Go, Ronald S.

241 Background: In a rapidly moving field, such as cancer immunotherapy, where immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are used across 14 different tumor types, patients may receive suboptimal treatment or even be harmed if information on toxicity is not readily translated for use in clinical practice. Every single systematic review and meta-analysis which attempted to summarize toxicity of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) quickly became outdated. A living systematic review, which is defined as a systematic review that is continually updated to incorporate relevant new evidence as it becomes available, is necessary in this situation. Methods: The process of creating a living systematic review started with the creation of a comprehensive search designed by a librarian experienced in systematic reviews in collaboration with the study’s principle investigator. Search was constantly updated every 3 months and evidence is synthesized in a series of steps (microtasks) using a combination of human and augmented intelligence. A complete infrastructure is being developed and it includes automated cumulative meta-analysis and an online reporting platform which will constantly update information for clinicians and patients in a live manner. Results: We screened 6746 studies during Sep 2018-March 2019 and identified 6746 studies and we were able to successfully maintain up-to-date toxicity estimates for immune mediated adverse events over this period while maintaining the rigor of a conventional systematic review. Eventually, we will integrate the steps of LSR into one, user-friendly, semi-automated format which can independently provide accurate estimates and feed into and support a living guidelines platform through shared Application Programing Interface (APIs). Conclusions: LSRs are feasible, efficient, and when fully developed can reduce redundancy and waste in medical research, improve the quality of evidence, reduce human effort and support living and dynamic guidelines to facilitate truly informed shared decision making.

15 Background: CPG are evidence-based guidelines, which serve as a standard of care in practice, quality improvement, and reimbursement. The extent of financial conflicts of Interest (FCOI) in NCCN guidelines has not been recently evaluated. Our study evaluated the extent of FCOI in the NCCN CPG among the 10 most common malignancies in the US. Methods: We examined the latest 2019 version of the NCCN CPG for the 10 most common cancers by incidence in the US. Using disclosure lists, we catalogued the FCOIs for the panelists under various categories outlined in the CPG. We also tabulated the companies/institutions involved in each disclosure. An “episode” describes 1 instance of participation of a panelist in 1 company in 1 category of each guideline. “Affiliation” describes a commercial, industry, or institute affiliation reported by a panelist in each episode. Results: Of the 491 panelists on the CPG, 483 (98.3%) completed FCOI disclosures. 224 (46.38%) reported at least 1 FCOI. A total of 1,103 episodes were disclosed with an average of 4.9 episodes per panelist with FCOI. Being a part of scientific advisory boards, consultant, or expert witness was the most common FCOI category (19.9%). A total of 191 companies were associated with 1,103 episodes of FCOI. The top companies were Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck, Genentech and AstraZeneca. Among the top 10 cancers, the prevalence of FCOI were lung (56%), bladder (52%), pancreatic (52%), non-Hodgkin lymphoma (50%), kidney (49%), colorectal (43%), breast (42%), melanoma (40%), prostate (38%), and uterine (32%). Among the panelists with FCOI, 26%, 17%, and 57% reported 1, 2, and > 3 episodes, respectively. There were 127 episodes among the CPG chairs/vice chairs who reported FCOI (mean 6.4). The chairs/vice chairs of uterine, pancreatic, melanoma, and prostate cancer CPG did not have any FCOI. Conclusions: FCOI are very prevalent among the top 10 NCCN CPG panelists. In almost half of the CPG, the majority of the panelists had at least 1 FCOI. Over half of the CPG chairs/vice chairs reported multiple FCOI. Further studies are necessary to determine the impact of these FCOI.

14 Background: National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines are the most comprehensive and widely used standard for clinical care in oncology by clinicians and payors in the US. The level of scientific evidence in NCCN guidelines has not been studied since it’s last review in 2010. We describe the categories of evidence and consensus (EC) among the 10 most common cancers in the US as of 2019 and compare them with 2010 guidelines. Methods: We obtained the 2019 version of NCCN guidelines. The definitions for various categories of EC used were: Category 1 (high level evidence such as randomized controlled trials with uniform consensus), 2A (lower level of evidence with uniform consensus), 2B (lower level of evidence without a uniform consensus but with no major disagreement) and 3 (any level of evidence but with major disagreement). We compared our results with previously published results from 2010 guidelines. Results: Total recommendations increased by 77% from 1023 (2010) to 1818 (2019). Of the 1818 recommendations, Category 1, 2A, 2B and 3 EC were 7%, 87%, 6% and 0% while in 2010 they were 5%, 85%, 9% and 1% respectively. Recommendations with category 1 EC were found in lung (13%), prostate (11%), melanoma (8%), breast (7%), NHL (5%), kidney (2%), bladder (2%) and colorectal (2%) guidelines. Pancreatic and uterine cancer guidelines had no recommendations with category 1 EC. 19% of therapeutic recommendations were category 1 EC with the majority (65%) pertaining to initial therapy. Guidelines with highest proportions of therapeutic recommendations with category 1 EC were breast (30%), lung (10%), and kidney (10%) cancers. No category 1 EC recommendations existed in screening or surveillance. Although we found an increase in the total number of recommendations, the distribution of different types of categories of EC are largely similar to 2010. Conclusions: Recommendations in 2019 NCCN guidelines are largely derived from lower levels of evidence with uniform expert opinion. Despite the major advances in oncology in the past decade, this is largely unchanged. Our study underscores the urgent need and available opportunities to expand the current evidence base in oncology which forms the platform for clinical practice guidelines.

80 Background: Several previous systematic reviews and meta-analyses have attempted to summarize toxicity of Immune Checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). However, very soon after each one of these reviews has been published, it became outdated. ICIs are currently used in 14 different cancers and data is rapidly evolving from new clinical trials. A living Systematic review, which is defined as a systematic review that is continually updated to incorporate relevant new evidence as it becomes available, is necessary in this situations. Methods: In order to dynamically display content -- including textual data, tables, charts, and graphs – standard data formats and protocols were designed for various components of the systematic reviews carried out by researchers. Given these standardized formats, software was written to interpret this data and output the information in the appropriate format, such as a forest plot or data table. Finally, a dynamic interface that enables user inputs (such as which aspect of the meta-analysis to view) and displays the associated output was designed. The overall living Systematic Review infrastructure includes monthly literature searches, cumulative meta-analysis, and an online reporting platform. Results: We have developed a Living Systematic Review engine that can take in standardized data and reflect this data in an interactive, intuitive manner in the form of text, tables, and plots. This interface can also be manipulated via user input to organize and sort data tables or omit/highlight specific pieces of data. Conclusions: We have initiated the first living systematic review in immune-oncology that will be continuously updated, incorporating relevant new evidence as it becomes available, and will provide accurate and up to date toxicity estimates to support clinical decision making. The Living Systematic Review interface allows users to easily and intuitively access the most recent available clinical evidence on toxicity of ICIs.

AbstractRisk stratification of multiple myeloma (MM) at diagnosis is critical. We examined the ability of hematopoietic indices including mean corpuscular volume (MCV), hemoglobin (Hgb), and platelet (Plt) to predict outcomes. This was a retrospective study of patients treated at Mayo Clinic between January 2004 and April 2018. We incorporated three variables (Hgb < 10 g/dL, Plt < 150 × 109/L, and MCV > 96 fL), assigning a score of 1 to each. We identified 1540 newly diagnosed MM patients, of whom 707 (46%) had a score of 0, 513 (33%) had a score of 1, 260 (17%) had a score of 2, and 60 (4%) had a score of 3. The score risk stratified patients into four groups with differing survivals. The median PFS was 32.3 months for score 0, 24.8 months for score 1, 21.7 months for score 2, and 18.3 months for score 3, for P < .001. The median OS was 80.7 months for score 0, 59.9 months for score 1, 51.7 months for score 2, and 31.3 months for score 3, P < .0001. Predictors of OS on the multivariable analysis were age ≥ 65 (HR, 1.93; P < .0001), R‐ISS stage (1‐2 vs 3) (HR, 0.48; P < .0001), and hematopoietic score (0‐2 vs 3) (HR, 0.51; P = .006). A hematopoietic score can predict survival in newly diagnosed myeloma patients.

Abstract Introduction: The role of surveillance imaging in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) after treatment with curative intent is debated. In 2013, the American Society of Hematology (ASH) Choosing Wisely® campaign (Hicks LK, et al. Blood 2013) released a recommendation to "limit surveillance CT scans in asymptomatic patients following curative-intent treatment for aggressive lymphoma." This was based on previous studies demonstrating a lack of survival benefit as well as a significant impact on the patient in terms of cost, anxiety, incidental findings and radiation exposure. Similar findings have been described regarding the use of PET imaging, especially in low risk patients. We aimed to study the changes in practice patterns of surveillance imaging for DLBCL survivors treated with curative intent before and after the publication of the ASH Choosing Wisely® campaign. Methods: Administrative claims data from a large U.S commercial insurance database (OptumLabs Data Warehouse) were used to retrospectively identify adult patients with an incident diagnosis of DLBCL between 2008 and 2016 and at least one year of follow-up. We excluded those who did not receive treatment with curative intent: RCHOP (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone) x 6 cycles or RCHOP x 3-5 cycles plus radiation. Patients were also excluded if they had a co-existing or second cancer, or if they received any chemotherapy/radiation during their surveillance period, as to exclude anyone with a recurrence of their lymphoma. The surveillance period started 90 days after the last chemotherapy or radiation and continued for the duration of follow-up. Surveillance imaging was defined as any PET, PET-CT, CT chest, CT abdomen, and/or CT pelvis. To examine trends over time, three time periods were defined: 2008-2010, 2011-2013 and 2014-2016. The Cochran Armitage test was used to test the trend hypothesis. Results: A total of 1,472 patients were included. Cohort characteristics by time period are described in Table 1. Surveillance imaging frequency decreased from 84% in Year 1 of surveillance to 43% in Year 5 (Figure 1). Overall, surveillance imaging during the first 3 surveillance years significantly decreased over the three time periods (Figure 2) (P<0.01 for Years 1 and 2, P=0.04 for Year 3). Imaging surveillance for the first two years of surveillance did not significantly decrease from 2008-2010 to 2011-2013 (P>0.05), but significantly decreased from 2011-2013 to 2014-2016 (P<0.01). Of the groups that received imaging surveillance during year 1, the median number of scans during the first year was 2 (inter-quartile range, 1-2) and did not significantly change over time. In addition, PET/PET-CT surveillance decreased from 49% in Year 1 to <10% in Year 5. PET/PET-CT also decreased over the three time periods, from 62% (2008-2010) to 48% (2011-2013) to 43% (2014-2016) during the first year of surveillance and 40% to 31% to 25% during the second year. Younger age (<65 years versus ≥65 years) was associated with higher imaging utilization (86% versus 81%, respectively), and specifically PET/PET-CT utilization (55% versus 43%, respectively), during the first year of surveillance. However, race (white versus non-white) did not significantly affect imaging (85% versus 83%) or PET utilization (50% versus 47%) during the first year of surveillance. Conclusions: Our study demonstrates that the rate of surveillance CT and PET imaging in DLBCL patients treated with curative intent decreased significantly in the years after the publication of the ASH Choosing Wisely® campaign. However, over half of the DLBCL patients diagnosed in 2014-2016 continued to undergo surveillance imaging, indicating either incomplete guideline dissemination or ongoing debate regarding optimal surveillance practice. Future studies are necessary to determine whether such a decline in surveillance imaging is sustained and to examine factors (patient, provider, and payer) associated with surveillance imaging in DLBCL. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Abstract Introduction Myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) are heterogeneous myeloid disorders characterized by dysplasia in one or more hematopoietic cell lines, peripheral cytopenia(s), and distinct cytogenetic abnormalities. The presence of certain cytogenetic abnormalities [e.g. 7/del(7q), -5/del(5q), 13/del(13q), i(17p)], in the setting of unexplained persistent cytopenia, has been considered presumptive evidence of MDS, despite definitive morphologic features of MDS. Conversely, chromosomal abnormalities such as isolated 20q- are not considered definitive evidence for MDS, in the absence of dysplasia. Based on our previous findings, patients with isolated 20q- without morphologic features of a myeloid neoplasm have varied clinical outcomes (Jawad MD et al. Am J Hematol.2016). In this study, we investigate the frequency of recurrent somatic gene mutations in these patients, and their relationship to progression to a myeloid neoplasm. Methods We retrospectively reviewed the bone marrow pathology reports of patients evaluated at our institution from 01/2005 to 09/2015 who had isolated 20q- in at least 2 of 20 metaphases. Patients with isolated 20q- and without myeloid neoplasms were included in the study, along with medical record review. A 35-gene next generation sequencing (NGS) panel (OncoHeme) targeting myeloid neoplasms was performed on available archived bone marrow aspirate pellets. Statistical analyses were performed using JMP Pro software version 13. Parametric (t-test) or nonparametric tests such as the Fisher-exact test, chi-square test, or Wilcoxon rank-sum test, were utilized as appropriate for test variables. Statistical significance was based on a 2-sided significance level of .05. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used for analyzing time to progression to myeloid neoplasms and progression-free survival (i.e. time to progression to myeloid neoplasms or death from any cause). Results Fifty-six (42 males, 14 females) patients with isolated 20q- were identified. The average percentage of 20q- was 38.5 % (±29.3). The median age was 68 years (range: 44-90) and the median hemoglobin (Hb), absolute neutrophil count (ANC) and platelet count (Plt) were 11.7 g/dL (range: 8.3-15.1), 2.7 x 10(9)/L (range: 0.6-9.4) and 138 x 10(9)/L (range: 16-392), respectively. The indications for bone marrow biopsies ranged from cytopenia (21), multiple myeloma (20), non-Hodgkin lymphoma (10), amyloidosis (2), CLL (2) and transplant donor evaluation (1). Twenty-three patients harbored pathogenic mutations (15 had one mutation, 1 had two mutations and 7 had three mutations). The identified pathogenic mutations included ASXL1 (8), TET2 (8), SRSF2(3),PHF6 (2), SF3B1 (2), CBL (2), U2AF1 (2), IDH1 (1), IDH2 (1), BCOR (1), JAK2 (1), PTPN11(1), TP53 (1) and RUNX1 (1). Nine patients (16.1%) progressed to myeloid neoplasms (5 MDS, 2 acute myeloid leukemia, 2 chronic myeloid neoplasm-not otherwise specified) at a median follow-up of 36.7 months (range: 1.9-57.4). Of these 9 patients, 5 had one mutation (BCOR, TET2, DNM3TA, CBL, IDH2), 1 had two mutations (SF3B1/CBL) and 3 had three mutations (ASXL1/IDH1/SRSF2,DNM3TA/PTPN11/TET2, PHF6/TET2/TET2). In contrast, only 29.8% of non-progressed cases showed at least 1 mutation. Kaplan-Meier analysis demonstrated the presence of genetic mutations in patients with isolated 20q- carried significantly higher chance of progression to myeloid neoplasms (p<.05, Figure 1A and 1B). However, the number of genetic mutations was not predictive of progression in our relatively small study cohort (p=.66). There was no significant difference between those who did and did not progress with respect to age, gender, Hb, ANC, Plt, 20q- or mutational allele burden. Conclusions Most of the patients with isolated 20q- and without morphologic features of a myeloid neoplasm did not harbor myeloid neoplasm associated gene mutations and further did not develop a myeloid neoplasm during the course of our study. Among patients with pathogenic mutations, nearly one-third showed progression to a myeloid neoplasm. Of the clinical and laboratory variables, the presence of genetic mutation is a significant risk factor for progression to a myeloid neoplasm. This study revealed the underlying molecular heterogeneity of isolated 20q- in the absence of morphologic features of a myeloid neoplasm, and underscored the prognostication value of genetic mutation analysis in these cases. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Abstract INTRODUCTION: Our group has demonstrated that MASS-FIX is a quick, inexpensive, and accurate means to diagnose and monitor the serum and urine of patients with plasma cell disorders. Screening can be done with a MALDI-TOF MS and samples reflexed to microflow liquid chromatography coupled with electrospray ionization (ESI) and Q-TOF MS (microLC-ESI-Q-TOF MS). Because this technique provides a mass/charge (m/z) for a given patient's monoclonal protein, this method can provide greater sensitivity and specificity to monitor for complete response (CR), especially in patients receiving therapeutic monoclonal antibodies. Our goal was to assess the performance of miRAMM in patients with AL who have been classified as complete response using conventional means. METHODS: We identified 77 patients with AL who had both documented CR by immunofixation (Seibia) of the serum (SIFE), urine IFE (UIFE), and serum free light chain (FLC; The Binding Site) and paired serum samples to test by MALDI-TOF and ESI-TOF. No urine samples were available to test. Paired serum samples from baseline and approximately one year post-therapy were immunoaffinity purified using nanobodies targeting kappa, lambda, alpha, gamma and mu as previously described. For the MALDI-TOF (Bruker Microflex, LT), a range of 9,000 to 32,000 m/z was acquired. The m/z distribution was then visually inspected for the presence of a peak that was distinct from the polyclonal background in both the M+1 and M+2 light chain mass ranges. For the ESI-TOF, spectra were also collected on an TripleTOF 5600 quadrupole time-of-flight mass spectrometer (ABSciex, Vaughan ON, CA) in ESI positive mode with a Turbo V dual ion source with an automated calibrant delivery system. TOF MS scans were acquired from m/z 600−2500 with an acquisition time of 100 ms. RESULTS: Median age of the cohort was 58 (range 42, 81). Fifty-eight percent were male. No test was 100% sensitive at baseline with positive results as follows: abnormal FLC ratio, 82%; positive SIFE, 70%; 73% positive UIFE; positive serum MASS-FIX, 71%; and ESI-TOF, 79% . There was light chain isotype agreement in all cases, except for 2 patients for whom the SIFE and the FLCr disagreed. Of the 56 patients with baseline positive MASS-FIX, there was evidence of the original monoclonal protein in 5 patients (see figure for example of spectra illustrating same m/z before and after therapy). Of the 63 patients who had baseline positive ESI-TOF, there was evidence of the original monoclonal protein in 8 patients. Small unrelated monoclonal proteins were seen both by SIFE and by mass spectrometry techniques. With the spectrometry techniques, however, these transient oligoclonal bands could be distinguished from the original monoclonal protein when they shared the same isotype based on the difference in m/z. DISCUSSION: At baseline, the MALDI was able to identify the baseline monoclonal protein in a comparable number of patients as SIFE, UIFE, and FLC. Approximately 10% of patients thought to be in CR using routine screening tests were found to have persistence of their original clone by MALDI and by ESI-TOF. Small post-therapy unrelated monoclonal proteins were also seen both by IFE and by MALDI, but either the presence of a different isotype or in the case of MALDI, a different m/z, made it clear that the monoclonal protein was not related to the original clone. The sensitivity of the assay will improve significantly when we formalize the introduction of free light chain magnetic beads to capture the serum FLCs. Routine use of MASS-FIX of the urine will also increase performance characteristics. Figure. Figure. Disclosures Dispenzieri: Celgene, Takeda, Prothena, Jannsen, Pfizer, Alnylam, GSK: Research Funding. Gertz:Prothena: Honoraria; celgene: Consultancy; spectrum: Consultancy, Honoraria; Teva: Consultancy; Physicians Education Resource: Consultancy; annexon: Consultancy; Apellis: Consultancy; Alnylam: Honoraria; Medscape: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; janssen: Consultancy; Research to Practice: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; Ionis: Honoraria. Kumar:Novartis: Research Funding; KITE: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; KITE: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Merck: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Dingli:Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Other: Participates in the International PNH Registry (for Mayo Clinic, Rochester) for Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Other: Participates in the International PNH Registry (for Mayo Clinic, Rochester) for Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Millennium Takeda: Research Funding; Millennium Takeda: Research Funding. Kapoor:Takeda: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Russell:Vyriad: Equity Ownership.

Abstract Background: Modern clinical practice places time restrictions on the amount of information and processing that can be done in a typical office visit. Meeting patient needs within the healthcare system is challenging, contributing to patient (pt) and clinician dissatisfaction and potential suboptimal outcomes. We developed an electronic point-of-care case management system for cancer patients. The system's goal is to obtain patient-reported quality of life (PROQOL) outcomes and provide clinicians with information regarding QOL issues to address. We tested this system in a prospective randomized study against usual care (UC). The primary objective was to determine if PROQOL system would improve mean QOL over time. Methods: Eligible pts were adults with multiple myeloma (MM) or light amyloidosis (AL), seen at Mayo Clinic. Pts were randomized 2:1 to PROQOL system or usual care. PROQOL system was offered prior to every visit. Pts select from various categories about their single biggest concern, and receive a printed list of actionable resources based on selected concern. Clinicians also receive the PROQOL results to review with pts. Providers and pts randomized to PROQOL completed a "was it worth it survey" (WIWI). An 8 item Linear Analogue Self-Assessment was used to assess QOL, the primary endpoint. Secondary endpoints included distribution of choices of most important concern and their relationship to demographic and clinical variables. The study was powered to detect a 0.5 standard deviation difference in QOL between groups. Results: There were 233 patients enrolled (171 MM, 62 AL) in this study between July 1, 2016 and April 17, 2018. Median age was 65 years (range 31-87), and 59% were male. Median time from diagnosis to study consent was 37 months (PROQOL 36.3 versus UC 39.6). Median follow up for all patients was 15 months (range: 0.7-22 months), and median follow up for PROQOL pts was 16 months and 14 months for UC pts (p=0.027). There were 25 pts that have died since enrollment and 208 alive. No statistical significant difference in QOL between PROQOL and UC (median QOL 7 vs 7, p=0.75). The most prevalent main concerns selected were Physical Health (37%) and Cancer and Diagnosis (27%), the pattern remained even when pts were given the option to pick a second major concern 26% and 20% respectively. No other concern was listed more than 8% at baseline. All category selections and percentages are shown in the Figure. The average time to complete the instrument was 6 minutes. Pts found the PROQOL system was worth their time (75%), they would choose it again (87%) and recommend it to others (82%). Eighty-two percent of clinicians did not think the PROQOL tool negatively impacted their practice and 75% believed they may see improvement in pt wellbeing. Discussion: The PROQOL system was well received by pts and clinicians but did not improve QOL relative to UC in this study. The PROQOL demonstrates that majority of patients strongly desire more information regarding ongoing therapy, clinical trials, prognosis and toxicity. Further investigation is needed to understand whether communication is limited by time or mechanism of information delivery, such as verbal or written, or whether it should be undertaken in a separate allied health care visit. Figure. Figure. Disclosures Gertz: spectrum: Consultancy, Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy; Research to Practice: Consultancy; annexon: Consultancy; Medscape: Consultancy; Physicians Education Resource: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; janssen: Consultancy; Alnylam: Honoraria; Teva: Consultancy; Apellis: Consultancy; Ionis: Honoraria; celgene: Consultancy; Prothena: Honoraria. Kumar:Novartis: Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; KITE: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; KITE: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Merck: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Dingli:Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Other: Participates in the International PNH Registry (for Mayo Clinic, Rochester) for Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Millennium Takeda: Research Funding; Millennium Takeda: Research Funding; Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Other: Participates in the International PNH Registry (for Mayo Clinic, Rochester) for Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.. Lacy:Celgene: Research Funding. Dispenzieri:Celgene, Takeda, Prothena, Jannsen, Pfizer, Alnylam, GSK: Research Funding.