Citations

Treatment of polycythemia vera (PV) with the Murine Double Minute 2 (MDM2) antagonist, idasanutlin, in a phase 1 trial was reported by our group to be well tolerated with a high overall response rate (Mascarenhas et al, Blood. 2019 Jun 5). A global, phase 2 trial is currently underway evaluating idasanutlin in hydroxyurea (HU) resistant/intolerant PV patients (NCT03287245). MDM2, a negative regulator of TP53 is upregulated in PV CD34+ cells and inhibition of MDM2 targets PV hematopoietic stem/progenitor cells (HSPC) (Lu et al, Blood. 2014;124(5):771-90). Additional trials of MDM2 antagonists have shown promise, however, there is concern that these agents have the potential to induce TP53 mutations or promote expansion of TP53 mutated clones. Resistance to MDM2 inhibitors has been evaluated in solid tumor cell lines and attributed to either the emergence of de novoTP53 mutations or the selection of TP53 mutated clones. (Michaelis et al, Cell Death Dis. 2011;2:e243; Skalniak et al, Cancers. 2018;10(11)). The effect of MDM2 inhibition on TP53 mutant clones is of particular interest in myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPNs). TP53 mutations have been reported with a low allele burden in ~15% of chronic MPN patients (Kubesova et al, Leukemia. 2018;32(2):450-61), however, TP53 loss of heterozygosity and rapid expansion of TP53 mutant clones is associated with transformation to blast phase (Lundberg et al, Blood 2014,123:2220-8). As reported, in the idasanutlin PV trial, 1/13 patients were identified to have a baseline pathogenic TP53 mutation in hematopoietic cells (VAF 5.5%), using a deep sequencing assay with a limit of detection (LOD) of VAF 0.5%. This patient was a non-responder to idasanutlin and upon treatment had an increasing JAK2V617F and TP53 mutant VAF. End of study hematopoietic cell specimens of all patients were deep sequenced (LOD 0.1%) and revealed that 4 additional patients harbored detectable TP53 mutations after idasanutlin treatment with VAF ranging from 1-12%. In each sample, 1-5 unique TP53 mutations were identified, all within the hotspot domain of the TP53 gene. Deeper sequencing of baseline and follow-up samples revealed these mutations were present at a subclonal level (VAF 0.1-5.5%) and increased over time, indicating that treatment with the MDM2 antagonist promoted expansion of already existing TP53 mutant clones (Table 1, Figure 1). None of the patients who lacked a TP53 mutation at baseline developed a TP53 mutant clone with idasanutlin treatment. There was no clear association of presence of TP53 mutations with prior HU, anagrelide or interferon exposure. There has been careful monitoring of patients to determine whether the expanding TP53 clone has clinical ramifications. Patients were on study for a median of 54 weeks (23-131). The only patient who exemplified resistance to idasanutlin was the single patient with a high burden TP53 mutation (37%). All other patients were taken off study due to patient choice/toxicity. Furthermore, all TP53 mutant and non-mutant patients have had stable disease with no evidence of progression to MF or AML. Sequencing of 2 patients post-discontinuation of idasanutlin revealed that the VAF of the TP53 mutant clones decreased since the agent was discontinued. Updated patient molecular data post-treatment discontinuation will be reported at the meeting. To investigate whether idasanutlin induces de novo TP53 mutations in PV myeloid cells we performed long term HSPC cultures. Mononuclear cells from 6 distinct PV patients were treated continuously with idasanutlin (500 nM) over ~6 weeks and DNA from both treated and untreated colonies were analyzed using next generation sequencing with a LOD of 2% VAF and no TP53 mutations were detected. The combined in vitro and clinical data reveals that treatment with an MDM2 antagonist is not associated with the emergence of de novoTP53 mutations but rather the expansion of prior existing TP53 clones. This does not appear to have clinical repercussions, however, close monitoring of these patients is essential. We recommend that patients be screened for TP53 mutations prior to treatment with an MDM2 antagonist and that if present the TP53 mutant VAF be followed during their treatment course. Resistance to MDM2 inhibition is likely dependent on the TP53 mutant VAF and further studies will need to clarify the ideal dosing schedule of MDM2 antagonists and/or combinatorial therapy to prohibit TP53 mutant clonal expansion. Disclosures Houldsworth: Cancer Genertics: Other: stock in; Sema4: Employment. Rossi:Sema4: Employment. Kiladjian:AOP Orphan: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding. Rampal:Agios, Apexx, Blueprint Medicines, Celgene, Constellation, and Jazz: Consultancy; Constellation, Incyte, and Stemline Therapeutics: Research Funding. Mascarenhas:Incyte: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; CTI Biopharma: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Promedior: Research Funding; Merus: Research Funding; Pharmaessentia: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Hoffman:Merus: Research Funding.

Introduction: Approximately two-thirds of patients with primary or post-essential thrombocythemia/polycythemia vera myelofibrosis (MF) have anemia, many of whom require red blood cell (RBC) transfusions. In this heavily transfused population there are severely limited treatment options; effective treatment for anemia in MF is a critically unmet medical need. Luspatercept is a first-in-class erythroid maturation agent which binds to select TGF-β superfamily ligands to reduce aberrant Smad2/3 signaling and enhance late-stage erythropoiesis. Here we report the interim results of the ongoing open-label, phase 2 trial evaluating luspatercept in patients with MF and anemia. Methods: Seventy-four patients with MF and anemia were enrolled, including 41 not receiving concomitant ruxolitinib at study entry who received either no RBC transfusions (n = 20; Cohort 1) or 2-4 RBC U/28 d in the 12 wks prior to treatment (n = 21; Cohort 2). Thirty-three enrolled patients were receiving a stable dose of ruxolitinib for at least 16 wks, of which 14 were not receiving RBC transfusions (Cohort 3A) and 19 were (Cohort 3B). Patients in Cohorts 3A and 3B received a median dose of ruxolitinib of 20 mg/d (range, 5-50 mg/d) for a median of 41 and 43 wks, respectively. Patients received luspatercept every 21 d at a starting dose of 1.0 mg/kg in doses escalating up to 1.75 mg/kg. The primary endpoint in patients not receiving transfusions was a hemoglobin (Hb) increase ≥ 1.5 g/L at every assessment from baseline for ≥ 12 consecutive wks, within the first 24 wks on study. In patients receiving RBC transfusions, the primary endpoint was RBC transfusion-independence (RBC-TI) for ≥ 12 consecutive wks, within the first 24 wks on study. Additional endpoints included proportion of patients achieving mean Hb increase ≥ 1.5 g/dL in Cohorts 1 and 3A, and ≥ 50% decrease in RBC transfusions (minimum 4 RBC U decrease from baseline) in Cohorts 2 and 3B, with both responses lasting ≥ 12 consecutive wks, within 24 wks of study entry. Intent-to-treat (ITT) data were analyzed as of May 10, 2019. Results: Median age was 71 y (range, 50-88 y) and 42 (57%) were male. Median interval from MF diagnosis to study entry was 3.3 y (range, 19 d-13.5 y). Seven patients were Dynamic International Prognostic Scoring System (DIPSS) intermediate-1, 58 were intermediate-2, and 8 were high risk. Median Hb concentration at study entry was 8.8 g/dL (range, 6.7-9.8 g/dL) for Cohort 1 and 8.6 g/dL (range, 6.7-9.1 g/dL) for Cohort 3A. Patients in Cohort 2 received a median of 2.7 RBC U/28 d (range, 1-5 U/28 d) and patients in Cohort 3B received a median of 2.3 RBC U/28 d (range, 2-4 U/28 d). Patients received a median of 8 cycles of luspatercept (range, 1-24 cycles). Efficacy data are displayed in the Table, per ITT data. Two of twenty (10%) and 3/14 (21%) patients in Cohorts 1 and 3A, respectively, achieved an absolute Hb increase ≥ 1.5 g/dL at every measurement from baseline over any consecutive 12 wks. Two of twenty-one (10%) and 6/19 (32%) patients in Cohorts 2 and 3B, respectively, achieved RBC-TI over any consecutive 12 wks. Median duration of Hb response was 20 wks (range, 12-27 wks) in Cohort 1 and 12 wks (range, 12-13 wks) in Cohort 3A. Median duration of RBC-TI was 23 wks (range, 16-31 wks) in Cohort 2 and 32 wks (range, 12-65 wks) in Cohort 3B. Three (15%) and 8 (57%) patients in Cohorts 1 and 3A, respectively, achieved a mean Hb increase of ≥ 1.5 g/dL. Eight (38%) and 10 (53%) patients in Cohorts 2 and 3B, respectively, achieved a ≥ 50% reduction in RBC transfusion burden from baseline. Ruxolitinib exposure remained stable throughout the 24-wk treatment period in both Cohorts 3A and 3B. There was no difference in spleen size between responders and non-responders. Four (5%) patients had grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events (AEs). There were no treatment-related deaths. Treatment-related AEs occurring in ≥ 3% of patients were hypertension (11%), bone pain (8%), and diarrhea (4%). Seven (9%) patients had ≥ 1 AE resulting in treatment discontinuation; 23 (31%) remain on study. Conclusions: The initial results from this ongoing study suggest clinically significant activity of luspatercept in patients with MF-associated anemia, including those receiving concomitant ruxolitinib. A minority of AEs were grade 3-4 in severity, consistent with previous studies in MDS and beta-thalassemia. Disclosures Gerds: CTI Biopharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy; Imago Biosciences: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sierra Oncology: Research Funding. Vannucchi:Italfarmaco: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; CTI: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene Corporation: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Passamonti:Roche: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Kremyanskaya:La Jolla: Consultancy; Incyte, Celgene, Constellation, Protagonist.: Research Funding. Gotlib:Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Promedior: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kartos: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; CTI Biopharma: Research Funding. Ribrag:BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AZ: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; argenX: Research Funding; Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Infinity: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Servier: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Epizyme: Honoraria, Research Funding; MSD: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Mead:Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; CTI: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel/accommodation expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Bristol Myers-Squibb: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy. Harrison:Sierra Oncology: Honoraria; Gilead: Speakers Bureau; CTI: Speakers Bureau; Roche: Honoraria; Promedior: Honoraria; Janssen: Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; AOP: Honoraria; Shire: Speakers Bureau. Mesa:Shire: Honoraria; Promedior: Research Funding; Genotech: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel, accommodations, expenses; LaJolla: Consultancy; AbbVie: Research Funding; NS Pharma: Research Funding; CTI: Research Funding; Gilead Sciences: Research Funding; Samus: Research Funding; Baxalta: Consultancy; Galena Biopharma: Consultancy; Celgene Corporation: Research Funding; Sierra Oncology: Consultancy; PharmaEssentia: Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy; Pfizer: Research Funding; AOP Orphan Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Other: travel, accommodations, expenses; Incyte: Other: travel, accommodations, expenses, Research Funding. Kiladjian:AOP Orphan: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy. Gale:Celgene Corporation: Employment. Laadem:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Pariseau:Celgene Corporation: Employment. Gerike:Celgene Corporation: Employment. Zhang:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Linde:Abbott Laboratories, Inc.: Equity Ownership; Acceleron Pharma: Employment, Equity Ownership; Fibrogen, Inc.: Equity Ownership. Reynolds:Acceleron Pharma: Employment, Equity Ownership. Verstovsek:Gilead: Research Funding; NS Pharma: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Promedior: Research Funding; CTI BioPharma Corp: Research Funding; Genetech: Research Funding; Blueprint Medicines Corp: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sierra Oncology: Research Funding; Pharma Essentia: Research Funding; Astrazeneca: Research Funding; Ital Pharma: Research Funding; Protaganist Therapeutics: Research Funding; Constellation: Consultancy; Pragmatist: Consultancy; Roche: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding. OffLabel Disclosure: Luspatercept is an investigational therapy that is not approved for any use in any country. Luspatercept is currently being evaluated for potential use in patients with anemia due to myelodysplastic syndromes, beta-thalassemia, or myelofibrosis.

Objective Rapid eye movement sleep behavior disorder (RBD) is a prodromal synucleinopathy, as >80% will eventually convert to overt synucleinopathy. We performed an in‐depth analysis of the SNCA locus to identify RBD‐specific risk variants. Methods Full sequencing and genotyping of SNCA was performed in isolated/idiopathic RBD (iRBD, n = 1,076), Parkinson disease (PD, n = 1,013), dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB, n = 415), and control subjects (n = 6,155). The iRBD cases were diagnosed with RBD prior to neurodegeneration, although some have since converted. A replication cohort from 23andMe of PD patients with probable RBD (pRBD) was also analyzed (n = 1,782 cases; n = 131,250 controls). Adjusted logistic regression models and meta‐analyses were performed. Effects on conversion rate were analyzed in 432 RBD patients with available data using Kaplan–Meier survival analysis. Results A 5′‐region SNCA variant (rs10005233) was associated with iRBD (odds ratio [OR] = 1.43, p = 1.1E‐08), which was replicated in pRBD. This variant is in linkage disequilibrium (LD) with other 5′ risk variants across the different synucleinopathies. An independent iRBD‐specific suggestive association (rs11732740) was detected at the 3′ of SNCA (OR = 1.32, p = 4.7E‐04, not statistically significant after Bonferroni correction). Homozygous carriers of both iRBD‐specific SNPs were at highly increased risk for iRBD (OR = 5.74, p = 2E‐06). The known top PD‐associated variant (3′ variant rs356182) had an opposite direction of effect in iRBD compared to PD. Interpretation There is a distinct pattern of association at the SNCA locus in RBD as compared to PD, with an opposite direction of effect at the 3′ of SNCA . Several 5′ SNCA variants are associated with iRBD and with pRBD in overt synucleinopathies. ANN NEUROL 2020;87:584–598

Abstract Vol. 30 After pp. 513-514 of the April issue were proofed and released to the printer, the text was scrambled in the process of adjusting layout. We are reprinting the pages here as they should have appeared. The printer apologizes for any confusion and inconvenience this may have caused the readers and authors of this article.

Abstract Objectives A cluster of specialized KIR genes of specialized KIR genes has been shown to be associated with susceptibility or resistance to viral infections in humans. Therefore, this pilot study, this pilot investigation sought to determine the frequencies of KIR genes human immunodeficiency virus type 1( HIV-1) patients and establish their potential clinical involvement in disease progression and staging. Methods HIV-1 infected and healthy individuals were selected for this study. Hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg), anti-HCV antibodies and anti-HIV-1/2 antibody/ antigen were screened using a 4 th generation ELISA assay (Cobas e 411 Analyzer, Roche Diagnostics GmbH Mannheim, Germany). SSP-PCR was used to evaluate the frequencies of KIR genes. CD4 + T counts and HIV-1 viral load were measured in patients using respectively BD FACSCount and Abbott m2000rt instruments. Results We found a significant association between the frequencies of KIR2DL2 (OR=4.41; p < 0.001), KIR2DS2 (OR=4.76; p < 0.001), KIR2DS3 (OR=2.27; p=0.004), KIR2DS4 (OR=1.76; p=0.026), KIR3DS1 (OR=2.43; p=0.016) and HIV-1 infection; whilst the KIR3DL1 gene (OR= 0.39; p < 0.001) was associated with protection against HIV-1 infection. HIV-1 replication was found to be associated with the presence of KIR2DS2 (OR=6.08, p = 0.024). In contrary the pseudogene KIR2DP1 (OR=0.39; p=0.026) were linked to a protective status with the highest number of lymphocyte T CD4 counts. Conclusion Our data showed that KIR2DL2, KIR2DS2, KIR2DS3, KIR2DS4 , and KIR3DS1 were significantly associated with HIV-1 infection whereas KIR3DL1 was associated with protection against HIV-1 infection. Further investigations are needed to fully comprehend the clinical significance of KIR genes in HIV disease progression.

Abstract Background: Polycythemia vera (PV) is characterized by erythrocytosis and overactive JAK/STAT activity. The RESPONSE trial compared ruxolitinib (RUX), a JAK1/JAK2 inhibitor, with best available therapy (BAT) in patients (pts) with PV intolerant of or resistant to hydroxyurea according to modified European LeukemiaNet criteria. RUX was superior to BAT in achieving the primary endpoint (21% vs 1%; P<0.0001), and 60% of pts randomized to RUX achieved protocol-defined hematocrit (HCT) control through Wk 32 vs 20% of pts randomized to BAT (J Clin Oncol32:5s, 2014; suppl, abstract 7026). However, the actual phlebotomy rate between Wks 8−32 was only 20% in pts randomized to RUX compared with 62% in pts randomized to BAT, and 85% of pts in the RUX arm continued to receive treatment at the median 81-wk follow-up, suggesting most pts derived some benefit from RUX. Therefore, an analysis was conducted to evaluate the clinical efficacy of RUX in pts who did and did not achieve protocol-defined HCT control. Methods: Phlebotomy-dependent PV pts with splenomegaly, aged ≥18 years, and resistant to or intolerant of HU were enrolled. Pts were required to have HCT between 40%−45% 14 days prior to randomization; those who did not could enter a phlebotomy control period to achieve a HCT in this range within 14 days of randomization. Eligible pts were randomized 1:1 to RUX or BAT. BAT pts could cross over to receive RUX from Wk 32 if they had not met the primary endpoint, or after Wk 32 due to protocol-defined disease progression. The primary composite endpoint comprised HCT control and a ≥35% reduction from baseline in spleen volume (SV) at Wk 32. HCT control was defined as lack of phlebotomy eligibility between Wks 8−32 with no more than 1 phlebotomy eligibility between randomization and Wk 8. Phlebotomy eligibility was based on protocol-defined HCT values (regardless of receipt of phlebotomy), and pts with missing data or assessments outside of protocol-defined time windows were considered non-responders. In pts who were HCT control non-responders (HCT-N) as defined by protocol, time to second phlebotomy eligibility was evaluated. For this analysis, pts without phlebotomy eligibility were excluded and phlebotomies in the first 8 wks were not considered. Patient-reported outcomes were evaluated in both HCT control responders (HCT-R) and HCT-N, including the 14-item modified Myeloproliferative Neoplasm Symptom Assessment Form (MPN-SAF) and the Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC). Results: Of 222 randomized pts (RUX, n=110; BAT, n=112), most were male (RUX, 60%; BAT, 71%) and the median age (range) was similar between treatment arms (RUX, 62.0 [34.0–90.0]; BAT, 60.0 [33.0–84.0]). Although pts had a HCT between 40% and 45% within 14 days prior to randomization (with or without phlebotomy), 24% of pts had a HCT >45% on Day 1 (similar between treatment arms) illustrating that many pts have poor HCT control over short intervals of observation. RUX treatment resulted in long-term benefits on HCT levels, even in pts who did not achieve protocol-defined HCT control through Wk 32. Among the RUX HCT-R group, the probability of maintaining HCT response was 97% at 48 wks and 87% at 80 wks. Most BAT pts crossed over to receive RUX immediately after the Wk 32 visit (84% between Wks 32 and 48). In the RUX HCT-N pts, the median time to subsequent phlebotomy eligibility was 52 wks, compared with 21 wks for BAT HCT-N pts (Figure). Compared with the entire BAT group, more RUX-R and RUX-N pts had a ≥50% improvement in the MPN-SAF total symptom score at Wk 32 (RUX-N, 38%; RUX-R, 40%; BAT, 4%). Median changes from baseline at Wk 32 in key symptoms such as tiredness (RUX-N; −50%; RUX-R, −49%; BAT, −4%), itching (RUX-N, −88%; RUX-R, −97%; BAT, −2%), and night sweats (RUX-N, −100%; RUX-R, −97%; BAT, 4%) were also greater among RUX-R and RUX-N pts than BAT pts. RUX-N and RUX-R pts were also more likely to consider their symptoms to be “much improved” or “very much improved” on the PGIC compared with BAT pts (RUX-N, 57%; RUX-R, 74%; BAT, 13%). Conclusion: Among pts receiving RUX who did not achieve protocol-defined HCT control, the median time to subsequent phlebotomy eligibility was 1 year. In contrast, pts on BAT had a median time to subsequent phlebotomy eligibility of 21 wks. Furthermore, pts in the RUX arm achieved meaningful improvements in PV-related symptoms, regardless of meeting the endpoint of HCT control, while pts treated with BAT showed worsening or no improvement. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Verstovsek: Incyte Corporation: Research Funding. Off Label Use: Ruxolitinib is a JAK1/JAK2 inhibitor approved for the treatment of patients with intermediate or high-risk myelofibrosis, including primary myelofibrosis, post polycythemia vera myelofibrosis, and post-essential thrombocythemia myelofibrosis. Kiladjian:Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Mesa:Incyte Corporation: Research Funding; CTI: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Eli Lilly: Research Funding; Promedior: Research Funding; NS Pharma: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Jones:Incyte Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. He:Incyte Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Li:Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Employment, Equity Ownership. Habr:Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Employment, Equity Ownership. Vannucchi:Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding.

Abstract Background: MYC rearrangement is a recurrent somatic event in MM and results in super-enhancers repositioning within 3Kb (centromeric or telomeric) of the MYC locus. BRD4, a member of the bromodomain family, binds H3K27Ac and regulates enhancers activity, RNA polymerase II transcription initiation and elongation and in particular it regulates MYC transcription in MM cells. Immunomodulatory drugs (IMiDs) promote the proteasomal degradation of IKZF1/3 and the transcriptional repression of MYC and IRF4. However the exact mechanisms through which IMiDs downregulate MYC are not well understood. Methods and Results: Using a extended panel of 12 MM cell lines we have first confirmed our previous observartion that IMIDs universally degraded IKZF1/3, however unlike in IMiDs-sensitive cell lines it failed to downregulate MYC in resistant cells. Therefore, this finding suggests that MYC transcriptional regulation rather than IKF1/3 degradation is the "bottleneck" in IMiDs anti-myeloma activity or resistance. In addition, RNA-seq of paired and serially collected primary myeloma cells with acquired resistance to IMIDsconfirmed the enrichment of genes signatures associated with MYC at the time of acquired resistance. Of note, in a library of t(4;14) MM cell lines lenalidomide significantly downregulates FGFR3 while the expression of WHSC1 was not affected. As in t(4;14) cells FGFR3 is driven by the 3' IGH enhancer while WHSC1 is under the control of the intronic Em enhancer, and in view of the known role of IKZF1 in CSR, we posit that IKZF1 regulates plasma cells enhancer activity and hence MYC expression. To validate this hypothesis we first established the genome-wide distribution of IKZF1 in MM1S, RPMI8226 and OPM2 cells by ChIP-Seq. This analysis revealed the distribution of IKZF1 across the genome, predominantly to intronic an intragenic loci with only ~ 8% or reads mapping within +/- 5 kb of genes TSS. Importantly IKZF1 was also enriched at known myeloma cells enhancers or super-enhancers such as IGLL5, TXNDC5, BCL2L1, and DUSP22. We also mapped BRD4 binding to the genome in 8226 and MM1S cell lines and confirmed previously described mapping to known B-cell enhancers. Of note IKZF1 nearly universally overlapped with all BRD4 enhancers and superenhancers loci. These findings lead us to propose that IKZF1 depletion in response to IMiDs treatment will result in enhancer destabilization and displacement of BRD4 from enhancer loci. Indeed, Chip-Seq analysis of IKZF1 and BRD4 genomic distribution pre- and post- treatment with lenalidomide (10 uM for 4 or 8h) in IMiDs sensitive cell lines significantly depleted IKZF1 and BRD4 at superenhancer loci. In contrast, in IMiDs resistant cell lines (RPMI8226) and despite IKZF1 depletion, BRD4 was largely retained at these loci. These findings suggest that in IMiDs sensitive cells, IKZF1 is the major transcription factor mediating BRD4 recruitment to enhancer and superenhancer loci. In contrast, in IMiDs resistant cells and similar to BET-bromodomain inhibitor (JQ1) resistance, transcriptional plasticity or hyper-phosphorylation of BRD4 attributable to the phosphatase PP2A inactivation may also be mediating IMiDs resistance. Indeed the levels of p-BRD4 determined by western blotting were significantly higher in IMiDs resistant INA6 and RPMI8226 cells compared to MM1S cells. Furthermore, treatment of INA6 cells with the PP2A activator phenothiazine significantly sensitized INA6 cells to lenalidomide. Lastly, in order to investigate whether IMiDs resistance was associated with acquired new MYC rearrangements with an "IKZF1_resisant enhancer," we performed mate-pair sequencing of IMiDs resistance patients (18 post acquisition of IMIDs resistance and 7 pairs of pre- and post- acquisition of IMIDs resistance). MYC structural rearrangements (indels, translocations, inversions) were detected using DELLY and MANTA. Of note several MYC rearrangement were identified including MYC duplication in 1 patient, MYC structural rearrangement (±3Kb of TSS) in 9 patients (enhancer partner: TXNDC5, IGHa2, NSMCE2, IGLL5) and a newly acquired IRF4-IGH a2 rearrangement in 1 patient with pre-existing MYC-IGLL5 rearrangement. Conclusion:We have demonstrated that IMIDs alter enhancer activity in myeloma cells by depleting IKZF1 / IKZF3 and disrupting BRD4 binding to enhancers and super-enhancers, stalling of RNA polymerase II and MYC transcription. Disclosures Neri: Celgene and Jannsen: Consultancy, Honoraria. Bergsagel:Amgen, BMS, Novartis, Incyte: Consultancy; Novartis: Research Funding. Bahlis:Onyx: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau.

Abstract Background: Thrombotic and hemorrhagic complications are commonly encountered in uncontrolled essential thrombocythemia (ET). Both anagrelide and hydroxyurea (HU) have proven efficacious in cytoreduction as well as reducing these events and remain first line therapy for most high-risk ET patients. Independent of their role in risk-reduction, little is known about how these therapies impact patient symptomatology or quality of life. In this study, we compared the clinical and symptomatic profiles of ET patients receiving HU or anagrelide against patients with no previous experience with these agents. Methods: Data was assessed from a prospectively collected international database of ET patients in which demographics, disease features, and ET symptoms utilizing the myeloproliferative neoplasm symptom assessment form (MPN-SAF; Scherber et al, 2011). The MPN-SAF includes the patient's perceptions of common MPN-related symptoms and overall quality of life (QOL) on a 0 (absent) to 10 (worst imaginable) scale. Total symptom score (TSS) was computed based on symptom items using the published scoring algorithm on a 0 (all reported symptoms absent) to 100 (all reported symptoms worst imaginable) scale. ET risk scores were calculated using the IPSET scoring algorithm (Passamonti 2012). Thrombocytopenia was defined as a platelet count <100 x 10(9)/L, anemia was defined as hemoglobin<10 g/dL and leukopenia was defined as a white blood cell count <4.0 x 10(9)/L. Associations between the MPN-SAF individual symptoms were investigated using chi-square test for categorical data and ANOVA F-test for continuous variables. Results Hydroxyurea vs. HU Naive A total of 402 ET patients with active HU use were compared to 392 ET patients with no history of HU use. Patients using HU were older (63.5 years vs. 52.3 years, p<0.001) and had a greater concentration of both high risk (24.9% vs. 11.4%, p=0.001) and intermediate risk (53.9% vs 38.4%, p<0.001) patients. They also had a higher rate of prior thrombosis (29.8% vs 11.3%, p<0.001) and leukopenia (10.1% vs. 3.0%, p<0.001). No differences were noted between gender, a history of prior hemorrhage, red blood cell transfusion requirements, or the presence of anemia/thrombocytopenia. In comparing symptom profiles, no significant differences were noted between TSS or individual symptoms with the exception of slightly more severe cough in HU patients (1.5 vs. 1.1, p=0.02, Figure 1). Anagrelide vs. Anagrelide Naive A total of 49 ET patients with active anagrelide use were compared to 794 ET patients with no history of anagrelide use. Patients using anagrelide had a longer mean disease duration (8.1 years vs. 5.8 years) and were more anemic (9.1% vs. 1.2%, p<0.001). No differences were noted between age, gender, risk scores, the presence of leukopenia/thrombocytopenia, a history of prior thrombosis or hemorrhage complications or red blood cell transfusion requirements. Additionally, there were no significant differences between TSS or individual symptom items (Figure 1). HU vs. Anagrelide A total of 402 patients currently using HU were compared to 39 patients currently using anagrelide. Overall, HU users were slightly older (63.5 years vs. 55.1 years, p<0.001) with a greater population of patients meeting high risk criteria (24.9% vs. 2.8%, p=0.002) and having a history of prior thrombosis (29.8% vs. 12.8%, p=0.02). Patients receiving anagrelide had a slightly longer disease duration (8.2 years vs. 6.0 years, p=0.0446). In comparing symptom profiles, no differences were noted in TSS or individual symptom items between cohorts. Discussion In this retrospective analysis, it does not appear cytoreduction with either HU and/or anagrelide has a significant impact on ET symptom burden despite reducing vascular events. Importantly, the higher risk scores in HU patients did not translate directly into greater patient symptomatology supporting previous studies demonstrating a poor association between these two items. Prospective trials measuring ET symptom change, in the setting of randomized trials will better quantify impact of cytoreduction on symptom burden as well as quantify impact of newer agents such as interferon or jak inhibition. Figure 1. Symptom Comparisons Between HU, Anagrelide and Other Therapy Figure 1. Symptom Comparisons Between HU, Anagrelide and Other Therapy Disclosures Kiladjian: Incyte Corporation: Consultancy; Novartis: Other: Travel grant; Research Funding paid to institution (Hôpital Saint-Louis et Université Paris Diderot); Novartis: Consultancy. Zweegman:Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Harrison:Sanofi: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Shire: Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Honoraria; CTI Biopharma: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Cervantes:Sanofi-Aventis: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; CTI-Baxter: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Barbui:Novartis: Speakers Bureau. Etienne:ARIAD: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Congress Travel/Accomodations, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Roy:Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding. te Boekhorst:Novartis: Consultancy; CTI Biopharma: Consultancy. Vannucchi:Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Shire: Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Other: Research Funding paid to institution (University of Florence), Research Funding; Baxalta: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Mesa:Novartis. Research- incyte, Gilead, cti, Genentech, promedior, NS Pharma: Consultancy.

Background Interferons are recognized as active agents in the treatment of patients with high risk essential thrombocythemia (ET) or polycythemia vera (PV), both in the upfront setting as well as beyond. Several trials have shown high rates of hematologic and molecular responses with the use of interferons, however, data on direct comparison of interferon activity in patients with early disease in comparison to patients refractory or resistant to prior therapies, such as hydroxyurea (HU) are lacking. We conducted a controlled analysis of the activity of pegylated interferon alfa-2a (PEG) in two prospective parallel clinical trials conducted in these two unique patient populations. Methods The MPD-RC 111 (NCT01259817) was an international, multicenter, phase 2 open-label clinical trial that evaluated PEG therapy in patients with high risk PV and high-risk ET who were either refractory or intolerant (R/I) to HU by modified ELN criteria. The MPD-RC 112 trial (NCT01258856) enrolled patients with high risk ET/PV who were treatment-naïve (TN) (HU <3 months) and randomized them (1:1) to PEG or HU. All patients randomized to PEG were included in this analysis. Both protocols were conducted concurrently at the MPD-RC member institutions and utilized a similar primary endpoint of overall response rate (complete and partial response rates) by ELN Criteria at 12 months confirmed by the same blinded central review committee. Both studies utilized the same PEG starting dose of 45 mcg weekly and was titrated for response to a maximum of 180 mcg weekly. Secondary endpoints included safety information, impact on disease biomarkers, bone marrow (BM) response, and quality of life data. Results Patients ET: 39 TN and 65 R/I ET patients were available for this analysis. Median disease duration was 2.9 months in TN and 37.3 months in R/I patients. Baseline characteristics and demographics were similar in the two cohorts except lower baseline hemoglobin level in RI patients. (Table1A) PV: 43 TN and 50 R/I PV patients were included. Median disease duration was 2.5 months in TN and 54.8 months in R/I patients. Baseline characteristics only differed by lower frequency of phlebotomy rate in R/I patients. (Table1B) Baseline symptoms scores and quality of life were similar in TN and RI groups (Table 2) Response ET: CR/PR/ORR at 12 months were observed in 43.1%/26.2%/69.2% in R/I ET patients and in 43.6%/25.6%/69.2% in TN ET patients (p=0.99 for ORR). (Table 3, Figure 1) PV: CR/PR/ORR at 12 months were observed in 22%/38%/60% in R/I PV patients, and in 27.9%/58.1%/86% in TN PV patients (p=0.005 for ORR). (Table 3, Figure 1) Safety PEG was equally well tolerated throughout both treatment groups with treatment discontinuation due to adverse events occurring in 14.6% in TN patients and 13.9% in R/I patients. The mean (SD) dose of PEG was 102.7 (52.3) mcg in R/I ET patients and 128.7mcg (46.4) in R/I PV patients. For TN patients, mean dose was 85.7mcg (59.7) in ET and 93.5 mcg (44.0) in PV. Adverse events were consistent with historic reports of PEG use and the distribution of events was similar in R/I and TN patients. (Table 4) Conclusion This intention to treat response analysis included TN and R/I ET and PV patients with balanced baseline characteristics who received prospective therapy with PEG. Patients with ET had a higher overall response rate at 12 months that was equivalent in patients who were treatment-naïve and in patients who were intolerant or refractory to HU. By contrast, patients with PV who were treatment-naïve had a higher ORR than patients those intolerant or refractory to HU. We conclude that treatment with PEG is an effective therapeutic option both treatment naïve PV and ET as well as those previously treated with HU, however PEG as a second line agent is especially effective in ET patients. Disclosures Yacoub: Hylapharm: Equity Ownership; Agios: Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Ardelyx: Equity Ownership; Cara: Equity Ownership; Dynavax: Equity Ownership. Mascarenhas:Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Pharmaessentia: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; CTI Biopharma: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Promedior: Research Funding; Merus: Research Funding. Mesa:AbbVie: Research Funding; Samus: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Sierra Onc: Consultancy; Genotech: Research Funding; Promedior: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Celgene: Research Funding; CTI Biopharma: Research Funding; La Jolla Pharma: Consultancy. Rampal:Agios, Apexx, Blueprint Medicines, Celgene, Constellation, and Jazz: Consultancy; Constellation, Incyte, and Stemline Therapeutics: Research Funding. Silver:PharmEssentia: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. McMullin:Daiko Sanyo: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Italopharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Ewing:Novartis: Honoraria, Other: Meeting attendance sponsorship ; Bristol Myers-Squibb: Other: Meeting attendance sponsorship . O'Connell:Astex: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Shionogi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Mead:Bristol Myers-Squibb: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel/accommodation expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; CTI: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy. De Stefano:Alexion: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Baer:Astellas: Research Funding; Al Therapeutics: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Forma: Research Funding; Kite: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding. Vannucchi:Novartis: 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; Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Italfarmaco: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; CTI BioPharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Kremyanskaya:La Jolla: Consultancy; Incyte, Celgene, Constellation, Protagonist.: Research Funding. Hexner:novartis: Research Funding. Rambaldi:Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: travel support, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Italfarmaco: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: travel support, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Omeros: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: travel support, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: travel support, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: travel support, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: 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, Other: travel support, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Jazz: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau, travel support. Ritchie:Genentech: Other: Advisory board; Tolero: Other: Advisory board; agios: Other: Advisory board; Pfizer: Other: Advisory board, travel support; Celgene: Other: Advisory board; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Celgene, Novartis: Other: travel support; AStella, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, NS Pharma, Pfizer: Research Funding; Ariad, Celgene, Incyte, Novartis: Speakers Bureau; Celgene, Incyte, Novartis, Pfizer: Consultancy. Kiladjian:Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; AOP Orphan: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy. Harrison:Promedior: Honoraria; Incyte: Speakers Bureau; Sierra Oncology: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Speakers Bureau; CTI: Speakers Bureau; AOP: Honoraria; Shire: Speakers Bureau; Roche: Honoraria; Gilead: Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Hoffman:Merus: Research Funding. OffLabel Disclosure: Pegylated Interferon Alfa-2a for in Patients with Polycythemia Vera or Essential Thrombocythemia

Introduction: Daratumumab (DARA) is a human, CD38-targeted, IgG1κ monoclonal antibody approved as monotherapy in heavily pretreated relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) and in combination with standard-of-care regimens for transplant-ineligible NDMM and RRMM. The addition of DARA to standard-of-care regimens in phase 3 studies has consistently demonstrated a near doubling of complete response (CR) rates, tripling of minimal residual disease (MRD)-negativity rates, and reduction in the risk of disease progression or death by ≥44% in patients with transplant-ineligible NDMM or RRMM. In the primary analysis of the phase 3 MAIA study (median follow-up: 28.0 months), a significant progression-free survival (PFS) benefit (median not reached [NR] vs 31.9 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.56; P<0.001) and a >3-fold increase in MRD-negativity rates (10-5 sensitivity threshold; 24.2% vs 7.3%; P<0.001) were observed for D-Rd vs Rd in patients with transplant-ineligible NDMM (Facon T, N Engl J Med 2019). Here, we report updated efficacy and safety findings from MAIA after 9 months of additional follow-up. Methods: Patients with NDMM ineligible for high-dose chemotherapy and autologous stem cell transplantation due to age ≥65 years or comorbidities were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive Rd ± DARA. Stratification factors included International Staging System stage (ISS [I vs II vs III]), region (North America vs other), and age (<75 vs ≥75 years). All patients received 28-day cycles of Rd (R: 25 mg orally once daily on Days 1-21; d: 40 mg orally on Days 1, 8, 15 and 22). In the D-Rd arm, DARA (16 mg/kg intravenously) was given weekly for Cycles 1-2, bi-weekly for Cycles 3-6, and every 4 weeks thereafter. Patients were treated until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity in both treatment arms. The primary endpoint was PFS. Key secondary endpoints included overall response rate (ORR), MRD-negativity rate (10-5 sensitivity, clonoSEQ® version 2.0), and safety. PFS on the next line of therapy (PFS2), defined as the time from randomization to progression on the next line of therapy or death, was also measured. Results: A total of 737 patients were randomized (D-Rd, N = 368; Rd, N = 369). Patient baseline characteristics were well balanced between the two treatment arms. Median (range) age was 73 (45-90) years, with 44% of patients ≥75 years of age. 27%, 43%, and 29% of all patients were ISS stage I, II, and III, respectively. Among 642 patients evaluable for FISH/karyotyping analysis, 86% had standard and 14% had high cytogenetic risk. After a median follow-up of 36.4 months, median PFS was NR with D-Rd vs 33.8 months with Rd (HR, 0.56; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.44-0.71; P<0.0001; Figure). The estimated 36-month PFS rate was 68% with D-Rd vs 46% with Rd. The PFS benefit of D-Rd vs Rd was observed in all prespecified subgroups, except for patients with impaired hepatic function. Adding DARA to Rd continued to result in deeper responses with higher rates of ≥CR and ≥very good partial response (VGPR; Table). Median duration of response among responders was NR with D-Rd vs 40.7 months with Rd. Median PFS2 was NR vs 47.3 months with D-Rd vs Rd, respectively (HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.53-0.91; P=0.0079); follow up is ongoing. 143 (39%) vs 233 (64%) patients with D-Rd vs Rd, respectively, have discontinued treatment. 85 (23%) patients with D-Rd vs 103 (28%) patients with Rd have discontinued the study due to death. Grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs; D-Rd/Rd) occurring in ≥10% of patients were neutropenia (51%/35%), lymphopenia (15%/11%), pneumonia (15%/9%), anemia (14%/21%), leukopenia (11%/6%), and hypokalemia (10%/10%); grade 3/4 infection rates were 36%/27%. The most common serious TEAE was pneumonia (14%/9%). 9% of patients in the D-Rd arm and 18% of patients in the Rd arm discontinued treatment due to TEAEs. The complete updated data set will be presented at the meeting with additional efficacy endpoints, including MRD-negativity rate. Conclusion: After longer follow up, the addition of DARA to Rd continues to demonstrate a significant PFS benefit and improved rates of deeper and more durable responses vs Rd alone in patients with transplant-ineligible NDMM. The longer follow-up also demonstrated a significant improvement in PFS2 favoring D-Rd, and no new safety concerns were observed. These results continue to support the use of D-Rd in the first line of treatment for transplant-ineligible patients with NDMM. Disclosures Bahlis: Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria. Facon:Janssen: 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; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Usmani:Amgen Array Biopharma, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, Merck, Pharmacyclics, Sanofi, Takeda: Other: Research Grant; Amgen, Celgene, Janssen, Sanofi, Takeda: Speakers Bureau; Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, Merck, SkylineDX, Takeda: Other: Consultant/Advisor. Kumar:Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding. Plesner:Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Genmab: Consultancy. Orlowski:Poseida Therapeutics, Inc.: Research Funding. Hulin:celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen, AbbVie, Celgene, Amgen: Honoraria. Quach:Sanofi: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; GSK: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: 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. Goldschmidt:ArtTempi: Honoraria; John Hopkins University: Other: Grants and/or provision of Investigational Medicinal Product; BMS: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Grants and/or provision of Investigational Medicinal Product, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Grants and/or provision of Investigational Medicinal Product, Research Funding; Dietmar-Hopp-Foundation: Other: Grants and/or provision of Investigational Medicinal Product; Mundipharma: Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; MSD: Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other, Research Funding; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Grants and/or provision of Investigational Medicinal Product, Research Funding; Sanofi: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Grants and/or provision of Investigational Medicinal Product, Research Funding; Molecular Partners: Research Funding; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Chugai: Honoraria, Other: Grants and/or provision of Investigational Medicinal Product, Research Funding. O'Dwyer:GlycoMimetics Inc: Research Funding; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Onkimmune: Equity Ownership, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy. Venner:Janssen: Honoraria; J&J: Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Sanofi: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Weisel:GSK: Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Juno: Consultancy; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Adaptive Biotech: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Krevvata:Janssen: Employment. Pei:Janssen: Employment, Equity Ownership. Wang:Janssen: Employment. Van Rampelbergh:Janssen: Employment. Ukropec:Janssen: Employment, Equity Ownership. Uhlar:Janssen: Employment. Kobos:Janssen: Employment. Perrot: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; Takeda: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria.