Koffman, Brian

Abstract Introduction FD Ibr+Ven is approved as first-line (1L) treatment (tx) for CLL/SLL in 78 countries across Asia, Europe, the Middle East, and South America, plus Australia, Canada, and New Zealand. Clinical trials with up to 5.5 years (yrs) of follow-up have demonstrated progression-free and overall survival benefits of 1L FD Ibr+Ven in pts with CLL/SLL (Wierda WG, ASH 2024; Jacobs R, EHA 2024). Despite established clinical benefits, there is a lack of RW evidence on the effectiveness and tolerability of FD Ibr+Ven outside of clinical trial settings. Here we present pooled data from REALITY-WW and REALITY-2 to understand the usage, factors for therapy decision, clinical response, and safety of FD Ibr+Ven in routine clinical practice. Methods REALITY-WW and REALITY-2 are prospective observational cohort studies. REALITY-WW is an international study; REALITY-2 is conducted in Germany. Both included previously untreated pts with CLL/SLL from hospitals and medical institutions where Ibr+Ven was routinely used. The decision to start FD Ibr+Ven was made prior to and independent of pt enrollment. Pts aged ≥18 yrs with a confirmed diagnosis of CLL/SLL requiring 1L tx per iwCLL 2018 criteria received 3 cycles of Ibr, followed by 12 cycles of FD Ibr+Ven orally (Ibr, 420 mg/d; Ven, 5-week ramp-up to 400 mg/d). Primary end point was overall response rate (ORR) per iwCLL 2018 criteria. Secondary end points and outcomes of interest included tx-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), tumor lysis syndrome (TLS) risk, and factors associated with physician decision to initiate FD Ibr+Ven in routine clinical practice. Results At data cutoff (REALITY-WW: May 2025; REALITY-2: March 2025), 129 pts from both studies received FD Ibr+Ven (REALITY-WW, 81; REALITY-2, 48). The median (range) time on study was 6.4 (0.1-19.0) months (mo). Median (range) age was 65.0 (37.0-87.0) yrs, with 46.5% of pts aged <65 yrs and 53.5% of pts aged ≥65 yrs; 62.8% were male. Median (range) time from diagnosis to FD Ibr+Ven initiation was 38.1 mo (0.1-238.0) and median (range) duration of tx was 6.0 mo (0.1-15.9) for Ibr and 3.2 mo (0.1-8.4) for Ven. A Cumulative Illness Rating Scale score of >6 was observed in 12.6% of pts, with a higher score in pts aged ≥65 vs <65 yrs (18.0% vs 6.9%). TP53 mutations were seen in 7.4% of pts; 52.8% had an unmutated IGHV status. ORR was assessed in the 44 pts with ≥ 1 post-baseline assessment in REALITY-WW. Of these, 39 showed a response by the end of 6 tx cycles (3 cycles of Ibr + 3 cycles of FD Ibr+Ven) and 5 had stable disease. ORR at 6 mo per iwCLL 2018 criteria (partial response [PR] with lymphocytosis [PR-L] or better) was 88.6% (95% CI, 79.3-98.0), including complete responses in 29.5%, PR in 34.1%, and PR-L in 25.0% pts. Among 129 treated pts, TEAEs were reported in 61.2%; diarrhea was the most common TEAE (14.0%). Serious TEAEs and grade 3/4 TEAEs were reported in 12.4% and 8.5% of pts, respectively. The most common grade 3/4 TEAE was myocardial infarction (1.6%). Dose reduction was observed in 13.2% (Ibr) and 2.3% (Ven) of pts, mainly due to tx-associated TEAE/toxicity/TLS. Rates of TEAEs leading to discontinuation, dose reduction, and interruption of ≥1 study tx were 4.7%, 10.9%, and 20.9%, respectively. At baseline (n=129), 18.6%, 45.0%, and 14.7% of pts had high, intermediate, and low TLS risk, respectively, while 20.2% were not assessed and 1.6% had missing data. After the 3-cycle Ibr lead-in, the distribution shifted to 9.3%, 24.8%, and 24.0%, respectively, with 14.7% not assessed and 27.1% missing. There were no TEAEs of TLS and no hospitalizations due to TLS. Seven pts (6 aged ≥65 yrs and 1 <65 yrs) were hospitalized prophylactically for TLS. Prophylactic hospitalization was observed in 8.5% (11/129) of pts with high or medium TLS risk and impaired renal function for whom the Ven ramp-up was initiated; no pts were hospitalized due to laboratory/clinical TLS during the Ven ramp-up period. Physician questionnaire responses (n=126) indicated the most common factors associated with decision to initiate FD Ibr+Ven were administration route advantage (91.3%), overall health status (87.3%), anticipated superior efficacy of tx (84.1%), and general risk factors such as high tumor burden/genetic risk factors (81.0%). Conclusions Overall findings suggest that FD Ibr+Ven is an effective and safe tx for pts with CLL/SLL in a RW population, including those aged ≥65 yrs. Data with longer follow-up will be presented at the meeting.

Abstract Introduction: The management of CLL patients historically utilized FD chemoimmunotherapy (CIT), including fludarabine, cyclophosphamide and rituximab (FCR), or bendamustine and rituximab (BR). That changed with the introduction of Bruton Tyrosine Kinase inhibitors (BTKi) as an option for oral targeted monotherapy delivered continuously until disease progression or intolerance. Recently, novel combinations that include a B-cell lymphoma 2 inhibitor (BCL2i), such as venetoclax, have been developed as FD therapy. In addition, though not FDA approved, MRD assessment is emerging as a potential tool to guide FD therapy. Understanding the patient and their caregiver perspectives on FD and MRD is critical to providing the best care. Methods: CLL Society developed a web-based survey instrument of multiple-choice questions to assess patient and caregiver awareness, understanding, and preferences with MRD and FD therapies, where FD referred to both time and MRD guided limited duration therapies. Patients and caregivers were invited to participate via message boards, CLL Society's website, email, and online communities. Results: A total of 607 (96%) self-identified US patients and 36 (5%) caregivers, who answered on behalf of patients in their care, completed the survey between 31/AUG/2020 and 31/JAN/2021. The mean patient age was 64 (range, 30-90) years, 54% were female, 169 patients (27%) treatment-naïve, 239 (38%) with one line of prior therapy, and 214 (34%) with two or more. Targeted agents (e.g., venetoclax, ibrutinib, acalabrutinib, idelalisib, and duvelisib) had been used by 401 (64%). FD use with some novel therapies was known of by 565 (90%) patients, while 588 (93%) knew some were used as continuous daily treatment until disease progression or intolerance. If effectiveness and side effects were assumed similar, 485 (77%) preferred FD, and 398 (63%) wanted that finite treatment to be guided by MRD status. Only 42 (7%) preferred continuous therapy until disease progression or intolerance. The chance for continued remission while off treatment was ranked as a very important potential benefit after stopping a FD therapy by 581 (92%) patients. When considering therapy, 589 (93%), 575 (91%), 447 (71%), 415 (66%), 302 (48%), and 288 (46%) rated having overall survival, having future therapeutic options, avoiding chemotherapy, the ability to reach undetectable (u)MRD, minimal lab and office visits, and FD therapy as very important, respectively (Fig. 1). Being tested for MRD at least once was reported by 215 (34%), while 327 (52%) had not been tested, and 88 (14%) were unsure. There were 562 (89%) who were somewhat or very familiar with the term MRD, while 450 (71%) were confident of understanding what MRD testing measures, and 446 (70%) understood its role in CLL. Only 225 (36%) stated they understood different testing methods. While self-rated understanding of the indications for MRD testing was relatively high, some wanted testing done when not clinically indicated, such as when there was persistent CLL by routine laboratory findings, or at the time of diagnosis (Fig. 2). Respondents were mixed in their stated understanding as to which therapies could result in uMRD, with 241 (38%), 197 (32%), and 195 (32%) not knowing if CIT, BCL2i, and BTKi, could lead to uMRD, respectively. Two hundred and sixty-five (42%), 84 (13%), and 57 (9%) believed it was possible for most on a BCL2i, BTKi, or CIT to achieve uMRD, respectively (Fig. 3). If patients had evidence of MRD at the end of treatment, 365 (58%) would request frequent monitoring but would make no immediate treatment decisions based on MRD status, 279 (44%) were unsure, and only 88 (14%) would want further treatment immediately. Conclusions: The results from this patient-based study reveal a high awareness of FD therapies and MRD testing, as well as a clear preference for FD among internet-active patients and caregivers. However, there are gaps in the knowledge base, thus significant educational opportunities. Limitations included the opt-in sample where the survey results may not be projectable to the total CLL population. Moreover, the survey was not designed to assess preferences if either FD or continuous therapy offered improved outcomes. Nonetheless, as the potential role of MRD and FD therapy grows in CLL it will be incumbent on clinicians to ensure patients are well informed and engaged to help them better share therapeutic decisions. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Koffman: AbbVie: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; AstraZeneca: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Honoraria; Beigene: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Bristol Myer Squibb: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Honoraria; Gilead: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Johnson & Johnson: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Honoraria; Sunesis Pharmaceuticals: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; TG Therapeutics: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Regeneron: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Miragen Therapeutics: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Portola Pharma: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; MEI Pharma: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Merck: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Stewart: Johnson & Johnson: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Novartis: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Limited: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Pacific Biosciences: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Byrd: Novartis, Trillium, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Pharmacyclics, Syndax: Consultancy, Honoraria; Vincerx Pharmaceuticals: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Newave: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Danilov: Bayer Oncology: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda Oncology: Research Funding; Rigel Pharm: Honoraria; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Beigene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead Sciences: Research Funding; Bristol-Meyers-Squibb: Honoraria, Research Funding; SecuraBio: Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Davids: BeiGene: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Ascentage Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; MEI Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Surface Oncology: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; Verastem: Consultancy, Research Funding; Eli Lilly and Company: Consultancy; MEI Pharma: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; Research to Practice: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy. Furman: Beigene: Consultancy; Acerta/AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sunesis: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; Loxo Oncology: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Morphosys: Consultancy; Verastem: Consultancy; X4 Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Oncotracker: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Expert testimony; AstraZeneca: Honoraria. Jain: Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Research Funding; Genentech: Honoraria, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Research Funding; Fate Therapeutics: Research Funding; Beigene: Honoraria; AbbVie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Honoraria; Cellectis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Precision Biosciences: Honoraria, Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Honoraria, Research Funding; Aprea Therapeutics: Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Honoraria, Research Funding; Servier: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria; Incyte: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding. Kay: Oncotracker: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genentech: Research Funding; Targeted Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Morpho-sys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Acerta Pharma: Research Funding; MEI Pharma: Research Funding; Behring: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Rigel: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Dava Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Tolero Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; CytomX Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol Meyer Squib: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Agios Pharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Sunesis: Research Funding; Juno Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Lamanna: Juno Therapeutics, Inc.: Research Funding; BeiGene: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding; MingSight Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding; Genentech, Inc.: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gilead Sciences, Inc.: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics, Inc: Research Funding; Verastem Oncology: Research Funding; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy; Oncternal Therapeutics: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Consultancy. Mato: MSKCC: Current Employment; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Other: DSMB, Research Funding; Nurix: Research Funding; BeiGene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; LOXO: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genmab: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Sunesis: Consultancy, Research Funding; DTRM BioPharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Acerta/AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding; Johnson and Johnson: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding. Ujjani: Adaptive Biotechnologies: Research Funding; Atara Bio: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Epizyme: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; TG Therapeutics: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria; ACDT: Honoraria; Kite, a Gilead Company: Honoraria; Loxo: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding. Pagel: Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy; Incyte/MorphoSys: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Actinium Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics/AbbVie: Consultancy; MEI Pharma: Consultancy; Epizyme: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy.

Abstract Introduction: Given the availability of several active treatment (tx) options for CLL, providers frequently make tx recommendations based on their interpretation of objective data from consensus criteria and clinical trials. There are limited data describing patient (pt) experience, values, and insights when encountering multiple tx choices. The CLL Society, a pt-driven, physician-curated nonprofit organization focused on the unmet needs of the CLL community, sought to explore how CLL pts make tx decisions. Methods: A 64 question survey was distributed online and in paper to CLL pts from Oct-Dec 2017. The survey was developed by CLL experts. The research was IRB-approved. Chi square was used for statistical comparison; all other analyses are descriptive in nature. Results: 1147 pts from 48 states completed the survey. Median age was 65 (range 28-86), 46% male, 96% Caucasian. Who Influences Tx: Of the 79% of pts who have seen a CLL expert, defined as a provider focused on CLL at an academic/research center, 95% rated their provider as very/extremely influential. 83% of pts rated their own opinions as influential, and 59% rated the opinion of a general hematologist/oncologist (gen heme/onc), a provider who sees a variety of cancer types, as influential. Only 27% let their provider unilaterally decide on tx. Of these pts, 19% trusted their provider to select the best tx and 5% didn't have enough understanding to be involved in the decision. 64% were influenced by outside sources of information, such as family members, live CLL support groups, or online sources including pt experts and forums. Factors in Deciding Tx: Of the 67% pts surveyed who have been treated, 73% were offered > 1 tx choice by their provider. In deciding on a specific tx, 94% of respondents stated that it was very/extremely important to know there were tx options beyond their current regimen. The most important factors in selecting tx were response rate (91%), overall survival (88%), progression-free survival (86%), long-term side effects (82%), ability to achieve undetectable MRD (80%), cost/insurance coverage (66%), and location of tx (50%) with significant differences between subgroups (Table 1). Tx was impacted by cost or insurance issues for 16% (n=104). Of these 104 pts, cost/insurance issues resulted in tx delay for 34 and change in tx plan for 24 pts. 16 pts reported that an appeal led to coverage and 16 pts received financial assistance. Pts' willingness to accept potentially curable but high-risk tx was heavily influenced by availability of alternate options. For example, 18% of pts would be willing to consider cytotoxic chemotherapy if alternate options were available vs. 72% if no options were available. Similar patterns were seen with CAR-T tx (28% vs. 79%) and bone marrow transplantation (BMT) (15% vs. 66%) with significant differences between subgroups (Table 2). 82% were willing to take a life-long tx for long-term control without potential for cure. Willingness to accept long-term tx was significantly higher in treated vs. untreated pts (84% vs. 77%, p=.006) and men vs. women (84% vs. 78%, p=.008). Clinical Trial Education: Of those treated by a gen heme/onc, 31% received no education on clinical trials. Only 15% reported good understanding of trial opportunities vs. 52% treated by a CLL expert (p<.001). 9% of pts treated by gen heme/onc were offered clinical trial participation vs. 47% treated by a CLL expert (p<0.001). Pts who declined or would have declined participation cited reasons including preference for "proven" tx (38%), distance from trial site (29%), fear (20%), frequent imaging (20%), overall lack of understanding about trials (15%), and lack of information (14%). Summary: Most respondents want to be and are involved in tx decisions. While providers are influential in decision making, CLL pts also rely on outside sources. Gender, age, and tx status influence which factors drive decision making. Pts select tx based on response rate, survival, side effects, and ability to achieve deep response and want a plan in place for sequencing tx. The majority are willing to consider long-term tx without cure. Few want chemotherapy, CAR-T, or BMT unless they have no other options. A significant opportunity for improvement in education on clinical trial opportunities was identified. This description of pt experience, values, and preferences enriches the informed consent process and may lead to more tailored and patient-centered care. Disclosures Kennard: AbbVie, Gilead, Verastem: Consultancy. Furman:TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; Loxo Oncology: Consultancy; Sunesis: Consultancy; Verastem: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy, Other: DSMB; Genentech: Consultancy; Acerta: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy. Pagel:Pharmacyclics, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy. Davids:Sunesis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Consultancy; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; MEI Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Surface Oncology: Research Funding; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; MEI Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; MEI Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy; Sunesis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; TG Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Verastem: Consultancy, Research Funding; Surface Oncology: Research Funding; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Research Funding; Verastem: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Surface Oncology: Research Funding; Verastem: Consultancy, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sunesis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy. Nabhan:Cardinal Health: Employment, Equity Ownership. Kay:Acerta: Research Funding; Tolero Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Morpho-sys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Agios Pharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Infinity Pharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Cytomx Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Siddiqi:Juno Therapeutics: Other: Steering committee. Brander:Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Institutional research funding for non investigator initiated clinical trial, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Institutional research funding for non investigator initiated clinical trial, Research Funding; Teva: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Other: DSMB; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Institutional research funding for non investigator initiated clinical trial, Research Funding; BeiGene: Other: Institutional research funding for non investigator initiated clinical trial, Research Funding; Acerta: Other: Institutional research funding for non investigator initiated clinical trial, Research Funding; DTRM: Other: Institutional research funding for non investigator initiated clinical trial, Research Funding. Wierda:AbbVie, Inc: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding. Hill:Abbvie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genentech: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Research Funding; Abbvie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Cheson:AbbVie, Roche/Genentech, Pharmacyclics, Acerta, TG Therapeutics: Consultancy. Choi:Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Speakers Bureau; Rigel: Consultancy; Genentech: Speakers Bureau; AbbVie, Inc: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Mato:AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Prime Oncology: Honoraria; Portola: Research Funding; Johnson & Johnson: Consultancy; Medscape: Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding.