of the study was modified PFS per independent central review. The present follow-up PFS analysis is exploratory and per investigator assessment, with a cutoff date of June 17th, 2019. Patients with ongoing peripheral neuropathy (PN) at end of treatment were followed for resolution or improvement (defined as improved by ≥1 grade from worst grade as of the latest assessment) during the post-treatment follow-up period. Results: With a median follow-up of 43.3 months, the 42-month PFS per investigator for all patients was 82.4% (95% CI, 79.1-85.2) on the A+AVD arm and 76.2% (95% CI, 72.6-79.4) on the ABVD arm [overall HR 0.697 (95% CI, 0.547-0.890)]. Exploratory subgroup analyses of PET2(+) and PET2(-) patients showed a treatment effect in favor of A+AVD. The 42-month PFS in PET2(-) patients was 85.0% (95% CI, 81.6-87.7) for A+AVD and 79.6% (95% CI, 75.9-82.8) for ABVD [overall HR 0.695 (95% CI, 0.526-0.919)]; in PET2(+) patients 42-month PFS was 68.3% (95% CI, 54.5-78.7) for A+AVD and 51.5% (95% CI, 38.2-63.4) for ABVD [overall HR 0.552 (95% CI, 0.308-0.989)]. Upon continued follow-up, 81% (356/442) of patients with PN in the A+AVD arm had either complete resolution (64%, 283/442) or improvement (17%, 73/442) of their PN events compared with 83% (236/286) with either complete resolution (74%, 212/286) or improvement (8%, 24/286) in the ABVD arm. Among patients with ongoing PN after continued follow-up, the majority were Grade 1/2 events, with 89% (141/159; 59% Grade 1) and 95% (70/74; 65% Grade 1) on the A+AVD and ABVD arms, respectively. Overall survival data are not yet mature; per protocol, the final analysis will be performed after 112 deaths have occurred. Additional follow-up at an estimated median of ~4 years, including data from prespecified subgroups, will be presented. Conclusions: With a median follow-up of 43.3 months, A+AVD continues to provide a robust, durable benefit for patients with previously untreated Stage III or IV cHL compared with ABVD; the benefit is evident regardless of patient status at interim PET [PET2(+) or PET2(-)] and without the need for treatment intensification. PN continued to completely resolve or improve in patients on the A+AVD and ABVD arms. Together, these data further support the clinical advantages of A+AVD versus ABVD as treatment for patients with previously untreated Stage III or IV cHL. Disclosures Bartlett: Affimed Therapeutics: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Dynavax: Research Funding; Forty-Seven: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Immune Design: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Medimmune: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Millennium: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Straus:Elsevier (PracticeUpdate): Consultancy, Honoraria; Hope Funds for Cancer Research: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria. Dlugosz-Danecka:Servier: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Macrogenomics: Research Funding; Roche: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Illes:Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Feldman:Takeda: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Cell Medica: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Viracta: Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kite Pharma: Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Research Funding; Portola Pharma: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Eisai: Research Funding; Corvus: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; AbbVie: Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses, Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses, Speakers Bureau; Kyowa Hakko Kirin: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding. Smolewski:Roche: Other: Travel Expenses. Savage:Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS, Merck, Novartis, Verastem, Abbvie, Servier, and Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria. Walewski:Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Servier: Honoraria; Gilead: Other: Travel Expenses; Amgen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Zinzani:Portola: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Immune Design: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Sandoz: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Servier: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celltrion: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Consultancy; Eusapharma: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; MSD: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Verastem: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Kyowa Kirin: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; TG Therapeutics: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Hutchings:Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding; Genmab: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding. Radford:AstraZeneca: Equity Ownership, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria; GSK: Equity Ownership. Munoz:AstraZeneca: Speakers Bureau; Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics LLC an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Fosunkite: Speakers Bureau; Kyowa: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Bayer: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Portola: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding. Kim:Roche: Research Funding; Kyowa-Kirin: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; J&J: Research Funding; Mundipharma: Research Funding; Celltrion: Research Funding; Donga: Research Funding. Advani:Cell Medica, Ltd: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Kura: Research Funding; Infinity Pharma: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Research Funding; Celmed: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Autolus: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Agensys: Research Funding; Stanford University: Employment, Equity Ownership; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kyowa Kirin Pharmaceutical Developments, Inc.: Consultancy; Regeneron: Research Funding; Millennium: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Roche/Genentech: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Gilead Sciences, Inc./Kite Pharma, Inc.: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Forty-Seven: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Ansell:Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Affimed: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Trillium: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Regeneron: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Trillium: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Regeneron: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Regeneron: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment. Younes:Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Curis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Merck: Honoraria, Research Funding; Abbvie: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Biopath: Consultancy; Xynomics: Consultancy; Epizyme: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; HCM: Consultancy; BMS: Research Funding; Syndax: Research Funding. Gallamini:Takeda: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy. Miao:Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Cambridge, MA, a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited: Employment, Equity Ownership. Liu:Takeda: Employment. Fenton:Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership. Forero-Torres:Seattle Genetics: Employment, Equity Ownership, Honoraria, Research Funding.