Lendvai, Nikoletta

Abstract Introduction: Cilta-cel is approved in the US and the EU for the treatment of patients (pts) with lenalidomide-refractory multiple myeloma (MM) after ≥1 prior line of therapy (pLOT), including a proteasome inhibitor and an immunomodulatory agent based on the CARTITUDE-1 (CART-1, NCT03548207) and CARTITUDE-4 (CART-4, NCT04181827) studies. Cilta-cel led to deep and durable responses and significant survival benefit in pts with relapsed/refractory MM (RRMM) after ≥3 pLOT in CART-1. In CART-4, cilta-cel led to a significant overall survival benefit with a higher proportion of pts achieving deep, sustained minimal residual disease negativity vs standard of care in pts with lenalidomide-refractory MM after 1–3 pLOT. We investigated the mechanism of action of cilta-cel by correlating biomarkers from peripheral blood and the bone marrow TME with progression-free survival (PFS) and number of pLOT in pts with RRMM from CART-1 and CART-4. Methods: Biomarker analyses were performed using peripheral blood and bone marrow aspirates (BMAs) collected in both CART-1 and CART-4 studies. Immunophenotyping by flow cytometry was performed using peripheral blood at baseline/time of apheresis in samples from both studies. Immune fitness at baseline was assessed in pts by pLOT and in association with PFS. Gene set enrichment scores were derived from RNA sequencing data of the TME using BMAs. Mixed-effects models were used to identify signatures/pathways modulated over time (day [D] 28 and at 6 months [mo] post infusion vs screening) and in association with PFS and pLOT. Results: In total, 176 CART-4 and 97 CART-1 pts received cilta-cel as study treatment. Immunophenotyping data were available from 248 peripheral blood samples (1 pLOT, n=56; 2 pLOT, n=61; ≥3 pLOT, n=131). At apheresis, CD4+ naïve T cells (%) were higher in pts with 1 or 2 pLOT, compared with those with ≥3 pLOT, while no difference was found in pts with ≥3 pLOT with further breakdown (i.e., 3–4 vs 5–6 vs ≥7 pLOT). Further, higher baseline levels of CD4+ naïve T cells were associated with longer PFS. These data suggest that the negative impact on peripheral immune fitness with the addition of LOT may plateau when pts have received ≥3 pLOT. TME gene expression data were available from 148 BMA samples (screening, n=50; D28, n=50; 6 mo, n=48) from CART-4. Analyses of gene expression signatures suggest depletion of B cells and antibodies at D28 post cilta-cel infusion, with partial recovery at 6 mo. This was corroborated in parallel by flow cytometry and immunoglobulin quantification. Further, elevated expression of genes associated with myeloid cells, including tumor-associated macrophages (TAM, likely M1), and of genes associated with cytotoxic T cells were also observed at D28. Elevated expression of genes associated with B-cell receptors, T-cell differentiation and activation, and cytokine signaling pathways were found at both D28 and 6 mo. Pts with longer PFS (>18 mo) had higher levels of M1 TAM at D28, while those with shorter PFS had higher levels of regulatory T cells and more suppressed interferon pathway genes at 6 mo, suggesting that relapse may be associated with a more suppressive immune response. In pts with fewer pLOT, more profound B-cell depletion on D28, better recovery at 6 mo, and elevated B-cell receptor signaling were inferred from gene expression data. Pts with 1 pLOT also demonstrated higher elevation of M1 TAM expression on D28 from screening as compared with pts with 3 pLOT, similar to what was observed in pts with longer PFS. Conclusions: Correlative biomarker data suggest that longer PFS is associated with better immune fitness at baseline and stronger immune responses post cilta-cel infusion, as observed in peripheral blood and within the TME of pts with RRMM in CART-1 and CART-4. The peripheral immune fitness was more pronounced in pts with 1 and 2 pLOT vs 3 pLOT and beyond, where deterioration plateaued. This suggests the impact of T-cell immune fitness on PFS may be limited beyond the third LOT. Importantly, other covariates, including factors within the immune TME and tumor burden, may play a significant role in balancing this compromised intrinsic T-cell immune fitness at apheresis, thereby contributing to PFS durability after 3 pLOT. Overall, these results support increased benefits in treating pts with MM with cilta-cel in earlier LOTs.

Abstract Introduction: The CARTITUDE-4 study (NCT04181827), which enrolled patients with lenalidomide-refractory multiple myeloma (MM) after 1–3 prior lines of therapy (pLOT), demonstrated a significant benefit of ciltacabtagene autoleucel (cilta-cel) over established triplet regimens. However, the benefit of cilta-cel for patients with standard-risk cytogenetics remains less defined. Here, we report outcomes in patients with standard-risk cytogenetics from the intent-to-treat and as-treated populations in CARTITUDE-4. Methods: InCARTITUDE-4, patients randomized to the cilta-cel arm underwent apheresis and bridging treatment with either pomalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (PVd) or daratumumab, pomalidomide, and dexamethasone (DPd), followed by lymphodepletion therapy with cyclophosphamide and fludarabine, and then a single cilta-cel infusion. Progression-free survival (PFS) was assessed using a validated computerized algorithm. The intent-to-treat population included 208 patients; 32 patients progressed or died on bridging therapy, resulting in an as-treated population of 176 patients. Patients with high-risk cytogenetics, defined as del(17p), t(14;16), t(4;14), gain/amp(1q) (n=105), or with unknown cytogenetics (n=12), were excluded from the as-treated analysis. The 12-month minimal residual disease (MRD)-negative complete response (CR) was defined per the International Myeloma Working Group criteria as the proportion of participants with CR or better prior to and at 12 months (±3 months), achieving MRD-negative status at 12 months (+3 months) after cilta-cel infusion, as determined by next-generation sequencing (10-5), prior to progressive disease or subsequent anti-myeloma therapy. For the as-treated population, PFS rates were measured from the time of cilta-cel infusion. Results: In CARTITUDE-4, in the intent-to-treat population, at a median follow-up of 33.6 months, patients with standard-risk cytogenetics had a 30-month PFS rate (95% CI) of 71.0% (58.8–80.2) in the cilta-cel arm (N=69) vs 43.2% (31.3–54.5) in the standard-of-care (SOC) arm (N=70). Patients with standard-risk cytogenetics in the as-treated population (n=59) had a 30-month PFS rate of 80.5% (95% CI, 67.2–88.8). In CARTITUDE-1 (NCT03548207), which evaluated cilta-cel in patients with heavily pretreated relapsed/refractory MM (RRMM; ≥3 pLOT), the 30-month PFS rate among patients with standard-risk cytogenetics (negative for del(17p), t(14;16), or t(4;14); n=68) was 59.9% (95% CI, 47.2–70.5). In the CARTITUDE-4 as-treated population with standard-risk cytogenetics, 8 PFS events occurred within 1 year and 4 PFS events beyond 1 year of cilta-cel infusion. Twenty-six patients achieved MRD-negative CR at 12 months after cilta-cel; 100.0% of these patients were progression free at 30 months. Fourteen patients were not evaluable for MRD due to: calibration failure (n=12), no sample availability for testing (n=1), or indeterminate results post baseline (n=1). Conclusions: The PFS rate at 2.5 years for patients with standard-risk RRMM was higher in CARTITUDE-4 compared with CARTITUDE-1, supporting the use of cilta-cel as early as second line in the treatment course. In CARTITUDE-4 (as-treated population), 80.0% of patients with standard-risk cytogenetics were progression free and off treatment at 2.5 years. In patients with standard-risk disease who achieved MRD-negative CR at 1 year, this rate increased to 100.0%. The low rate of progression events in cilta-cel-treated patients with standard-risk cytogenetics shows the profound benefit of a single cilta-cel infusion in this population.

CARTITUDE-1 evaluated ciltacabtagene autoleucel (cilta-cel) in patients with heavily pretreated relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). We describe overall survival (OS), ≥5-year progression-free outcomes, associated biomarkers, and safety, with a median study follow-up of 61.3 months. For the 97 treated patients, median OS was 60.7 months (95% CI, 41.9 to not estimable). One third (32/97) of patients remain alive and progression-free for ≥5 years after a single cilta-cel infusion, without maintenance treatment. Twelve of these patients treated at a single center underwent serial minimal residual disease (MRD) and positron emission tomography-computed tomography assessments, and all (100%) were MRD-negative (at least 10 −5 threshold) and imaging-negative at year 5 or later after cilta-cel. Baseline characteristics, including the presence of high-risk cytogenetics and extramedullary disease, were generally comparable for the 32 patients who were progression-free for ≥5 years versus patients who had progressive disease by year 5. A trend of lower baseline tumor burden, higher fraction of naïve T-cells in the cilta-cel drug product, higher T cell-to-neutrophil ratio, higher hemoglobin and platelets at baseline, and higher effector-to-target ratio were associated with ≥5-year progression-free status. The safety profile of cilta-cel remained consistent with previous reports. To our knowledge, our data provide the first evidence that cilta-cel is potentially curative in patients with RRMM.

7507 Background: CARTITUDE-1 evaluated cilta-cel in pts with heavily pretreated RRMM who historically have an expected median progression-free survival (PFS) of <6 months (mo) and median overall survival (OS) of ~1 year (y). At 33.4 mo median follow-up, median PFS was 34.9 mo, and median OS was not reached (36-mo OS rate, 62.9%; Lin et al, ASCO 2023). We report OS, ≥5 y progression-free outcomes, and safety with a median study follow-up of 60.3 mo. Methods: Pts in CARTITUDE-1 received a single cilta-cel infusion. Correlative analyses were performed utilizing drug product, baseline, and postinfusion samples. Pts are followed for progression, survival, and safety in a 15-y follow-up study, CARTinue (NCT05201781), with pt evaluations per local standard of care (reported annually at a minimum). Results: Of 97 pts treated, 32 (33.0%) remain alive and progression free for ≥5 y after cilta-cel, without further MM treatment. For these 32 pts, prior to enrollment in CARTITUDE-1, median time from start of last line of therapy (LOT) to progression was 4.0 mo (range, 0.7–48.6). Among the 32, median age was 60 y (range, 43–78), median number of prior LOT was 6.5 (range, 3–14), 23.3% had high risk cytogenetics, 12.5% had extramedullary disease (EMD), 90.6% were triple-class refractory, and 46.9% were penta-drug refractory. Baseline characteristics of pts who were progression free for ≥5 y, including those with high-risk cytogenetics and EMD, were comparable to pts with progressive disease (PD) within 5 y. Compared with pts who had PD within 5 y, biomarkers significantly associated with ≥5 y progression free status included a higher fraction of naïve T cells in the drug product, lower neutrophil to T cell ratio, higher hemoglobin and platelets at baseline, and higher effector-to-target ratio (Cmax to sBCMA at baseline). At Cmax, these pts also had significantly higher CD4 central memory CAR+ T cell subsets and CAR+ T cells that were positive for the activation markers CD38, CD25, and PD-1. Data were collected on a subset of pts from a single center where local serial MRD assessments were performed. All 12 pts at this center who were progression free for ≥5 y were MRD negative at 10 –6 and imaging negative by PET/CT yearly for 5 y. Overall, at 60.3 mo median follow-up in CARTITUDE-1 (N=97), median OS was 60.6 mo (95% CI, 41.9–NE). With continued follow-up, 3 additional pts reported a second primary malignancy (1 of which was acute myeloid leukemia; onset, 2.8 y after infusion). No new cases of movement and neurocognitive disorders were reported. Conclusions: The median OS for pts enrolled in CARTITUDE-1 was 5 y, and 33% of pts remain progression free for ≥5 y following a single cilta-cel infusion. These data provide the first evidence that cilta-cel is potentially curative in pts with RRMM. Clinical trial information: NCT03548207 , NCT05201781 .

Introduction: CARTITUDE-4 is a phase 3 randomized controlled trial (RCT) assessing the efficacy and safety of CARVYKTI (ciltacabtagene autoleucel; cilta-cel) versus pomalidomide, bortezomib and dexamethasone (PVd) or daratumumab, pomalidomide and dexamethasone (DPd) in patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) with one to three prior line(s) of therapy that included an immunomodulatory agent (IMiD) and a proteasome inhibitor (PI), and who are refractory to lenalidomide. Based on the latest reported results from CARTITUDE-4, cilta-cel demonstrated superiority over PVd and DPd on progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and response rates (overall response rate [ORR], very good partial response [VGPR] or better, and complete response [CR] or better [CR or better]). In 2023, an initial analysis was performed to compare the efficacy outcomes between all apheresed patients from the cilta-cel arm in CARTITUDE-4 vs doublet (Pd and Kd) and daratumumab-based triplet (DKd and DVd) therapy regimens in the same target population using available patient level data. Data from an updated prespecified data-cut of CARTITUDE-4 with median follow-up of 34 months became available, allowing for an updated assessment of the comparative efficacy, including OS, between cilta-cel and these treatment regimens. Methods: Individual patient data were collected from the CARTITUDE-4 (cilta-cel), CASTOR (DVd), CANDOR (DKd and Kd), and APOLLO (Pd) RCTs, from which patients who met CARTITUDE-4 eligibility criteria were identified. As no patients in the comparative trials had prior treatment with anti-CD38, patients with prior exposure to anti-CD38 therapies in the cilta-cel cohort were excluded. Key prognostic baseline covariates including refractory status, ISS stage, presence of extramedullary disease (EMD), and time to progression on prior line, were adjusted for using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW), with average treatment effect in the treated weights. Differences in baseline characteristics were assessed using standardized mean differences. PFS, OS and response rates (ORR, ≥VGPR and ≥CR) were compared between cilta-cel versus the comparator regimens. Relative efficacy for PFS and OS was estimated with Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using weighted Cox proportional hazards regression. Response endpoints were analyzed using weighted logistic regression estimating response rate ratios (RRs) and 95% CIs. Sensitivity analyses using alternative statistical approaches and including additional covariates were explored. Results: After the exclusion of 53 patients with prior exposure to an anti-CD38 therapy, 155 patients in the cilta-cel arm remained, and were compared to patients treated with DVd (n=44), DKd (n=98), Kd (n=46) and Pd (n=92) who met the CARTITUDE-4 inclusion criteria. Baseline covariates were well balanced across the cohorts after IPTW. Patients from the cilta-cel arm showed significant improvements in PFS versus all comparators, with adjusted HRs ranging from 0.21 vs DVd to 0.58 vs DKd (all p ≤0.01). Also, OS was significantly longer for cilta-cel versus all other regimens, with adjusted HRs ranging between 0.31 vs Pd to 0.55 vs DKd (all p ≤0.05). While comparative estimates for ORR and VGPR did not change versus the previously reported results, the relative benefit for cilta-cel versus other regimens further increased on deeper levels of response, with adjusted RR for ≥CR from 2.71 vs DKd to 31.47 vs Pd (all p≤0.001). Treatment with DKd consistently yielded the best results out of all comparator regimens but results were still significantly in favor of cilta-cel. Results of cilta-cel benefit were generally consistent across sensitivity analyses. Conclusions: Results from this updated analysis confirm the previously observed significant superiority of PFS and response outcomes of cilta-cel, whilst showing significant OS benefit compared to commonly used treatment regimens for this patient population. These findings provide valuable information to support cilta-cel as a highly effective treatment for RRMM patients who received 1-3 prior lines of therapy, including a PI and IMiD, and who are refractory to lenalidomide, particularly in countries where standard of care may be different from DPd/PVd.

Introduction: Cilta-cel is approved in the US and EU for the treatment (tx) of patients (pts) with len-refractory MM after ≥1 line based on the randomized, phase 3 CARTITUDE-4 trial (NCT04181827). At the first interim analysis (15.9-month [mo] median follow-up), cilta-cel significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) vs SoC (hazard ratio [HR], 0.26 [protocol-specified weighted analysis]; P&lt;0.0001). At the second interim analysis, overall survival (OS) was significantly improved with cilta-cel vs SoC (HR, 0.55; P=0.0009). MRD negativity is a prognostic marker of prolonged survival outcomes for pts with MM. We report MRD negativity, including overall and sustained MRD negativity, overall MRD-negative complete response or better (≥CR), and MRD-negative ≥CR at mo 12, from the prespecified second interim analysis of CARTITUDE-4. Methods: Eligibility criteria were previously described. Pts were assigned 1:1 to cilta-cel or SoC (pomalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone [PVd]/daratumumab, pomalidomide, and dexamethasone [DPd]). Pts in the cilta-cel arm underwent apheresis, received bridging therapy (PVd/DPd), and then a single cilta-cel infusion (target dose, 0.75×106 CAR+ viable T cells/kg) 5-7 days (d) after the start of lymphodepletion. PFS was the primary endpoint; ≥CR rate, overall response rate, overall MRD-negativity rate, and OS were key secondary endpoints. MRD was assessed centrally via next-generation sequencing (clonoSEQ v2.0; Adaptive Biotechnologies). MRD was evaluated at d 56 post infusion in the cilta-cel arm; and in both arms at suspected ≥CR and at 6, 12, 18, and 24 mo post infusion (cilta-cel arm) or cycle 1 d 1 (SoC arm), as well as yearly until progression/start of subsequent therapy in pts in ≥CR. Sustained MRD negativity (10−5) was defined as confirmed MRD negativity ≥12 mo apart and without MRD positivity in between. Pts were evaluable for sustained MRD negativity if they achieved MRD negativity and had ≥1 evaluable MRD sample ≥12 mo after the first negative result or progressed/died/started subsequent tx &lt;12 mo after the first negative result. Results: 419 pts were randomized (intent-to-treat [ITT] set; cilta-cel, n=208; SoC, n=211); 176 pts in the cilta-cel arm received cilta-cel as study tx. As of May 1, 2024, median follow-up for the study was 33.6 mo. At the 10−5 threshold, 145 pts in the cilta-cel arm and 103 in the SoC arm were evaluable for MRD. MRD-negativity rates (10−5) in the ITT set and the MRD-evaluable subset were higher with cilta-cel vs SoC (ITT, 62% vs 18%; MRD evaluable, 89% vs 38%; both P&lt;0.0001). Across subgroups, cilta-cel vs SoC consistently increased overall MRD-negativity rates (10−5). In the ITT set, 48% of the cilta-cel arm achieved MRD negativity (10−5) by d 56, with the MRD-negative rate rising to 60% by 6 mo post cilta-cel infusion. Overall MRD-negativity rates at the 10−6 threshold in the ITT set were higher with cilta-cel vs SoC (57% vs 9%; P&lt;0.0001). In the cilta-cel arm, 119 (57%) pts vs 26 (12%) in the SoC arm achieved overall MRD-negative (10−5) ≥CR (P&lt;0.0001). At the 12-mo MRD assessment, 92 (44%) pts in the cilta-cel arm vs 17 (8%) in the SoC arm (P&lt;0.0001) had MRD-negative (10−5) ≥CR. In pts with MRD-negative (10−5) ≥CR at mo 12, median PFS was not reached (NR; 95% CI, not estimable [NE]-NE) with cilta-cel and 37.8 mo (95% CI, 25.0-NE) with SoC; median OS was NR (95% CI, NE-NE) and NR (95% CI, 37.8 mo-NE), respectively. Sustained MRD-negativity rates (10−5) in the ITT set were 40% in the cilta-cel arm vs 6% in the SoC arm (P&lt;0.0001); among 110 and 26 evaluable pts for sustained MRD, sustained MRD-negativity rates were 75% vs 50% (P=0.0159). Among the 176 pts who received cilta-cel as study tx, overall MRD negativity at 10−5 was achieved by 129 (73%) pts (89% of 145 evaluable pts). Conclusions: At 33.6-mo median follow-up in CARTITUDE-4, cilta-cel vs SoC significantly increased overall MRD-negativity rates &gt;3-fold in the ITT set, with pts achieving MRD negativity rapidly post cilta-cel. The prognostic value of MRD-negative ≥CR at mo 12 was shown, as median PFS was &gt;3 years in pts with MRD-negative ≥CR at mo 12, regardless of tx. These data further underscore the benefit of cilta-cel, which led to significant &gt;3-fold increases vs SoC in rates of MRD-negative ≥CR at any time and at mo 12, and sustained MRD negativity. Our MRD data demonstrate higher rates of deep and sustained MRD negativity achieved with cilta-cel vs SoC in tx of len-refractory MM as early as first relapse.

Abstract Background: Isatuximab (SAR650984) is a humanized IgG1 monoclonal antibody that binds selectively to a unique epitope on the human CD38 receptor. In the dose escalation part of the Phase I portion of the trial (NCT01749969), isatuximab ≥10 mg/kg IV given every other week (q2w) or 10 mg/kg weekly (qw) induced responses in 6/19 recipients (ORR 32%). Responses were noted at doses as low as 1 mg/kg q2w. The maximum tolerated dose (up to 20 mg/kg IV qw) was not reached. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were fatigue and nausea; few serious grade 3/4 TEAEs were reported (pneumonia 6%). The most common category of drug-related TEAE involved infusion-associated reactions (IARs) occurring in half of the patients, with grade 3/4 IARs in <5% of the patients. Based on promising Phase I activity, a Phase II dose finding study was added to investigate single-agent isatuximab in patients with relapsed or refractory myeloma (RRMM). Methods: In Phase II, eligible patients were originally randomly assigned (1:1:1) to one of 3 treatment groups: 3 mg/kg q2w, 10 mg/kg q2w, and 10 mg/kg q2w x 4 doses then q4w. A 4th treatment group was enrolled at a higher isatuximab dose with an optimized schedule of 20 mg/kg qw x 4 doses then q2w. Patient assignment was stratified by prior anti-myeloma therapy (Stratum 1: prior treatment with pomalidomide (POM) and/or carfilzomib (CAR); Stratum 2: no prior POM or CAR). Patients continued therapy until disease progression, unacceptable AEs or physician/patient decision. Eligible patients had measurable disease (serum M-protein >1 g/dL or urine M-protein ≥200 mg/24 h, or serum free light chain ≥10 mg/dL), prior exposure to ≥3 lines of anti-myeloma therapy or were double-refractory to immunomodulatory drugs (IMiDs) and proteasome inhibitors (PIs), prior treatment with an alkylating agent, and adequate baseline bone marrow reserve and organ function. Enrollment of 24 patients was planned for each treatment group. An interim efficacy analysis is planned when all patients have completed ≥2 disease assessments, with central review of these data currently ongoing. Enrollment has now been completed and all patients who completed at least 1 cycle of isatuximab at the cutoff date (5/29/15) are included in this preliminary analysis. Results: Patient characteristics (n=96): median age 62.5 yrs (range 38-85); median time from initial diagnosis to study treatment 5.85 yrs (1.2-24.1); 76% had IgA/G MM; 24% had light-chain only disease; and 22%, 22%, and 44% had Stage I, II, and III disease, respectively. The median number of prior lines of therapy was 5 (2-14) with 100%, 99%, and 98% having prior exposure to PIs, IMiDs, and alkylator-containing therapy, respectively. Overall, 78% of patients had previously received POM and/or CAR; 55% had been exposed to both of these agents. At data cut-off, 36.5% of patients remained on therapy and 53.1%, 6.3%, and 4.2% had discontinued therapy due to disease progression, AEs, or other reason, respectively. The median number of cycles received was 3 (1-9), with a median duration of treatment of 11.7 wks. Approximately 17% of patients required at least 1 dose delay and 7.3% of isatuximab infusions were interrupted. TEAEs occurred in 93% of patients, with 51% being grade ≥3. Drug-related TEAEs occurred in 61% of patients (grade ≥3, 10%). The most common drug-related TEAEs (>5% of patients) were nausea (14.6%), chills (14.6%), dyspnea (13.5%), chest discomfort (10.4%), flushing (7.3%), headache (7.3%), cough (6.3%), and vomiting (5.2%). The majority of the symptoms occurred within 24 h of isatuximab infusion and were attributed to an IAR. IARs occurred in 50% of patients, were predominantly grade 1/2 (grade ≥3, 3.1%), and were mostly limited to Cycle 1 (2 patients had IARs in Cycle 2). Pneumonia (6.3%) and sepsis (5.2%) were the most common serious TEAEs. Six deaths have occurred within 30 days of last dose, 4 due to disease progression, and 2 due to serious AEs unrelated to study therapy (cardiopulmonary arrest and cerebral hemorrhage). Conclusion: Isatuximab administered to heavily pre-treated patients with RRMM appears well tolerated. IARs are common in Cycle 1, but typically do not recur. Results by treatment arm, including interim analysis response data, will be presented. Disclosures Martin: Sanofi: Research Funding. Richter:Takeda: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Speakers Bureau. Vij:Millennium: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Onyx: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy. Zonder:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BMS, Amgen, Prothena, Seattle Genetics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Kaufman:Spectrum: Consultancy; Merck: Research Funding; Onyx: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Millenium: Consultancy. Bensinger:Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Acetylon: Research Funding; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Onyx: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Millenium: Research Funding; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Dimopoulos:Novartis: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Genesis: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Onyx: Honoraria; Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria. San Miguel:Millennium, Celgene, Novartis, Janssen, Onyx, BMS, MSD: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Zimmerman:Onyx: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Millennium: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Hari:Celgene: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Spectrum: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy. Gasparetto:Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Onyx: Honoraria; Millennium: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Kumar:Skyline, Noxxon: Honoraria; Celgene, Millennium, Onyx, Janssen, Noxxon, Sanofi, BMS, Skyline: Consultancy; Celgene, Millennium, Onyx, Novartis, Janssen, Sanofi: Research Funding. Hsu:Sanofi: Employment. Charpentier:Sanofi: Employment. Strickland:Alexion Pharmaceuticals: Other: Advisory Board Particpation; Amgen: Other: Advisory Board Particpation; Daiichi-Sankyo: Other: Advisory Board Particpation; Boehringer-Ingelheim: Other: Advisory Board Particpation; Sunesis Pharmaceuticals: Other: Steering Committee and Advisory Board Participation. Mikhael:Sanofi: Research Funding; Onyx: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding.