Cunningham, David

ImportanceThe prognosis of patients with adenocarcinoma of the esophagus and esophagogastric junction (AEG) is poor. From current evidence, it remains unclear to what extent preoperative chemoradiotherapy (CRT) or preoperative and/or perioperative chemotherapy achieve better outcomes than surgery alone.ObjectiveTo assess the association of preoperative CRT and preoperative and/or perioperative chemotherapy in patients with AEG with overall survival and other outcomes.Data SourcesLiterature search in PubMed, Cochrane Library, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, ClinicalTrials.gov, and International Clinical Trials Registry Platform was performed from inception to April 21, 2023.Study SelectionTwo blinded reviewers screened for randomized clinical trials comparing preoperative CRT plus surgery with preoperative and/or perioperative chemotherapy plus surgery, 1 intervention with surgery alone, or all 3 treatments. Only data from participants with AEG were included from trials that encompassed mixed histology or gastric cancer. Among 2768 initially identified studies, 17 (0.6%) met the selection criteria.Data Extraction and SynthesisThe Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guidelines were followed for extracting data and assessing data quality by 2 independent extractors. A bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted using the 2-stage approach.Main Outcomes and MeasuresOverall and disease-free survival, postoperative morbidity, and mortality.ResultsThe analyses included 2549 patients (2206 [86.5%] male; mean [SD] age, 61.0 [9.4] years) from 17 trials (conducted from 1989-2016). Both preoperative CRT plus surgery (hazard ratio [HR], 0.75 [95% credible interval (CrI), 0.62-0.90]; 3-year difference, 105 deaths per 1000 patients) and preoperative and/or perioperative chemotherapy plus surgery (HR, 0.78 [95% CrI, 0.64-0.91]; 3-year difference, 90 deaths per 1000 patients) showed longer overall survival than surgery alone. Comparing the 2 modalities yielded similar overall survival (HR, 1.04 [95% CrI], 0.83-1.28]; 3-year difference, 15 deaths per 1000 patients fewer for CRT). Similarly, disease-free survival was longer for both modalities compared with surgery alone. Postoperative morbidity was more frequent after CRT plus surgery (odds ratio [OR], 2.94 [95% CrI, 1.01-8.59]) than surgery alone. Postoperative mortality was not significantly more frequent after CRT plus surgery than surgery alone (OR, 2.50 [95% CrI, 0.66-10.56]) or after chemotherapy plus surgery than CRT plus surgery (OR, 0.44 [95% CrI, 0.08-2.00]).Conclusions and RelevanceIn this meta-analysis of patients with AEG, both preoperative CRT and preoperative and/or perioperative chemotherapy were associated with longer survival without relevant differences between the 2 modalities. Thus, either of the 2 treatments may be recommended to patients.

Abstract Disease progression after frontline therapy for Diffuse large B‐cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is a clinically significant event. Patients who experience early progression or have refractory disease have especially poor outcomes. Simple, clinically applicable prognostic tools are needed for selecting patients for consideration for novel therapies and prognostication in the relapsed/refractory (R/R) setting. Model building was performed in patients from the Surrogate endpoints in aggressive lymphoma (SEAL) consortium with disease progression after frontline immunochemotherapy. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS) measured from date of progression. Validation was performed in the University of Iowa/Mayo Clinic SPORE Molecular Epidemiology Resource (MER) and Danish National Lymphoma Register (LYFO) cohorts. Model performance was assessed using time‐dependent concordance indices (c‐statistic) and calibration with metrics evaluated at 2 years from progression. Note, 1234 of 5112 patients treated with frontline immunochemotherapy in the SEAL consortium developed progressive disease. Time to progression on immunochemotherapy and age at progression were strongly associated with post‐progression OS (both p < 0.001). A prognostic model was developed incorporating spline fit for both variables. The model had good concordance in the discovery (0.67) and validation sets (LYFO c = 0.64, MER c = 0.68) with generally good calibration. Time to progression on frontline therapy is strongly associated with post‐progression OS in DLBCL. We developed and validated a simple to apply clinical prognostic tool in the R/R setting. The useful prediction of expected outcomes in R/R DLBCL and can inform treatment decisions such as considerations for CAR‐T therapy as well as trial designs. The model is available in smartphone‐based point of care applications.

Abstract Nivolumab, an anti–programmed death-1 (PD-1) monoclonal antibody, showed promising activity in relapsed or refractory (R/R) follicular lymphoma (FL) in a phase 1 study. We conducted a phase 2 trial to further evaluate its efficacy and safety in patients with R/R FL and to explore biomarkers of response. Patients with R/R FL and at least 2 prior lines of therapy, each containing a CD20 antibody or an alkylating agent, were treated with nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks. The primary end point was objective response rate (ORR) assessed by an independent radiologic review committee. Biomarker analyses included gene expression profiling and multiplex immunofluorescence studies of pretreatment tumor samples. A total of 92 patients were treated. After a minimum follow-up of 12 months, ORR was 4% (4 of 92 patients). Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 2.2 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.9-3.6 months). Median duration of response was 11 months (95% CI, 8-14 months). Exploratory analyses suggested that responders had significantly higher proportion of CD3+ T cells in the tumor microenvironment than nonresponders, but no significant differences in PD-1 or programmed death-ligand 1 expression were observed. High expression of a set of tumor-associated macrophage genes was associated with reduced PFS (hazard ratio, 3.28; 95% CI, 1.76-6.11; P = .001). The safety profile was consistent with previous reports of nivolumab. In conclusion, nivolumab monotherapy was associated with very limited activity in patients with R/R FL. Better understanding of the immune biology of this disease may facilitate the development of effective checkpoint-based strategies. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT02038946.

Abstract Great heterogeneity in survival exists for patients newly diagnosed with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). Three scoring systems incorporating simple clinical parameters (age, lactate dehydrogenase, number/sites of involvement, stage, performance status) are widely used: the International Prognostic Index (IPI), revised IPI (R-IPI), and National Comprehensive Cancer Network IPI (NCCN-IPI). We evaluated 2124 DLBCL patients treated from 1998 to 2009 with frontline rituximab plus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CHOP; or variant) across 7 multicenter randomized clinical trials to determine which scoring system best discriminates overall survival (OS). Median age was 63 years, and 56% of patients were male. Five-year OS estimates ranged from 54% to 88%, from 61% to 93%, and from 49% to 92% using the IPI, R-IPI, and NCCN-IPI, respectively. The NCCN-IPI had the greatest absolute difference in OS estimates between the highest- and lowest-risk groups and best discriminated OS (concordance index = 0.632 vs 0.626 [IPI] vs 0.590 [R-IPI]). For each given IPI risk category, NCCN-IPI risk categories were significantly associated with OS (P ≤ .01); the reverse was not true, and the IPI did not provide additional significant prognostic information within all NCCN-IPI risk categories. Collectively, the NCCN-IPI outperformed the IPI and R-IPI. Patients with low-risk NCCN-IPI had favorable survival outcomes with little room for further improvement. In the rituximab era, none of the clinical risk scores identified a patient subgroup with long-term survival clearly &lt;50%. Integrating molecular features of the tumor and microenvironment into the NCCN-IPI or IPI might better characterize a high-risk group for which novel treatment approaches are most needed.

7544 Background: Great heterogeneity in survival exists for patients (pts) newly diagnosed with aggressive BCL. Three scoring systems based on simple clinical parameters (age, lactate dehydrogenase, number/sites of involvement, stage, performance status) are widely used: the international prognostic index (IPI), revised-IPI (R-IPI), and National Comprehensive Cancer Network IPI (NCCN-IPI). We studied BCL pts treated with R-CHOP to determine which scoring systems best identifies subgroups with poor outcomes that might benefit from new approaches. Methods: Individual pt data from 7 multicenter trials (1998-2009) of pts with BCL (86% DLBCL) treated front-line with R-CHOP (or variant) were analyzed to determine whether IPI, R-IPI, or NCCN-IPI best discriminated overall survival (OS). The concordance index (c-index) from a proportional hazards model, stratifying on trial and induction therapy, quantified predictive accuracy of each scoring system. Results: 2561 pts (median age 63 yrs, 56% male) were classified into IPI, R-IPI, and NCCN-IPI risk groups (Table). With a median follow-up of 5 yrs, NCCN-IPI had the greatest absolute difference in OS estimates between the highest and lowest risk groups at 1, 3, and 5 yrs, and best discriminated OS (c-index = 0.631, Table). Conclusions: In an independent and large cohort of pts, NCCN-IPI performs best in risk-stratifying pts with aggressive BCL, readily distinguishing pts at high and low risk for treatment failure using clinical parameters (5-yr OS between 48 and 92%). Improvement over the simpler IPI appears incremental, and IPI may remain a valuable alternative. Work integrating molecular features of the tumor into the (NCCN-) IPI is in progress to define high risk groups where targeted novel approaches are needed most. [Table: see text]

7520 Background: We report results of a phase 2, open-label study of durvalumab (durva) in combination with R-CHOP or R2-CHOP (R-CHOP + lenalidomide) in previously untreated, high-risk diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). Methods: Subjects (≥18 y; ECOG 0–2) with previously untreated, high/high-intermediate risk DLBCL (IPI ≥3/NCCN-IPI ≥4) were stratified to durva + R-CHOP (Arm A, GCB DLBCL) or R2-CHOP for 6–8 cycles (Arm B, ABC DLBCL) based on cell of origin identified by gene expression followed by durva consolidation up to month 12 from start of induction. After FDA placed clinical holds on trials including combination therapy with checkpoint inhibitors and immunomodulatory agents, the study was revised to include both ABC and GCB in Arm A (durva + R-CHOP). The primary endpoint was complete response rate (CRR) at end of induction; secondary endpoints were rate of subjects continuing to consolidation, safety, and response in biological. Results: A total of 46 subjects were treated (safety; A/B, n=43/3); median age, 62/66 y; male, 61%/67%; ECOG 2, 19%/33%; Ann Arbor stage IV, 79%/33%; bulky disease: 49%/67%; double/triple-hit lymphoma, 30%/33%. As of Aug 2, 2018, 30/3 (A/B) had completed induction therapy, and 19 subjects (A) were ongoing. CRR (95% confidence interval) at end of induction was (A) 54% (37%-71%) and (B) 67% (9%-99%); 68%/67% (A/B) continued to consolidation therapy and were progression free at month 12. Safety profile was as expected for the components of the combination regimen with no new safety signal identified. Frequent treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs; ≥25%; A+B) included fatigue (61%), neutropenia (52%), peripheral sensory neuropathy (50%), nausea (46%), diarrhea (28%); constipation, decreased appetite, insomnia, pyrexia (24% each); and alopecia, dizziness, dyspnea, headache, stomatitis (22% each). Grade 3/4 TEAEs occurred in 84%/100% of subjects (A/B), and 3 subjects (2/1) died with no death related to study treatment. Follow-up for efficacy and safety is ongoing. Conclusions: Durva + R-CHOP combination therapy is safe and demonstrates encouraging response rates in subjects with high-risk DLBCL including double-hit lymphoma. Clinical trial information: NCT03003520.

Background: Disease progression (PD) after frontline IC therapy for DLBCL is a clinically significant event and only 20-40% of patients achieve durable remissions with salvage chemotherapy. Patients who experience early PD or have disease refractory to IC have especially poor outcomes. Chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy has emerged as a novel effective therapy for selected cases of relapsed or refractory (r/r) DLBCL, although its availability is limited by cost and logistic challenges. Simple, clinically applicable prognostic tools would be useful for selecting patients for consideration for novel therapies vs those who are more likely to be successfully managed by conventional therapies, but few have been developed for r/r DLBCL. Methods: Model building was performed in patients with PD after IC from 13 frontline, multicenter, randomized DLBCL clinical trials from the SEAL Consortium. All patients received rituximab and an anthracycline-based combination IC and were followed systematically; however therapy received, clinical, and laboratory data at progression were not available. OS was defined as time from first progression until death from any cause. Associations between variables and OS were evaluated using Cox models; splines were used to model functional forms. Validation was performed in the University of Iowa/Mayo Clinic SPORE Molecular Epidemiology Resource (MER) and Danish LYFO cohorts. Model performance was assessed using time-dependent concordance indices (c-stat), Brier scores, and calibration with metrics evaluated at two years from progression. Results: Model Development (SEAL): 1125 of 5112 patients had PD after IC. Median time to PD (TTP) was 11.8 months (IQR 6.6-23.5); median age at PD was 68 years (IQR 60-73). At a median follow-up of 21 months from PD (IQR 7-43), 732 patients (65%) had died and 24 month overall survival after PD (OS24) was 35% (95% CI: 32-38). TTP was strongly associated with post PD OS (spline p-value&lt;0.0001) with OS24 ranging from 18% in patients with TTP &lt;6 months compared to 69% in patients with TTP &gt; 36 months (Figure A). Additionally, age at PD (spline p-value&lt;0.0001) was associated with post PD OS. A model consisting of age at PD including patients 40-80 years and TTP ranging 0-60 months was created (n=1011, Figure B) due to sparse data outside these intervals. C-stat was 0.67, and the model was well calibrated (predicted OS24 = 34% vs. actual OS24 = 34%). External Validation (MER): The model was validated in 290 patients with DLBCL who initiated 2nd line therapy after PD to IC. Median age at PD was younger than the SEAL cohort at 62 years (IQR 57-70). Patients with biopsy proven indolent histology at relapse were excluded. Median TTP was 8.2 months (IQR 5.1-17.0). At a median follow-up of 87 months from PD, 201 patients (69%) had died. OS24 was 47% (95% CI: 41-53). The model showed similar concordance (c-stat=0.65), but underestimated OS24 (predicted =33% vs. 47% actual, Figure C). External Validation (LYFO): The model was validated in 599 patients with DLBCL and PD after frontline IC. Median age at PD was 67 years (IQR 60-73). Median TTP was 10.1 months (IQR 6.0-19.4). At a median follow-up of 82 months from PD, 435 patients (73%) had died. OS24 was 38% (95% CI: 34-42). The model showed similar concordance (c-stat=0.67) when applied to the LYFO cohort, but again underestimated OS24 (predicted =32% vs. 38% actual, Figure D). Case vignettes: A 74 year old patient who progressed 9 months after diagnosis would have a predicted OS24 of 20%. A 58 year old patient who progressed 32 months after diagnosis would have a predicted OS24 of 65% Conclusions: TTP to following IC is strongly associated with post-progression survival in DLBCL. We developed a model from the largest frontline clinical trial dataset in DLBCL and validated a simple to apply clinical prognostic tool in the r/r setting. The model allows better understanding of expected outcomes in r/r DLBCL and can aid design and interpretation of trial results in this setting. The model underestimated the actual survival probability when applied to non-trial validation cohorts. Recalibration of the model for transplant eligible patients and development of smartphone based point-of-care application of the model is ongoing. Figure Disclosures Maurer: Celgene: Research Funding; Nanostring: Research Funding; Morphosys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Schmitz:Riemser: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Equity Ownership; Gilead: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria. Farooq:Kite Pharma: Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria. Flowers:Optimum Rx: Consultancy; Burroughs Wellcome Fund: Research Funding; BeiGene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy, Research Funding; Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group: Research Funding; Genentech, Inc./F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; National Cancer Institute: Research Funding; Denovo Biopharma: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics/Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Spectrum: Consultancy; Millenium/Takeda: Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding; V Foundation: Research Funding. Frederiksen:Alexion: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding. Cunningham:Eli Lilly: Research Funding; 4SC: Research Funding; Bayer: Research Funding; MedImmune: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Research Funding; Merrimack: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Clovis: Research Funding. Jørgensen:Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Poeschel:Amgen: Other: Travel, accommodations, expenses; Abbvie: Other: Travel, accomodations, expenses; Hexal: Speakers Bureau; Roche: Other: Travel, accomodations, expenses. Nowakowski:F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Research Funding; Curis: Research Funding; Selvita: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; NanoString: Research Funding; MorphoSys: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech, Inc.: Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding. Seymour:Takeda: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Acerta: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Merli:Takeda: Honoraria, Other: Travel Expenses; Gilead: Honoraria; Mundipharma: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel expenses, Research Funding; Sandoz: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Teva: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel Expenses; Janssen: Honoraria. Haioun:novartis: Honoraria; celgene: Honoraria; roche: Consultancy; celgene: Consultancy; gilead: Consultancy; takeda: Consultancy; janssen cilag: Consultancy; amgen: Honoraria; servier: Honoraria. Tilly:roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; servier: Honoraria; merck: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy. Salles:Amgen: Honoraria, Other: Educational events; BMS: Honoraria; Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis, Servier, AbbVie, Karyopharm, Kite, MorphoSys: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Educational events; Autolus: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Educational events; Epizyme: Consultancy, Honoraria; Roche, Janssen, Gilead, Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Educational events. El-Galaly:Roche: Employment, Other: Travel support; Takeda: Other: Travel support.

Abstract Background: Patients (pts) with DLBCL who receive first-line anthracycline based immunochemotherapy and remain in remission at 2 years have excellent outcomes with overall survival (OS) in one study that was comparable to the age and sex matched general population in cohorts from the US and France (Maurer et al, JCO 2014). To evaluate whether these findings are robust and generalizable, we assessed OS stratified by progression-free survival at 24 months (PFS24) using individual patient data from pts with DLBCL enrolled in 14 multi-center, international randomized clinical trials as part of the SEAL consortium. Methods: Central data alignment was performed by the SEAL statistics and data center. All enrolled patients treated with rituximab-containing anthracycline-based immunochemotherapy as part of initial induction therapy were included in this analysis using an intent-to-treat approach. PFS was defined as time from initiation of first-line therapy to progression or death. PFS24 was defined as being alive and progression-free 24 months (731 days) after initiation of therapy. Overall survival from PFS24 was defined as time from achieving PFS24 until death due to any cause. OS was compared to each patient's age-, sex-, and country- matched general population using expected survival and standardized mortality ratios (SMR). Country-level population rate tables were obtained from www.mortality.org where available. A per-study average rate table was used when country information was unavailable. OS beyond 9 years from treatment initiation was only available the time of analysis from two trials (13% of cohort) and thus follow-up from PFS24 was restricted to the first 7 years after PFS24 for this analysis. Results: Fourteen studies with 7975 patients were included in the SEAL database. 5853 (73%) received rituximab as part of induction therapy and used in this analysis. Median age was 62 years (range 18-92) with 56% >60 years, 54% were male, 57% had elevated LDH, 63% had stage III/IV disease, 13% had ECOG PS 2-4, and IPI was 0-1 in 36%, 2 in 25%, 3 in 23%, and 4-5 in 16%. At a median follow-up of 4.4 years, 1337 (23%) had disease progression, 1489 patients (25%) had died, and 5101 patients were evaluable for PFS24. 1423 (28%) of evaluable patients failed to achieve PFS24. These patients had poor outcomes after progression with median OS of 7.2 months (95% CI 6.8-8.1), 5-year OS of 19%, and SMR of 32.1 (95% CI: 30.0-34.4). Outcome was excellent (median unreached) in the 3678 patients who were progression-free at 24 months, with subsequent OS after achieving PFS24 approaching the age and sex matched general population (Figure). The observed vs. expected OS at 3, 5, and 7 years after achieving PFS24 was 93.1% vs. 94.4%, 87.6% vs. 89.5%, and 80.0% vs. 83.7%, respectively, the SMR was 1.22 (95% CI: 1.09-1.37). In subset analyses examining pts achieving PFS24, adverse prognostic characteristics at baseline (elevated LDH, advanced stage, ECOG PS 2-4, high IPI) were associated with greater decrement in OS from the general population based expected survival (Table). Conclusions: PFS24 from the start of initial therapy stratifies DLBCL pts into populations with distinct outcomes. DLBCL pts treated with rituximab containing anthracycline-based immunotherapy on large randomized clinical trials who are alive without progression at 24 months from start of initial therapy have excellent outcomes with survival that is marginally lower but clinically indistinguishable from the age-, sex-, and country-matched background population for at least 7 years after achieving PFS24. Further follow-up time will be needed to assess any long-term impact of late relapse and survivorship issues in this population. Table Table. Figure Figure. Disclosures Shi: Mayo Clinic: Employment. Cunningham:Amgen: Research Funding; Astra-Zeneca: Research Funding; Bayer: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Merrimack: Research Funding; Medimmune: Research Funding. Seymour:AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel support, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel support, Speakers Bureau; Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Jaeger:Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding. Haioun:Sandoz: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Ghesquieres:Mundipharma: Consultancy; Roche France: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Merli:Roche: 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; Teva Pharmaceuticals Industries: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Herbrecht:Servier: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Cell Therapeutics, Inc: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Flament:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Fu:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Flowers:Gilead: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; ECOG: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics, LLC, an AbbVie Company: Research Funding; Millenium/Takeda: Research Funding; Infinity: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; NIH: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding. Ou:Mayo Clinic: Employment. Sargent:Celgene: Research Funding. Coiffier:MorphoSys: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Consultancy; Celltrion: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.