Fox, Christopher P.

PURPOSE In large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL), use of high-dose methotrexate (HD-MTX) to prevent CNS relapse (so-called CNS prophylaxis) remains controversial. International guidelines continue to recommend HD-MTX in patients deemed ultra high risk (UHR) because of a lack of robust data specific to these subgroups. This study was designed to examine the impact of HD-MTX specifically in UHR patients. METHODS Data from two previous retrospective analyses were combined to produce a cohort of UHR patients (≥1 of the following criteria: CNS international prognostic index score 5-6; testicular, renal/adrenal, or breast involvement; ≥3 extranodal sites), treated with or without HD-MTX. The primary outcome was CNS relapse rate (isolated or concurrent with systemic relapse) measured from diagnosis with additional landmark analysis of all responding patients with no progression event at 6 months. RESULTS Analyses were performed on 1,923 patients meeting UHR criteria. No significant difference in 3-year CNS relapse rate was observed between no HD-MTX (n = 1,051) versus HD-MTX patients (n = 872), including in multivariable analyses adjusting for baseline characteristics (3-year rate, 9.3% v 8.1%; adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 1.13 [95% CI, 0.82 to 1.57]). Analyses restricted to isolated CNS relapse also confirmed no difference (5.9% v 5.7%; adjusted HR, 1.03 [95% CI, 0.69 to 1.53]). In the landmark analysis (no HD-MTX n = 782, HD-MTX n = 773), no difference in 3-year CNS relapse was observed (6.7% v 6.6%, adjusted HR, 0.95 [95% CI, 0.62 to 1.44]). CONCLUSION To our knowledge, this is the largest international comparative data set of patients with LBCL with UHR features showing no significant reduction in CNS relapse with HD-MTX in all UHR or in any individual subgroup. Despite inherent limitations of retrospective analyses, the data strongly support previous studies in suggesting HD-MTX prophylaxis has no meaningful benefit for most patients.

LBA7000 Background: ~40% of DLBCL pts are not cured with first-line (1L) R-CHOP, underscoring a significant unmet need for more effective 1L regimens. Tafa (anti-CD19 mAb) + Len-R-CHOP in the phase 1b First-MIND study demonstrated safety and efficacy in pts with newly diagnosed disease. frontMIND, a phase 3, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, compared Tafa-Len-R-CHOP vs R-CHOP in pts with high-risk aggressive BCLs. Methods: Pts aged 18–80 y with newly diagnosed, high-intermediate/high-risk DLBCL or HGBL (IPI 3–5, aaIPI 2–3 if ≤60 y) and ECOG PS 0–2 were randomized 1:1 to Tafa-Len-R-CHOP or R-CHOP. Primary endpoint was investigator-assessed PFS; secondary endpoints included: EFS, OS, CR, ORR, safety. Results: At primary analysis (data cutoff Oct 20, 2025), 899 pts were randomized to Tafa-Len-R-CHOP (n=448) or R-CHOP (n=451); baseline characteristics were similar between arms. With a median follow-up of 35.2 mo, Tafa-Len-R-CHOP achieved a statistically significant improvement in PFS vs R-CHOP (HR 0.75 [95% CI: 0.59, 0.96]; P =0.019) in the overall population; in pts with centrally confirmed lymphoma subtypes (n=773), PFS HR was 0.68 (95% CI: 0.52, 0.88) and 24-mo PFS was 72.7% vs 62.2%. PFS benefit was observed with Tafa-Len-R-CHOP in both molecular COO subtypes, ABC and GCB (data will be presented). Tafa-Len-R-CHOP significantly improved EFS vs R-CHOP; CR and ORR were similar between arms and HR for OS was 0.85 (final OS planned at 5y) (Table). Any-grade TEAEs were similar in treatment arms (98.6% vs 97.1%); more grade ≥3 TEAEs occurred with Tafa-Len-R-CHOP vs R-CHOP (86.7% vs 76.1%). Discontinuations due to TEAEs occurred in 25.7% vs 17.9% and deaths due to TEAEs in 5.9% vs 3.8% of pts for Tafa-Len-R-CHOP vs R-CHOP. Overall, there were fewer deaths with Tafa-Len-R-CHOP vs R-CHOP (18.5% vs 21.7%). Conclusions: The primary endpoint of frontMIND was met; Tafa-Len-R-CHOP resulted in a significant 25% reduction in risk of disease progression or death compared with R-CHOP, with an 8.2% difference in 24-month PFS rate in the overall population and 10.5% difference in pts with centrally confirmed lymphoma subtypes. TEAEs were manageable and consistent with the expected safety profile. Tafa-Len-R-CHOP represents a potential new 1L standard of care for pts with both COO subtypes of high-risk DLBCL or HGBL. Clinical trial information: NCT04824092 . Efficacy outcomes by treatment arm.* Variable Tafa-Len-R-CHOP(n=448) R-CHOP(n=451) HR or OR(95% CI) P value PFS, # events (%) † 121 (27.0) 155 (34.4) 0.75 (0.59, 0.96) 0.019 PFS rate at 24 mo, % 71.1 62.9 − − PFS rate at 36 mo, % 67.3 60.7 − − EFS, # events (%) 154 (34.4) 191 (42.4) 0.79 (0.64, 0.97) 0.026 OS, # events (%) 82 (18.3) 95 (21.1) 0.85 (0.63, 1.14) 0.270 CR at EOT, n (%) 292 (65.2) 294 (65.2) 0.998 (0.76, 1.31) 0.987 ‡ ORR at EOT, n (%) 360 (80.4) 343 (76.1) 1.290 (0.94, 1.78) 0.120 ‡ *Investigator-assessed. † Progressive disease or death from any cause. ‡ Nominal P value.

Background: Epcoritamab (epcor) is a first-in-class CD3xCD20 bispecific antibody (bsAb) approved for the treatment of 3L+ LBCL and follicular lymphoma. In the single-arm, phase 1/2, EPCORE NHL-1 trial (NCT03625037), epcor given until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity, demonstrated deep and durable responses, a median overall survival (OS) of 18.5 months, and a manageable safety profile in R/R LBCL. A second CD3xCD20 bsAb given as fixed-treatment duration, glofitamab (glofit), also demonstrated durable responses, conferring a median OS of 11.5 months in the pivotal study. Understanding how long-term outcomes compare among bsAb agents remains an important knowledge gap. With over 2 years of follow-up, in the absence of a head-to-head study, it is now relevant to compare the efficacy of these agents via indirect comparison. This study evaluated OS, progression-free survival (PFS), and duration of complete response (DoCR) of epcor vs glofit in R/R LBCL using data from the respective pivotal trials. Methods: Two analyses were conducted to compare the efficacy of epcor and glofit. First, a matching-adjusted indirect treatment comparison (MAIC) was conducted using published OS and PFS data from the full cohort of the glofit pivotal trial (12.6 months of follow-up, Dickinson et al, 2022) and the epcor pivotal trial (EPCORE NHL-1). Piece-wise hazard ratios (HRs) were calculated when proportional hazards assumptions were not met. Baseline characteristic prognostic variables were selected based on literature, clinical judgement, and empirical statistical testing and were adjusted between epcor and glofit cohorts. Second, in sensitivity analyses, indirect comparisons were conducted using an updated analysis of glofit with longer follow-up that included DoCR, together with OS and PFS data starting at cycle (C) 3 with 32 months of follow-up (Hutchings et al, ASH 2023). Sensitivity analyses with longer follow-up could not be adjusted because glofit pt baseline characteristics were not presented. Aggregate OS and PFS curves for glofit were derived from subgroups of pts with complete response/partial response/no response (CR/PR/NR) at C3 (Hutchings et al, ASH 2023). Aggregate epcor OS and PFS curves were similarly derived for pts with CR/PR/NR at C3 without prior disease progression. Weighted Cox proportional-hazards models were used to estimate the OS and PFS HRs between the 2 comparators. The DoCR comparison included all glofit and epcor pts achieving CR. All comparisons used EPCORE NHL-1 data with a median of 37.1 months of follow-up. Results: Pts enrolled into the pivotal trials of epcor and glofit were comparable by several key baseline characteristics before adjustment: age ≥65 y; male gender; Ann Arbor disease stage III-IV; primary refractory disease; refractory to most recent anti-CD20 therapy; previous chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy (CAR T); refractory to CAR T; and previous autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT). MAIC analysis revealed no significant difference in OS benefit from C1 until month 6 (HR 1.08, 95% CI 0.71, 1.64; P=0.72), but a demonstrable OS advantage from 6 months onward (HR 0.60, 95% CI 0.37, 0.98; P=0.04) in favor of epcor. An OS comparison starting at C3 with longer glofit follow-up demonstrated a consistent survival advantage in favor of epcor (HR 0.68, 95% CI 0.46, 1.01; P=0.05). The proportion of pts who received CAR T or ASCT subsequent therapy were similar for epcor and glofit (CAR T: 7.0% vs 8.9%; ASCT: 6.4% vs 6.3%) (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Glofit Single Technology Appraisal, 2023). The MAIC analysis showed comparable PFS between epcor and glofit (HR 1.06, 95% CI 0.79, 1.41; P=0.71), although there was substantial censoring in the glofit PFS curve due to immature follow-up. With longer follow-up in the analysis starting at C3, with less censoring, the glofit PFS curve remained similar to the epcor PFS curve from C3 until month 6 (HR 0.67, 95% CI 0.42, 1.07; P=0.10), where separation of the PFS curves were observed favoring epcor (HR 0.56, 95% CI 0.33, 0.97; P=0.04). Median DoCR was longer for epcor (36.1 months) vs glofit (26.9 months). Conclusion: These indirect treatment comparisons suggest that epcor may provide an overall survival benefit over glofit through longer PFS with more mature follow-up, potentially driven by longer DoCR. Survival data with longer follow-up in the full glofit cohort are needed to confirm these findings.

PURPOSE CNS progression or relapse is an uncommon but devastating complication of aggressive B-cell lymphoma. There is no consensus regarding the optimal approach to CNS prophylaxis. This study was designed to determine whether high-dose methotrexate (HD-MTX) is effective at preventing CNS progression in patients at high risk of this complication. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients age 18-80 years with aggressive B-cell lymphoma and high risk of CNS progression, treated with curative-intent anti–CD20-based chemoimmunotherapy, were included in this international, retrospective, observational study. Cause-specific hazard ratios (HRs) and cumulative risks of CNS progression were calculated according to use of HD-MTX, with time to CNS progression calculated from diagnosis for all patients (all-pts) and from completion of frontline systemic lymphoma induction therapy, for patients in complete response at completion of chemoimmunotherapy (CR-pts). RESULTS Two thousand four hundred eighteen all-pts (HD-MTX; n = 425) and 1,616 CR-pts (HD-MTX; n = 356) were included. CNS International Prognostic Index was 4-6 in 83.4% all-pts. Patients treated with HD-MTX had a lower risk of CNS progression (adjusted HR, 0.59 [95% CI, 0.38 to 0.90]; P = .014), but significance was not retained when confined to CR-pts (adjusted HR, 0.74 [95% CI, 0.42 to 1.30]; P = .29), with 5-year adjusted risk difference of 1.6% (95% CI, –1.5 to 4.4; all-pts) and 1.4% (95% CI, –1.5 to 4.1; CR-pts). Subgroups were underpowered to draw definitive conclusions regarding the efficacy of HD-MTX in individual high-risk clinical scenarios; however, there was no clear reduction in CNS progression risk with HD-MTX in any high-risk subgroup. CONCLUSION In this large study, high-risk patients receiving HD-MTX had a 7.2% 2-year risk of CNS progression, consistent with the progression risk in previously reported high-risk cohorts. Use of HD-MTX was not associated with a clinically meaningful reduction in risk of CNS progression.

TPS7590 Background: Up to 40% of patients relapse or are refractory (R/R) to R-CHOP, the current standard of care for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), indicating an unmet need, particularly in patients with high-intermediate and high-risk disease (IPI 3–5). POLARIX (NCT03274492) evaluated a modified regimen substituting polatuzumab vedotin for vincristine (pola-R-CHP), demonstrating modest improvement in PFS with no OS benefit between treatment arms. The addition of lenalidomide (LEN) to R-CHOP improved both PFS and OS in the ECOG-ACRIN E1412 trial but not in the Phase III ROBUST study, in which a lower dose of LEN was used, despite a positive trend toward 2-year PFS in a subgroup analysis. The chemo-free immunotherapy tafasitamab + LEN has received accelerated approval in the United States (2020), and conditional marketing authorization in Europe and Canada (2021) in adult patients with R/R DLBCL ineligible for ASCT based on L-MIND (NCT02399085). The primary analysis of First-MIND (NCT04134936), a Phase Ib randomized safety study of R-CHOP + tafasitamab ± LEN in patients with previously untreated and newly diagnosed DLBCL, demonstrated that adding tafasitamab + LEN does not impair dosing and scheduling of R-CHOP, with toxicities similar to those expected with R-CHOP alone (ASH 2021; #3556). frontMIND (NCT04824092) will investigate the efficacy and safety of R-CHOP + tafasitamab + LEN vs R-CHOP alone in previously untreated patients with high-intermediate and high-risk DLBCL. Methods: frontMIND is a Phase III, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Approximately 880 patients are planned to be randomized at ̃350 centers in North and South America, Europe, and Asia-Pacific. Eligible patients aged 18‒80 years with previously untreated local biopsy-proven, CD20+ DLBCL with IPI score 3–5 (age-adjusted IPI 2–3 if ≤60 years), and ECOG PS 0–2 will be enrolled. Patients with transformed lymphoma (except double or triple hit lymphoma) are excluded. Patients will be randomized 1:1 to receive six 21-day (D) cycles of either R-CHOP + tafasitamab (12 mg/kg intravenously, D 1, 8, and 15) + LEN (25 mg orally, D1–10) or R-CHOP + tafasitamab and LEN placebos. Patients will be followed for up to 5 years after the end of treatment. The primary endpoint is investigator-assessed PFS. Secondary endpoints include investigator-assessed event-free survival, OS, safety, and tafasitamab serum concentration (trough and Cmax levels). Sensitivity and specificity of minimal residual disease for early detection of disease progression is an exploratory endpoint; further MRD parameters may also be investigated. The study is funded by MorphoSys AG and conducted with the scientific support of members of the Fondazione Italiana Linfomi and the German Lymphoma Alliance. Clinical trial information: NCT04824092.

Abstract Introduction Central nervous system relapse (secondary central nervous system lymphoma -SCNS) is an uncommon but devastating complication of aggressive B-cell lymphoma. Patients (Pts) with CNS-IPI 4-6 are at greatest risk (10.2% at 2 years). Intravenous high-dose methotrexate (HD-MTX) is widely used to mitigate SCNS risk but data supporting this practice are limited. Methods We performed a multicentre, retrospective study at 21 sites in Australia, Asia, North America and Europe. Chart or registry review was performed for consecutively diagnosed pts with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) and CNS-IPI 4-6, high grade B-cell lymphoma (HGBL) with rearrangements of MYC+BCL2 and/or BCL6 and primary breast/testicular DLBCL irrespective of CNS-IPI. Pts were diagnosed between 2000-2020, 18-80 years at diagnosis, and treated with curative intent anti-CD20 based chemo-immunotherapy. Pts with CNS involvement at diagnosis were excluded. HD-MTX was defined as at least one cycle of intravenous MTX at any dose. Time to SCNS was calculated from date of diagnosis (all-pts), and from the end of frontline systemic lymphoma therapy, defined as 6x21 days from diagnosis (complete response (CR-pts)), until SCNS, systemic relapse, death, or censoring, whichever came first. Cumulative risk of SCNS was computed using the Aalen-Johansen estimator treating death and systemic relapses as competing events. Adjusted cumulative risks were obtained by using an inverse probability of treatment weighting approach. The average treatment effect was computed as the difference in adjusted 5-year risk of SCNS. Results - 2300 and 1455 pts were included in the all-pts and CR-pts analyses, respectively. Baseline demographics and details of therapy are summarised in Table 1. Except for a predominance of males, pts ≤60 years and pts with ECOG 0-1 in the HD-MTX vs no HD-MTX groups, the demographics and treatments were well balanced. At a median follow up of 5.9 years (range 0.0-19.1) and 5.5 years from diagnosis (range 0.0-18.7), 201/2300 and 84/1455 pts experienced CNS events in the all-pts and CR-pts analyses respectively. For all-pts(n=2300), CNS-IPI was 4-6 in 2052(89.2%), with R-CHOP-like therapy given to 93.8%. 410 pts (17.8%) received HD-MTX (265 HD-MTX alone, 145 in combination with intrathecal methotrexate (IT-MTX);435 received IT-MTX alone;1455 received neither. There were 32/410 and 169/1890 SCNS events, with median time from diagnosis to SCNS of 8.8 and 6.7 months in the HD-MTX and no HD-MTX groups respectively. 5-year OS was 70% (95% CI, 65-76%) and 55% (95% CI 53-57%) in HD-MTX and no HD-MTX groups respectively. There was no difference in the adjusted 5-year risk of SCNS between the HD-MTX and no HD-MTX groups (8.4% vs 9.1%, adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0.71, p=0.100) (Figure 1). For CR-pts(n=1455), CNS-IPI was 4-6 in 1267(87.0%), with R-CHOP-like therapy given to 93.3%. 284 pts (19.5%) received HD-MTX (170 HD-MTX alone, 114 with IT-MTX);298 received IT-MTX alone;873 received neither. There were 16/284 and 68/1171 SCNS events, with median time from diagnosis to SCNS of 11.0 and 10.3 months in the HD-MTX and no HD-MTX groups respectively. 5-year OS was 74%(95% CI 67-81%) and 75%(95% CI 72-78%) in the HD-MTX groups and no HD-MTX groups respectively (adjusted HR 1.08, p=0.622). There was no difference in the 5-year risk of CNS relapse between the HD-MTX and no HD-MTX groups 5.0% vs 6.0% (adjusted HR 1.03, p=0.903) (Figure 2). Exploratory analysis of the impact of HD-MTX among the highest risk groups CNS IPI 5 (n=368), CNS-IPI 6 (n=59) and CNS-IPI 6 plus all pts with testicular, renal or adrenal involvement (n=349) did not reveal differences in SCNS rates in HD-MTX treated pts. Additional subgroup analyses will be presented at the meeting. Conclusions To our knowledge, this is the largest study of the efficacy of HD-MTX in reducing SCNS events focusing exclusively on high-risk pts. The overall incidence of CNS relapse observed was consistent with previous reports in similar patient cohorts at 9%. The use of HD-MTX did not lower SCNS rates overall or when analysis was confined to CR pts at completion of curative intent therapy to compensate for potential immortal bias associated with HD-MTX therapy. Despite the limitations of the non-randomized and retrospective design, it appears unlikely that HD-MTX is associated with a clinically meaningful reduction in SCNS rates in pts with high risk for SCNS. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Lewis: AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Patents & Royalties: Conference attendance; Janssen: Honoraria, Patents & Royalties: Conference attendance; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria. Villa: Janssen: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria; AstraZeneca: Honoraria; AbbVie: Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Lundbeck: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria; NanoString Technologies: Honoraria. Bobillo: F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Speakers Bureau. Ekstroem Smedby: Takeda: Consultancy; Janssen Cilag: Research Funding. Savage: Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Institutional clinical trial funding; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Institutional clinical trial funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Roche: Research Funding; Takeda: Other: Institutional clinical trial funding; Servier: Consultancy, Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria; Beigene: Other: Institutional clinical trial funding; Genentech: Research Funding. Eyre: Beigene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy; Secura Bio: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Gilead/KITE: Honoraria, Other: Travel support for conferences, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Loxo Oncology: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel to conferences; AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria. Cwynarski: Incyte: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Atara: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy, Other: travel to scientific conferences, Speakers Bureau; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Other: travel to scientific conferences, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Other: travel to scientific conferences; Roche: Consultancy, Other: travel to scientific conferences, Speakers Bureau; BMS/Celgene: Other: travel to scientific conferences. Stewart: Teva: Honoraria; Sandoz: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; AstraZeneca: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria; Abbvie: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria. Bishton: Gilead: Honoraria, Other: Travel grants; AbbVie: Honoraria, Other: Travel grants; Celgene/BMS: Honoraria, Other: travel grants; Celltrion: Honoraria, Other: Travel grants; Takeda.: Honoraria, Other: Travel grants . Fox: F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Joffe: Epizyme: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy. Eloranta: Janssen Pharmaceutical NV: Other: NV. Sehn: Genmab: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Debiopharm: Consultancy. Manos: Bristol-Myers Squibb: Other: Travel and meetings. Hawkes: Specialised Therapeutics: Consultancy; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck Sharpe Dohme: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Antigene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Regeneron: Speakers Bureau; Bristol Myers Squib/Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Merck KgA: Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel and accommodation expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Speakers Bureau. Minson: Novartis: Research Funding; Hoffman La Roche: Research Funding. Dickinson: Celgene: Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria; Takeda: Research Funding; Gilead Sciences: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; MSD: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel, accommodation, expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Øvlisen: Abbvie: Other: Travel expenses. Gregory: Roche: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel fees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy. Ku: Roche: Consultancy; Antegene: Consultancy; Genor Biopharma: Consultancy. Talaulikar: Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding; Jansenn: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; EUSA Pharma: Honoraria, Research Funding. Maurer: Pfizer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Morphosys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Nanostring: Research Funding. El-Galaly: Abbvie: Other: Speakers fee; ROCHE Ltd: Ended employment in the past 24 months. Cheah: Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: advisory and travel expenses, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: advisory; MSD: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: advisory, Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: advisory; Ascentage pharma: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: advisory; Beigene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: advisory; AbbVie: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: advisory; Loxo/Lilly: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: advisory; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: advisory.