Pratz, Keith W.

Chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) is defined by the presence of Philadelphia chromosome resulting from a reciprocal translocation between chromosomes 9 and 22 [t9;22] that gives rise to a BCR::ABL1 fusion gene. CML occurs in 3 different phases (chronic, accelerated, and blast phase) and is usually diagnosed in the chronic phase in developed countries. Tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) therapy is a highly effective treatment option for patients with chronic phase–CML. The primary goal of TKI therapy in patients with chronic phase–CML is to prevent disease progression to accelerated phase–CML or blast phase–CML. Discontinuation of TKI therapy with careful monitoring is feasible in selected patients. This manuscript discusses the recommendations outlined in the NCCN Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of patients with chronic phase–CML.

Introduction: ECOG ACRIN E1910 is a randomized phase III trial that showed that adults with newly diagnosed BCR::ABL1 negative acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) who become MRD negative (<0.01%) after induction chemo who receive blinatumomab with conventional chemotherapy (chemo) have improved survival compared with those who received chemo only (Litzow et al, Blood (2022) 140: Supplement 2, LBA-1). However, not all pts were able to receive all four planned cycles of blinatumomab in consolidation. In this report we assessed outcomes of pts in the blinatumomab arm of the trial who received all 4 cycles of blinatumomab compared to those who received 1-2 cycles. Methods: Patient between the ages of 30 and 70 with newly diagnosed BCR::ABL1 negative B-lineage ALL were enrolled and initially received 2.5 months of combination induction chemo utilizing a BFM-like regimen adapted from the E2993/UKALLXII clinical trial, with pegaspargase (after induction only for patients >=55 years of age) and addition of rituximab for CD20 positive patients. After remission induction (step 1) pts in morphologic complete remission (CR/CRi) received an intensification course of high dose methotrexate with pegaspargase for CNS prophylaxis (step 2). At the conclusion of step 2, remission and MRD status were determined centrally by 6-color flow cytometry with MRD negativity defined as <0.01%. In the primary analysis subset, MRD negative patients were randomized to receive an additional 4cycles of consolidation chemo or 2 cycles of blinatumomab at 28 mcg/day (flat dose) for 28 days each cycle followed by 3 cycles of consolidation chemo, another 4-week cycle of blinatumomab (3rd cycle of blinatumomab) followed by an additional cycle of chemo and then a 4th cycle of blinatumomab (step 3). Following completion of consolidation chemo +/- blinatumomab, pts were given 2.5 years of POMP maintenance therapy timed from the start of the intensification cycle (step 4). Estimates of OS were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Comparison of OS between treatment arms were conducted using the stratified log-rank test and Cox proportional-hazards model with age, CD20 status, rituximab use, and whether pts intend to receive HSCT or not as stratification factors. As the number of cycles needed to optimize outcome has not been studied, an unplanned landmark analysis was used to compare OS of pts in the blinatumomab arm who received all 4 cycles o those who received 1-2 cycles. Time 0 was chosen as 9 months post step 3 randomization (the time that patients were supposed to complete 4 cycles of blina). Four pts who received blinatumomab but died within 9 months post step 3 randomization were therefore excluded from this analysis. Results: The study was activated on December 17, 2013 and closed to enrollment on October 15, 2019. 772 pts were screened for the trial and 488 were enrolled on step 1 induction therapy. The median age of the pts was 51 years (range 30-70). 224 MRD negative pts were randomized, 112 pts to each arm. In the blinatumomab arm 12 pts received 1 cycle (11%), 32 pts received 2 cycles (29%), 4 pts received 3 cycles (4%) and 63 pts received 4 cycles (57%). The OS of pts who received 1-2 cycles of blinatumomab was compared to control (Figure 1) The difference was not significant (hazard ratio 0.62, 95% CI 0.28 to 1.34, p=0.22). Fig 2 compares the survival of those who received 1-2 cycles to those who received 4 cycles ( (HR: 0.39, 95% CI 0.12 to 1.16, p=0.076). Conclusion: The addition of blinatumomab to consolidation chemotherapy resulted in a significantly better overall survival compared to chemotherapy alone in pts with newly diagnosed B-lineage ALL who were MRD negative after intensification. This represents a new standard of care for pts aged 30-70 years with BCR::ABL1 negative ALL. The optimal dose and number of cycles is however unknown. In this unplanned subgroup analysis we demonstrate that a survival benefit can only be confirmed in patients who receive the intended 4 cycles of blinatumomab during consolidation. Further studies will be needed to determine if fewer cycles can provide a similar benefit.

Background There is limited prospective or comparative data evaluating the HRQoL impact of intensive chemotherapy (IC) in older adults (age ≥60 years) with AML. In the recent EA E2906 phase 3 study of '7&3' (daunorubicin & cytarabine) vs. clofarabine (CLO), a putative lower intensity therapy, we incorporated a prospective patient-reported outcomes (PRO) assessment of HRQoL and fatigue to understand treatment impact from the patients' (pts) perspective. Methods E2906 study design and results have been presented previously [n=727, med. age 68 years (range 60-86), randomized 1:1 to ‘standard’ ‘7&3‘ & high dose cytarabine (Arm A) vs. single agent CLO (Arm B), as remission induction (Step 1) and consolidation (Step 2), respectively]. There was no difference in composite complete remission (CCR, 50%) or 30-day mortality rates (8.5%), and in primary analysis CLO was inferior for Overall Survival. HRQoL was a key secondary protocol endpoint. PROs assessed HRQoL and leukemia-specific symptoms and concerns using Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Leukemia scale (FACT-Leu), & Fatigue using FACT-Fatigue subscale. PROs were administered at prespecified time points: (1) Baseline; (2) Cycle 1 at nadir (approx. Day 15); (3) End of Step 1 restaging (approx. D 40); (4) Beginning of Step 2 (1 st consolidation, approx. D 45); and (5) 2 nd cycle consolidation/End Step 2 (approx. D 60). The FACT-Leu Trial Outcome Index ( TOI) was calculated by summing physical well-being, functional well-being, and leukemia-specific concerns subscales to create a single composite score. Higher TOI scores correspond to better HRQoL. The primary endpoint was to evaluate TOI difference from randomization to day 30 after induction therapy between arms, evaluated using Wilcoxon rank sum test. We also compared Clinically Meaningful differences (CMiD) in TOI (defined as patient change ≥½ standard deviation from baseline TOI) between arms, using the X2 test. Pts not completing at least 2 assessment forms (including baseline) were excluded. Testing of constructs of Physical Well-being (PWB), Functional, Leukemia & Fatigue scales demonstrated high Cronbach's a values (a >0.7) except for PWB (a=0.672) at a single time point (End of Step 2). Results Baseline TOI was available for n=489, and 364 pts (n=182 each Arm) were evaluable in this planned analysis. Evaluating CMiD during Cycle 1 induction, pts in Arm B were less likely to experience ‘Worse’ TOI score (32% vs. 40.7%, Arm A), more likely to maintain stable TOI scores (49.1% vs. 39%, Arm A), and had a similar proportion of ‘Better’ TOI scores (20.3%, A vs. 18.9%, B) although differences were not significant (p=0.1389). Conversely in cycle 1 consolidation, more patients in Arm A experienced Better TOI (45.1% vs. 29.2%, Arm B), fewer had stable TOI (45.1% vs. 58.3%, Arm B), and rates of ‘Worse’ TOI were similar (9.8%, A vs 12.5%, Arm B), again differences were not significant (p=0.2616). There was no difference in Fatigue scores between Arms (p=0.49). We evaluated whether TOI and Fatigue scores could predict the ability to complete protocol therapy. In univariate analysis baseline TOI (p=0.0059) and Fatigue (p=0.0057) were associated with Step 1 completion, however on multivariate analysis (adjusting for age, sex, and Arm) were no longer significant [TOI, Odds Ratio (OR) 1.03 (0.98-1.08, p=0.27); Fatigue, OR 1.03 (0.96-1.11, p=0.42)]. There was a borderline association of TOI with Step 2 completion [TOI OR 1.10 (1.00-1.23, p=0.06)]. Using a multivariable linear mixed effects model, we observed similar and significant changes in TOI scores in both Arms, demonstrating the effect of IC & CLO on HRQoL (Figure). Comparing to baseline, TOI scores decreased significantly at C1 induction nadir (-4.0873, p<0.0001), and increased by 5.0762 (p=0.0004) at end Step 1, by 6.9047 at cycle 1 consolidation (p<0.0001), and by 11.4601 (p<0.0001) at end Step 2. Differences were mainly apparent in those who achieved CCR, and there was significant attrition in PRO responses in non-CCR pts. Conclusions Older adults experienced significant improvement in HRQoL after nadir regardless of therapy, and those achieving CCR report significantly higher scores. We did not observe differences in leukemia specific HRQoL or fatigue between treatment Arms (7&3 vs. CLO). Patient-reported HRQoL & Fatigue was not predictive of completion of protocol therapy. These results serve as a benchmark for expectations with IC in older adults.

Abstract Background: Outcomes of adults with relapsed/refractory T-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia or lymphoma (T-ALL or T-LBL respectively) and acute myeloid leukemia (AML) have remained poor despite the availability of newer agents. CD38 is a 45 kDa transmembrane glycoprotein expressed by lymphoid and myeloid cells with several important functions including a role in immune escape from tumor cells [Chillemi A et al. Front Immunol 2017, Furano A et al. J Immunol 1990]. Several studies have demonstrated that CD38 is expressed in tumor cells of patients with T-ALL and AML and potentially targetable using CD38 blocking agents [Naik J et al. Haematologica 2019, Bride KL et al. Blood 2018, Tembhare et al. J Immunother Cancer 2020, Farber M et al. ASH 2018]. XmAb18968 is structurally distinct CD3-CD38 bi-specific T-cell engager with a full fragment crystallizable (Fc) domain modified to minimize Fcγ receptor binding and non-selective activation of T cells and other immune effector cells. XmAb18968 has optimized relative affinities for both CD3 and CD38 which results in reduced cytokine release without compromising target cell killing. We hypothesize targeting CD38 in relapsed/refractory- T-cell ALL/LBL and AML is safe and feasible using XmAb18968, a novel CD3-CD38 bispecific antibody. Study design and methods: This is an investigator-sponsored multi-institutional phase I study evaluating the safety and tolerability of XmAb18968. Patients aged 18 years or above with T-ALL, T-LBL or AML (including undifferentiated leukemia and bi phenotypic leukemia), in relapsed/refractory status (at least one line of prior therapy) including measurable residual disease relapse, CD38 expression ≥ 20%, and adequate organ function will be eligible. Major exclusion criteria are hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) within 6 months of enrollment, active acute GVHD, veno-occlusive disease, and acute promyelocytic leukemia. The study is planned to be conducted at 6 sites in United States. The primary endpoint is to determine the recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) and toxicity profile of XmAb18968. The secondary endpoints include determination of response rates, duration of response, survival and pharmacokinetics. Exploratory endpoints include correlation of responses with genomic profile, assessment of serum cytokine response, identifying the changes in phenotypic expression of activated T-cells and leukemic cells, correlation of the phenotypic expression with changes in the transcriptome at the single-cell level, proteomics evaluation of cytokine secretion at the single-cell level and correlation of response with N-glycan profiling, quantitative site-occupancy and direct glycopeptide analysis. The study will follow 3+3 design for dose escalation and de-escalation in case of dose limiting toxicity (DLT). Dose escalation will proceed in two separate groups: Group A for subjects with T-ALL and T-LBL and Group B for subjects with AML. Patients will be entered sequentially to each dose level, starting with the first dose level. The DLT observation period for dose-escalation will be 28-days. RP2D will be defined as the highest dose level at which none of the first 3 treated subjects, or no more than 1 of the first 6 treated subjects experience a DLT. A minimum of 24 and a maximum of 60 patients will be needed for the dose escalation phase. Disclosures Guru Murthy: Curio Sciences: Honoraria; Techspert: Consultancy; Qessential: Honoraria; CancerExpertNow: Honoraria; DAVA Oncology: Honoraria; TG Therapeutics: Other: Advisory board meeting; Cardinal health: Honoraria; Guidepoint: Consultancy. Johnson: Miltenyi Biotec: Research Funding. Abedin: AltruBio: Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria; Agios: Honoraria; Helsinn: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Astellas Pharma Inc.: Research Funding; Actinium: Research Funding. Stock: Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; amgen: Honoraria; agios: Honoraria; jazz: Honoraria; kura: Honoraria; kite: Honoraria; morphosys: Honoraria; servier: Honoraria; syndax: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pluristeem: Consultancy, Honoraria. Shah: Precision Biosciences: Consultancy; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Expenses, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics/Janssen: Honoraria, Other: Expenses; Acrotech/Spectrum: Honoraria; BeiGene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy, Other: Expenses; Novartis: Consultancy, Other: Expenses; Bristol-Myers Squibb/Celgene: Consultancy, Other: Expenses; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy; Servier Genetics: Other; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding. Leonard: Amgen: Research Funding; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Pratz: Agios: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy; Astellas: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Cellgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Millenium: Research Funding; University of Pennsylvania: Current Employment; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Luger: Syros: Honoraria; Agios: Honoraria; Daiichi Sankyo: Honoraria; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria; Brystol Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Acceleron: Honoraria; Astellas: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria; Onconova: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Biosight: Research Funding; Hoffman LaRoche: Research Funding; Kura: Research Funding. Badar: Pfizer Hematology-Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Atallah: Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding.

Abstract Although inhibitors of the kinases CHK1, ATR, and WEE1 are undergoing clinical testing, it remains unclear how these three classes of agents kill susceptible cells and whether they utilize the same cytotoxic mechanism. Here we observed that CHK1 inhibition induces apoptosis in a subset of acute leukemia cell lines in vitro, including TP53-null acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and BCR/ABL–positive acute lymphoid leukemia (ALL), and inhibits leukemic colony formation in clinical AML samples ex vivo. In further studies, downregulation or inhibition of CHK1 triggered signaling in sensitive human acute leukemia cell lines that involved CDK2 activation followed by AP1-dependent TNF transactivation, TNFα production, and engagement of a TNFR1- and BID-dependent apoptotic pathway. AML lines that were intrinsically resistant to CHK1 inhibition exhibited high CHK1 expression and were sensitized by CHK1 downregulation. Signaling through this same CDK2–AP1–TNF cytotoxic pathway was also initiated by ATR or WEE1 inhibitors in vitro and during CHK1 inhibitor treatment of AML xenografts in vivo. Collectively, these observations not only identify new contributors to the antileukemic cell action of CHK1, ATR, and WEE1 inhibitors, but also delineate a previously undescribed pathway leading from aberrant CDK2 activation to death ligand–induced killing that can potentially be exploited for acute leukemia treatment. Significance: This study demonstrates that replication checkpoint inhibitors can kill AML cells through a pathway involving AP1-mediated TNF gene activation and subsequent TP53-independent, TNFα-induced apoptosis, which can potentially be exploited clinically.

Chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) is defined by the presence of Philadelphia chromosome (Ph) which results from a reciprocal translocation between chromosomes 9 and 22 [t(9;22] that gives rise to a BCR-ABL1 fusion gene. CML occurs in 3 different phases (chronic, accelerated, and blast phase) and is usually diagnosed in the chronic phase. Tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy is a highly effective first-line treatment option for all patients with newly diagnosed chronic phase CML. This manuscript discusses the recommendations outlined in the NCCN Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of patients with chronic phase CML.

Background: Relapse remains the most common cause of treatment failure after intensive induction and consolidation (CONS) therapy in older adults with AML. We therefore performed a prospective randomized phase II study to determine the safety and impact on DFS (relapse or death) and OS of DAC maintenance using an abbreviated 3-day schedule administered every 4 weeks for 1 year (per Lubbert et al, Haematologica 97:393, 2012) vs. Observation (OBS) after intensive AML therapy, conducted in the large multi-center E-A E2906 Phase III trial in patients (pts) age ≥60 yrs. Methods: The design and primary clinical results for E2906 (n=727) have been reported previously (Foran et al, ASH #217a, 2015), demonstrating superior OS following 'Standard' 7&3 (Daunorubicin 60mg/m2) induction and intermediate dose Ara-C consolidation (CONS) vs. single agent Clofarabine (CLO, provided by SANOFI), despite similar CR/CRi (CR with incomplete CBC recovery) and induction mortality rates. All CR/CRi pts after induction (n=311) were assigned to 2 cycles CONS with either Ara-C (1.5g/m2 x 12 doses; 6 doses if age >/=70 yrs), or single agent CLO, based on induction randomization. Ongoing CR/CRi after recovery from CONS was confirmed with restaging BM biopsy, and eligible pts offered participation in the 'Step 3' maintenance study, a 1:1 randomization (stratified by induction therapy, cytogenetic risk group, age <70 yrs) to either OBS vs. DAC (20mg/m2IV Days 1-3, q4 wks) for 1 year. DAC could be held for up to 4 weeks for delayed hematologic recovery, but dose reductions were not permitted per protocol, and DAC was not continued beyond 12 months. Patients in both arms were evaluated with CBC q4 weeks for 1 year, and surveillance BM biopsy every 3 months (or at the time of suspected clinical relapse) for 2 years. 'Step 3' was designed as a phase II pilot randomized study, with target accrual n=172, allowing 90% power to detect 36% reduction in DFS Hazard Ratio (HR) with DAC maintenance for 1 year (using protocol-specified 1-sided log-rank test significance level of 0.1), assuming 140 events & 2 years of follow-up from randomization. However, further accrual to E2906 was suspended in 2/2015 by independent DSMC due to superior OS observed with standard Arm, so that 'Step 3' completed only 70% of target accrual. P-values reported are two-sided by convention unless specified otherwise. Results: 'Step 3' total accrual was n=120 (of 172 planned) (DAC 61, OBS 59), with median age 69 yrs (range 60-85), and groups were very well balanced for baseline clinical characteristics; most pts had Intermediate risk cytogenetics (74.2%) and ECOG performance status (PS)=0/1 (96%). The median number of DAC cycles received was 6 (range 0-13), and analysis was 'intention-to-treat'. The median follow-up is 49.8 months. There were 90 DFS events (47 OBS, 43 DAC), with 82 deaths (46 OBS, 36 DAC). Univariate DFS and OS are shown in Figure, with associated two-sided p-values; using protocol-prespecified one-sided significance level of 0.1, OS was significant (one-sided p=0.06) for DAC v. OBS, and there was a statistical trend favoring DFS (one-sided p=0.11), particularly for CLO pts (Table). We also performed multivariate Cox model (after adjustment for ECOG PS, sex, secondary AML, and baseline hematologic parameters) which confirmed superior HR for DFS (one-sided p=0.10) & OS (one-sided p=0.07), per statistical design. FLT3-ITD status is available for n=96 pts, and 84 were FLT3-ITD-negative (46 OBS, 38 DAC). Importantly, we observed a significant association of DAC maintenance with superior OS in the large FLT3-ITD-neg subgroup (p=0.039) (Figure). DAC was generally well tolerated apart from grade 3 febrile neutropenia (9%) and reversible grade 4 cytopenias, with no grade 5 events. Conclusions: In this randomized phase II study, DAC maintenance for 1 year after intensive AML therapy was associated with improved HR for OS and a trend for DFS, using protocol-specified statistical design. Furthermore there was a significant impact on OS for the FLT3-ITD-negative population. We acknowledge limitations based on incomplete accrual due to early termination of the parent E2906 study, and inherent to the phase 2 design of this E2906 endpoint, but results suggest an important impact of DAC maintenance on survival. These data strongly support a definitive phase III randomized study of DAC maintenance, particularly focused on the large intermediate risk FLT3-ITD-negative subgroup. Disclosures Foran: Agios: Honoraria, Research Funding. Claxton:Daiichi Sankyo Co. and Ambit Biosciences Corp, Astellas Pharma, Novartis Pharmaceuticals, Incyte Corporation, Cyclacel Pharmaceuticals, Inc, Celegene Corporation, Medimmune, Inc, Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., Gilead Sciences, Inc.: Research Funding. Lazarus:Pluristem Therapeutics, Inc: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Genentech: Speakers Bureau; Biosight: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Actinium Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy, Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Teva Pharmaceuticals: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; CSL Behring: Consultancy. Rowe:BioSight: Consultancy. Altman:Cancer Expert Now: Consultancy; Glycomimetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Data Safety and Monitoring Committee; prIME Oncology: Speakers Bureau; PeerView: Speakers Bureau; Agios: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Theradex: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy; France Foundation: Speakers Bureau; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Biosight: Other: US Lead. Luger:Ariad: Research Funding; Agios: Honoraria; Biosight: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria; Onconova: Research Funding; Kura: Research Funding; Jazz: Honoraria; Genetech: Research Funding; Daichi Sankyo: Honoraria; Cyslacel: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Al-Kali:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding. Zheng:Pfizer: Research Funding. Pratz:AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Agios: Consultancy, Research Funding; Millenium/Takeda: Research Funding; Boston Biomedical: Consultancy; Astellas Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding. Powell:Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Rafael Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Research Funding. Tallman:Tetraphase: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Nohla: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Rigel: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Delta Fly Pharma: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Biosight: Research Funding; KAHR: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Orsenix: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BioLineRx: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; ADC Therapeutics: Research Funding; UpToDate: Patents & Royalties; Cellerant: Research Funding; Daiichi-Sankyo: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncolyze: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Off Label Disclosure: Use of maintenance Decitabine in AML