Hungria, Vânia

Solitary plasmacytomas (SPs) are rare localized tumors of clonal plasma cells, either in the bone (solitary bone plasmacytoma) or in soft tissue/extraosseous (extramedullary) with either no or with minimal bone marrow (BM) infiltration (<10% clonal plasma cells by immunohistochemistry) and no evidence of systemic involvement or myeloma defining events. Approximately 50% of SPs will progress to symptomatic myeloma within 5 years after initial definitive local radiotherapy. Increased availability of improved diagnostic and monitoring tools has increased the sensitivity of detection of additional lesions and marrow involvement and has implications for the follow-up strategy after treatment. Thus, the definitions and requirements for the diagnosis and follow-up of SPs are evolving. The diagnosis of SP requires the careful exclusion of multiple myeloma (MM) that would require systemic therapy, by using all the available methods to detect systemic disease (advanced imaging, sensitive BM assessment methods, blood and urine tests). Local radiotherapy remains the mainstay of therapy, and despite the availability of innovative drugs for MM, the clinical benefit of systemic therapy currently remains poorly defined. The International Myeloma Working Group provides here updated recommendations for the diagnosis, evaluation, treatment, and response assessment of patients with SPs, incorporating recent data and advances in diagnostic tools.

ABSTRACT Despite advances in therapy, extramedullary disease (EMD) remains an aggressive form of multiple myeloma associated with poor outcomes. Patients with true EMD, in which plasmacytomas have become completely independent of bone, have a particularly poor prognosis. The pathogenesis of EMD is driven by complex mechanisms involving loss of adhesion molecules, heterogeneous genetic and epigenetic changes, and a solid tumor‐like architecture within the microenvironment. Although the introduction of advanced imaging techniques and immunotherapy has led to improved detection and more promising outcomes and regimens, respectively, more prospective studies dedicated to true EMD are needed.

Abstract Introduction : Current standard of care for smoldering multiple myeloma (SMM), an asymptomatic precursor of multiple myeloma (MM), is observation until progression to active MM. Increasing evidence suggests that patients (pts) with SMM at high risk for progression to active MM may benefit from early treatment (tx). In AQUILA, a phase 3 study in pts with high-risk SMM (NCT03301220), daratumumab (Dara) monotherapy significantly reduced risk of progression to active MM or death with a trend of extending overall survival (OS) vs active monitoring (ActMon), with no new safety concerns. Given the evolution in SMM risk stratification, a post hoc analysis was performed to assess outcomes using the IMWG 2020 and IMWG 2020 plus cytogenetic risk models to assess which AQUILA pts benefited most from Dara monotherapy. Safety and efficacy analysis by age and stem cell collection outcomes were also assessed. Methods: Eligible pts with a confirmed diagnosis (≤5 y) of high-risk SMM per IMWG 2014 criteria, defined as clonal bone marrow plasma cells (BMPC) ≥10% and ≥1 risk factor (IgA SMM, serum protein ≥30 g/dL, serum involved:uninvolved free light chain [I/U FLC] ratio ≥8 and &lt;100, immunoparesis with reduction of 2 uninvolved Ig isotypes, and/or clonal BMPC &gt;50% to &lt;60%) at study entry, were randomized 1:1 to receive subcutaneous Dara or ActMon for 39 cycles, 36 months, or until confirmed disease progression (PD), whichever came first. Primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) assessed by independent review committee, defined as progression to active MM (based on IMWG SLiM-CRAB diagnostic criteria) or death. Secondary endpoints included time to first-line (1L) MM tx and OS. For this post hoc analysis, we assessed outcomes by age, IMWG 2020 high-risk SMM criteria (BMPC &gt;20%, monoclonal spike &gt;2 g/dL, serum FLC ratio &gt;20; ≥2 factors=high risk; also known as the Mayo 2018 or the 20-2-20 criteria), and the IMWG 2020 plus cytogenetic criteria (IMWG 2020 criteria + presence of ≥1 high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities [t(4;14), t(14;16), +1q and/or del13q]; ≥3 factors=high risk). Results : Dara tx showed a PFS benefit across all IMWG 2020 risk subgroups (low: hazard ratio [HR], 0.59; intermediate: HR, 0.70), with the largest benefit in the high-risk subgroup, where the PD/death rate in the ActMon arm was ~1.6-fold that in the Dara arm (62.8% vs 37.5%; HR, 0.36). This benefit of Dara vs ActMon was preserved over time, with 5-year PFS rates of 78.2% vs 71.6%, 56.2% vs 42.9%, and 60.4% vs 23.6% in IMWG 2020 low-, intermediate-, and high-risk groups, respectively. There was a positive trend favoring Dara for time to 1L MM treatment across all IMWG 2020 risk groups (low-risk HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.22–1.80; intermediate-risk HR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.35–0.92; high-risk HR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.25–0.62). IMWG 2020 plus cytogenetic risk classification results will be available at the time of presentation. When comparing the younger (&lt;65y HR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.32–0.79) vs the older (≥65y, HR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.32–0.77) pt population, a PFS benefit was observed regardless of age. Similarity was also observed in TEAE incidence rate when looking into &lt;65, 65 to &lt;75, and ≥75 y subgroups (82.7%, 81.1%, and 87.5% with ActMon; 96.2%, 98.5%, and 95.2% with Dara); however, serious TEAEs were more frequently observed in older ActMon pts (12.2%, 18.9%, and 50.0% with ActMon; 24.8%, 35.8%, and 28.6% with Dara). Across all pts treated/monitored in AQUILA, 23 (11.9%) and 41 (20.9%) pts in the Dara and ActMon arms, respectively, received autologous stem cell transplant as part of their first tx after progressing to active MM, with very limited plerixafor use (Dara, 3 [1.6%] vs ActMon, 9 [4.6%]). Median (range) CD34+ cell yield was 5.0 (2–20)×106 cells/kg body weight among 22 pts in the Dara arm and 5.1 (2–21)×106 cells/kg body weight among 39 pts in the ActMon arm. Conclusions : In this analysis, pts with high-risk SMM from the phase 3 AQUILA study treated with Dara monotherapy experienced long-term PFS benefit across IMWG 2020 subgroups, with the most pronounced benefit in the high-risk subgroup. No notable differences in PFS or safety were observed across age subgroups. Early Dara tx for high-risk SMM did not have a detrimental impact on stem cell yield. Although mature OS analyses are forthcoming, overall, these results further support early intervention with Dara monotherapy vs ActMon among pts with high-risk SMM, regardless of risk stratification criteria used.

Abstract Introduction: IRAKLIA is an international, open-label, non-inferiority (NI) trial (NCT05405166) investigating isatuximab (Isa) subcutaneous (SC) vs intravenous (IV) administration, plus pomalidomide-dexamethasone (Pd) and the first Phase 3 multiple myeloma (MM) trial using an on-body injector (OBI). IRAKLIA demonstrated NI in its co-primary endpoints: overall response rate (ORR) and steady state trough concentration (Ctrough; Cycle(C) 6 Day(D) 1 predose). IsaOBI offers hands-free administration of flat-dose Isa, a small, hidden, retractable needle to prevent sharps injury and low-pressure delivery. Here, we examine the effect of body weight (BW) on pharmacokinetics (PK) as well as efficacy and safety outcomes with flat-dose IsaOBI vs IV + Pd in IRAKLIA. Methods: Patients (pts) with relapsed/refractory MM ≥18 years (yr) with ≥1 prior line of therapy (LOT) were randomized 1:1 to IsaOBI (1400mg; n=263) or IV (10mg/kg; n=264 weekly in C1, then every 2 weeks + P (4mg/day, D1–21) + d (40mg [20mg if ≥75yr] weekly) in 4-week cycles. This analysis is run by BW (≤65kg, &gt;65–≤85kg, &gt;85kg) which was a stratification factor, and extreme BW (≤50kg, &gt;50–≤100kg, &gt;100kg). Results: Number of pts per BW group were: ≤50kg [OBI n=16, IV n=14], ≤65kg [OBI n=84, IV n=85], &gt;65–≤85kg [OBI n=117, IV n=118], &gt;85kg [OBI n=62, IV n=65], and &gt;100kg [OBI n=22, IV n=22]. Baseline (BL) demographic and disease characteristics were generally balanced across BW groups for IsaOBI vs IV, including age (median 66yr) and prior LOT (median 2). However, in the &gt;100kg group, more IsaOBI vs IV pts exhibited poor prognostic characteristics including plasmacytoma, International Staging System Stage II/III disease, beta 2-microglobulin level ≥5.5mg/L, estimated glomerular filtration rate &lt;60mL/min/1.73m2 and a lower very good partial response (VGPR) rate as best overall response at last regimen. Flat-dose IsaOBI showed adequate exposure (C2D1 Ctrough) for all BW groups, with geometric mean ratios (90% CI) vs IV &gt;1: ≤65kg (1.628 [1.294–2.048]), &gt;65–≤85kg (1.303 [1.089–1.560]) and &gt;85kg (1.006 [0.817–1.239]). IsaOBI ORRs were comparable to IV across BW: ≤65kg, 66% vs 71% (relative risk [RR]: 0.928), &gt;65–≤85kg, 70% vs 70% (RR: 1.009), and &gt;85kg, 81% vs 72% (RR: 1.115). For extreme BW groups, ORRs (95% CI) were similar between IsaOBI and IV for ≤50kg group [56% vs 60%] and for &gt;50–≤100kg [72(66–78)% vs 70(63–76)%] but lower [68% vs 86%] in &gt;100kg group. An exposure-response (E-R) analysis showed the impact of BW on response: IsaOBI pts ≤50kg tended to respond less vs IsaOBI pts &gt;50kg despite correct exposure because they were confounded by BL disease characteristicsincluding a higher proportion of high-risk cytogenetics and plasma cells in the bone marrow vs other BW group pts. For IsaOBI and IV, Grade (Gr)≥3 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and Gr≥3 treatment-related TEAEs decreased with increasing BW. They were similar between arms in ≤65kg group (OBI vs IV, Gr≥3 TEAEs: 87% vs 88%; Gr≥3 treatment-related TEAEs: 73% vs 77%). A similar trend was observed in extreme BW groups along with similar incidences between arms in ≤50kg group. While TE serious AEs (TESAEs) and treatment-related TESAEs decreased with increasing BW for IsaIV, incidence was stable in the IsaOBI arm. OBI arm OBI Gr5 TEAEs were similar between groups and arms, except for higher incidence in ≤65kg group (12% vs 5%) with OBI vs IV that was not reflected in ≤50 or &gt;50–≤100kg groups. Treatment discontinuation rates for all drugs with IsaOBI vs IV were 14% vs 6% (≤65kg), 8% vs 10% (&gt;65–≤85kg), and 2% vs 10% (&gt;85kg). Similar incidence of Gr≥3 laboratory (lab) neutropenia was observed across BW in IsaOBI: 86.9% (≤65kg), 83.5% (&gt;65–≤85kg) and 83.9% (&gt;85kg). Higher rates of Gr≥3 lab neutropenia were observed in ≤50kg group (93.8%, IsaOBI vs 71.4%, IsaIV), which did not translate into higher rates of neutropenic complications (18.8% vs 14.3%). The E-R analysis revealed no relationship between Isa PK exposure and safety for OBI and IV arms. Conclusions: No notable impact from IsaOBI flat dosing was observed across BW groups. Flat-dose Isa OBI showed consistent safety and efficacy across different BW groups, with differences likely linked to BL disease characteristics according to the E-R analysis. The IsaOBI C2D1 Ctrough, a time-independent predictor of efficacy, was similar to, or higher vs IsaIV in each BW group, supportive of a flat dose providing adequate exposure without need for adjustment.

PURPOSE To report the results of the multicenter, open-label IRAKLIA trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT05405166 ) of isatuximab subcutaneous (SC) versus intravenous (IV), plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone, in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (MM), to our knowledge, the first phase III MM trial using an on-body injector (OBI). METHODS Patients with ≥1 prior line of therapy were randomly assigned 1:1 to Isa OBI (1,400 mg) or IV (10 mg/kg) once weekly in cycle (C)1 and then every 2 weeks, plus pomalidomide (4 mg once daily, day [D]1-21) and dexamethasone (40 mg once weekly [age ≥75: 20 mg]) and treated until progression, unacceptable toxicity, or patient request. Coprimary end points were overall response rate (ORR; noninferiority margin, 0.839) and Isa C trough (C6D1 predose; noninferiority margin, 0.8). Noninferiority of OBI versus IV was demonstrated if both coprimary end points achieved noninferiority. RESULTS IRAKLIA randomly assigned 531 patients (OBI, n=263; IV, n=268). After 12-month median follow-up, the ORR was 71.1% (OBI) and 70.5% (IV; relative risk, 1.008 [95% CI, 0.903 to 1.126]; lower CI exceeded noninferiority margin). The mean (standard deviation) C6D1 C trough was 499 (259) μg/mL (OBI) and 340 (169) μg/mL (IV). The C trough geometric mean ratio (90% CI) was 1.532 (1.316 to 1.784); lower CI exceeded noninferiority margin. Grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse event incidences were 81.7% (OBI) and 76.1% (IV); infusion reaction incidences were 1.5% and 25.0%. Injection site reactions occurred in 0.4% of OBI injections (all grade 1-2); 99.9% of injections completed without interruption. CONCLUSION IRAKLIA demonstrated efficacy and pharmacokinetic noninferiority between Isa OBI and IV. No unexpected safety signal was observed, with excellent local tolerability of Isa OBI. Efficacy and safety were comparable with Isa IV in ICARIA-MM, except the lower OBI infusion reaction rate. These results support potential use of the OBI, designed to improve practice efficiency.

Introduction: High-risk smoldering multiple myeloma (SMM) is an asymptomatic precursor disorder to active multiple myeloma (MM) without approved treatment options. However, recent evidence suggests patients at high risk of progression to MM may benefit from early treatment. Daratumumab (DARA) is a human IgGκ monoclonal antibody targeting CD38 with direct on-tumor and immunomodulatory mechanisms of action. DARA is approved as monotherapy for relapsed/refractory MM (RRMM) and in combination with standard-of-care regimens for RRMM and newly diagnosed MM. Based on the encouraging activity and tolerability observed with DARA monotherapy in patients with intermediate- or high-risk SMM in the phase 2 CENTAURUS study, the phase 3 AQUILA study sought to determine if DARA could delay progression to MM versus active monitoring. Here we report the primary analysis from the AQUILA study. Methods: Eligible patients had a confirmed diagnosis of high-risk SMM for ≤5 years, defined as clonal bone marrow plasma cells (BMPCs) ≥10% and ≥1 risk factor (serum M protein ≥30 g/L, IgA SMM, immunoparesis with reduction of 2 uninvolved Ig isotypes, serum involved:uninvolved free light chain ratio ≥8 and &lt;100, and/or clonal BMPCs &gt;50% to &lt;60%). Focal and lytic lesion assessment was performed in screening by CT and MRI and centrally reviewed prior to study enrollment. Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive DARA SC versus active monitoring. DARA (QW in Cycles 1 and 2, Q2W in Cycles 3-6, and Q4W thereafter) was given in 28-day cycles until cycle 39, 36 months, or disease progression, whichever came first. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS), defined as progression to active MM as assessed by an independent review committee and according to IMWG diagnostic criteria for MM (SLiM-CRAB) or death. Major secondary endpoints included overall response rate (ORR), PFS on first-line MM treatment (PFS2), and overall survival (OS). Results: A total of 390 patients (DARA, n = 194; active monitoring, n = 196) were randomized. Median (range) age (64 [31-86] years) and time from initial SMM diagnosis to randomization (0.72 [0-5.0] years) were balanced between treatment groups. Median treatment duration in the DARA group was 38 cycles (35.0 months). At a median (range) follow-up of 65.2 (0-76.6) months, PFS was significantly improved with DARA versus active monitoring (HR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.36-0.67; P &lt;0.0001). Median PFS was not reached in the DARA group versus 41.5 months for active monitoring; estimated 60-month PFS rates were 63.1% versus 40.8%, respectively. Prespecified analyses showed generally consistent PFS improvement with DARA versus active monitoring across subgroups. ORR was 63.4% with DARA versus 2.0% with active monitoring (P &lt;0.0001). As of the clinical cutoff, 64 (33.0%) patients in the DARA group and 102 (52.0%) patients in the active monitoring group had started first-line MM treatment. Median time from randomization to the date of first-line MM treatment was not reached with DARA versus 50.2 months with active monitoring (HR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.33-0.62; nominal P &lt;0.0001). There was a positive trend in favor of DARA for PFS2 (HR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.35-0.96) and OS (60-month OS rates: DARA, 93.0%; active monitoring, 86.9%; HR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.27-0.98). A total of 41 deaths were observed, 15 for the DARA group and 26 for the active monitoring group. Grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) occurred in 40.4% and 30.1% of patients in the DARA and active monitoring groups, respectively. The most common (≥5% in either group) grade 3/4 TEAE was hypertension (DARA, 5.7%; active monitoring, 4.6%). The frequency of TEAEs leading to DARA discontinuation was low (5.7%), as was the incidence of fatal TEAEs in both groups (DARA, 1.0%; active monitoring, 2.0%). Conclusions: DARA monotherapy was well tolerated and demonstrated a clinically meaningful and significant benefit in preventing or delaying progression to active MM compared with active monitoring in patients with high-risk SMM. ORR was significantly higher and time to first-line MM treatment was prolonged with DARA compared with active monitoring. This was accompanied by positive trends for PFS2 and OS in favor of DARA. These results strongly support the benefit of early intervention with DARA monotherapy versus active monitoring, the current standard of care, in patients with high-risk SMM.

PURPOSE At the primary analysis of CASTOR (median follow-up, 7.4 months), daratumumab plus bortezomib and dexamethasone (D-Vd) significantly prolonged progression-free survival versus bortezomib and dexamethasone (Vd) alone in relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). We report updated efficacy and safety results at the final analysis for overall survival (OS). METHODS CASTOR was a multicenter, randomized, open-label, phase III study during which eligible patients with ≥ 1 line of prior therapy were randomly assigned to Vd (up to eight cycles) with or without daratumumab (until disease progression). After positive primary analysis and protocol amendment, patients receiving Vd were offered daratumumab monotherapy after disease progression. RESULTS At a median (range) follow-up of 72.6 months (0.0-79.8), significant OS benefit was observed with D-Vd (hazard ratio, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.59 to 0.92; P = .0075). Median OS was 49.6 months with D-Vd versus 38.5 months with Vd. Prespecified subgroup analyses demonstrated an OS advantage with D-Vd versus Vd for most subgroups, including patients age ≥ 65 years and patients with one or two prior lines of therapy, International Staging System stage III disease, high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities, and prior bortezomib treatment. The most common (≥ 10%) grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse events with D-Vd versus Vd were thrombocytopenia (46.1% v 32.9%), anemia (16.0% v 16.0%), neutropenia (13.6% v 4.6%), lymphopenia (10.3% v 2.5%), and pneumonia (10.7% v 10.1%). CONCLUSION D-Vd significantly prolonged OS in patients with RRMM, with the greatest OS benefit observed in patients with one prior line of therapy. To our knowledge, our results, together with the OS benefit observed with daratumumab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone in the phase III POLLUX study, demonstrate for the first time an OS benefit with daratumumab-containing regimens in RRMM (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02136134 [CASTOR]).

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.