Citations

TPS9077 Background: ALCHEMIST (Adjuvant Lung Cancer Enrichment Marker Identification and Sequencing Trial) is a clinical trial platform of the National Cancer Institute that offers biomarker analysis for high-risk resected non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) to support randomized trials of novel adjuvant therapies within the National Clinical Trials Network (NCTN). EA5142, a trial of adjuvant nivolumab for patients (pts) without EGFR / ALK alterations, has completed enrollment. Given the survival benefit seen with 1st-line chemo-immunotherapy (chemo-IO) for advanced NSCLC without EGFR / ALK alterations, there was compelling rationale for the launch of a trial offering concurrent immunotherapy with adjuvant chemo. Here we report updated enrollment to ALCHEMIST as of Jan 14, 2020. Methods: ALCHEMIST includes a screening trial (A151216, 5362 registered) that enrolls pts with completely resected clinical stage IB (≥4 cm)–IIIA (per AJCC 7) NSCLC. Tissue and blood are collected, biomarker testing includes EGFR sequencing, ALK FISH and PD-L1 IHC. 733 active sites are enrolling across the NCTN. Pts with EGFR mutations may enroll to adjuvant erlotinib vs observation (A081105, 352 randomized); those with ALK fusions may enroll to adjuvant crizotinib vs observation (E4512, 99 randomized). A trial offering adjuvant nivolumab vs observation regardless of PD-L1 status (EA5142, 935 randomized) recently completed enrollment. To support ongoing investigation of adjuvant immunotherapy, ALCHEMIST is adding A081801 (opens spring 2020). Pts will be randomized to one of 3 arms: chemo-IO with pembrolizumab during and after chemo vs sequential chemo followed by pembrolizumab vs chemo alone. Pts with pathological N2 nodes are eligible and can undergo postoperative radiotherapy after completing chemo. Pts are eligible if enrolled to A151216, negative for EGFR and ALK alterations, and with PD-L1 testing completed (required for stratification). Local testing for EGFR, ALK and PD-L1 will be accepted for enrollment; central testing will not delay randomization. Pts may not have received any therapy except surgery for the lung cancer and must be age >18, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0-1, have no active autoimmune disease requiring systemic treatment within 2 years, must not be pregnant or nursing, have no active second malignancy within 3 years and meet standard organ function values. By building off the ongoing ALCHEMIST platform, we hope to facilitate rapid enrollment to A081801 across participating NCTN sites. Clinical trial information: NCT02194738.

1512 Background: Tobacco smoking profoundly impacts LC risk; however, data are limited as to what extent SC prior to diagnosis impacts LC overall survival (OS) and lung cancer specific survival (LCSS). LC screening offers a possible teachable moment, but there is uncertainty of SC benefits after a lifetime of smoking. We use the ILCCO database to answer if SC prior to LC dx is associated with better OS and LCSS, considering time since smoking cessation (TSSC). Methods: Using individual data, analysis was performed on 17 ILCCO studies with available TSSC to estimate survival using univariable analysis and models of stage-adjusted and cumulative smoking-adjusted multivariable analysis. Adjusted Hazard Ratios (aHR) from Cox models, cubic spline smooth curves and Kaplan-Meier curves were created. Sensitivity analysis was performed for TSSC and LCSS on 13 studies. Results: Of 34649 patients, 14322 (41%) were current smokers 14273 (41%) ex-smokers and 6054 (18%) never smokers at diagnosis. We confirmed that ex-smokers (aHR 0.88 CI 0.86-0.91) and never smokers (aHR 0.76 CI 0.73-0.8) improved OS compared to current smokers. Amongst ex-smokers, < 2y TSSC (aHR 0.88 CI 0.82-0.94), 2-5y TSSC (aHR 0.83 CI 0.77-0.90) and > 5y TSSC (aHR 0.8 CI 0.76-0.84) had improved OS compared to CS. Sensitivity analysis showed a trend towards improved LCSS survival for < 2y TSSC (aHR 0.95 CI 0.86-1.05) and 2-5y TSSC (aHR 0.93 CI 0.83-1.04), whereas > 5y TSSC significantly improved LCSS by 15% (aHR 0.85 CI 0.78-0.92). To mimic the LC screening participants, in analysis of > 30 pack-years individuals, associations were strikingly strong: < 2y TSSC had improved OS by 14% (aHR 0.86 CI 0.80-0.93); 2-5y TSSC by 17% (aHR 0.83 CI 0.76-0.90); and > 5 TSSC by 22% (aHR 0.78 CI 0.74-0.83), compared to current smokers; for < 30 packs-years, a trend towards better OS was observed for < 2y TSSC (aHR 0.95 CI 0.92-1.02) and 2-5y TSSC (aHR 0.86 CI 0.74-1.01), whereas > 5y TSSC improved OS by 23% (aHR 0.77 CI 0.72-0.82). Conclusions: Among ex-smokers, the risk of overall death was reduced by 12% on < 2y TSSC, 17% on 2-5y TSSC and 20% > 5y TSSC, whereas for LCSS, the benefit was significant only for > 5y TSCC, compared to current smokers at time of diagnosis. Here we demonstrate that convincing screening participants to quit smoking at any point of their trajectory, even just prior to dx such as < 2y TSSC, improved OS, and LCSS benefit was present beyond 5y of quitting. These relationships are independent of pack-years, age, across all stages and other prognostic variables.

AbstractObjectiveComprehensive data about patients with bilateral pheochromocytoma are limited. We aimed to describe the clinical presentation, genetic analysis, treatment and outcomes of patients with bilateral pheochromocytoma.DesignA retrospective study at a tertiary care centre.PatientsAll patients with bilateral pheochromocytoma evaluated at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota between January 1951 and December 2015.MeasurementsTumour size, genetic testing, plasma/urine metanephrines and catecholamines.ResultsA total of 94 patients (51% women) were diagnosed with bilateral pheochromocytoma at a median age at first presentation of 31 years (range, 4‐70). Bilateral disease was noted in 8.0% of pheochromocytoma patient overall and 37.5% of patients 18 years of younger. Most patients presented with synchronous tumours (80%). Median time to metachronous tumours was 4.5 years (range, 1‐38). Genetic disease was identified in 75 (80%) patients, including MEN 2A (42.6%), VHL (19.1%), MEN 2B (9.6%) and NF1 (8.5%). Excess catecholamines were present in 97% of patients. Patients with synchronous pheochromocytoma commonly underwent simultaneous bilateral adrenalectomy (99%), and 18 (24%) had cortical‐sparing surgery. Multicentric tumours were reported in 23 of 77 (30%) patients with available data. Recurrent disease was found in 9.6% of patients, and 8.5% developed metastatic disease. Median follow‐up was 8.5 years. At the study conclusion, 4 patients had died due to pheochromocytoma or adrenalectomy.ConclusionsBilateral pheochromocytoma occurred in 7.0% of adults with pheochromocytoma and 37.5% of paediatric patients. Genetic disease was identified in 80% of patients, predominantly MEN2A. Multicentric tumours were common, but most were still cured following adrenalectomy.

AbstractObjectiveWe aimed to describe clinical course of myelolipoma and to identify predictors of tumour growth and need for surgery.DesignA retrospective study.PatientsConsecutive patients with myelolipoma.ResultsA total of 321 myelolipomas (median size, 2.3 cm) were diagnosed in 305 patients at median age of 63 years (range, 25‐87). Median follow‐up was 54 months. Most myelolipomas were incidentally detected (86%), whereas 9% were discovered during cancer staging and 5% during workup of mass effect symptoms. Thirty‐seven (12%) patients underwent adrenalectomy. Compared to myelolipomas <6 cm, tumours ≥6 cm were more likely to be bilateral (21% vs 3%, P < .0001), cause mass effect symptoms (32% vs 0%, P < .0001), have haemorrhagic changes (14% vs 1%, P < .0001) and undergo adrenalectomy (52% vs 5%, P < .0001). Among patients with ≥6 months of imaging follow‐up, median size change was 0 mm (−10, 115) and median growth rate was 0 mm/y (−6, 14). Compared to <1 cm growth, ≥1 cm growth correlated with larger initial size (3.6 vs 2.3 cm, P = .02), haemorrhagic changes (12% vs 2%, P = .007) and adrenalectomy (35% vs 8%, P < .0001).ConclusionsMost myelolipomas are incidentally discovered on cross‐sectional imaging. Myelolipomas ≥6 are more likely to cause mass effect symptoms, have haemorrhagic changes and undergo resection. Tumour growth ≥1 cm is associated with larger myelolipoma and haemorrhagic changes. Adrenalectomy should be considered in symptomatic patients with large tumours and when there is evidence of haemorrhage or tumour growth.

Abstract Wiskott-Aldrich syndrome (WAS) is an X-linked disease caused by mutations in the WAS gene, leading to thrombocytopenia, eczema, recurrent infections, autoimmune disease, and malignancy. Hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) is the primary curative approach, with the goal of correcting the underlying immunodeficiency and thrombocytopenia. HCT outcomes have improved over time, particularly for patients with HLA-matched sibling and unrelated donors. We report the outcomes of 129 patients with WAS who underwent HCT at 29 Primary Immune Deficiency Treatment Consortium centers from 2005 through 2015. Median age at HCT was 1.2 years. Most patients (65%) received myeloablative busulfan-based conditioning. With a median follow-up of 4.5 years, the 5-year overall survival (OS) was 91%. Superior 5-year OS was observed in patients &lt;5 vs ≥5 years of age at the time of HCT (94% vs 66%; overall P = .0008). OS was excellent regardless of donor type, even in cord blood recipients (90%). Conditioning intensity did not affect OS, but was associated with donor T-cell and myeloid engraftment after HCT. Specifically, patients who received fludarabine/melphalan-based reduced-intensity regimens were more likely to have donor myeloid chimerism &lt;50% early after HCT. In addition, higher platelet counts were observed among recipients who achieved full (&gt;95%) vs low-level (5%-49%) donor myeloid engraftment. In summary, HCT outcomes for WAS have improved since 2005, compared with prior reports. HCT at a younger age continues to be associated with superior outcomes supporting the recommendation for early HCT. High-level donor myeloid engraftment is important for platelet reconstitution after either myeloablative or busulfan-containing reduced intensity conditioning. (This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT02064933.)

Abstract Background: The combination of cediranib (ced) and olaparib (olap) improves progression-free survival and overall response rates (ORR) in women with recurrent plat sensitive high-grade serous (HGS) ovarian cancer compared to olap alone. In this Phase 2 study of ced/olap in women with relapsed ovarian cancer (NCT02345265), we observed an ORR of 74% with ced/olap in plat sensitive relapsed patients (pts) and an ORR of 20% in plat resistant pts. BROCA-HR was performed to characterize tumor HRD status and to correlate this with the activity of ced/olap in the plat sensitive and resistant settings. Methods: Pts with relapsed ovarian cancer across 11 centers were enrolled to 2 cohorts, either plat sensitive or resistant. All pts received ced 30mg daily and olap tablets 200mg BID. Archival, pre-treatment, and on-treatment biopsies were collected on all pts where safely feasible; pts also had the option of undergoing a post-progression biopsy. A baseline blood sample was collected for germline testing and matched control. Available samples were sequenced with BROCA-HR, and HRD status was determined by (1) presence of an HR-related mutation or (2) an increase in loss of heterozygosity (LOH) score. Results: 72 pts were enrolled, with 70 pts receiving study treatment (35 plat sensitive and 35 plat resistant). BROCA-HR analysis is complete on 60 samples, with 10 samples in final analysis. The concordance of HRD status by presence of an HR-related mutation or by LOH score was relatively low (agreement=36/60=60%, Cohen's Kappa=0.28). In 19 pts with a germline BRCA mutation, 16 were HRD+ by LOH (LOH high), 2 were HRD- by LOH (LOH low), and 1 not quantifiable. 3 pts had a somatic BRCA mutation; 1 was LOH high, 1 LOH low, and 1 not quantifiable. 4 pts had non-BRCA somatic HR-related mutations (3 CDK12; 1 ATR); 3 were LOH high and 1 LOH low. Of the 34 pts without HR-related mutations, 15 were LOH high, 16 were LOH low, and 3 not quantifiable. In 29 plat sensitive pts with BROCA-HR results, 18 were HRD+ by mutation (12 germline BRCA, 3 somatic BRCA, 3 somatic other), and 16 were HRD+ by LOH (LOH high). The ORR in plat sensitive pts by HRD status with available HRD results was: 22/29=75.9% (13/18=72% HRDmut+; 9/11=82% HRDmut-); (12/16=75% LOH high; 6/9= 67% LOH low). In 31 plat resistant pts with BROCA-HR results, 8 were HRD+ by mutation (7 germline BRCA, 0 somatic BRCA, 1 somatic other), and 19 were HRD+ by LOH. The ORR in plat resistant pts by HRD status with available HRD results was: 7/31=22.6% (4/8=50% HRDmut+; 3/23=13% HRDmut-, P=0.05); (7/19=37% LOH high; 0/11= 0% LOH low, P=0.03). Updated results with the full data set are pending. Conclusion: Ced/olap has clinical activity in women with relapsed ovarian cancer, both in the plat sensitive and plat resistant settings. In women with plat sensitive disease, where response rates are high, HRD status by presence of an HR-related mutation or LOH status does not appear to provide significant additional information regarding likelihood of response. In women with plat resistant disease, the presence of HRD by an HR-related mutation or LOH status is correlated with a higher likelihood of response. Citation Format: Joyce F Liu, Su-Chun Cheng, Robert M Wenham, Andrea E Wahner Hendrickson, Deborah K Armstrong, Nancy Chan, David E Cohn, Jung-Min Lee, Richard T Penson, Mihaela Cristea, James Abbruzzese, Koji Matsuo, Alexander B Olawaiye, Jennifer Curtis, Geoffrey Shapiro, Ursula A Matulonis, Elise Kohn, Percy Ivy, Elizabeth M Swisher. Correlation of homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) status by BROCA-HR sequencing with response to combination cediranib and olaparib in relapsed ovarian cancer [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR-NCI-EORTC International Conference on Molecular Targets and Cancer Therapeutics; 2019 Oct 26-30; Boston, MA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Mol Cancer Ther 2019;18(12 Suppl):Abstract nr A074. doi:10.1158/1535-7163.TARG-19-A074

Abstract Introduction: Cowden syndrome patients are at an increased risk of developing differentiated thyroid carcinoma (DTC). There are limited studies of thyroid cancer biology within this population. We aimed to describe the frequency and progression of DTC in this population. Method: We reviewed all patients with clinically or genetically confirmed Cowden syndrome treated at our institution between 1979 and 2017. Presentation, operative details, pathology, and adjuvant treatment for all thyroid diseases were analyzed. Results: Forty-seven patients were identified. Thirty-seven received a clinical diagnosis while 10 tested positive on genetic testing for the PTEN gene. Average follow-up time was 10 years. Twenty-three patients underwent a total thyroidectomy. Nine patients were diagnosed with thyroid cancer, with a mean age of 28.5 years, 4 cases of the follicular variant of papillary thyroid cancer (PTC), 4 of PTC, and 1 of cystic PTC. One patient required an interval lateral neck dissection but no patients developed distant metastasis. Fourteen patients underwent thyroidectomy, 12 due to follicular adenoma, Hürthle cell adenoma, or multinodular goiter, 1 due to Graves’ disease, and 1 who elected to undergo a prophylactic thyroidectomy. No mortality was associated with thyroid cancer in these patients. Conclusion: Patients with Cowden syndrome are at a significantly increased risk of developing DTC and have a younger age of onset. In this study, 20% of the patients with Cowden syndrome were diagnosed with DTC, but distant metastasis and overall mortality were absent. Clinical features were similar to those of sporadic DTC, proving that, apart from screening, Cowden syndrome-related DTC can be treated in similar fashion.

1500 Background: Treatment of adult LGG is controversial. Favorable patients (pts) (age <40 years [yrs] who undergo gross total resection [GTR]) are typically observed. Unfavorable pts (age ≥40 who have subtotal resection [STR] or biopsy [B]) are usually given initial radiation therapy (RT), reserving chemotherapy (historically procarbazine, CCNU and vincristine [PCV]) for recurrence. In 1998, the RTOG, in conjunction with SWOG, NCCTG, and ECOG initiated prospective studies of adult LGG, the results of which are reported herein. Methods: Favorable pts were observed postoperatively in a single arm Phase II study (Arm 1). Unfavorable pts were stratified by age, histology, KPS, and presence/absence of contrast enhancement on preoperative magnetic resonance imaging and randomized to either RT alone (54Gy in 30 fractions to a local treatment field) (Arm 2) or RT followed by 6 cycles of standard dose PCV (Arm 3). Reported results include overall survival (OS) rate, median overall survival time (MOST), progression-free survival (PFS) rate, and median progression-free survival time (MPFST). Survival data are compared using Wilcoxon p-values. Results: A total of 362 eligible/analyzable pts were accrued between 1998 and 2002. Median follow-up time is 4 years. For the 111 favorable pts observed on Arm 1, OS at 2- and 5-yrs is 99% and 94%. PFS at 2- and 5-yrs is 82% and 50%. For the 251 unfavorable pts on Arms 2 (RT alone) and 3 (RT+PCV), there was no difference in OS or PFS. OS at 2- and 5-yrs was 87% and 61% with RT alone versus (vs) 86% and 70% with RT+PCV (p=0.72). MOST was not reached in RT alone pts and was 6.0 yrs in RT+PCV pts. PFS at 2- and 5-yrs was 73% and 39% with RT alone vs 72% and 61% with RT+PCV (p=0.38). MPFST was 4.0 yrs with RT alone vs 6.0 yrs with RT+PCV. Acute grade 3–4 toxicity occurred in 9% of pts who received RT alone, 67% who received RT+PCV (mostly hematologic). There were no treatment deaths on either arm. Conclusions: 5-yr PFS was poor in all three arms ranging from 39% to 61%. Only half of favorable pts were disease-free at 5 yrs. In unfavorable pts, there was no OS advantage with the addition of PCV to RT. Both PFS and MPFST were better with the addition of PCV, but not significantly. Analysis of outcome by 1p19q status is pending. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

AbstractIntroductionDue to the rarity of malignant insulinoma, a lack of the literature describing factors affecting outcomes exists. Our aim was to review malignant insulinoma incidence, characteristics and survival trends.MethodsWe identified all patients with malignant insulinoma in the SEER registries from 1973 to 2015. Incidence, neoplasm characteristics and factors affecting cancer‐specific survival (CSS) were described.ResultsA total of 121 patients were identified. The crude annual overall incidence was low (range 0.0–0.27 cases per million person years). The largest proportion had localized disease (40%), while 16% had regional disease, 39% distant metastatic disease, and stage was unreported in 5%. Most neoplasms were in the body/tail of the pancreas, followed by the head of the pancreas. Grade was reported in 40% of patients; only a single patient reported as having grade IV with the remainder all grades I/II. Surgical resection was performed in 64% of patients. Within surgical patients, the median primary neoplasm size was 1.8 cm. Regional lymph nodes were examined in 57.1% of surgical patients, while 34% of examined nodes were positive. The median CSS was 183 months. On multivariable analysis, surgical resection, male sex and absence of metastatic disease were associated with superior survival.ConclusionWhile the greatest proportion of patients with malignant insulinoma present with localized disease, regional lymph node involvement was found in 34% of whose nodes were tested. Further studies are needed to assess the role of lymph node dissection in improving survival and preventing recurrence given the observed frequency of lymph node involvement.

Introduction: Anti-PD-1 monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) are highly active in relapsed/refractory classical Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL), but most patients (pts) will still relapse. Given this, allogeneic stem cell transplantation (alloHSCT) remains an important option for pts after PD-1 blockade, as it offers the possibility of cure. Prior reports have suggested that alloHSCT after PD-1 mAbs may be associated with severe immune-related complications including acute graft-versus-host disease (GVHD), veno-occlusive disease (VOD) and cytokine release/febrile non-infectious syndrome (CRS). Prior studies of alloHSCT after PD-1 blockade in cHL have been limited by the small number of pts and short follow-up, preventing an accurate assessment of long-term outcomes and complications, risk factors for early toxicity, and the impact of transplant strategies such as choice of GVHD prophylaxis. We therefore assembled a large retrospective international cohort of cHL pts who underwent alloHSCT after PD-(L)1 blockade to better answer these questions, including an assessment of the impact of post-transplant cyclophosphamide (PTCy) on efficacy and toxicity. Methods: Medical records and databases were reviewed at 26 European and United States transplant centers to identify pts with cHL who underwent an alloHSCT any time after receiving a PD-1 or PD-L1 mAb. Response assessment was performed by local investigators according to Lugano 2014 criteria. Overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), cumulative incidence (CumInc) of relapse (CIR), non-relapse mortality (NRM), acute (a) and chronic (c) GVHD were estimated, as was the association between baseline variables and these outcomes. Results: Between 2014 and 2019, 150 pts were identified who underwent alloHSCT after a median of 10 (range, 1-74) doses of nivolumab (n=118), pembrolizumab (n=31), or avelumab (n=1). The median age was 31 (range 17-68) and pts had received a median of 4 (range, 2-11) lines of therapy prior to PD-(L)1 blockade. 138 pts (92%) had failed BV and 111 (74%) autologous HSCT. The best overall response to PD-(L)1 mAbs was CR for 62 pts (41%), PR for 55 (37%), SD for 17 (11%), PD for 15 (10%) and unknown for 1 (1%). Median time from last dose of PD-(L)1 mAb to alloHSCT was 80 days (range, 17-756) with 70 pts (47%) receiving intervening systemic therapy. At alloHSCT, 90 pts were in CR (60%), 45 in PR (30%), 5 in SD (3%), and 10 in PD (7%). Donors were haploidentical (n=71, 47%), matched sibling (n=29, 19%), matched unrelated (n=39, 26%), mismatched unrelated (n=7, 5%), cord blood (n=2, 1%), or unknown (n=2, 1%). Stem cell source was bone marrow (n=38, 25%), peripheral blood (n=110, 73%), or cord blood (n=2, 1%). GVHD prophylaxis included PTCy in 88 pts (59%) (69/71 (97%) with haploidentical donors; 19/79 (24%) with other donors). With a median post-alloHSCT follow-up for survivors of 23.8 months (range, 1-67), the 2y OS and PFS were 79% (95CI 71-86%) and 65% (95CI 55-73%), respectively, while the 2y CumIncs of relapse and NRM were 21% (95CI 13-29%) and 14%, (95CI, 8-22%), respectively (Fig. 1A-B). 27 pts have died, 3 due to disease and 24 to NRM, including aGVHD (n=7) and VOD (n=2). Veno-occlusive disease (VOD) occurred in 5 pts (day 100 CumInc 4%) and 29 pts (19%) developed CRS (grade 1 n=16; grade 2 n=7; grade 3 n=4; grade 4 n=2). The 6-month CumIncs of grade 2-4, grade 3-4 and grade 4 aGVHD were 39%, 16% and 8%, respectively. Hyperacute GVHD (onset ≤ 14 days after alloHSCT) occurred in 4% of pts and was fatal in 2 pts. The 2y CumInc of cGVHD was 45%. Neither receipt of &gt; 10 doses (median) of anti-PD-(L)1 mAb nor undergoing alloHSCT ≤80 days (median) after last dose of PD-(L)1 mAb were associated with PFS or OS. However, pts with a shorter time to transplant (≤80 days) appeared to have a higher risk of severe (grade 3-4) aGVHD (6m CumInc 24% vs 9%, p=0.006). Recipients of PTCy in this cohort had lower 2y CumIncs of cGVHD (34% vs 58%, p=0.01) and relapse (12% vs 31%, p=0.02), superior 2y PFS (76% vs 54%, p=0.015), and similar rates of severe aGVHD (15% vs 18%, p=0.5), 2y NRM (12% vs 16%, p=0.5), and 2y OS (82% vs 78%, p=0.6). Conclusions: With extended follow-up of a large international cohort, our results argue that alloSCT performed after PD-(L)1 mAbs is a feasible strategy associated with an excellent PFS and a very low CIR for this disease. The use of PT-Cy appears to be associated with improved outcomes and may at present represent the optimal transplant strategy in this pt population. Figure Disclosures Corradini: kite: Honoraria; Abbvie: Honoraria; Servier: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; KiowaKirin: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria; Daiichi Sankyo: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria. Ho:Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Omeros Corporation: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Jaglowski:Kite: Consultancy, Other: advisory board, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Other: advisory board, Research Funding; Juno: Consultancy, Other: advisory board; Unum Therapeutics Inc.: Research Funding. Herrera:Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gilead Sciences: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech, Inc.: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Immune Design: Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding. Blaise:Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Pierre Fabre medicaments: Honoraria; Molmed: Consultancy, Honoraria. Hamadani:Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Sanofi Genzyme: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Merck: Research Funding; Otsuka: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; Medimmune: Consultancy, Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy. Ansell:LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Affimed: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Regeneron: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding. Nieto:Astra-Zeneca: Research Funding; Affimed: Consultancy; Affimed: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding. Feldman:Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Research Funding; AbbVie: Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses, Speakers Bureau; Portola Pharma: Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses, Speakers Bureau; Kyowa Hakko Kirin: Research Funding; Eisai: Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Research Funding; Cell Medica: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Corvus: Research Funding; Viracta: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. McGuirk:ArticulateScience LLC: Other: Assistance with manuscript preparation; Bellicum Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Kite Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Gamida Cell: Research Funding; Pluristem Ltd: Research Funding; Juno Therapeutics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Astellas: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Fresenius Biotech: Research Funding. Mohty:Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Research Funding. Stamatoulas Bastard:Celgene: Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy. Houot:Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Merck Sharp Dohme: Honoraria. Manson:Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria. Orvain:Incyte: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Other: Travel & accommodations; Pfizer: Other: Travel & accommodations. Bouabdallah:Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Frigault:Novartis: Consultancy; Kite/Gilead: Honoraria; Nkarta: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy; Juno/Celgene: Consultancy; Foundation Medicine: Consultancy; Xenetic: Consultancy. Chen:Takeda: Consultancy; Kiadis: Consultancy; Magenta: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy. Lynch:T.G. Therapeutics: Research Funding; Rhizen Pharmaceuticals S.A: Research Funding; Takeda Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Juno Therapeutics: Research Funding; Incyte Corporation: Research Funding; Johnson Graffe Keay Moniz & Wick LLP: Consultancy. Smith:AstraZeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp: Consultancy, Research Funding; Acerta Pharma BV: Research Funding; Portola Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb (spouse): Research Funding; Denovo Biopharma: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Ignyta (spouse): Research Funding; Incyte Corporation: Research Funding; Ayala (spouse): Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Byrne:Karyopharm: Research Funding. Cohen:Hutchison: Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Research Funding; Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol-Meyers Squibb Company: Research Funding; Takeda Pharmaceuticals North America, Inc.: Research Funding; Gilead/Kite: Consultancy; Genentech, Inc.: Consultancy, Research Funding; UNUM: Research Funding; ASH: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Lymphoma Research Foundation: Research Funding. Svoboda:AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Celgene: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kyowa: Consultancy; Merck: Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding. Santoro:Bayer: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; MSD: Speakers Bureau; Arqule: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; AstraZeneca: Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Servier: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Speakers Bureau; BMS: Speakers Bureau; Roche: Speakers Bureau; Abb-Vie: Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Speakers Bureau; BMS: Consultancy; Lilly: Speakers Bureau; Sandoz: Speakers Bureau; Eisai: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Armand:Sigma Tau: Research Funding; Otsuka: Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; Tensha: Research Funding; Affimed: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Adaptive: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Infinity: Consultancy; Genentech: Research Funding. Zinzani:Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; 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; Verastem: 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; Kyowa Kirin: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; TG Therapeutics: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Carlo-Stella:Servier: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, accommodations; Genenta Science srl: Consultancy; Boehringer Ingelheim: Consultancy; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Honoraria, Other: Travel, accommodations, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Other: Travel, accommodations, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; Rhizen Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria; AstraZeneca: Honoraria; Janssen Oncology: Honoraria; MSD: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; Janssen: Other: Travel, accommodations; Takeda: Other: Travel, accommodations.