Citations

BACKGROUND: Vedolizumab (VDZ) is a gut-selective, humanized monoclonal antibody approved for moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis (UC) and Crohn’s disease (CD). Although VDZ efficacy and safety are well established, there are limited publications on longer-term (>3 years) treatment persistence. This study evaluated VDZ treatment persistence for up to 5 years in a GEMINI long-term safety (LTS) VDZ de novo cohort. METHODS: All patients in GEMINI LTS (NCT00790933) were treated with VDZ every 4 weeks. A post hoc analysis of data from patients not previously treated with VDZ before Week 0 of GEMINI LTS (de novo cohort) was conducted, with VDZ treatment persistence assessed using Kaplan-Meier survival analysis. Treatment discontinuations due to adverse events (AEs) or lack of efficacy were considered for the analysis; discontinuations due to protocol deviation, patient withdrawal, or loss to follow-up were censored. Treatment persistence analyses were further stratified by Week 12 treatment response (primary response/nonresponder), prior anti-tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) failure (Yes/No), type of anti-TNF failure (primary/secondary nonresponse), and concomitant therapy (corticosteroids, 5-aminosalicylates, immunomodulators, or their combinations) at baseline (Yes/No); a log-rank test assessed statistical differences between subgroups. RESULTS: The GEMINI LTS de novo cohort included 421 patients (UC 190; CD 231) with a mean disease duration of 8.7 (UC) and 10.6 (CD) years, 6.0 mean partial Mayo score (UC) and 11.1 mean Harvey-Bradshaw Index; 61% of patients with UC and 74% with CD had prior anti-TNF failure. Up to 5 years follow-up, 276 patients (66%) total discontinued VDZ: 16% with UC and 17% with CD due to AEs, and 24% with UC and 33% with CD due to lack of efficacy. Survival probabilities for VDZ treatment persistence at 54 months were 53% for UC and 41% for CD. These VDZ 54-month survival probabilities were higher in patients with VDZ treatment response at Week 12 vs without (UC, 60% vs 26%, respectively, P < 0.0001; CD, 42% vs 35%, respectively, P = 0.001) and in patients without prior anti-TNF failure vs with (UC, 63% vs 47%, respectively, P = 0.046; CD, 47% vs 42%, respectively, P = 0.016). Among patients with baseline anti-TNF failure, survival probabilities for VDZ treatment persistence at 54 months were higher in UC patients who were secondary nonresponders vs those who were primary nonresponders (65% vs 15%, respectively, P < 0.0001); this difference was not observed in CD patients (44% vs 40%, respectively, P = 0.573). There were no differences in survival probabilities of continuing VDZ at 54 months among patients with UC or CD who initiated VDZ therapy with vs without any concomitant medications. CONCLUSION(S): More than half of patients with UC and 4 of every 10 patients with CD persisted on VDZ for 54 months. Treatment persistence rates in UC and CD cohorts were significantly higher in Week 12 responders and patients without prior anti-TNF failure, whereas there were no differences in persistence rates with baseline use of concomitant medications. Vedolizumab discontinuation rates due to AEs were low. These findings from GEMINI LTS support the longer-term effectiveness and safety of VDZ in patients with moderately to severely active UC and CD.

SummaryBackgroundImproved knowledge of the molecular pathophysiology and immunopathogenesis of cholestatic liver diseases in recent years has led to an increased interest in developing novel therapies. Patients with cholestatic liver disease often require different approaches to assessment and management of suspected drug‐induced liver injury (DILI) compared to those with healthy livers and those with parenchymal liver diseases. At present, there are no regulatory guidelines or society position papers, that systematically address best practices pertaining to detection of DILI in these patients.AimsTo outline best practices for detection, assessment and management of suspected acute DILI during clinical trials in adults with the cholestatic liver diseases – Primary Biliary Cholangitis (PBC) and Primary Sclerosing Cholangitis (PSC).MethodsThis is one of the several papers developed by the IQ DILI Initiative, which is comprised of members from 16 pharmaceutical companies, in collaboration with DILI experts from academia and regulatory agencies. The contents are the result of an extensive literature review, as well as in‐depth discussions among industry, regulatory and academic DILI experts, to achieve consensus recommendations on DILI‐related issues occurring during clinical trials for cholestatic liver diseases.ResultsRecommended best practices are outlined pertaining to hepatic eligibility criteria, monitoring of liver tests, approach to a suspected DILI signal, and hepatic discontinuation rules.ConclusionsThis paper provides a framework for the approach to detection, assessment and management of suspected acute DILI occurring during clinical trials in adults with cholestatic liver disease.

Background Multiple myeloma (MM), a malignant neoplasm of plasma cells in the bone marrow, accounts for up to 1.8% of all cancers in the U.S., most frequently affecting people 65-74 years old. A variety of therapies are available to manage MM, including stem cell transplantation (SCT), immunomodulatory drugs (IMiD), proteasome inhibitors (PI), monoclonal antibodies (mAB), and alkylating agents (alk). Given the heterogeneity of MM and the rapidly evolving therapeutic landscape, MM contemporaneous real-world treatment patterns are not well described. We examined the patient characteristics and first-line (LT1) treatment patterns in NDMM patients. Methods MM patients (≥18 years), diagnosed in April 30, 2015 - April 29, 2017 (early cohort) or in April 30, 2017 - April 30, 2019 (recent cohort), were followed retrospectively from MM diagnosis to last patient activity in the Flatiron Health database - a geographically-diverse, longitudinal electronic health record spanning over 280 community and academic cancer clinics in the U.S. LT1 regimens were described as: 1) containing an IMiD (thalidomide, lenalidomide [R], or pomalidomide), PI (bortezomib [V], carfilzomib, or ixazomib), alk (melphalan, cyclophosphamide [C], bendamustine), mAB (daratumumab, elotuzumab), or combinations of these; and 2) doublet/monotherapy (doublets-) vs. triplet or greater agent (triplets+) combinations. Treatment patterns were examined by SCT status and by cytogenetic risk (high: del17p, t(4;14) and/or t(14;16); standard: ≥1 cytogenetic tests without high cytogenetic risk) and age groups (<65, 65-74, ≥75). Duration of therapy (DOT) and time to next therapy (TTNT) were estimated using Kaplan-Meier methods in the early cohort with longer follow-up. Results Of 4,070 NDMM patients, 3,433 were non-SCT (nSCT: early cohort: n=1,736; recent cohort: n=1,697) and 637 had SCT (early cohort: n=407; recent cohort: n=230). In nSCT patients, mean age at diagnosis was 70 years (SD: 10); 46% were female; 36% had stage III (699/1916, among non-missing), and 15% (392/2574, among non-missing) had high risk MM (25% had unknown cytogenetics). SCT patients were younger at diagnosis (mean [SD]: 61 years [9]); 44% were female; 25% (117/470, in non-missing) had stage III, and 19% (102/547, in non-missing) had high risk MM (14% had unknown cytogenetics). Overall, proportions with known cytogenetic risk were similar within SCT status cohorts over time but were lower in the SCT group (nSCT early vs. recent cohort: 26% vs. 24% had unknown cytogenetics; and in SCT: 15% vs. 13%, respectively). In nSCT and SCT patients, respectively, most common regimens were VRd (d: dexamethasone; 44% and 58%), Rd (16% and 7%), Vd (13% and 1%), and VCd (12% and 4%). In nSCT patients, the use of VRd increased over time (37% [early cohort] to 51% [recent cohort]), while frontline therapy with Rd/Vd doublets (19% to 14%/16% to 9%) and with VCd (13% to 11%) decreased. In the nSCT recent cohort, VRd (51%) frontline therapy dominated, with a slightly higher proportion of patients in the high-risk group vs. standard and unknown risk receiving VRd (56% vs. 53% and 46%); use of doublet therapy with Rd/Vd was lower in the high risk (12%/5%) vs. standard risk group (14%/9%). Irrespective of age, VRd was the most common frontline regimen in the nSCT recent cohort, albeit its use was lower among patients 75+ years of age (43%) vs. younger patients (54% [<65 years] and 59% [65-74 years]); 75+ year old patients had a higher use of Rd/Vd doublets (19%/15%) vs. <65 (10%/5%) or 65-74 (10%/6%) years of age. Triplets+ were more commonly used than doublets- across all cohorts: 59% vs. 41% (nSCT early cohort); 74% vs. 26% (nSCT recent cohort); and 89% vs. 11% (SCT early cohort); 95% vs. 5% (SCT recent cohort). mAB use in the recent cohort was low: 1.4% nSCT and 2.2% SCT patients. In the nSCT early cohort, the median (95% CI) LT1 DOT was 10 months (9-11) and for TTNT was 14 months (13-16). Conclusions PI/IMiD treatment combinations were most commonly observed in both nSCT and SCT patients, with an increase in use from early (40%) to recent (56%) cohort in nSCT patients. Use of triplets, generally, is on the rise from early (60%) to recent cohorts (74%). LT1 TTNT was lower than has been shown in clinical trials. These findings indicate a notable change in treatment patterns over time in nSCT NDMM patients, highlighting the changing landscape of MM management. Disclosures Ailawadhi: Celgene: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Cellectar: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding. Romanus:Takeda: Employment. Cherepanov:Takeda: Employment. Yin:Takeda: Employment. Cheng:Takeda: Employment. Hari:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Kite: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Research Funding; Spectrum: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sanofi: Honoraria, Research Funding; Cell Vault: Equity Ownership; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria.

BACKGROUND: Proteasome inhibitors (PIs) combined with an Rd backbone constitute commonly used regimens in RRMM in the US. Lack of data from head-to-head clinical trials comparing the efficacy of these PI-Rd triplets and the extent to which efficacy translates to benefit in routine care highlight the need for real-world evidence. We conducted a comparative effectiveness analysis of time to next therapy (TTNT) of these PI-Rd triplet combinations in a real-world representative cohort of RRMM patients. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, RRMM patients who initiated an index regimen with IRd, KRd, or VRd in ≥2nd line of therapy (LOT 2+) were followed between 1/2014-9/2018 in Optum's deidentified national electronic health records database. This database captures information on all patients treated by >140,000 providers across 50 states in the US. It is representative of the US general population. Baseline data included: a modified frailty score utilizing age and Charlson Comorbidity Index1, ECOG performance status, CRAB symptoms, ISS stage, cytogenetic risk (high: del[17p], t[4;14], or t[14;16]), history of: cardiovascular disease, peripheral neuropathy, stem-cell transplant, and uncontrolled hypertension, prior PI and/or IMID exposure and refractory status, time from diagnosis to start of index LOT, time from start of frontline therapy to start of LOT 2, and treatment-free interval prior to index LOT. Duration of therapy (DOT) and TTNT were estimated using Kaplan-Meier methods and compared using stratified (by LOT) ± baseline-adjusted Cox proportional hazard models with a repeated measures analysis of pt-LOTs with robust sandwich estimators to account for inclusion of patients in multiple LOTs. The main analysis was repeated in subgroups a priori defined by frailty score, cytogenetic risk, prior PI and/or IMID exposure and LOT. Observations were censored at time of loss to follow up/end of study period (9/30/2018). RESULTS: Overall, 650 patients with 733 pt-LOTs (IRd, n=168; KRd, n=208; VRd, n=357) were included; 20% of the RRMM patients in this cohort were treated at academic centers. In the I-/K-/V-Rd groups, respectively, median age was 71/65/71 years and 42/22/38% patients were ≥75 years old; 39/55/46% and 28/14/29% patients had a modified frailty score of intermediate and frail, respectively; 71/88/80% had a symptomatic relapse with at least 1 CRAB symptom; 20/28/13% patients had high cytogenetic risk; 69/72/90% patients were treated in 2-3 LOT, and 63/70/32% patients had prior exposure to a PI+IMID (P<0.05 for all). The median follow-up was 14.4 months. Unadjusted median DOT of index LOT was 12.3/7.2/10.0 months, with a lower risk of discontinuation of the oral PI component for I in comparison to both K and V (HR[I vs K] of 0.66 and HR[I vs V] of 0.68) and R component in the IRd vs KRd and VRd groups (HR[I vs K] of 0.64 and HR[I vs V] of 0.75) (P<0.05 for all). Unadjusted median TTNT was 12.7/8.6/14.2 months for I-/K-/V-Rd in LOT ≥2; with HR for TTNT of 0.76 (IRd vs KRd; P<0.05); 1.01 (IRd vs VRd; P=0.96); 1.33 (KRd vs VRd; P<0.05). The adjusted HRs for TTNT I-/K-/V-Rd in LOT ≥2 were 0.82 (IRd vs KRd); 0.93 (IRd vs VRd); 1.13 (KRd vs VRd; P>0.05 for all), and were comparable between all 3 groups. A significant TTNT benefit for IRd vs KRd was observed among patients with high cytogenetic risk (HR: 0.47) and with intermediate frailtymodified score (HR: 0.60; P<0.05 for all). CONCLUSIONS: In this real-world representative RRMM cohort, in unadjusted analyses, the IRd group had a longer DOT of the PI and R components and a longer TTNT in comparison with KRd. After adjusting for baseline confounders to separate the treatment effect, the I/K/V-Rd triplet combinations were comparable in TTNT, but IRd was significantly better than KRd in patients with high-risk cytogenetics and with an intermediate frailty score. Residual confounding is always a potential limitation of any non-randomized study. Conversely, the results of randomized, clinical trials are limited in generalizability as 40-60% of patients are excluded due to inability to meet eligibility criteria. This is especially pertinent in an elderly RRMM population as demonstrated in the real-world effectiveness results in this study. Ref: 1. Palumbo, et al. Blood. 2015;125:2068-2074 Figure Disclosures Chari: Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Seattle Genetics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Oncoceutics: Research Funding; Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding; Array Biopharma: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Millennium/Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Romanus:Takeda: Employment. Raju:Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited: Other: Xcenda received funding from Takeda to complete this analyses., Research Funding; Xcenda, LLC: Employment. Cain:Takeda: Employment. Blazer:Xcenda: Employment; Takeda: Other: Xcenda received funding from Takeda for completion of this analysis, Research Funding. Farrelly:Xcenda: Employment; Takeda: Other: Xcenda received funding from Takeda for completion of this analysis, Research Funding. Stull:Takeda: Employment. Ailawadhi:Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Cellectar: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding.

Introduction: As previously reported, the combination of brentuximab vedotin with doxorubicin, vinblastine and dacarbazine (A+AVD) demonstrated a statistically significant improvement in modified progression free survival (modified PFS) compared with doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine and dacarbazine (ABVD) in patients with newly diagnosed Stage III or IV classical HL in the phase 3 ECHELON-1 trial (NCT01712490). The benefit of A+AVD in the ITT population observed in the primary analysis was maintained at 3-years median follow-up [3-year PFS: A+AVD: 83.1% (79.9-85.9), ABVD: 76% (72.4-79.2)] and appears independent of interim PET status, disease stage, and prognostic risk factors. Here we present the efficacy and safety results of longer follow-up at a median 43.3 months. Methods: Newly diagnosed patients with Stage III or IV cHL were randomized 1:1 to receive A+AVD (n=664) or ABVD (n=670) intravenously on days 1 and 15 of each 28-day cycle for up to 6 cycles. The primary endpoint of the study was modified PFS per independent central review. The present follow-up PFS analysis is exploratory and per investigator assessment, with a cutoff date of June 17th, 2019. Patients with ongoing peripheral neuropathy (PN) at end of treatment were followed for resolution or improvement (defined as improved by ≥1 grade from worst grade as of the latest assessment) during the post-treatment follow-up period. Results: With a median follow-up of 43.3 months, the 42-month PFS per investigator for all patients was 82.4% (95% CI, 79.1-85.2) on the A+AVD arm and 76.2% (95% CI, 72.6-79.4) on the ABVD arm [overall HR 0.697 (95% CI, 0.547-0.890)]. Exploratory subgroup analyses of PET2(+) and PET2(-) patients showed a treatment effect in favor of A+AVD. The 42-month PFS in PET2(-) patients was 85.0% (95% CI, 81.6-87.7) for A+AVD and 79.6% (95% CI, 75.9-82.8) for ABVD [overall HR 0.695 (95% CI, 0.526-0.919)]; in PET2(+) patients 42-month PFS was 68.3% (95% CI, 54.5-78.7) for A+AVD and 51.5% (95% CI, 38.2-63.4) for ABVD [overall HR 0.552 (95% CI, 0.308-0.989)]. Upon continued follow-up, 81% (356/442) of patients with PN in the A+AVD arm had either complete resolution (64%, 283/442) or improvement (17%, 73/442) of their PN events compared with 83% (236/286) with either complete resolution (74%, 212/286) or improvement (8%, 24/286) in the ABVD arm. Among patients with ongoing PN after continued follow-up, the majority were Grade 1/2 events, with 89% (141/159; 59% Grade 1) and 95% (70/74; 65% Grade 1) on the A+AVD and ABVD arms, respectively. Overall survival data are not yet mature; per protocol, the final analysis will be performed after 112 deaths have occurred. Additional follow-up at an estimated median of ~4 years, including data from prespecified subgroups, will be presented. Conclusions: With a median follow-up of 43.3 months, A+AVD continues to provide a robust, durable benefit for patients with previously untreated Stage III or IV cHL compared with ABVD; the benefit is evident regardless of patient status at interim PET [PET2(+) or PET2(-)] and without the need for treatment intensification. PN continued to completely resolve or improve in patients on the A+AVD and ABVD arms. Together, these data further support the clinical advantages of A+AVD versus ABVD as treatment for patients with previously untreated Stage III or IV cHL. Disclosures Bartlett: Affimed Therapeutics: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Dynavax: Research Funding; Forty-Seven: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Immune Design: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Medimmune: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Millennium: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Straus:Elsevier (PracticeUpdate): Consultancy, Honoraria; Hope Funds for Cancer Research: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria. Dlugosz-Danecka:Servier: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Macrogenomics: Research Funding; Roche: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Illes:Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; 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; Novartis: 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; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Feldman:Takeda: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Cell Medica: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Viracta: Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kite Pharma: Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Research Funding; Portola Pharma: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Eisai: Research Funding; Corvus: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; AbbVie: Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses, Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses, Speakers Bureau; Kyowa Hakko Kirin: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding. Smolewski:Roche: Other: Travel Expenses. Savage:Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS, Merck, Novartis, Verastem, Abbvie, Servier, and Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria. Walewski:Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Servier: Honoraria; Gilead: Other: Travel Expenses; Amgen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Zinzani:Portola: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Immune Design: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Sandoz: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Servier: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celltrion: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Consultancy; Eusapharma: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; MSD: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Verastem: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Kyowa Kirin: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; TG Therapeutics: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Hutchings:Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding; Genmab: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding. Radford:AstraZeneca: Equity Ownership, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria; GSK: Equity Ownership. Munoz:AstraZeneca: Speakers Bureau; Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics LLC an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Fosunkite: Speakers Bureau; Kyowa: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Bayer: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Portola: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding. Kim:Roche: Research Funding; Kyowa-Kirin: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; J&J: Research Funding; Mundipharma: Research Funding; Celltrion: Research Funding; Donga: Research Funding. Advani:Cell Medica, Ltd: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Kura: Research Funding; Infinity Pharma: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Research Funding; Celmed: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Autolus: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Agensys: Research Funding; Stanford University: Employment, Equity Ownership; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kyowa Kirin Pharmaceutical Developments, Inc.: Consultancy; Regeneron: Research Funding; Millennium: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Roche/Genentech: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Gilead Sciences, Inc./Kite Pharma, Inc.: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Forty-Seven: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Ansell:Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Affimed: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Trillium: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Regeneron: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Trillium: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Regeneron: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Regeneron: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment. Younes:Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Curis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Merck: Honoraria, Research Funding; Abbvie: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Biopath: Consultancy; Xynomics: Consultancy; Epizyme: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; HCM: Consultancy; BMS: Research Funding; Syndax: Research Funding. Gallamini:Takeda: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy. Miao:Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Cambridge, MA, a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited: Employment, Equity Ownership. Liu:Takeda: Employment. Fenton:Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership. Forero-Torres:Seattle Genetics: Employment, Equity Ownership, Honoraria, Research Funding.

Background CD38 is highly expressed on MM cells, hence anti-CD38 agents are of interest as a therapeutic approach in MM. The anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody, dara, as mono- or combination therapy, has substantially improved efficacy outcomes in RRMM, including in heavily pretreated pts. However, many pts relapse and new therapeutic approaches are needed, particularly for pts R/R to dara. TAK-169 is a dimeric fusion protein of an anti-CD38 antibody single chain variable fragment fused to a modified Shiga-like toxin-A subunit. Its unique mechanism of action involves specific binding to CD38+ cells, forced internalization into the target cells, retrograde transport to the cytosol, and irreversible, enzymatic inactivation of target cell ribosomes to cause apoptosis. TAK-169 showed potent, rapid in vitro activity on CD38-expressing cell lines and in vivo efficacy in MM mouse xenograft tumor models with a wide CD38 expression range when administered intravenously (IV) once weekly (QW) or once every 2 weeks (Q2W). Activity was also shown in ex vivo assays from 6 pt bone marrow aspirate (BMA) samples, including from a dara-resistant pt (EC50 5 nM). TAK-169 retained in vitro activity in the presence of dara with modest shifts in EC50 noted at higher dara concentrations. In contrast to dara, TAK-169 has direct tumor cell kill activity that is independent of a pt's immune function status and may therefore be effective in a dara-resistant setting. Accordingly, this phase 1 study will assess safety, tolerability, preliminary efficacy, pharmacokinetics (PK) and pharmacodynamics (PD) of TAK-169 in RRMM. Methods This first-in-human, multicenter, open-label study (NCT04017130; Figure) comprises dose escalation (Part 1) and expansion (Part 2). Eligible pts must be aged ≥18 years with a confirmed diagnosis of MM. Pts enrolled in Part 1 should not be candidates for available therapies known to confer clinical benefit in RRMM. In part 2, pts enrolled should have received ≥3 prior lines of therapy, or ≥2 if one included a PI and IMiD combined. Prior anti-CD38 therapy (including dara) is permitted, except in the Part 2 anti-CD38 therapy-naive expansion cohort. In Part 1, the primary objective is to assess safety/tolerability of TAK-169 in pts with RRMM, and determine maximum tolerated dose/recommended Phase 2 dose (MTD/RP2D). Secondary objectives include efficacy, PK, PD and immunogenicity of TAK-169. Approximately 60 pts are planned to be enrolled to receive IV TAK-169 QW on Days 1/8/15/22 in 28-day cycles. Dosing will start at 50 μg/kg, with subsequent dose levels of 100, 200, 335, 500, 665 μg/kg. A 2nd Q2W dose escalation cohort may be initiated, starting at the QW MTD. The Bayesian Logistic Regression Model with overdose control will be used for dose escalation cohort 2 and for all subsequent dose escalation cohorts, and other non-DLT-safety, clinical, PK, and PD data will be considered. In Part 2, the primary objective is preliminary evaluation of TAK-169 clinical activity in RRMM. Secondary objectives include further evaluating safety, efficacy, PK, PD, and immunogenicity of TAK-169. Part 2 will enroll approximately 54 pts into dara RR (QW and Q2W dosing) and anti-CD38 therapy-naïve (QW dosing) cohorts. TAK-169 will be administered at the MTD/RP2D (QW and Q2W) determined in Part 1. Response will be monitored longitudinally using orthogonal approaches. M-protein levels in serum and urine will be measured each cycle to determine objective responses by International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG) criteria. Minimal residual disease status in pts suspected to be at complete response will be assessed. Circulating free DNA (cfDNA) will be collected from longitudinal plasma samples for disease monitoring. Baseline cytogenetic data will be collected, and TAK-169 efficacy will be assessed in pts with high-risk cytogenetics. Serial blood samples will be used to characterize PK and PD of TAK-169 after IV administration, and to assess the presence of antidrug antibodies. BMA samples collected at screening will be used to evaluate baseline expression of candidate biomarkers. Toxicity will be evaluated using National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (NCI CTCAE) version 5. Efficacy analyses will use descriptive statistics with a 95% confidence interval and the Kaplan-Meier method. PK parameters and immunogenicity status will be summarized using descriptive statistics. Recruitment is ongoing. Figure Disclosures Kumar: Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding. Cornell:Takeda: Consultancy; KaryoPharm: Consultancy. Landgren:Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Merck: Other: IDMC; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Theradex: Other: IDMC; Adaptive: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Karyopharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Ailawadhi:Cellectar: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy. Higgins:Molecular Templates, Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership. Willert:Molecular Templates: Employment. Waltzman:Molecular Templates, Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership. Lin:Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Cambridge, MA, USA, a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited: Employment, Equity Ownership. Zhang:Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Cambridge, MA, USA, a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited: Employment. Lublinsky:Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Cambridge, MA, USA, a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited: Employment. Dash:Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Cambridge, MA, USA, a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited: Employment. Hanley:Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Cambridge, MA, USA, a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited: Employment. Manoharan:Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Cambridge, MA, USA, a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited: Employment. Leichter:Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Cambridge, MA, USA, a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited: Employment. Ottinger:Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Cambridge, MA, USA, a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited: Employment. Labotka:Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Cambridge, MA, USA, a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited: Employment. Newcomb:Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Cambridge, MA, USA, a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited: Employment, Equity Ownership. Vorog:Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Cambridge, MA, USA, a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited: Employment. OffLabel Disclosure: TAK-169 is a dimeric fusion protein of an anti-CD38 antibody single chain variable fragment fused to a modified Shiga-like toxin-A subunit

Introduction Data on the economic burden of disease progression among multiple myeloma (MM) patients who have had a stem cell transplant (SCT) in the US are limited. This study evaluated the impact of disease progression on healthcare resource utilization (HRU) and costs among these patients in the US. Methods Adult patients (pts) with a confirmed MM diagnosis (Dx), defined as ≥1 inpatient or ≥2 non-diagnostic outpatient claims 30-365 days apart who initiated a course of MM therapy (Rx) during the study period (Jan 1, 2006 to Dec 31, 2016) and received SCT during the first year after the initial diagnosis of MM were identified from the Truven Analytics MedStat MarketScan® Commercial Claims and Encounters and Medicare and Coordination of Benefits databases. The first date with Dx for MM was defined as the "Dx date" and line of therapy (LOT) was identified based on an adaptation of a previously-developed algorithm. Pts were excluded if they had a gap in enrollment during the period beginning 6-month before the Dx date through 30-days after the first LOT (1L) initiation date, received MM Rx, unclassified antineoplastic medications, or SCT before the Dx date, or had missing information required to identify LOT or assess baseline characteristics or study outcomes. The 12 months after initiation of each LOT was designated the "event identification period" for progression. Disease progression was defined as advancement to next LOT, diagnosis or procedure codes indicative of bone metastasis, hypercalcemia, soft tissue plasmacytoma, skeletal related events, or acute kidney disease while off MM Rx, or death. The "event date" for progression was defined as date with evidence of progression. For each pt with progression, one pt without progression was randomly selected and assigned an event date to ensure that the distribution of time from LOT initiation to event date for pts without progression was the same as the distribution of time from LOT initiation to event date for pts with progression. For each LOT (L1-L3), annual HCRU and costs from index date, defined as 30-day before the event date, through disenrollment or end of the study period were compared for pts with vs without progression using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) to adjust for differences between groups in baseline characteristics including year of index date, age, gender, region, plan type, Medicare status, comorbidities, and pre-index HRU and healthcare costs. All costs were adjusted to 2016 US $. In a subgroup analysis, HCRU and costs were evaluated for LOTs initiated from 2013 to 2016 to reflect patterns of treatment in current era. Results Of the 28,184 adult MM pts who received ≥1 MM Rx during the study period, 3226 qualified for the study, including 837 pts with progression and 2389 without progression during 1L. The corresponding numbers for 2L, and 3L were 412 and 589, and 226 and 196, respectively. Mean age at index date was 57 years; 57% were male. After IPTW, all baseline characteristics were well balanced in all LOTs with standardized mean differences <0.1 for most baseline characteristics. The mean number of hospitalizations per year was greater for pts with progression in all LOTs, with differences ranging from 1.11 (95%CI 0.85, 1.37) for 2L to 0.34 (95%CI 0.21, 0.47) for 1L. In all LOTs, annual costs of inpatient and outpatient services were greater for pts with progression while costs of outpatient prescriptions were greater among patient without progression. Total healthcare costs were greater for pts with vs without progression in all LOTs with hospitalizations and outpatient visit costs being key drivers. Total incremental annual costs in those who progressed were higher by $13,386 (1L), $105,004 (2L), and $70,206 (3L). When the analysis was restricted to LOTs initiated between 2013 and 2016, the incremental costs in pts who progressed were generally greater in the most recent era: $43,381 (1L), $113,797 (2L), and $115,327 (3L). Conclusions For MM pts receiving drug Rx and SCT the economic burden of disease progression is substantial across all LOTs. Incremental costs of progression are largely attributable to hospitalizations and outpatient visits. Treatments that prevent or delay progression are likely to yield important reductions in downstream disease management costs. These savings should be considered in frameworks assessing the value of innovative treatments for MM. Disclosures Fonseca: AbbVie, Amgen, Bayer, Celgene, Kite, Janssen, Juno, Merck, Pharmacylics, Sanofi, Takeda: Other: Consultant/Advisor; Prognosticatin of MM based on Genetic Categorization by FISH: Patents & Royalties; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Other: Scientific Advisory Board. Hagiwara:Amgen Inc.: Research Funding. Panjabi:Amgen Inc.: Employment, Other: Owns Amgen stock, Research Funding. Yucel:Amgen Inc.: Employment, Other: Owns Amgen stock, Research Funding. Buchanan:Amgen Inc.: Employment, Other: Owns Amgen stock, Research Funding. Delea:Amgen Inc.: Research Funding.

AbstractObjectiveTo address knowledge gaps regarding burdens associated with not adequately controlled chronic hypoparathyroidism.DesignGlobal patient and caregiver survey.Study PopulationsPatients with chronic hypoparathyroidism not adequately controlled on conventional therapy and their caregivers.MeasurementsHealth‐related quality of life (HRQoL) and health status were evaluated using the 36‐item Short Form version 2 (SF‐36 v2.0) and Five‐Level EuroQoL 5 Dimensions (EQ‐5D‐5L) instruments, respectively. Hypoparathyroidism‐associated symptoms were assessed by a disease‐specific Hypoparathyroidism Symptom Diary and caregiver burden via the Modified Caregiver Strain Index (MCSI).ResultsData were obtained from 398 patients and 207 caregivers. Patients' self‐rated hypoparathyroidism‐related symptom severity was none (3%), mild (32%), moderate (53%) or severe (12%). Per the Hypoparathyroidism Symptom Diary, patients reported moderate, severe or very severe symptoms of physical fatigue (73%), muscle cramps (55%), heaviness in limbs (55%) and tingling (51%) over a 7‐day recall period. Impacts (rated ‘somewhat’ or ‘very much’) were reported by 84% of patients for ability to exercise, 78% for sleep, 75% for ability to work and 63% for family relationships. Inverse relationships were observed between patient self‐rated overall symptom severity and HRQoL and health status assessment scores—the greater the symptom severity, the lower the SF‐36 and EQ‐5D‐5L scores. Caregiver burden increased with patient self‐rated symptom severity: none, 1.7 MCSI; mild, 5.4 MCSI; moderate, 9.5 MCSI; and severe, 12.5 MCSI.ConclusionPatients with not adequately controlled hypoparathyroidism reported substantial symptoms and impacts. Greater patient symptom severity was associated with decreased patient HRQoL and health status assessments and increased caregiver burden.

Abstract Introduction: Several prognostic models for overall survival (OS) in chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) have been developed, but none were derived for patients (pts) with relapsed or refractory (R/R) CLL treated in the era of novel agents. We used a comprehensive approach to derive and validate a novel risk model for OS in 2,475 pts with R/R CLL who received therapy in randomized phase 3 trials evaluating ibrutinib (IBR), idelalisib (IDELA), and venetoclax (VEN) vs control arms, or the Mayo Clinic CLL Database (MCCD). Methods: In collaboration with Janssen, Gilead, Pharmacyclics, and Genentech/Roche, the analysis included 2,475 pts from 6 multicenter randomized phase 3 trials or the MCCD. Trials included were: IBR plus bendamustine-rituximab (BR) vs placebo plus BR (HELIOS: NCT01611090), IBR vs ofatumumab (RESONATE: NCT01578707), IDELA plus BR vs placebo plus BR (Study 115: NCT01569295); IDELA plus rituximab vs placebo plus rituximab (Study 116: NCT01539512); IDELA plus ofatumumab vs ofatumumab (Study 119: NCT01659021); VEN plus rituximab vs BR (MURANO: NCT02005471). All pts had R/R CLL and required treatment by iwCLL criteria. The model-building dataset (n=969) included pts from HELIOS and RESONATE, and was randomly assigned to the IBR/chemoimmunotherapy (CIT) training dataset (n=727) and IBR/CIT internal-validation dataset(n=242). Three independent external validation datasets included IDELA/CIT (n=897), VEN/CIT (n=389), and MCCD (n=220). We applied univariate and multivariate analyses (MVA) to 28 candidate clinical/laboratory and genetic prognostic factors to derive the risk model in the training dataset. The primary endpoint was OS. We assessed the need for separate models for targeted agents by interactions with treatment in univariate analyses. We proceeded to develop a single model for all pts with R/R CLL, as only one candidate factor (del(13q), interaction p value <0.1) demonstrated a marginal differential effect. We evaluated cutoffs for dichotomized covariates and for definition of risk groups after the final factors were selected. We fit a Cox regression on the training and internal/external validation datasets using the risk categories as the covariate to test the difference among the groups, and calculated the C-statistic as a measure of discrimination. Results: Of 11 selected factors with a significant univariate effect on OS (p<0.1), 6 were independently prognostic in the MVA of OS (p<0.05): Baseline β2-microglobubulin (B2M), lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), hemoglobin (HGB), IGHV mutational status, number of prior therapies, and time from initiation of last therapy. We excluded number of prior therapies from the model, reasoning that its optimal cutoff might change with advances in CLL therapies. IGHV did not remain significant (p=0.0592) in MVA of 5 remaining prognostic factors. Notably, del(17p) was not independently prognostic for OS. The final risk model consisted of 4 prognostic factors: B2M ≥5 mg/L, LDH elevated, HGB <110 mg/L for women or <120 mg/L for men, and time from initiation of last therapy <24 months. Because hazard ratios for each factor were similar (range, 0.55-0.68) with overlapping confidence intervals, 1 point was assigned to each factor. The resulting score separated pts into low (score 0-1), intermediate (score 2-3), and high risk (score 4) groups. Our risk model was prognostic for OS in the IBR/CIT training dataset (C-statistic 0.74 [95% CI 0.60-0.85]; log-rank p<0.0001) and was validated in the IBR/CIT internal validation (C-statistic 0.79 [95% CI 0.56-0.97]; log-rank p<0.0001), as well as in all 3 external validations: IDELA/CIT dataset (CS=0.71, 95% CI 0.59-0.81; log-rank p<0.001); VEN/CIT dataset (CS=0.76, 95% CI 0.66-0.85; log-rank p=0.01); MCCD (CS=0.61, 95% CI 0.56-0.66; log-rank p<0.001). Conclusions: We present the first validated risk model for OS in R/R CLL in the era of targeted therapies. Our model consists of 4 readily available factors (B2M ≥5 mg/L, LDH elevated, HGB <110 mg/L for women or <120 mg/L for men, and time from initiation of last therapy <24 months), identifies 3 prognostic groups with significantly different OS, and has been validated for pts treated with all FDA approved targeted therapies: IBR, IDELA, and VEN. This identifies a well-defined cohort of pts with R/R disease with an unmet clinical need who are suitable for prospective trials targeting these pts. An exploratory analysis regarding prediction of MRD is ongoing. Figure. Figure. Disclosures Darif: Jannsen: Employment. Londhe:Jannsen: Employment. Xing:Gilead Sciences, Inc.: Employment. Mun:Genentech: Employment, Equity Ownership. Kay:Cytomx Therapeutics: 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; Tolero Pharmaceuticals: 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; Infinity Pharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Agios Pharm: 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: Research Funding; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Shanafelt:Mayo Clinic: Patents & Royalties: Physician Well-being Index, Medical Student Well-being Index, Well-being index; GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Furman:Loxo Oncology: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy; Sunesis: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; Verastem: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy, Other: DSMB; Acerta: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy. Hillmen:Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Abbvie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Research Funding; Gilead Sciences, Inc.: Honoraria, Research Funding; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Research Funding; Acerta: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Sharman:Acerta: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Research Funding. Seymour:AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genentech Inc: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding. Jones:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Ferrante:Jannsen: Employment. Dreiling:Gilead: Employment. Mobasher:F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Other: Ownership interests non-PLC; Genentech Inc: Employment. Stark:Genentech: Employment. Reddy:Actinium Pharmaceuticals: Employment, Equity Ownership; Pharmacyclics: Employment. Howes:Janssen: Employment. James:Pharmacyclics: Employment. Bhargava:Gilead: Employment. Zelenetz:Novartis/Sandoz: Consultancy; Abbvie: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Genentech/Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding.