Cahn, Elliot

Background: The Optimized Hemophagocytic Lymphohistiocytosis (HLH) Inflammatory (OHI, Zoref-Lorenz et al, Blood, 2022) index, defined by the combined elevation in serum soluble CD25 (sCD25) and ferritin, has emerged as a promising prognostic tool for patients with newly diagnosed hematologic malignancies, demonstrating superior performance in predicting 500-day mortality compared to HLH-2004 criteria. However, previous studies were retrospective, with a substantial proportion (65%) of patients suspected clinically to have HLH. We evaluated the performance of the OHI index in an unselected, prospective cohort of newly diagnosed diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) patients. Methods: We analyzed the predictive utility of the OHI index in 331 newly diagnosed DLBCL patients enrolled from 2002-2015 in the prospective Iowa/Mayo Molecular Epidemiology Resource cohort. Ferritin and sCD25 levels were quantified in pre-treatment serum samples using R&D ELISA kits. OHI values were also optimized based on 500-day mortality in the cohort using receiver operating curve analysis with internal validation. Patients were classified as OHI+ using the original and newly optimized thresholds for sCD25 and ferritin. The primary endpoint was 500-day survival, and the secondary endpoints were event-free survival (EFS) at 24 months (EFS24), EFS, and overall survival (OS). The predictive capability of the OHI index was evaluated using logistic regression to determine odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for 500-day mortality and EFS24, as well as Cox regression to calculate hazard ratios (HR) and 95% CIs for EFS and OS. Results: The median age at diagnosis of the 331 patients was 63.5 years (interquartile range, 54.5-74), and 168 (51%) were male. Using the original thresholds (sCD25 3,900 U/mL and ferritin 1,000 ng/mL), 4.2% of patients were OHI+, with a more than 5-fold higher 500-day mortality risk compared to OHI- patients (OR=5.6; CI 1.6-17, p<0.001). After optimizing thresholds for sCD25 (2,400 U/mL) and ferritin (250 ng/mL) to predict 500-day mortality, 23.6% were OHI+ and the OHI+ group had a 9-fold higher 500-day mortality risk (OR=9.2; CI 4.0-24, p<0.001), with 31% mortality in the OHI+ vs 5% in the OHI- group. OHI+ patients exhibited more B-symptoms (35% vs 20%, p=0.027), elevated LDH levels (76% vs 34%, p<0.001), poorer performance status (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group 2+: 38% vs 12%, p<0.001), and more advanced stage disease (Stage IV: 57% vs 38%, p<0.001), although the frequency of a high International Prognostic Index (IPI) was not statistically different between the groups (IPI 3-5: 44% vs 36%, p=0.28). After adjusting for age and IPI, OHI+ remained a strong predictor of 500-day mortality (OR=5.0; CI 1.9-13, p=0.001). Further adjustment for the cell of origin did not impact the results. The association of OHI+ status with 500-day mortality was similar in IPI 0-2 (OR=5.8; CI 1.2-29, p=0.033) and 3-5 (OR=6.8; CI 0.6-73, p=0.11). OHI+ patients were also more likely to not achieve EFS24 (45% vs 13%), with a 3-fold greater risk after adjusting for age and IPI (OR=3.2; CI 1.5-6.5, p=0.0018). The OHI index also retained its predictive ability over longer-term follow-up (median 9.8 years for living patients) for both OS (HR=2.0; CI 1.0-4.0, p=0.040) and EFS (HR=2.2; CI 1.1-4.3, p=0.030) after adjusting for age and IPI. Cytokine profiling using multiplex ELISA identified elevated inflammatory markers in OHI+ patients, underscoring the role of systemic inflammation in prognosis. The distribution of cytokines was significantly different between the groups, with consistently higher means in the OHI+ vs OHI- group, including IL1a (1,628 vs 759 pg/ml, p=0.008), CCL2 (1,020 vs 724 pg/ml, p=0.028), CXCL10 (165 vs 53 pg/ml, p<0.0001), and CXCL9 (380 vs 150 pg/ml, p<0.0001). Conclusions: While the original OHI index for prediction of 500-day mortality was validated in this unselected cohort of newly diagnosed DLBCL patients, optimization of the OHI thresholds identified a larger OHI+ group (24%), enhanced the identification of hyperinflammation, improved predictive ability for early (500-day) mortality, and predicted EFS24 status and long-term OS. This underscores the clinical relevance of the OHI index, supports the need to evaluate disease-specific thresholds, and suggests its potential for use in routine management and as enrollment criteria in clinical trials for novel therapies.

Background: The goal of clinical trial eligibility criteria is to identify a population of patients that have high risk disease or have unmet needs with standard of care therapy. Frontline trials of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) include patients with International Prognostic Index (IPI) scores of 3-5 as a way to identify a high risk population. Trials typically include patients with IPI score=2, and sometimes IPI score=1, to expand the eligible patient population. However, broader patient populations must be balanced by the potential inclusion of low-risk patients with excellent outcomes to standard of care therapy, leading to potentially underpowered trials. IPI is a sum of dichotomous variables which makes implementation easy but can result in heterogeneity in outcomes within IPI scores. This heterogeneity may be caused by unequal prognostic information across IPI variables, loss of information within IPI variables due to the use of cutoffs, as well as information captured by variables that are not included in the IPI. In prior modeling of outcomes in DLBCL (Maurer et al, AJH 2016), we identified that: i) LDH has a strong prognostic ability beyond the upper limit of normal (ULN) and ii) bulky disease is an independent variable for prognosis. Here we evaluate if the presence of either of these two variables, easily captured at diagnosis within the current standard clinical work-up, can identify a high-risk subset of patients within the population of those with IPI scores of 1-2. Methods: Patients with newly diagnosed lymphoma were enrolled within 6 months of diagnosis in the LEO Cohort at 8 academic medical centers from 2015-2020 and prospectively followed. Inclusion criteria for this analysis was aggressive B-cell lymphoma typically included in frontline trials (e.g. DLBCL, high grade B-cell lymphoma, FL3B), IPI 1-5, frontline therapy with rituximab and anthracycline-based chemotherapy, stage II-IV disease and ages 18-80 years. Event-free survival (EFS) was defined as the time from diagnosis until progression, initiation of 2 nd line therapy, or death due to any cause; EFS was evaluated at 24 months (EFS24). Very high LDH was defined as LDH>1.3xULN based on prior modeling (Maurer et al, AJH 2016) and bulky disease was defined as maximum tumor diameter (MTD) of 7cm or greater. IPI 1 and 2 were first evaluated separately and then combined due to similar outcomes in patients with very high LDH and/or bulky disease. High risk IPI1-2 was defined as the presence of either bulky disease and/or very high LDH within an IPI score of 1-2. Confirmation was performed in a similar cohort of patients enrolled in the Iowa/Mayo SPORE Molecular Epidemiology Resource (MER) from 2002-2015; bulky disease was defined using a 10cm cutoff per availability in MER data collection forms. Results: 1560 patients from LEO were analyzed; median age was 64 years (IQR: 54-71), 42% were female and 83% had stage III/IV disease; subtype was DLBCL, NOS in 1335 (86%). IPI was 1-2 in 766 patients, 3 in 496 patients and 4-5 in 298 patients ( table). 391 (51%) with IPI1-2 had either bulky disease and/or very high LDH (high risk IPI1-2) and 375 had low-risk IPI1-2. EFS24 in high risk IPI1-2 (71.6%, 95% CI: 67.2-76.3) was significantly inferior to IPI1-2 without bulky disease or very high LDH (85.2, 95% CI: 81.7-88.9 logrank p=0.0035, figure) and similar to patients with IPI3 (70.7%, 95% CI: 66.8-74.9). Consistent results were observed in 1014 patients analyzed in the MER using a higher cutoff for bulky disease (10cm) due to data availability ( table). Patients with high risk IPI1-2 had significantly shorter diagnosis to treatment interval (DTI) in both the LEO (per-week OR=0.83, 95% CI: 0.77-0.88) and MER (per-week OR=0.77, 95% CI: 0.68-0.87) cohorts compared to low risk IPI1-2, both p<0.0001). In sensitivity analysis, LEO results were similar when performed in the subset of patients with DLBCL, NOS. Conclusion: The presence of either bulky disease and/or very high LDH at presentation identifies a high-risk subset of patients with IPI 1-2 that have similar outcomes to patients with IPI 3 disease. These simple criteria can be easily implemented within existing clinical trial diagnostic work-ups. Future trial designs in frontline aggressive B-cell lymphoma should include patients with IPI 3-5 and patients with IPI 1-2 with either bulky disease and/or very high LDH to better define a high-risk population of patients for clinical trial eligibility.

Abstract Background: CD20 antibody plus alkylator and/or anthracycline based immunochemotherapy (IC) is a standard frontline therapy for patients with follicular lymphoma (FL) with 10-year event-free survival (EFS) and overall survival (OS) rates of approximately 50% and 80% respectively in long-term follow-up of clinical trials. Currently available clinical prognostic indices for FL have been designed using PFS and OS endpoints. Early events, commonly defined as progression of disease within 24 months (POD24) or early transformation to a more aggressive histology, are associated with inferior outcomes and increased risk of death due to refractory FL. Timely identification of the minority of patients with elevated mortality risk might enhance clinical management and research strategies. The FLIPI24 Consortium was created to develop a clinical prognostic index using early events as the primary endpoint. We report the outcomes for the pooled cohort and investigate the implications of therapy patterns on potential model development. Methods: Individual patient data were pooled and harmonized from 11 prospective observational cohorts from Europe, North America, and Australia. Patients who were diagnosed with grades 1-3A FL and initiated frontline IC were eligible. EFS was defined as time from start of IC to progression, relapse, retreatment (2nd line), histologic transformation, or death due to any cause. Early events were defined using status at 24 months from start of IC. OS was defined as time from start of IC to death due to any cause. Kaplan Meier curves and Cox proportional hazards models were used to evaluate outcomes by clinical features and therapy types. Results: 9006 patients were abstracted and harmonized, 6111 patients initiated frontline IC between 2002 and 2018 and were included in this analysis. Median age at diagnosis was 61 years (IQR 52-69) and 50% were male. Complete FLIPI data were available in 5637 patients (92%) and 46%, 32%, and 22% were low, intermediate, and high risk, respectively. IC type was 3079 R-CHOP or like (50%) , 1529 R-CVP or like (25%), 918 R-bendamustine (B-R) or like (15%), and 585 fludarabine or other alkylator based IC (10%); 3187 received CD20 antibody maintenance (52%). Patients receiving R-CHOP were younger, more frequently grade 3A, and more frequently had elevated LDH; differences in other characteristics by IC type were not clinically meaningful. At median follow-up of 42 months (IQR 17-72), 2647 patients (43%) had an event (any) and 1494 patients (25%) died. Median survival after an early (non-death) event was 49 months (95% CI: 41-58); 5-year OS was 46% (95% CI: 43-49) compared to 89% (95% CI: 88-90) in patients without POD24. Across all IC types, EFS estimates at 2 and 10 years from start of IC were 80% (95% CI:79-81) and 49% (95% CI:48-51) and OS estimates were 92% (95% CI: 91-92) and 70% (95% CI: 69-72), respectively. FLIPI was highly associated with both EFS (c-statistic=0.61) and OS (c-statistic=0.65) from the initiation of IC (both p<0.0001). There were significant differences in EFS and OS by IC type (both p<0.0001) and use of maintenance was associated with prolonged EFS in landmark analyses at both 6 and 12 months from initiation of IC (both p<0.0001). Treatment patterns changed significantly over the study timeframe. Use of B-R and/or maintenance increased to 30% and 70% respectively in N=2937 patients treated in 2010-2018 (Era2) compared to <1% and 40% respectively in N=3174 patients treated 2002-2009 (Era1). EFS was significantly higher for Era2 compared to Era1 (HR=0.77, 95% CI: 0.71-0.83), which remained significant after adjustment for FLIPI (EFS HR=0.82, 95% CI: 0.76-0.89). However, the association between treatment eras and overall survival was weaker (HR=0.89, 95% CI: 0.79-0.99) and not significant after adjusting for baseline FLIPI (OS HR=0.99, 95% CI: 0.88-1.10). Conclusion: EFS and OS from this large pooled analysis of observational cohorts is similar to long-term follow-up of randomized clinical trials in the IC era and support the use of these data for model development. Modeling efforts for early events should adjust for initial IC selection and use of maintenance therapy. Utilization of bendamustine and/or maintenance therapy increased over the study timeframe from 2002-2018, and Era2 was associated with improved EFS but not OS. This cohort provides comprehensive and robust observational data to define clinical predictors in IC treated patients. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Maurer: Genentech: Research Funding; Morphosys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Research Funding; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Nanostring: Research Funding. Flowers: Janssen: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; National Cancer Institute: Research Funding; Biopharma: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy; Amgen: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Xencor: Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; 4D: Research Funding; Adaptimmune: Research Funding; Allogene: Research Funding; EMD: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Burroughs Wellcome Fund: Research Funding; Kite: Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Cellectis: Research Funding; Denovo: Consultancy; Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas: CPRIT Scholar in Cancer Research: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genmab: Consultancy; Epizyme, Inc.: Consultancy; Novartis: Research Funding; Nektar: Research Funding; Morphosys: Research Funding; Iovance: Research Funding; Spectrum: Consultancy; Pfizer: Research Funding; Ziopharm: Research Funding; Guardant: Research Funding; Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group: Research Funding; SeaGen: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics/Janssen: Consultancy; Genentech/Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding. Villa: Janssen: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria; AstraZeneca: Honoraria; AbbVie: Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Lundbeck: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria; NanoString Technologies: Honoraria. Weibull: Jansen-Cilag: Other: part of a research collaboration between Karolinska Institutet and Janssen Pharmaceutica NV for which Karolinska Institutet has received grant support. Ghesquieres: Janssen: Honoraria; Mundipharma: Consultancy, Honoraria; Roche: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead Science: Consultancy, Honoraria. Kridel: Gilead Sciences: Research Funding. Gandhi: Janssen: Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria. Cheah: Celgene: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: advisory; Loxo/Lilly: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: advisory; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: advisory; AbbVie: Research Funding; Beigene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: advisory; Ascentage pharma: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: advisory; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: advisory; MSD: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: advisory, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: advisory; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: advisory and travel expenses, Research Funding. Hawkes: 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; Antigene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Regeneron: Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol Myers Squib/Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Merck KgA: Research Funding; Specialised Therapeutics: Consultancy; 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. Seymour: Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sunesis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Mei Pharma: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Morphosys: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Freeman: Amgen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Honoraria; Abbvie: Honoraria; Teva: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria; Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Clausen: Abbvie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel expences ASH 2019; Gilead: Consultancy, Other: Travel expences 15th ICML ; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Wahlin: Gilead Sciences: Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding. Link: Novartis, Jannsen: Research Funding; Genentech/Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; MEI: Consultancy. Ekstroem Smedby: Janssen Cilag: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy. Sehn: Genmab: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Debiopharm: Consultancy. Trněný: Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses; Portola: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; 1st Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, General Hospital in Prague: Current Employment; Celgene: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses; MorphoSys: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AstraZeneca: Honoraria; Gilead Sciences: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses; Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. El-Galaly: ROCHE Ltd: Ended employment in the past 24 months; Abbvie: Other: Speakers fee. Cerhan: Celgene/BMS: Other: Connect Lymphoma Scientific Steering Committee, Research Funding; Regeneron Genetics Center: Other: Research Collaboration; Genentech: Research Funding; NanoString: Research Funding.

Background Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is the most common aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphoma subtype with a 5-year survival of ~64%. While DLBCL is treated using immunochemotherapy (IC) with curative intent, 20%-40% of patients do not reach remission or relapse post IC. Clonal somatic mutations have been associated with aging, hematologic malignancies (predominately myeloid), and reduced OS in the general population. The objective of this study was to evaluate the association of clonal somatic mutations with event-free survival (EFS) and overall survival (OS). Methods We studied newly diagnosed DLBCL cases treated with IC who were enrolled in the Molecular Epidemiology Resource (MER) of the University of Iowa/Mayo Clinic Lymphoma Specialized Program of Research Excellence (SPORE). Clinical and treatment data were abstracted from medical records and all patients were systematically followed for disease outcomes. Pre-treatment DNA was extracted from matched peripheral blood and paraffin-embedded tumor tissue, and whole exome sequencing was conducted at 100x coverage. From the peripheral blood, allele counts from GVCF files produced by HaplotypeCaller in GATK were extracted for 42 genes commonly associated with clonal hematopoiesis (e.g. DNMT3A, TET2, and ASXL1). Mutations were deemed clonal somatic if the population minor allele frequency was <0.5% in ExAC and had a variant allele fraction (VAF) that deviated from 0.5 using a binomial distribution test at p<0.001. Furthermore, mutations had to have a minimum alternate read count of at least 5 reads, a VAF greater than or equal to 10%, and met at least one of the following criteria: CAVA impact of "HIGH"; pathogenic/likely pathogenic per ClinVar; or reported in COSMIC at least 10 times. EFS was defined as time from diagnosis to disease progression, relapse, retreatment, or death due to any cause. The association of clonal somatic mutations with prognosis was estimated using Kaplan-Meier curves, and hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) from Cox regression. Associations were adjusted for age at diagnosis, sex, and the International Prognostic Index (IPI). Results The study consisted of 261 DLBCL patients treated with IC. The median age at diagnosis was 65 years (range 20-90) and 56% were male. With a median follow-up time of 5.1 years (range 0.1-15.0), there were 100 events and 80 deaths. A total of 17 (6.5%) patients had clonal somatic mutations, and16 patients were over the age of 60. A total of 8 (of 42) genes had clonal somatic mutations, with SF3B1, ASXL1, and TET2, being the most frequent (4 individuals per gene). VAFs ranged from 0.10 to 0.28 and none of the patients had multiple mutations. Additionally, the clonal somatic variants found in the peripheral blood were abscent in the tumor sample. Of the 17 patients with clonal somatic mutations, 12 had an event while 88 patients without a mutation had an event. In a univariate analysis, clonal somatic mutations were associated with inferior EFS (HR=2.55, 95% CI 1.39-4.68, p=0.002; Figure 1A). After adjusting for age, sex, and IPI, clonal somatic mutations remained associated with inferior EFS (HR=2.02, 95% CI 1.09-3.74, p=0.026). Clonal somatic mutations were also associated with inferior OS in the univariate analysis (HR=2.06, 95% CI 0.99-4.29, p=0.053), which attenuated after multivariate adjustment (HR=1.59, 95% CI: 0.76-3.34, p=0.22, Figure 1B). Although based on small numbers, mutations in SF3B1 were associated with inferior EFS (HR=3.25, 95% CI 1.16-9.12, p=0.025), but did not reach significance for OS (HR=2.56, 95% CI 0.78-8.38, p=0.120). Conclusions In this novel study of newly diagnosed DLBCL patients, clonal somatic mutations were identified in 6.5% of patients and were associated with inferior outcomes. Additional research is required at deeper sequencing to validate these findings and integration with tumor genomics is required to understand the prognosis of DLBCL patients with smaller clonal populations. Disclosures Shah: Dren Bio: Consultancy. Maurer:Celgene / BMS: Research Funding; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Morphosys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kite: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Nanostring: Research Funding. Martin:Celgene: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Research Funding; Morphosys: Consultancy; Regeneron: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy; Kite: Consultancy; Cellectar: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; Beigene: Consultancy; Sandoz: Consultancy; I-MAB: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Teneobio: Consultancy. Witzig:AbbVie: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy; Acerta: Research Funding; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Research Funding; Immune Design: Research Funding; Spectrum: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; MorphSys: Consultancy. Nowakowski:NanoString: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Curis: Consultancy; Kymera: Consultancy; Kite: Consultancy; Ryvu: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; MorphoSys: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene/BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding. Novak:Celgene/BMS: Research Funding. Cerhan:NanoString: Research Funding; BMS/Celgene: Research Funding.