Batlevi, Connie Lee

ABSTRACT Rituximab, gemcitabine, and oxaliplatin (R‐GemOx) is a commonly used chemoimmunotherapy regimen for relapsed or refractory (R/R) diffuse large B‐cell lymphoma (DLBCL), but there are limited real‐world data. In a multicenter retrospective study from a cohort of eight US academic centers (LEO CReWE), we evaluated 183 patients with R/R DLBCL and high‐grade B cell lymphoma treated with R‐GemOx, including subgroups treated without intent for consolidation with autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) or chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cell therapy ( n = 100), those utilizing R‐GemOx as a bridge to ASCT or CAR T ( n = 83), and those aged 70 and older ( n = 71). Overall response rates (ORRs) for all patients treated with R‐GemOx were 45% with a complete response (CR) rate of 29%. The median event‐free survival (EFS) was 2.3 months, and the median overall survival (OS) was 13.5 months. Patients receiving R‐GemOx without intent for ASCT or CAR T had ORR and CR rates of 33% and 18%, respectively, with median EFS and OS of 2.0 and 9.5 months, respectively. Patients receiving R‐GemOx as a bridge to ASCT or CAR T had ORR and CR rates of 57% and 36%, respectively, with median EFS and OS of 3.5 and 17.4 months, respectively. Patients receiving R‐GemOx aged 70 and older had ORR and CR rates of 53% and 33%, respectively, with median EFS and OS of 2.2 and 13.9 months, respectively. These data provide a benchmark for R‐GemOx in the rapidly evolving landscape of R/R DLBCL therapies.

Background: Rituximab, gemcitabine, and oxaliplatin (R-GemOx) is a commonly utilized chemoimmunotherapy regimen for relapsed or refractory (R/R) diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), especially for patients ineligible for autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) or chimeric antigen receptor T cell therapy (CAR T). R-GemOx is used as a comparator arm in several active phase III clinical trials for R/R DLBCL, including the POLARGO (polatuzumab vedotion and R-GemOx), STARGLO (glofitamab and GemOx), SUNMO (mosunetuzumab and polatuzumab vedotin), LOTIS-5 (loncastuximab tesirine and rituximab), and EPCORE DLBCL-1 (epcoritamab) studies. However, real-world data are limited to understand the patterns of use and outcomes of R-GemOx in the US. Methods: We developed a retrospective multicenter US cohort (known as LEO CReWE) of patients with R/R DLBCL and other aggressive B-cell lymphomas at the eight US academic centers participating in the LEO Cohort Study (NCT02736357). Patients first diagnosed with DLBCL (including transformed and high-grade B-cell lymphoma) from 2007 - 2022 who received second line (2L) or later therapy for R/R DLBCL with R-GemOx were included. Baseline characteristics, treatment, and follow-up data were abstracted by chart review. Index line of therapy was defined as the first receipt of R-GemOx therapy in the 2L or later setting. Intent for CAR T and/or ASCT was evaluated at each line of therapy based on medical records at the time of treatment initiation. Subgroup analyses were pre-planned in groups of special interest, including those treated with R-GemOx without intent for ASCT or CAR T, those treated as a bridge to CAR T, and those aged 70 and older. Results: 183 patients with R/R DLBCL treated with R-GemOx were included. At time of initiation of R-GemOx, median age was 68 years (range 21-88), with 71 patients (39%) aged 70+ and 18 (10%) aged 80+. Many patients had high risk features including 13% with high grade B-cell lymphoma and 56% with IPI 3 or greater. 21% had an ECOG performance status of 2 or greater. Patients received a median of 2 lines of therapy prior to the index line of R-GemOx (range 1-7). 52% of patients did not achieve a complete response (CR) to first-line therapy, and 20% relapsed <12 months from an initial CR. In all patients receiving R-GemOx, the overall response rate (ORR) was 45% (29% CR). At a median follow-up of 39 months, median EFS was 2.3 months (95% CI: 1.8-3.2), with 12-month EFS of 21% and a 24-month EFS of 15%. Median OS was 13.5 months (95% CI: 9.6-18.1), with a 12-month OS of 52% and a 24-month OS of 38%. In patients treated without intent for ASCT or CAR T, ORR was 33% (18% CR). Median EFS was 2.0 months (95% CI: 1.6-2.5) with 12- and 24-month EFS of 14% and 9%, respectively. Median OS was 9.5 months (95% CI: 6.6-16.1) with 12- and 24-month OS of 45% and 29%, respectively. In patients receiving R-GemOx as bridging to ASCT or CAR T, ORR was 57% (35% CR). 35% received CAR T and 14% received ASCT, while the remainder did not receive the intended therapy as part of this line. Median EFS was 3.6 months (95% CI: 1.8-5.2) with 12- and 24-month EFS of 28% and 25%, respectively. Median OS was 17.4 months (95% CI: 13.4-NR); 12- and 24-month OS were 61% and 50%, respectively. In patients aged 70+, ORR was 53% (33% CR). Median EFS was 2.3 months (95% CI: 1.6-5.2), with 12- and 24-month EFS of 20% and 18%, respectively. Median OS was 13.9 months (95% CI: 8.6-30.2); 12- and 24-month OS were 57% and 39%, respectively. Conclusion: This study represents the largest reported cohort of patients treated with R-GemOx in US academic centers to date. The ORR of 45% and CR rate of 29% CR, as well as median EFS and OS of 2.3 and 13.5 months, respectively, are consistent with findings from previous phase II studies; these results highlight that responses to R-GemOx are not durable and the vast majority of patients require additional therapy. This study demonstrates real-world evidence of the efficacy of R-GemOx in a large cohort of patients with R/R DLBCL from the US over a long period, including both transplant-eligible and -ineligible patients, and patients treated in the CAR T era. These data aid in providing a benchmark for active clinical trials in the rapidly evolving landscape of R/R DLBCL therapies and allow potential comparison to a real-world cohort of patients with a broad range of clinical characteristics.

Background: Disseminated marginal zone lymphoma (MZL) is an indolent disease often observable at diagnosis with treatment indications similar to other indolent lymphomas. First-line therapy is typically rituximab alone or in combination with chemotherapy (e.g. bendamustine). Due to the long-life expectancy, avoiding alkylating agents to reduce bone marrow damage could be beneficial. In addition, a “chemotherapy free” option could have fewer and less severe complications. Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors (BTKi) are active and approved or NCCN-recommended beyond first line therapy in MZL. Moreover, BTKi are approved for first line therapy in Waldenstrom's Macroglobulinemia, a disease with both diagnostic and pathophysiologic overlap with MZL. We conducted a multicenter randomized trial of rituximab induction plus ibrutinib/placebo (RI vs RP) for patients with MZL in need of first line systemic therapy. Complete response (CR) rate at 30 months was the primary endpoint and progression free survival (PFS) was secondary. The target sample size was 63 in each arm. The study was closed after 22 eligible patients enrolled due to low accrual. Methods: Patients (pts) with either nodal, splenic or extranodal MZL were eligible. Prior surgery, radiation, antibiotic or antiviral therapy for MZL were allowed if followed by disease progression requiring treatment. Documented evidence of need for treatment included, but was not limited to, threatened end-organ function, bulky disease (>5 cm), symptoms, requirement for transfusion or growth factor support, or significant need for intervention. Transformation to DLBCL was excluded prior to entry including bone marrow assessment. Randomization occurred prior to rituximab weekly x 4 to either daily placebo (RP) or ibrutinib (RI) 560 mg starting on day 1 and continued until disease progression (PD), intolerance or CR at 30 months. Those with partial response (PR) or stable disease (SD) at 30 months could continue placebo or ibrutinib. CR assessment required both a negative FDG-PET and bone marrow biopsy. RESULTS: 22 pts enrolled (Feb 2020-March 2023) with baseline characteristics including: median age 67 years (35-78) and White race 17. Stage II (3), III/IV (17). Subtype: splenic 16, nodal 4, extranodal 2. Prior therapy: splenectomy 1, radiation 0, other surgery 0, antiviral/antibiotic 0. Median maximal tumor dimension was 3.7 cm (range 1.6-23.6); with >5 cm in 9 pts. Median time from diagnosis to treatment was 32 days (5-4712 with only 3 > 1 year). 11 pts were randomized to each arm. Responses: RP: 3 CR, 4 PR, 3 SD, 1 inevaluable; RI: 7 CR, 4 PR. No patient achieved CR30, but 3 had CR at 29 months: 2 RP, 1 RI. With a median follow up of 35 months (13-50), the median PFS by Log Rank was 14 mo (RP) vs 29 (RI), though this difference was not statistically significant in the setting of small numbers. Treatment was well tolerated. Only 1 pt experienced grade 3 events at least possibly related: hypoxia and dyspnea. This was attributed to COVID-19 and occurred on the RP arm. 1 CR patient with baseline clonal hematopoiesis developed myelodysplasia. Treatment improved baseline activities in 4/5 pts (1 RP, 3 RI). Baseline pain improved in 8 pt: 4 RP, 4 RI. All pts were alive at the data cuff off. Conclusions: This study is a chemotherapy free frontline trial in MZL and the first to utilize ibrutinib in frontline MZL. All pts received rituximab induction and were randomized at entry to RP vs RI. The COVID-19 pandemic affected site activation and accrual, ultimately contributing to low accrual and early study termination. Nonetheless, the results suggest a marked difference in median PFS favoring the RI arm, although small numbers preclude a statistically significant result. Notably, our results are qualitatively similar to those of Dimopoulos (NEJM, 2018) in Waldenstrom's Macroglobulinemia, a disease with similar characteristics to MZL. In that study, the median PFS by Log Rank was 20 months (RP) vs not reached (RI); and 30-month PFS 28% (RP) vs 82% (RI). (Hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.20; P<0.001). Further, our trial supports pursing a chemotherapy free first line approach in MZL.

Multiple CD19-directed therapies are available for the treatment of relapsed and refractory (R/R) DLBCL, including CAR T cells, tafasitamab/lenalidomide (TL), and loncastuximab tesirine (lonca-T) (Sermer D., Blood Rev 2023). However, there are few data available on the efficacy of sequential CD19-directed therapies. We performed a retrospective study evaluating all patients with R/R LBCL treated consecutively with TL at 11 institutions from 8/2020 to 8/2022, identifying 178 patients. In this study, we specifically evaluate outcomes in patients who received anti-CD19 therapy prior to or after TL. The primary outcome of interest was progression-free survival (PFS) in TL recipients who previously received CD19-directed CAR T therapy, with overall response rate (ORR), complete response rate (CRR), and overall survival (OS) also evaluated. Outcomes of lonca-T and CAR T after TL therapy were evaluated. Data on CD19 expression was assessed on biopsies after TL; this was determined locally using flow cytometry or immunohistochemistry per institutional protocols. In subgroup analyses, ORR and CRR were compared using Fisher's exact test. PFS and OS were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method, with differences tested using the log-rank test. Of 178 patients who received TL, 52 had received prior anti-CD19 CAR T therapy, at a median of 7.4 months before TL (Table 1). Median PFS was lower in prior CAR T recipients (1.6 mo, 95% CI 1.1-2.5) vs no prior CAR T (2.1 mo, 95% CI 1.8-3.2), with hazard ratio 1.46 (p = 0.04; Figure 1). Best ORR was lower in patients with prior CAR T exposure (15% vs 33%, p = 0.02) though CRR was not significantly different (15% vs 18%, p = 1.0). We specifically evaluated TL outcomes based on prior response to CAR T, given the previously identified association of refractory disease with poor TL outcomes (Qualls D et al., presented at ASH 2022). Of 19 patients who had progressive disease more than 6 months after CAR T, ORR and CRR to TL therapy were 31.6% (all responses were CRs); in 33 patients with refractory disease (less than CR or relapse within 6 months) after CAR T, ORR and CRR to TL were significantly lower, at 6.1% (p = 0.04). Median PFS after TL was shorter in CAR-refractory than CAR-relapsed disease, at 1.4 vs 3.5 months (HR 2.2, p = 0.02). Of 88 patients who received therapy after TL, 20 (23%) received lonca-T and 14 (16%) received CAR T. Data on survival and initiation of new treatment after CAR T or lonca-T was available, but response and progression data after CAR T or lonca-T therapy is pending. These data allowed an estimate of OS and event-free survival (EFS), defined as survival without initiation of a new treatment after CAR T or lonca-T. With a median 3.9 months' follow-up, median EFS after CAR T administration was 3.7 months (95% CI, 0.9 - 6.5), and median OS was 8.1 months (95% CI, 0.6 - 15.7). In patients who received lonca-T, with median 2.7 months' follow-up from initiation, median EFS was 2.8 months (95% CI, 0.9 - 4.7), and median OS was 3.5 months (95% CI, 1.2 - 5.7). When comparing CAR T and lonca-T to polatuzumab vedotin- or chemotherapy-based therapies after TL, there were no significant differences in OS or EFS. In patients who discontinued TL, 24 had a biopsy a median of 18 days after the last dose of tafasitamab. Of these, 13 (54%) were CD19-positive and 11 (46%) were CD19-negative. All samples obtained more than 21 days after tafasitamab (6/6) were CD19-positive, while 46% obtained within 21 days were CD19-positive. These time-dependent findings may reflect “epitope masking” by tafasitamab rather than CD19 loss, reflecting other recent reports (Fitzgerald K., Leuk Lym 2022; Duell J., Leuk Lym 2022). In patients receiving TL after CAR T, responses and PFS were lower than in patients without prior CAR T therapy; however, with disease that was not refractory to prior CAR T, results were similar to patients who had not had prior CAR T. This may reflect that refractory disease, regardless of prior therapy, is associated with shorter PFS, though the possibility of CD19-mediated mechanisms of resistance remains. Modest EFS and OS were seen in patients receiving CAR T therapy or lonca-T after already receiving TL, though this may also reflect the high-risk disease characteristics of this cohort. Overall, in a high-risk, real-world cohort of TL-treated patients, these data suggest that some patients may benefit from subsequent CD19-directed therapies, but better therapeutic options are needed.

Abstract In this real-world evaluation of tafasitamab-lenalidomide (TL) in relapsed or refractory LBCL, patients receiving TL had higher rates of comorbidities and high-risk disease characteristics, and substantially lower progression-free survival and overall survival, compared with the L-MIND registration clinical trial for TL.

SummaryFimepinostat (CUDC‐907), a first‐in‐class oral small‐molecule inhibitor of histone deacetylase and phosphatidylinositol 3‐kinase, demonstrated efficacy in a phase 1 study of patients with relapsed/refractory (R/R) diffuse large and high‐grade B‐cell lymphomas (DLBCL/HGBL), particularly those with increased MYC protein expression and/orMYCgene rearrangement/copy number gain (MYC‐altered disease). Therefore, a phase 2 study of fimepinostat was conducted in this patient population with 66 eligible patients treated. The primary end‐point of overall response (OR) rate for patients with MYC‐IHC ≥40% (n = 46) was 15%. Subsequently, exploratory pooled analyses were performed including patients treated on both the phase 1 and 2 studies based upon the presence of MYC‐altered disease as well as a biomarker identified by Virtual Inference of Protein activity by Enriched Regulon analysis (VIPER). For these patients with MYC‐altered disease (n = 63), the overall response (OR) rate was 22% with seven responding patients remaining on treatment for approximately two years or longer, and VIPER yielded a three‐protein biomarker classification with positive and negative predictive values of ≥85%. Prolonged durations of response were achieved by patients with MYC‐altered R/R DLBCL/HGBL treated with single‐agent fimepinostat. Combination therapies and/or biomarker‐based patient selection strategies may lead to higher response rates in future clinical trials.

Background: Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is frequently curable after frontline therapy, however, relapses can occur after achievement of a PET-negative complete remission (CR). Early detection of relapse may be associated with improved outcomes with second-line curative intent therapy or novel therapies. Controversy exists regarding the utility of post-therapy surveillance imaging which is associated with patient (pt) anxiety, radiation exposure, false-positive results, and cost. A retrospective study found that serial minimal residual disease (MRD) monitoring during DLBCL surveillance could identify pts at risk of relapse before clinical evidence of disease (Roschewski, Lancet Oncol, 2015). In this multicenter prospective study, we assessed whether a next-generation sequencing (NGS)-based MRD assay could be used for early detection of molecular relapse in DLBCL. Methods: Eligible pts with DLBCL or high-grade B-cell lymphoma (HGBCL) who received anthracycline-containing chemotherapy were enrolled across five cancer centers. In pts who achieved a PET-negative CR, serial peripheral blood samples were obtained every 3 months (mos) and CT scans every 6 mos for 2 years (yrs) post-treatment. The clonoSEQ® next generation sequencing (NGS) MRD assay (Adaptive Biotechnologies, Seattle, WA) that leverages multiplex PCR followed by NGS to identify and track rearrangements of IgH, V-J, D-J and IgK/L loci and translocations in Bcl1/2-IgH was used. MRD positive was defined as any detectable rearrangement and MRD negative as no evidence of rearrangement. We also reported MRD positivity above the limit of detection (LOD) (observations required to have 95% reproducibility). Interim futility analysis was performed after approximately 50% of anticipated relapses occurred to assess the preliminary sensitivity of the assay. Progression-free survival (PFS) was defined as time from treatment start date to relapse or death. Results: 501 pts were enrolled and 401 were evaluable (pre-treatment tumor pathology available, completed frontline treatment, and achieved PET-negative CR at end-of-treatment). Baseline characteristics were median age of 62 yrs (range 19-95), male sex 58%, advanced stage 61%, and poor-risk by R-IPI 40% (Table 1). Histologies included DLBCL, NOS (86%), primary mediastinal B-cell lymphoma (6%), HGBCL (5%), T-cell rich B-cell lymphoma (1%), and other (1%). Pts received regimens including RCHOP x 6 cycles (36%), REPOCH x 6 cycles (20%), clinical trial (15%), combined modality therapy (RCHOP+RT) (10%), and other RCHOP variations (19%). Among the 401 evaluable pts, 44 relapses have occurred as of June 1, 2020. In 47% of pts (18/38), clinical relapse was detected using surveillance imaging alone (typically CT CAP with IV contrast) in an otherwise asymptomatic pt with a normal physical exam and laboratory evaluation. Clinical relapse was detected by clinical symptoms alone in 11% (4/28), by the evaluation of an oncologist alone in 0%, and by imaging and clinical symptoms and/or evaluation by an oncologist in 42% (16/38) (missing data in 6 pts). With a median follow-up of 2.2 yrs, the 2-yr PFS was 88.1% (84.8, 91.4) (Figure 1). Advanced age, advanced stage, and poor-risk R-IPI were associated with inferior PFS. Of the 44 relapses, 43 pts were included in the interim analysis and tumor-specific clonotypes were identified in 39 pts (91%). In 56% (22/39), the MRD assay was positive at or before clinical relapse. In 38% (15/39), the MRD assay was positive above the limit of detection at or prior to clinical relapse, with only 10 relapses detected more than 3 mos prior to relapse, reflecting the poor clinical sensitivity of the assay. The NGS-MRD assay was more sensitive in the acellular (plasma cell-free DNA) than in the cellular (circulating leukocytes) compartment. Results: Overall outcomes are excellent for DLBCL and HGBCL pts who achieve PET-negative complete remission. In interim analysis, surveillance MRD assessment using the clonoSEQ® assay fails to consistently identify pts at risk of recurrence before clinical evidence of relapse in DLBCL. In a prospective analysis, a substantial proportion (47%) of clinical relapses are detected by imaging in asymptomatic pts, supporting the value of CT surveillance imaging in DLBCL, particularly for pts with advanced stage or high-risk disease. Additional analyses are forthcoming for MRD assessment in all pts, including those in remission. Disclosures Kumar: Celgene: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnologies,: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Other: Honoraria for Advisory Board; Astra Zeneca: Honoraria, Other: Honoraria for Advisory Board; Kite Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Other: Honoraria for Advisory Board. Westin:Kite: Consultancy, Research Funding; Curis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy; Astra Zeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding; Morphosys: Consultancy, Research Funding; 47: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding. Nowakowski:Curis: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Nanostrings: Research Funding; MorphoSys: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene/BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kite: Consultancy; Denovo: Consultancy; Kymera: Consultancy; Ryvu: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other. Lossos:Verastem: Consultancy, Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Other; NCI: Research Funding; Stanford University: Patents & Royalties; Janssen Biotech: Honoraria; Janssen Scientific: Consultancy, Other. Batlevi:Life Sci, GLG, Juno/Celgene, Seattle Genetics, Kite: Consultancy; Janssen, Novartis, Epizyme, Xynomics, Bayer, Autolus, Roche/Genentech: Research Funding. Drullinsky:Roche: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding. Gerecitano:Janssen: Current Employment. Hamlin:Celgene: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Juno Therapeutics: Consultancy; Portola: Research Funding; Molecular Templates: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; J&J Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Portola Pharmaceutics: Consultancy. Horwitz:ASTEX: Consultancy; Affirmed: Consultancy; Vividion Therapeutics: Consultancy; Verastem: Consultancy, Research Funding; Myeloid Therapeutics: Consultancy; Miragen: Consultancy; Kura Oncology: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Research Funding; C4 Therapeutics: Consultancy; Beigene: Consultancy; Portola: Consultancy, Research Funding; Mundipharma: Consultancy; Innate Pharma: Consultancy; Corvus: Consultancy; Trillium: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Millenium/Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kyowa Hakka Kirin: Consultancy, Research Funding; Infinity/Verastem: Research Funding; Forty Seven: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Aileron: Consultancy, Research Funding; ADCT Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding. Jacob:Adaptive Biotechnologies: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Joffe:AstraZeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Epizyme: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. von Keudell:Bayer: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding. Lahoud:MorphoSys: Other: Advisory Board. Matasar:Bayer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Rocket Medical: Consultancy, Research Funding; Teva: Consultancy; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; IGM Biosciences: Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Research Funding; Immunovaccine Technologies: Honoraria, Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy; Juno Therapeutics: Consultancy; Genentech, Inc.: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Mullins:Adaptive Biotechnologies: Current Employment, Other: shareholder. Noy:Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; NIH: Research Funding; Rafael Pharma: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Medscape: Consultancy; Targeted Oncology: Consultancy; Morphosys: Consultancy. Straus:Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; ASH: Other: Conference in December 2019 on HL to other physicians during ASH; Elsevier: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: CME writer; OncLive: Speakers Bureau; Takeda Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; NY Lymphoma Rounds: Consultancy; Targeted Oncology: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Imedex, Inc.: Speakers Bureau; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Younes:Takeda: Consultancy; HCM: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Current Employment; Novartis: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Epizyme: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; BioPath: Consultancy; Curis: Consultancy. Zelenetz:MEI Pharma: Research Funding; MorphoSys: Research Funding; Sandoz: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Genentech/Roche: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Adaptive Biotechnology: Consultancy; BeiGene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.