Citations

AbstractNon‐steroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and statin drugs may protect against the development of non‐Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), but data are limited, particularly for NHL subtypes. Furthermore, some in vitro, animal and epidemiologic data suggest there may be a synergistic effect of these two agents, but there has been no test of this hypothesis in NHL. We evaluated the self‐reported use of NSAIDs and statins in a clinic‐based study of 1703 NHL patients and 2199 frequency‐matched controls. Unconditional logistic regression was used to estimate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs), adjusted for potential confounding variables. We observed an inverse association of regular use of low‐dose aspirin with risk of NHL (OR = 0.82; 95% CI 0.70‐0.96) that was stronger with longer duration of use (P < .01). There were no associations for use of regular or extra‐strength aspirin, ibuprofen, other NSAIDs, statins or other cholesterol‐lowering drugs with NHL risk, while an inverse association with COX‐2 inhibitors was equivocal. There was also no interaction of low‐dose aspirin and statins on NHL risk. Inverse associations of similar magnitude to all NHL were observed for regular use of low‐dose aspirin with diffuse large B‐cell, follicular, marginal zone and all other lymphomas, although not all associations were statistically significant. In conclusion, low‐dose aspirin but not regular/extra strength aspirin, other NSAIDs or statin use was associated with lower risk of NHL. Beyond the potential for the primary prevention of NHL, these data also point to a role of anti‐platelet or other effects of low‐dose aspirin in lymphomagenesis that warrant follow‐up.

ABSTRACTObjectives:Excessive fecal bile acids in adults have been associated with diarrhea‐predominant irritable bowel syndrome (IBS‐D), but their role in pediatric IBS‐D is unknown. Serum markers including 7α‐hydroxy‐4‐cholesten‐3‐one (C4) and fibroblast growth factor‐19 (FGF‐19) were validated in adults to detect bile acid diarrhea (BAD) compared to 48‐hour fecal bile acid collection (48FBA). Our aims were to assess fasting serum C4 and FGF–19 and 48FBA in a pediatric population, to compare measurements in IBS‐D patients and healthy controls (HC), and to determine the prevalence of BAD among children with IBS‐D.Methods:Using a cross‐sectional design, 26 patients with IBS‐D and 56 HC were recruited in two pediatric tertiary care centers. Fasting serum C4 and FGF‐19 and 48FBA were obtained. Participants completed a 7‐day bowel diary coinciding with stool collection. Associations were analyzed using Spearman correlations.Results:Mean age was 14.7 ± 2.5 years (42.3% female) in IBS‐D and 12.6 ± 2.4 years (39.3% female) in HC. There was a significant correlation of C4 with 48FBA (r = 0.48, P < 0.05) and an inverse association with FGF‐19 (r = –0.43, P < 0.05). No significant differences were noted in C4 (P = 0.32), FGF‐19 (P = 0.1), or 48FBA (P = 0.5) between IBS‐D and HC groups; however, 20% of IBS‐D patients had elevated C4 and 28% had low FGF‐19 values.Fecal primary BA was significantly correlated with stool frequency (r = 0.45, P < 0.002).Conclusions:Correlations of C4 with 48FBA and FGF‐19 are confirmed in a pediatric population. Twenty percent of pediatric patients with IBS‐D had abnormal fasting serum C4. This serum test could be applied to identify BAD in pediatric IBS‐D.

Objective An understanding of the etiologic heterogeneity of colorectal cancer (CRC) is critical for improving precision prevention, including individualized screening recommendations and the discovery of novel drug targets and repurposable drug candidates for chemoprevention. Known differences in molecular characteristics and environmental risk factors among tumors arising in different locations of the colorectum suggest partly distinct mechanisms of carcinogenesis. The extent to which the contribution of inherited genetic risk factors for CRC differs by anatomical subsite of the primary tumor has not been examined. Design To identify new anatomical subsite-specific risk loci, we performed genome-wide association study (GWAS) meta-analyses including data of 48 214 CRC cases and 64 159 controls of European ancestry. We characterised effect heterogeneity at CRC risk loci using multinomial modelling. Results We identified 13 loci that reached genome-wide significance (p<5×10 −8 ) and that were not reported by previous GWASs for overall CRC risk. Multiple lines of evidence support candidate genes at several of these loci. We detected substantial heterogeneity between anatomical subsites. Just over half (61) of 109 known and new risk variants showed no evidence for heterogeneity. In contrast, 22 variants showed association with distal CRC (including rectal cancer), but no evidence for association or an attenuated association with proximal CRC. For two loci, there was strong evidence for effects confined to proximal colon cancer. Conclusion Genetic architectures of proximal and distal CRC are partly distinct. Studies of risk factors and mechanisms of carcinogenesis, and precision prevention strategies should take into consideration the anatomical subsite of the tumour.

Abtract Background and study aims Endoscopic and surgical techniques have been utilized for palliation of gastric outlet obstruction (GOO). Enteral stenting (ES) is an established technique with high clinical success and low morbidity rate. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided gastroenterostomy (EUS-GE) is a novel approach that aims to provide sustained palliation of GOO. We conducted a comprehensive review and meta-analysis to evaluate the effectiveness in terms of clinical and technical success, as well as the safety profile of EUS-GE and ES. Methods We searched multiple databases from inception through July 2020 to identify studies that reported on safety and effectiveness of EUS-GE in comparison to ES. Pooled rates of technical success, clinical success, and adverse events (AEs) were calculated. Study heterogeneity was assessed using I2% and 95 % confidence interval. Results Five studies including 659 patients were included in our final analysis. Pooled rate of technical and clinical success for EUS-GE was 95.2 % (CI 87.2-.98.3, I2 = 42) and 93.3 % (CI 84.4–97.3, I2 = 59) while for ES it was 96.9 % (CI 90.9–99, I2 = 64) and 85.6 % (CI 73–92.9, I2 = 85), respectively. Pooled rate of re-intervention was significantly lower with EUS-GE i. e. 4 % (CI 1.8–8.7, I2 = 35) compared to ES, where it was 23.6 % (CI 17.5–31, I2 = 35), p = 0.001. Pooled rates of overall and major AEs were comparable between the two techniques. Conclusion EUS-GE is comparable in terms of technical and clinical effectiveness and has a similar safety profile when compared to ES for palliation of GOO.

Abstract Proton Bragg peak irradiation has a higher ionizing density than conventional photon irradiation or the entrance of the proton beam profile. Whether targeting the DNA damage response (DDR) could enhance vulnerability to the distinct pattern of damage induced by proton Bragg peak irradiation is currently unknown. Here, we performed genetic or pharmacologic manipulation of key DDR elements and evaluated DNA damage signaling, DNA repair, and tumor control in cell lines and xenografts treated with the same physical dose across a radiotherapy linear energy transfer spectrum. Radiotherapy consisted of 6 MV photons and the entrance beam or Bragg peak of a 76.8 MeV spot scanning proton beam. More complex DNA double-strand breaks (DSB) induced by Bragg peak proton irradiation preferentially underwent resection and engaged homologous recombination (HR) machinery. Unexpectedly, the ataxia-telangiectasia mutated (ATM) inhibitor, AZD0156, but not an inhibitor of ATM and Rad3-related, rendered cells hypersensitive to more densely ionizing proton Bragg peak irradiation. ATM inhibition blocked resection and shunted more DSBs to processing by toxic ligation through nonhomologous end-joining, whereas loss of DNA ligation via XRCC4 or Lig4 knockdown rescued resection and abolished the enhanced Bragg peak cell killing. Proton Bragg peak monotherapy selectively sensitized cell lines and tumor xenografts with inherent HR defects, and the repair defect induced by ATM inhibitor coadministration showed enhanced efficacy in HR-proficient models. In summary, inherent defects in HR or administration of an ATM inhibitor in HR-proficient tumors selectively enhances the relative biological effectiveness of proton Bragg peak irradiation. Significance: Coadministration of an ATM inhibitor rewires DNA repair machinery to render cancer cells uniquely hypersensitive to DNA damage induced by the proton Bragg peak, which is characterized by higher density ionization. See related commentary by Nickoloff, p. 3156

Abstract Purpose: We have previously identified tissue methylated DNA markers (MDMs) associated with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). In this case–control study, we aimed to assess the diagnostic performance of plasma MDMs for PDAC. Experimental Design: Thirteen MDMs (GRIN2D, CD1D, ZNF781, FER1L4, RYR2, CLEC11A, AK055957, LRRC4, GH05J042948, HOXA1, PRKCB, SHISA9, and NTRK3) were identified on the basis of selection criteria applied to results of prior tissue experiments and assays were optimized in plasma. Next, 340 plasma samples (170 PDAC cases and 170 controls) were assayed using target enrichment long-probe quantitative amplified signal method. Initially, 120 advanced-stage PDAC cases and 120 healthy controls were used to train a prediction algorithm at 97.5% specificity using random forest modeling. Subsequently, the locked algorithm derived from the training set was applied to an independent blinded test set of 50 early-stage PDAC cases and 50 controls. Finally, data from all 340 patients were combined, and cross-validated. Results: The cross-validated area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) for the training set was 0.93 (0.89–0.96) for the MDM panel alone, 0.91 (95% confidence interval, 0.87–0.96) for carbohydrate antigen 19-9 (CA19-9) alone, and 0.99 (0.98–1) for the combined MDM-CA19-9 panel. In the test set of early-stage PDAC, the AUC for MDMs alone was 0.84 (0.76–0.92), CA19-9 alone was 0.87 (0.79–0.94), and combined MDM-CA19-9 panel was 0.90 (0.84–0.97) significantly better compared with either MDMs alone or CA19-9 alone (P = 0.0382 and 0.0490, respectively). At a preset specificity of 97.5%, the sensitivity for the combined panel in the test set was 80% (28%–99%) for stage I disease and 82% (68%–92%) for stage II disease. Using the combined datasets, the cross-validated AUC was 0.9 (0.86–0.94) for the MDM panel alone and 0.89 for CA19-9 alone (0.84–0.93) versus 0.97 (0.94–0.99) for the combined MDM-CA19-9 panel (P ≤ 0.0001). Overall, cross-validated sensitivity of MDM-CA19-9 panel was 92% (83%–98%), with an observed specificity of 92% at the preset specificity of 97.5%. Conclusions: Plasma MDMs in combination with CA19-9 detect PDAC with significantly higher accuracy compared with either biomarker individually.

Abstract Context. —Establishing adequate interobserver agreement is crucial not only for standardization of patient care but also to ensure validity of findings in multi-institutional trials. Objective. —To evaluate interobserver agreement in assessing chronic hepatitis C (HCV) and acute cellular rejection (ACR) among 17 hepatopathologists involved in the “Hepatitis C 3” trial. Design. —The trial is a randomized multicenter (17 institutions) study involving 312 patients undergoing transplantation for HCV. Patients are randomized to 3 treatment arms. For final data analysis, all biopsy specimens are reviewed by a central pathologist (G.J.N.). Recurrence of HCV is evaluated according to the Batts and Ludwig schema. The 1997 Banff schema is used to evaluate ACR. To assess interobserver agreement, hematoxylin-eosin–stained sections from 11 liver biopsy specimens (6 HCV and 5 ACR) were sent by the central pathologist to 16 local pathologists from 13 institutions. Statistical analysis was performed on raw ACR/HCV data as well as data grouped according to clinically significant primary endpoint cutoffs. Results. —Statistically significant agreement was found among all participating pathologists ( P < .001). On κ analysis, the degree of agreement was rated “moderate” for HCV grade and stage and ACR global grading (κ = 0.30, 0.33, and 0.37, respectively). Interobserver agreement was weaker for rejection activity index scoring of ACR (κ = 0.15). A stronger degree of agreement was found when scores were grouped based on endpoint cutoffs (κ = 0.76 “almost perfect” for HCV and 0.62 “substantial” for ACR). Conclusions. —An overall statistically significant interobserver agreement was found among 17 pathologists using the 1997 Banff schema and the Batts and Ludwig schema.

The NCCN Guidelines for Prostate Cancer address staging and risk assessment after a prostate cancer diagnosis and include management options for localized, regional, and metastatic disease. Recommendations for disease monitoring and treatment of recurrent disease are also included. The NCCN Prostate Cancer Panel meets annually to reevaluate and update their recommendations based on new clinical data and input from within NCCN Member Institutions and from external entities. This article summarizes the panel’s discussions for the 2021 update of the guidelines with regard to systemic therapy for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.

Introduction: Richter transformation (RT) refers to transformation of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) to diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) or other aggressive lymphomas. The incidence, clinical characteristics, and outcomes of RT with CNS involvement remain undefined. Methods: Biopsy-confirmed RT diagnosed from 4/1993 to 4/2018 was identified from the Mayo Clinic CLL database. RT cases with CNS involvement were further reviewed, with clinical characteristics, treatment and follow-up data abstracted. Overall survival (OS) was defined as time from CNS involvement to death from any cause and analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method. Results: Among 204 CLL patients with biopsy-proven RT, 15 patients had documented CNS involvement by imaging (parenchymal n=11, ocular n=1, parenchymal and ocular n=1, leptomeningeal n=1, cranial and spinal nerve roots n=1). Biopsy confirmation of CNS involvement was available in 11 patients. Of these 15 patients, 10 had CNS involvement at initial RT diagnosis, and 5 patients developed CNS involvement at RT progression, with a median time from RT diagnosis to CNS involvement of 14.9 months (range 2.8-41.1). Prior to RT, 11 patients (73.3%) received no treatment for CLL, 3 (53.4%) received chemoimmunotherapy (CIT) only (1-3 lines), and 1 patient (6.7%) received CIT (1 line) and ibrutinib. CLL FISH results were available in 9 patients, with del(17p) in 2, trisomy 12 in 2, del(13q) in 3, and normal results in 2. One patient had TP53 mutation (FISH result unavailable). IgHV mutation status was known in 3 patients and 1 was unmutated. The median time to RT was 4.4 years (range 0-11.4). The median age at RT diagnosis was 70 years (range 59-78), and 9 (60%) were male. The histology of RT was DLBCL in all 15 patients (diagnosed by CNS biopsy in 8 and other biopsies in 7), with GCB subtype in 6 and non-GCB subtype in 3. MYC rearrangement was detected in 4 of 6 patients tested, and 2 of those also had BCL-2 rearrangement (MYC/BCL-2 double hit). Of the 10 patients with CNS involvement at initial RT diagnosis, 4 had isolated CNS involvement (confirmed by brain biopsy [n=2] or vitreous biopsy [n=2]). All 4 patients were treated with high dose (HD) methotrexate (MTX) based regimen, and 3 patients achieved complete remission (CR) and underwent autologous stem cell transplant with continued CR, while 1 patient achieved partial remission and received whole brain radiotherapy (WBRT) at disease progression. Six patients had both systemic and CNS involvement (confirmed by brain biopsy [n=2] or CSF examination [n=2] in 4; the other 2 were diagnosed by imaging). All 6 patients received CNS directed therapy (HD MTX [n=5] or WBRT [n=1]) as well as systemic therapy (R-CHOP [n=5] or HyperCVAD [n=1]), with varied short duration of disease control (Figure 1A). Of the 5 patients who developed CNS involvement at RT progression (after 1-2 lines of therapy including first-line R-CHOP), 2 had isolated CNS involvement (1 was confirmed by CSF examination and the other was by imaging only). Both were treated with HD MTX based regimen, and 1 achieved a durable remission of 2 years but eventually had CNS relapse, while the other had no response and received WBRT with limited benefit. Three patients had both systemic and CNS involvement (2 were confirmed by CSF examination and the other was by imaging only), and all 3 patients were treated with HD MTX based regimen but all had CNS disease progression within 3 months (Figure 1A). The OS after CNS involvement for all 15 RT patients was 9.4 months (95% CI 2.3-19.1). Patients with CNS involvement at initial RT diagnosis had numerically longer OS compared to patients who developed CNS involvement at RT progression (median OS 13.0 vs 4.1 months, P = 0.137; Figure 1B). Patients with isolated CNS involvement had better OS compared to patients with both CNS and systemic involvement (median OS 32.0 vs 5.3 months, P = 0.009; Figure 1C). Three of the 4 patients who only had isolated CNS involvement at the time of RT diagnosis have ongoing long term remission and survival (Figure 1A). Conclusions: In this large series of RT, approximately 1 in 14 patients had CNS involvement. Patients with isolated CNS involvement appeared to have favorable long term outcome; however, RT patients with both systemic and CNS involvement had extremely poor survival. The incidence, molecular characteristics, and optimal management of RT with CNS involvement in the novel agent era warrant future multicenter studies. Disclosures Wang: Incyte: Research Funding; Innocare: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding. Parikh:GlaxoSmithKline: Honoraria; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; MorphoSys: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; AbbVie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Ascentage Pharma: Research Funding; Genentech: Honoraria; Verastem Oncology: Honoraria. Kay:Tolero Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bristol Meyer Squib: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Acerta Pharma: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; MEI Pharma: Research Funding; Sunesis: Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Agios Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Cytomx: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Morpho-sys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Rigel: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncotracker: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Dava Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Juno Theraputics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Witzig:AbbVie: Consultancy; MorphSys: Consultancy; Immune Design: Research Funding; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy; Spectrum: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding. Nowakowski:MorphoSys: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene/BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kite: Consultancy; Denovo: Consultancy; Kymera: Consultancy; Ryvu: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other; Curis: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Nanostrings: Research Funding. Ansell:Trillium: Research Funding; AI Therapeutics: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding. Kenderian:MorphoSys: Research Funding; Sunesis: Research Funding; Tolero: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Juno: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Kite: Research Funding; Novartis: Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Torque: Consultancy; Humanigen: Consultancy, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Lentigen: Research Funding; Mettaforge: Patents & Royalties. Ding:DTRM: Research Funding; Merck: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Beigene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; alexion: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; MEI Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Octapharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astra Zeneca: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding.

Introduction: Richter's syndrome (RS) represents transformation of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) into a highly aggressive lymphoma with dismal prognosis. Transcriptomic alterations have been described in CLL but most studies focused on peripheral blood samples with minimal data on RS-involved tissue. Moreover, transcriptomic features of RS have not been well defined in the era of CLL novel therapies. In this study we investigated transcriptomic profiles of CLL/RS-involved nodal tissue using samples from a clinical trial cohort of refractory CLL and RS patients treated with Pembrolizumab (NCT02332980). Methods: Nodal samples from 9 RS and 4 CLL patients in MC1485 trial cohort were reviewed and classified as previously published (Ding et al, Blood 2017). All samples were collected prior to Pembrolizumab treatment. Targeted gene expression profiling of 789 immune-related genes were performed on FFPE nodal samples using Nanostring nCounter® Analysis System (NanoString Technologies, Seattle, WA). Differential expression analysis was performed using NanoStringDiff. Genes with 2 fold-change in expression with a false-discovery rate less than 5% were considered differentially expressed. Results: The details for the therapy history of this cohort were illustrated in Figure 1a. All patients exposed to prior ibrutinib before the tissue biopsy had developed clinical progression while receiving ibrutinib. Unsupervised hierarchical clustering using the 300 most variable genes in expression revealed two clusters: C1 and C2 (Figure 1b). C1 included 4 RS and 3 CLL treated with prior chemotherapy without prior ibrutinib, and 1 RS treated with prior ibrutinib. C2 included 1 CLL and 3 RS received prior ibrutinib, and 1 RS treated with chemotherapy. The segregation of gene expression profiles in samples was largely driven by recent exposure to ibrutinib. In C1 cluster (majority had no prior ibrutinb), RS and CLL samples were clearly separated into two subgroups (Figure 1b). In C2 cluster, CLL 8 treated with ibrutinib showed more similarity in gene expression to RS, than to other CLL samples treated with chemotherapy. In comparison of C2 to C1, we identified 71 differentially expressed genes, of which 34 genes were downregulated and 37 were upregulated in C2. Among the upregulated genes in C2 (majority had prior ibrutinib) are known immune modulating genes including LILRA6, FCGR3A, IL-10, CD163, CD14, IL-2RB (figure 1c). Downregulated genes in C2 are involved in B cell activation including CD40LG, CD22, CD79A, MS4A1 (CD20), and LTB, reflecting the expected biological effect of ibrutinib in reducing B cell activation. Among the 9 RS samples, we compared gene profiles between the two groups of RS with or without prior ibrutinib therapy. 38 downregulated genes and 10 upregulated genes were found in the 4 RS treated with ibrutinib in comparison with 5 RS treated with chemotherapy. The top upregulated genes in the ibrutinib-exposed group included PTHLH, S100A8, IGSF3, TERT, and PRKCB, while the downregulated genes in these samples included MS4A1, LTB and CD38 (figure 1d). In order to delineate the differences of RS vs CLL, we compared gene expression profiles between 5 RS samples and 3 CLL samples that were treated with only chemotherapy. RS samples showed significant upregulation of 129 genes and downregulation of 7 genes. Among the most significantly upregulated genes are multiple genes involved in monocyte and myeloid lineage regulation including TNFSF13, S100A9, FCN1, LGALS2, CD14, FCGR2A, SERPINA1, and LILRB3. Conclusion: Our study indicates that ibrutinib-resistant, RS-involved tissues are characterized by downregulation of genes in B cell activation, but with PRKCB and TERT upregulation. Furthermore, RS-involved nodal tissues display the increased expression of genes involved in myeloid/monocytic regulation in comparison with CLL-involved nodal tissues. These findings implicate that differential therapies for RS and CLL patients need to be adopted based on their prior therapy and gene expression signatures. Studies using large sample size will be needed to verify this hypothesis. Figure Disclosures Zhao: Merck: Current Employment. Blumenschein:Merck: Current Employment. Yearley:Merck: Current Employment. Wang:Novartis: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Innocare: Research Funding. Parikh:Verastem Oncology: Honoraria; GlaxoSmithKline: Honoraria; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Research Funding; MorphoSys: Research Funding; Ascentage Pharma: Research Funding; Genentech: Honoraria; AbbVie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding. Kenderian:Sunesis: Research Funding; MorphoSys: Research Funding; Humanigen: Consultancy, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Tolero: Research Funding; Lentigen: Research Funding; Juno: Research Funding; Mettaforge: Patents & Royalties; Torque: Consultancy; Kite: Research Funding; Novartis: Patents & Royalties, Research Funding. Kay:Astra Zeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Acerta Pharma: Research Funding; Juno Theraputics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Dava Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncotracker: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sunesis: Research Funding; MEI Pharma: Research Funding; Agios Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol Meyer Squib: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Tolero Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Rigel: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Morpho-sys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Cytomx: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Braggio:DASA: Consultancy; Bayer: Other: Stock Owner; Acerta Pharma: Research Funding. Ding:DTRM: Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Merck: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Octapharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; MEI Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; alexion: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Beigene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.