Kastritis, Efstathios

AbstractPatient‐reported outcomes in AL amyloidosis have not been well‐studied. We analyzed health‐related quality of life (HRQOL) and AL amyloidosis symptoms data from the phase 3 TOURMALINE‐AL1 trial (NCT01659658) (ixazomib‐dexamethasone, n = 85; physician's choice of chemotherapy [PC], n = 83). HRQOL and symptom burden were measured with the SF‐36v2, Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy/Gynecologic Oncology Group Neurotoxicity subscale (FACT/GOG‐Ntx), and an amyloidosis symptom questionnaire (ASQ). Score changes during treatment were analyzed descriptively and using repeated‐measures linear mixed models; analyses were not adjusted for multiplicity. Least‐squares (LS) mean changes from baseline were significantly higher (better HRQOL) for ixazomib‐dexamethasone at several cycles for SF‐36v2 Role Physical and Vitality subscales (p < .05); no subscales demonstrated significant differences favoring PC. For FACT/GOG‐Ntx, small but significant differences in LS mean changes favored ixazomib‐dexamethasone over PC at multiple cycles for seven items and both summary scores; significant differences favored PC for one item (trouble hearing) at multiple cycles. ASQ total score trended downward (lower burden) in both arms; significant LS mean differences favored ixazomib‐dexamethasone over PC at some cycles (p < .05). Patients with relapsed/refractory AL amyloidosis treated with ixazomib‐dexamethasone experienced HRQOL and symptoms that were similar to or trended better than patients treated with PC despite longer duration of therapy.

PURPOSE Binary cardiac response assessment using cardiac biomarkers is prognostic in light chain amyloidosis. Previous studies suggested four-level cardiac responses using N-terminal prohormone of brain natiuretic peptide improves prognostic prediction. This study was designed to validate graded cardiac response criteria using N-terminal prohormone of brain natiuretic peptide/brain natiuretic peptide. PATIENTS AND METHODS This retrospective, multicenter study included patients with light chain amyloidosis who achieved at least a hematologic partial response (PR) and were evaluable for cardiac response. Four response criteria were tested on the basis of natriuretic peptide response depth: cardiac complete response (CarCR), cardiac very good partial response (CarVGPR), cardiac PR (CarPR), and cardiac no response (CarNR). Response was classified as best response and at fixed time points (6, 12, and 24 months from therapy initiation). The study primary outcome was overall survival. RESULTS 651 patients were included. Best CarCR, CarVGPR, CarPR, and CarNR were achieved in 16%, 26.4%, 22.9%, and 34.7% of patients, respectively. Patients in cardiac stage II were more likely to achieve CarCR than patients in cardiac stage IIIA and IIIB (22% v 13.5% v 3.2%; P < .001). A deeper cardiac response was associated with a longer survival (5-year overall survival 93%, 79%, 65%, and 33% for CarCR, CarVGPR, CarPR, and CarNR, respectively; P < .001). Fixed time-point analyses and time-varying covariates Cox regression analysis, to minimize survivorship bias, affirmed the independent survival advantage of deeper cardiac responses. Four-level response performed better than two-level response as early as 12 months from therapy initiation. CONCLUSION Graded cardiac response criteria allow better assessment of cardiac improvement compared with the traditional binary response system. The study re-emphasizes the importance of early diagnosis, which increases the likelihood of deep cardiac responses.

TPS8076 Background: Light chain (AL) amyloidosis is a progressive and typically fatal disorder caused by misfolded AL protein produced by plasma cells. Birtamimab is a monoclonal antibody designed to neutralize circulating soluble and deposited insoluble amyloid, thus promoting phagocytic clearance. In 2018, the phase 3 VITAL study in newly diagnosed, treatment-naive patients was terminated based on futility analysis of the primary endpoint (time to all-cause mortality [ACM] or time to cardiac hospitalization > 90 days after first study drug infusion); the final hazard ratio (HR) numerically favored birtamimab + standard of care (SOC) over placebo + SOC (0.835 [95% CI: 0.5799, 1.2011]; p = 0.330). Post-hoc analysis of ACM over 9 months revealed a substantial survival benefit (HR = 0.413 [95% CI: 0.191, 0.895]; p = 0.025) in patients at high risk for early death (Mayo Stage IV). Post-hoc analyses of secondary endpoints in this subgroup indicated meaningful improvements in health-related quality of life (assessed with 36-Item Short Form Health Survey version 2; SF-36v2) and 6-minute walk test (6MWT) distance with birtamimab + SOC (p < 0.05) at 9 months. Methods: The phase 3, double-blind, placebo-controlled AFFIRM-AL study (NCT04973137) will enroll up to 150 Mayo Stage IV patients with newly diagnosed, untreated AL amyloidosis. Patients will be randomized (2:1) to 24 mg/kg intravenous birtamimab or placebo every 28 days. Both arms will receive concomitant chemotherapy with a first-line bortezomib-containing regimen, with or without daratumumab (D), at the discretion of the investigator. Patients will be stratified at randomization based on their 6MWT distance ( < 300 vs ≥300 meters) and initiation of D. The primary efficacy endpoint is time to ACM. Secondary endpoints are change from baseline to month 9 in the physical component summary of the SF-36v2 and 6MWT distance. This trial is powered at a significance level of 0.1 under a Special Protocol Assessment (SPA) with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Given the > 50% relative risk reduction for ACM observed in the post-hoc analysis of VITAL for patients with Mayo Stage IV disease, the AFFIRM-AL study is designed to confirm this effect of birtamimab. Approximately 130 global sites are planned; site initiation and patient randomization are underway. Conclusion: Treatments that improve survival in AL amyloidosis are needed, particularly for patients with advanced cardiac involvement, as median overall survival for those with Mayo Stage IV disease is ̃6–9 months. The AFFIRM-AL study is designed to confirm the survival benefit observed in the VITAL study in patients with Mayo Stage IV AL amyloidosis. Clinical trial information: NCT04973137.

7566 Background: Parenteral limited-duration BR chemoimmunotherapy and continuous orally administered Ibr, a Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor, dominate the treatment landscape of WM, a rare B cell lymphoma. No trials have assessed the comparative effectiveness of these 2 vastly different approaches. We conducted a multiinstitutional, international, collaborative study to compare BR and single-agent Ibr in patients (pts) with treatment naïve (TN) WM. Methods: Data from 347 pts with active TN WM, seen between 2011 and 2021 in the US and Europe, were analyzed. The pts on rituximab maintenance were excluded. The modified IWWM-6 criteria (based on IgM alone) were used for response assessment. All time-to-event analyses were performed from the frontline therapy initiation, using the Kaplan-Meier method. Results: The median age of the pts treated with BR (n=208) and Ibr (n=139) was 66 (range 40-86) years (y) and 69 (39-97) y, respectively, (p=0.005). With a median follow up of 4.2 y (95% CI 3.8-4.5), the 4-y progression free survival (PFS) was 73% in each group, p=0.6, and 4-y overall survival (OS) was 94% (95% CI 91-98) in the BR group versus ( v) 82% (95% CI 75-90) in the Ibr group, p=0.01. In a bivariate analysis adjusting for age and the treatment type, only age emerged as a predictor for OS (HR 7.2, p=0.0001). Therefore, a 1:1 age-matched analysis of 246 pts who received Ibr (n=123) or BR (n=123) was performed. Pts with a known MYD88WT status who had received Ibr and their age matched controls on BR were excluded. The international prognostic scoring system (IPSS) WM was comparable between the 2 groups (Table). A higher proportion of pts on BR attained very good partial or deeper response (≥VGPR) as the best response in comparison to the pts on Ibr (Table). The 4-y PFS for the BR and Ibr groups was similar [72% (95% CI 63-82) v 78% (95% CI 70-87), p=0.14] and 4-y OS was 95% (95% CI 91-99) with BR v 86% (95% CI 80-93) with Ibr (p=0.3). Premature discontinuation, during active treatment, due to adverse effects (AEs) or lack of response was noted in 13% and 33% of pts on BR and Ibr, respectively. A detailed assessment of the AEs will be presented at the meeting. Conclusions: Both BR and Ibr lead to comparable outcomes in pts with TN WM, although deeper responses are attained with BR. These findings require confirmation in prospective studies. For pts who harbor MYD 88L265P mutation, selection between the 2 approaches should be dictated by their potential toxicities, pt comorbidities, pt/clinician preference (parenteral fixed-duration v continuous oral) and access to therapies. [Table: see text]

Abstract Introduction: Multiple Myeloma (MM) is an incurable plasma cell malignancy commonly preceded by the asymptomatic stage smoldering multiple myeloma (SMM). MM is characterized with significant genomic heterogeneity of chromosomal gains and losses (CNVs), translocations, and point mutations (SNVs); alterations that are also observed in SMM patients. However, current SMM risk models rely solely on clinical markers and do not accurately capture progression risk. While incorporating some genomic biomarkers improves prediction, using all MM genomic features to comprehensively stratify patients may increase risk stratification precision in SMM. Methods: We obtained a total of 214 patient samples at SMM diagnosis. We performed whole-exome sequencing on 166 tumors; of these, RNA sequencing was performed on 100. Targeted capture was done on 48 additional tumors. Upon binarization of DNA features, we performed consensus non-negative matrix factorization to identify distinct molecular clusters. We then trained a random forest classifier on translocations, SNVs, and CNVs. The predicted clinical outcomes for the molecular subtypes were further validated in an independent SMM cohort of 74 patients. Results: We identified six genomic subtypes, four with hyperdiploidy (&gt;48 chromosomes, HMC, HKR, HNT, HNF) and two with IgH translocations (FMD, CND) (Table 1). In multivariate analysis accounting for IMWG (20-2-20) clinical risk stages, high-risk (HMC, FMD, HKR) and intermediate-risk (HNT, HNF) genetic subtypes were independent predictors of progression (Hazards ratio [HR]: 3.8 and 5.5, P = 0.016 and 0.001, respectively). The low-risk, CND subtype harboring translocation (11;14) was enriched for the previously defined CD-2 MM signature defined by the B cell markers CD20 and CD79A (FDR = 0.003 ), showed upregulation of CCND1, E2F1, and E2F7 (FDR = 0.01, 0.0004, 0.08), and was enriched for G2M checkpoint, heme metabolism, and monocyte cell signature (FDR = 0.003, 0.003, 0.003, respectively). The FMD subtype with IgH translocations (4;14) and (14;16) was enriched for P53, mTORC1, unfolded protein signaling pathways and plasmacytoid dendritic cell signatures (FDR = 0.01, 0.005, 0.008, respectively). The HKR tumors were enriched for inflammatory cytokine signaling, MYC target genes, T regulatory cell signature, and the MM proliferative (PR) signatures (FDR = 0.02, 0.03, 0.007, 0.02, respectively). The APOBEC mutational signature was enriched in HMC and FMD tumors (P = 0.005), while there was no statistical difference across subtypes in the AID signature. The median follow-up for the primary cohort is 7.1 years. Median TTP for patients in HMC, FMD, and HKR was 3.8, 2.6, and 2.2 years, respectively; TTP for HNT and HNF was 4.3 and 5.2, respectively, while it was 11 years in CND patients (P = 0.007). Moreover, by analyzing the changes in MM clinical biomarkers over time, we found that patients from high-risk subgroups had higher odds of developing evolving hemoglobin and monoclonal protein levels over time (P = 0.01 and 0.002, respectively); Moreover, the absolute increase in M-protein was significantly higher in patients from the high-risk genetic subtypes at one, two, and five years from diagnosis (P = 0.001, 0.03, and 0,01, respectively). Applying the classifier to the external cohort replicated our findings where intermediate and high-risk genetic subgroups conferred increased risk of progression to MM in multivariate analysis after accounting for IMWG staging (HR: 5.5 and 9.8, P = 0.04 and 0.005, respectively). Interestingly, within the intermediate-risk clinical group in the primary cohort, patients in the high-risk genetic subgroups had increased risk of progression (HR: 5.2, 95% CI 1.5 - 17.3, P = 0.007). In the validation cohort, these patients also had an increased risk of progression to MM (HR: 6.7, 95% CI 1.2 - 38.3, P = 0.03), indicating that molecular classification improves the clinical risk-stratification models. Conclusion: We identified and validated in an independent dataset six SMM molecular subgroups with distinct DNA alterations, transcriptional profiles, dysregulated pathways, and risks of progression to active MM. Our results underscore the importance of molecular classification in addition to clinical evaluation in better identifying high-risk SMM patients. Moreover, these subgroups may be used to identify tumor vulnerabilities and target them with precision medicine efforts. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Bustoros: Janssen, Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria. Casneuf: Janssen: Current Employment. Kastritis: Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Genesis Pharma: Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Walker: Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Sanofi: Speakers Bureau. Davies: Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria. Dimopoulos: Amgen: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Beigene: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria. Bergsagel: Genetech: Consultancy, Honoraria; Oncopeptides: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Patents & Royalties: human CRBN mouse; GSK: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria. Yong: BMS: Research Funding; Autolus: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Sanofi: Honoraria, Research Funding; GSK: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria. Morgan: BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jansen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Karyopharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncopeptides: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GSK: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Getz: IBM, Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Scorpion Therapeutics: Consultancy, Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Ghobrial: AbbVie, Adaptive, Aptitude Health, BMS, Cellectar, Curio Science, Genetch, Janssen, Janssen Central American and Caribbean, Karyopharm, Medscape, Oncopeptides, Sanofi, Takeda, The Binding Site, GNS, GSK: Consultancy.

Abstract Introduction: Light chain (AL) amyloidosis is a plasma cell disease characterized by the deposition of insoluble amyloid fibrils into organs leading to organ dysfunction and death. The analysis at 6 and 12 months of the ANDROMEDA study (NCT03201965) showed that the addition of subcutaneous (SC) daratumumab to the standard of care combination of bortezomib, cyclophosphamide, and dexamethasone (VCd) was superior to VCd alone, with higher rates of hematologic complete response (CR) and an acceptable safety profile. Based on these findings daratumumab with VCd (D-VCd) was approved for newly diagnosed AL amyloidosis in January 2021 in the US and June 2021 in the EU. Here, we present data from the analysis at 18 months of the ANDROMEDA study. Methods: ANDROMEDA is a randomized, open-label, active-controlled phase 3 study including patients with newly diagnosed AL amyloidosis with measurable hematologic disease, ≥1 involved organ, cardiac stage I-IIIA, estimated glomerular filtration rate ≥20 mL/min, and absence of symptomatic multiple myeloma. Patients were randomized (1:1) to D-VCd or VCd for 6 28-day cycles. Bortezomib (1.3 mg/m 2), cyclophosphamide (300 mg/m 2 up to 500 mg per week), and dexamethasone (20-40 mg) were administered weekly. SC daratumumab (1800 mg co-formulated with recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 in 15 mL) was administered once weekly in cycles 1 and 2 and every 2 weeks in cycles 3 to 6. Patients in the D-VCd arm received only SC daratumumab after cycle 6, every 4 weeks (up to a total of 24 cycles from first dose). The primary endpoint was overall (ie, at any time) hematologic CR rate, defined here as normalization of free light chain (FLC) levels and ratio (FLCr) and negative serum and urine immunofixation, confirmed at a subsequent visit; normalization of uninvolved FLC level and FLCr were not required if involved FLC was lower than the upper limit of normal. Secondary endpoints included major organ deterioration progression-free survival (PFS), organ response rate, time to hematologic response, overall survival (OS), and safety. Results: A total of 388 patients were randomized to receive D-VCd (N=195) or VCd alone (N=193). At the May 2021 clinical cutoff, the median duration of treatment for D-VCd and VCd arms was 21.3 and 5.3 months, respectively. In the D-VCd arm, 149 patients (77.2%) received daratumumab monotherapy after completing 6 cycles of D-VCd; of those, 17 (11.4%) were still receiving treatment. The rates of deep hematological responses favored the D-VCd treatment arm (Table). At a median follow-up of 25.8 months, the rate of hematologic CR was significantly higher in the D-VCd arm vs the VCd arm (59.5% vs 19.2%; odds ratio [95% confidence interval (CI)], 6.03 [3.80-9.58]; P&lt;0.0001). Similarly, more patients achieved a very good partial response or better (≥VGPR) (D-VCd vs VCd, 79.0% vs 50.3%; odds ratio [95% CI], 3.74 [2.39-5.86]; P&lt;0.0001). Among patients who responded, the median time from randomization to ≥VGPR was shorter in the D-VCd arm (0.56 months) vs the VCd arm (0.82 months). Comparable to the cardiac response analysis at 6 months (D-VCd vs VCd, 42% vs 22%), greater cardiac response rates were achieved with D-VCd compared with VCd at 18 months (53% vs 24%). Similarly, renal response rates remained superior with D-VCd vs VCd alone at 18 months (58% vs 26% compared with 6 months [54% vs 27%]). A total of 79 deaths occurred (D-VCd, N=34; VCd, N=45). In the D-VCd arm, only 1 additional grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse event occurred over 18 months vs 12 months (119 [61.7%] vs 118 [61.1%] patients) and no additional infusion-related reactions were reported. OS will be analyzed and major organ deterioration PFS will be updated after approximately 200 events have occurred. Conclusions: These results demonstrate the sustained clinical benefits of D-VCd vs VCd in terms of hematologic and organ responses with longer follow-up, although it should be noted that many patients in the D-VCd arm received daratumumab monotherapy following 6 cycles of D-VCd, while patients in the VCd group stopped study treatment. Nevertheless, the study continues to support the use of D-VCd over VCd alone in patients with newly diagnosed AL amyloidosis. Following its recent approval, D-VCd represents a new SOC for patients with AL amyloidosis. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Comenzo: Prothena Biosciences: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Unum: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Research Funding; Caelum: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sanofi-Aventis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Patents & Royalties: WO2016187546A1, Research Funding. Palladini: Pfizer: Honoraria; Siemens: Honoraria; Janssen Global Services: Honoraria, Other: advisory board fees. Kastritis: Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Genesis Pharma: Honoraria. Minnema: Janssen: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Kite/Gilead: Consultancy; Celgene: Other: Travel expenses; Alnylam: Consultancy; Cilag: Consultancy. Wechalekar: Amgen: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; Takeda: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Caelum Biosciences: Other: Clinical Trial Funding; Alexion, AstraZeneca Rare Disease: Consultancy. Jaccard: Pfizer: Honoraria; Abbvie: Honoraria; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Dispenzieri: Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sorrento Therapeutics: Consultancy; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Alnylam: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding. Lee: Karyopharm: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Takeda Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; Legend Biotech: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Oncopetides: Consultancy; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Regeneron: Research Funding. Sanchorawala: Oncopeptide: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Research Funding; Sorrento: Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria; Proclara: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Regeneron: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Caelum: 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; Prothena: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Gibbs: AbbVie: Consultancy; Janssen, Celgene, Amgen, Takeda, BMS and Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria. Mollee: Janssen, Pfizer: Research Funding; Amgen, BMS, Janssen, Caelum, EUSA, Pfizer, SkylineDx, Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: No personal fees received. Venner: BMS: Honoraria; Amgen: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria. Schönland: Janssen: Honoraria, Other: Travel grants, Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria, Other: Travel grants; Prothena: Honoraria, Other: Travel grants; Sanofi: Research Funding. Suzuki: Abie: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; ONO: Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria. Kim: BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Cibeira: Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Akcea: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Beksac: Oncopeptides: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Libby: Genentech: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; GSK: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding. Valent: Caelum Biosciences: Other: Clinical Trial Funding; Celgene Corporation: Speakers Bureau; Takeda Pharmaceuticals: Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Speakers Bureau. Hungria: Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Support for attending meetings/travel ; Abbvie: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria, Other: Support for attending meetings/travel ; Takeda: Honoraria. Wong: Amgen: Consultancy; Genentech: Research Funding; Fortis: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; GloxoSmithKlein: Research Funding; Dren Biosciences: Consultancy; Caelum: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Rosenzweig: Janssen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Bristol Myers Squibb: Speakers Bureau; Akcea: Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Speakers Bureau; Onocopeptides: Speakers Bureau. Bumma: Amgen, Sanofi: Speakers Bureau; Janssen, Oncopeptides, Sanofi: Consultancy. Tran: Janssen: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Qin: Janssen: Current Employment. Khaled: Jazz: Honoraria; Astellas: Honoraria; Alexion: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Omeros: Honoraria; Janssen: Current Employment. Vermeulen: Janssen: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company.