Citations

Abstract Background: High dose chemotherapy with stem cell transplant is currently employed in relapsed/refractory aggressive Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma (NHL). Lenalidomide (Revlimid®), an immunomodulatory drug, has shown activity in hematological malignancies including relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma, chronic lymphocytic leukemia and cutaneous T-cell lymphoma. Aim: To determine the activity and safety of lenalidomide monotherapy in relapsed/refractory aggressive NHL following stem cell transplant (SCT). Methods: Patients with relapsed/refractory aggressive NHL with measurable disease ≥ 2 cm after at least 1 prior treatment regimen were eligible. Patients received 25 mg lenalidomide orally once daily on Days 1–21 every 28 days and continued therapy for 52 weeks as tolerated or until disease progression. Response and progression were evaluated using the IWLRC methodology. Results: Fourteen (29%) of the 49 patients enrolled into the study had a prior SCT. Median age was 61 (23–76) and 5 were female. Histology was diffuse large B-cell lymphoma [DLBCL] (n=5), follicular center lymphoma grade 3 [FL] (n=2), mantle cell lymphoma [MCL] (n=5) and transformed [TSF] (n=2). Median time from diagnosis to lenalidomide was 3.9 (1.1–31.4) years and median time from SCT to study entry was 1.9 (0.5–11.7) years. The median number of prior treatment regimens was 5 (2–8). Seven patients (50%) exhibited an objective response (1 complete response unconfirmed (CRu), and 6 partial responses (PR)), 5 had stable disease (SD) and 2 patients had progressive disease (PD). Six responses were in eight patients having a tumor burden < 50 cm2 and a time since last rituximab therapy of ≥ 230 days. One response was achieved in six patients having a tumor burden ≥ 50 cm2 or a time since last rituximab therapy of < 230 days. Four of 6 (67%) patients who had SCT as their last treatment prior to lenalidomide [median time from SCT to lenalidomide = 0.8 (0.5–4.8) years] responded. Progression free survival [PFS] is 4.5 months and ongoing. Six patients (43%) required at least one dose reduction with a median time to first dose reduction of 1.6 months (0.4–4.9). Two patients each (14%) had Grade 4 adverse events of neutropenia and thrombocytopenia. The most common Grade 3 adverse events were neutropenia (36%), thrombocytopenia (21%), and leukopenia (14%). Conclusion: Lenalidomide produced a 50% response rate with manageable side effects in relapsed/refractory aggressive NHL following stem cell transplant.

Abstract Background: Lenalidomide (Revlimid®) has been reported to show activity in non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma (NHL). However, prognostic factors predicting an individual patient’s response were unavailable. Aim: To investigate prognostic factors for lenalidomide response in patients with relapsed/refractory aggressive NHL. Methods: Patients with relapsed/refractory aggressive NHL with measurable disease ≥2 cm after at least 1 prior treatment regimen were eligible. Patients received 25 mg lenalidomide orally once daily on Days 1-21 every 28 days and continued therapy for 52 weeks as tolerated or until disease progression. Response and progression were evaluated using the IWLRC methodology. Univariate analyses using Fisher’s exact test and multivariate analyses using logistic regression were conducted to investigate associations of prognostic variables with response. Results: Forty-nine patients received lenalidomide oral monotherapy. The median age was 65 (23-86) and 24 were female. Histology was diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (n=26), follicular center lymphoma grade 3 (n=5), mantle cell lymphoma (n=15) and transformed (n=3). Median time from diagnosis was 2.7 (0.4-32) years and median number of prior treatment regimens was 4 (1-8). Forty-five (92%) of the patients had received prior rituximab and 63% were rituximab-refractory. Seventeen patients (35%) exhibited an objective response (2 complete responses, 4 complete responses unconfirmed and 11 partial responses). Response to lenalidomide was the same for patients who were refractory to rituximab (30%) and those who were not (31%). Three of 4 patients who were rituximab naive responded. Multivariate analysis including IPI, ECOG PS, stage, LDH, # of extranodal sites, age, sex, # of prior regimens and time from diagnosis identified only time since last rituximab and tumor burden as correlated with response. Response to lenalidomide was associated with low tumor burden (52% for <50 cm2v 0% for ≥50 cm2, P=0.033, odds ratio=10.9) and longer time from rituximab to lenalidomide treatment (52% for ≥ 230 days v 6% for <230 days, P=0.031, odds ratio=6.6). Rituximab depletes normal host B-cells and the kinetics for their loss and recovery are consistent with the timing of lenalidomide activity following rituximab. This may be a basis for this effect. However other tumor/host biological factors may also play a role. Patients with favorable values for both prognostic factors (N=24) had a 67% response rate [RR] compared to a 4% RR for patients with unfavorable values (N=25; P< 0.001) and a progression free survival (ongoing) of 7.5 months v 1.9 months. Although absolute lymphocyte count was not selected as a prognostic indicator of response in the multivariate setting, a trend was evident in the univariate analysis (42% for > 0.6 × 109/L v 9% for ≤0.6 × 109/L, P=0.071). Conclusion: Tumor burden and host immune competence may determine the response of relapsed/refractory aggressive NHL to lenalidomide monotherapy.

e19063 Background: Constitutive activation of the JAK-STAT pathway has been reported in lymphomas, suggesting that targeting this pathway could show clinical benefit. Ruxolitinib phosphate, an oral JAK inhibitor represents a potential therapeutic agent for high grade lymphomas. This study is designed to investigate benefits of ruxolitinib in patients with relapsed or refractory PTCL and DLBCL Methods: Patients with relapsed/refractory DLBCL and aggressive T cell lymphomas who were ineligible for, or relapsed after, stem cell transplantation were eligible. Patients received ruxolitinib, at a dose of 10mg or 5mg BID, with gradual escalation to 25mg BID. Weekly hematological assessments were done during the first cycle, CT scans were done after every two cycles. Descriptive statistics for response to therapy were collected. Progression free survival (PFS), Overall survival (OS) curves were plotted using Kaplan-Meier method, comparisons between groups were made using the log rank test. Primary outcome of the study was to assess the overall response rate (ORR). Secondary objectives were to determine PFS, OS, duration of response and safety. Relationship between responses to oral ruxolitnib and gene expression profiling was explored. Results: Of the 60 patients enrolled, 25 patients had PTCL, 32 DLBCL, 3 pending path review. Median age was 62 yrs., 56.6% had stage IV disease. Median number of cycles received was 2 (min 1, max 60). At the time of evaluation, 76% patients had progressed on therapy. The median follow-up of patients was 3.7 months (min 0.9; max 61.4). Data for 41 patients was available for evaluation of response. Complete response (CR) was noted in 1 patient with PTCL. Partial response (PR) was noted in 1, stable disease (SD) in 4 patients. Among the responders, a PTCL patient with SD had a sustained response for 60 months, a patient with PR had a response duration of 31 months. The median OS and PFS were 5.9 and 1.8 months. PFS was 2.2 months in patients with PTCL and 1.8 months in DLBCL. Median OS was 5 months in patients with DLBCL, 6.9 months in PTCL. The estimated 6 month PFS and OS were 17% (95%CI: 9%, 28%) , 49% (95%CI: 35%, 62%). There was no difference in PFS or OS between PTCL and DLBCL (p = 0.42, p = 0.94). Grade 3 or higher adverse events were seen in 62%. Anemia was seen in 20%, thrombocytopenia in 8%, infections in 6%. Conclusions: Ruxolitinib can produce responses in some patients with relapsed/refractory NHL, particularly in patients with PTCL. It may play a role in combination therapies in future. Clinical trial information: NCT01431209.

7519 Background: Acalabrutinib, a highly selective, potent, covalent Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitor, has a 24% overall response rate (ORR) as a single agent in R/R DLBCL. Pem targets PD-1, an immune checkpoint that limits anticancer responses. Pem showed responses in patients (pts) with Richter transformation who failed ibrutinib and can augment acalabrutinib activity in vitro. This study assessed acalabrutinib + Pem in R/R DLBCL. Methods: Pts with DLBCL, ≥1 prior chemoimmunotherapy and no prior allogeneic transplant received acalabrutinib 100 mg PO BID until progressive disease (PD) + Pem 200 mg/kg IV Q3W up to 2 y. Germinal center B-cell (GCB) vs non-GCB subtype was assessed by immunohistochemistry. Primary endpoint was safety. Results: Sixty-one pts (30 GCB; 31 non-GCB) were accrued, with a median age (range) of 67 y (30-85) and a median of 3 (1-8) prior therapies; 1 pt had prior autologous transplant. The most common Gr 3/4 adverse events (AEs) were neutropenia (15%) and anemia (11%). Gr 5 AEs were respiratory failure (n=3), sepsis, septic shock and abdominal abscess (n=1 each). All Gr atrial fibrillation was 5% (n=3), and major hemorrhage (≥ Gr 3) was 11% (4 gastrointestinal, 1 pulmonary, 1 epistaxis, 1 hematuria). Gr 3/4 immune-mediated events were elevated alanine aminotransferase (n=4), pneumonitis (n=2) and colitis (n=1). The ORR was 26% (Table) and was similar in GCB (27%) and non-GCB (26%) tumors. The median time on study was 5.2 mo (0.4-30.4+). Acalabrutinib/Pem discontinuations were due to PD (62%/56%) and AEs (15%/26%). As of June 2018, 10 pts remain on study; 6 on active therapy and 7 without PD. Conclusions: Acalabrutinib + Pem was well tolerated, with meaningful activity and some exceptional responders (>24 mo) in these R/R DLBCL pts. Randomized trials of the combination vs single agent are needed. Clinical trial information: NCT02362035. [Table: see text]

8533 Background: Mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) is an aggressive form of non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) with poor prognosis. The immunomodulatory agent lenalidomide shows consistent activity with tolerable safety in multiple phase II studies of relapsed/refractory aggressive NHL (NHL-002 and NHL-003) and MCL post-bortezomib (MCL-001). This pooled analysis further examined the efficacy and safety of single-agent lenalidomide in patients with relapsed/refractory MCL. Methods: Single-agent lenalidomide was given 25 mg/d PO on days 1-21 of 28-day cycles as tolerated for 52 weeks (NHL-002) or until disease progression (NHL-003 and MCL-001). All MCL patients received ≥1 prior treatment, including bortezomib in MCL-001. Efficacy data were examined by independent central review for MCL-001 and NHL-003 and by investigators for NHL-002. Results: 206 patients with relapsed/refractory MCL were studied. The median age was 67 y (range 33-84; 63% ≥65 y), 91% stage III/IV disease and 51% had received ≥4 prior regimens (76% prior bortezomib). Overall response rate (ORR) with lenalidomide was 32% (10% CR/CRu), with a median time to response of 2.1 months and median duration of response (DOR) of 16.6 months (not yet reached in patients with CR/CRu; Table). Kaplan-Meier estimates for median PFS and OS were 5.4 and 23.9 months, respectively. Mean daily dose of lenalidomide was 21 mg. Grade 3/4 AEs included neutropenia (44%), thrombocytopenia (29%), anemia (11%), and fatigue (7%). Other any-grade AEs included tumor flare reaction (7%), venous thromboembolic events (7%), and invasive second primary malignancies (3%). Conclusions: Lenalidomide produced rapid and durable responses in patients with relapsed/refractory MCL, and exhibited a predictable safety profile among 3 phase II studies of lenalidomide in heavily pretreated patients, including prior treatment with bortezomib. Clinical trial information: MCL-001: NCT00737529; NHL-002: NCT00179660; NHL-003: NCT00413036. [Table: see text]

8060 Background: ENKL is a rare and aggressive subtype of peripheral T-cell lymphoma. Due to its geographic predilection there is a paucity of data on clinical experiences from non-Asian countries. The purpose of this study was to analyze characteristics and outcomes of patients (pts) with ENKL identified from major academic centers in NA. Methods: Pts with newly diagnosed CD56+ ENKL were retrospectively identified. Analyses included disease characteristics, ethnicity, therapy, and outcomes. Results: 115 pts (63.5% Caucasian, 20% Asian, 16.5% other) were identified across 10 centers diagnosed between 5/1990-5/2011 (Era 1: pre-2000, n=16; Era 2: 2000-2005, n=45; Era 3: post-2005, n=54). Median age was 52 years (19-88). 75 (65%) had stage I/II disease and were treated with combined modality therapy (CMT) n=48, chemotherapy (CT) n=14 or radiotherapy (RT) n=14. 40 pts had stage III/IV disease and were treated with CT (n=23), CMT (n=12) or RT (n=5). CT regimens used alone or in CMT were either anthracycline-based (n=68) or other (n=29). 63% of stage I/II pts and 40% with stage III/IV achieved complete remission (CR). 30 pts underwent a stem cell transplant (SCT); 14 in first CR and 16 at progression/relapse (autologous, n=21; allogeneic, n=9). Pts with stage I/II disease had a better progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) compared with stage III/IV (12 vs 5.2 months (p=0.003) and 41.5 vs 8.9 months (p<0.0001), respectively). For all stages, treatment with CMT compared with CT or RT alone was also associated with better PFS and OS, 18.0 vs 3.9 months (p<0.0001), and 41.5 vs 10.2 months (p=0.002) respectively. Non-anthracycline-based regimens were associated with better PFS (p=0.001) and OS (p=0.045). No survival differences were seen between Asian and non-Asian pts. Conclusions: This series represents one of the largest experiences of ENKL in NA. Our data are consistent with Asian studies in: 1) majority of pts present with early stage disease; 2) overall poor outcome; 3) superiority of CMT and non-anthracycline regimens. Advances in understanding biology and international collaborative efforts are required to improve outcome in this rare entity.

8066 Background: Lenalidomide, an immunomodulatory drug, is approved in the US for treatment of relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma and myelodysplastic syndromes associated with a deletion 5q[31] cytogenetic abnormality. Lenalidomide also has activity in chronic lymphocytic leukemia and cutaneous T-cell lymphoma. This study was designed to assess the safety and efficacy of lenalidomide monotherapy in patients with relapsed/refractory indolent non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL). Methods: Patients with relapsed/refractory indolent NHL with measurable disease after at least 1 prior treatment regimen were eligible. Patients received 25 mg lenalidomide orally once daily on Days 1–21 every 28 days and continued therapy for 52 weeks as tolerated or until disease progression. Response and progression were evaluated using the IWLRC methodology. Results: As of enrollment cut-off, 43 patients received drug and 27 were evaluable for response. The median age was 63 (43–82) and 12 were female. Histology was small lymphocytic lymphoma [SLL] (n=12), follicular center lymphoma grades 1,2 [FCL] (n=12) and nodal marginal B-cell lymphoma [NML] (n=3). Median time from diagnosis to lenalidomide was 4.3 (0.4- 24) years and median number of prior treatment regimens was 3 (1–17). Seven patients (26%) exhibited an objective response (2 complete responses (CR), 1 complete response unconfirmed (CRu) and 4 partial responses (PR)), 9 had stable disease (SD) for a tumor control rate (TCR) of 59% and 11 progressive disease (PD). Responses were produced in each of the indolent histologic subtypes studied: SLL (3/12), FCL (3/12) and NML (1/3). Since most responses develop at ≥ 4 months, additional responses may be seen in early SD patients with longer follow-up. Five patients (12%) exhibited Grade 4 neutropenia, and Grade 3 adverse events were neutropenia (16%) and thrombocytopenia (14%). Conclusion: Lenalidomide oral monotherapy is active with manageable side effects in relapsed/refractory indolent NHL. [Table: see text]

Introduction MCL is a rare cancer, and current clinical practice guidelines list multiple reasonable treatment options for MCL. It can be challenging to select treatment (Tx) that optimizes outcomes for patients with a mixture of presenting features. In 2014, we developed an online MCL decision support tool designed to provide expert guidance on optimal treatment for defined patient scenarios. An analysis of the 2014 tool showed that Tx recommendations of community healthcare providers (HCPs) did not consistently align with experts for many patients with MCL (Gopalsamy, et al. Leuk Lymphoma. 2019 Mar 8:1-9). Here we report data from an updated version (2018) of this tool that captures evolving practice patterns among experts and community HCPs and the differences between these 2 groups. Methods In September 2018, a panel of 5 experts provided Tx recommendations for 240 patient scenarios in newly diagnosed or relapsed/refractory MCL. These distinct scenarios were defined by patient and disease characteristics that the experts considered important when making treatment choices, including disease setting, patient age and fitness, cytogenetic information, LDH and Ki67 levels, and information on any previous lines of therapy. To use the tool, HCPs entered specific patient/disease characteristics using expert-defined options along with the Tx planned for each case. The users were then shown the 5 MCL expert recommendations and were asked to indicate the impact of the expert recommendations on their planned Tx approach. Results A total of 387 HCPs entered 654 patient scenarios in the 2018 online tool. For HCPs who answered an optional question on how many patients with MCL they treat per year (n = 145), 81% indicated that they treated 10 or fewer patients with MCL per year, highlighting the rarity of this disease and lack of experience among many HCPs. Furthermore, 74% of these HCPs indicated that they refer &lt; 50% of their patients with MCL for clinical trials or to academic institutions for treatment. Among experts, the primary consensus for initial Tx recommendations for younger, fit patients with MCL were bendamustine/rituximab (BR) and R-HyperCVAD in both 2014 and 2018. In comparison, HCPs chose these 2 regimens for a minority of these patients with newly diagnosed MCL in both editions of the tool. For older or unfit patients, experts predominantly recommended BR (85% in 2014 and 75% in 2018), whereas only 35% to 40% of HCPs would choose this regimen in this setting (Table). Of note, nearly 20% of the HCPs indicated that they would recommend a very aggressive chemotherapy regimen for older or unfit patients. For patients with disease progression after chemoimmunotherapy, the recommendation of ibrutinib-based therapy increased among experts from 2014 to 2018 from 66% to 100%. By contrast, the percentage of HCPs using ibrutinib-based therapy remained low at 29% or 37% in the 2014 and 2018 tools, respectively. Another 14% of HCPs selected acalabrutinib, another approved BTK inhibitor, in 2018. In addition, approximately 20% of HCPs in both 2014 and 2018 were unsure of the optimal use of additional therapy (eg, ASCT or maintenance therapy) for their patients. Among users who answered an optional question on the tool's clinical impact, 47% indicated the expert recommendations changed their planned Tx and 38% indicated that expert recommendations confirmed their approach. Conclusions The analysis of data from this online tool found several areas of expert consensus regarding Tx for patients with MCL, particularly for patients who are progressing after initial chemoimmunotherapy. However, practice patterns of community HCPs did not align with expert recommendations for the majority of cases entered into the tool. The consistent Tx gap between practice patterns of community HCPs and expert recommendations over this time period suggests a continued need for online decision tools like this and other innovative approaches to involve experts in the care of patients with MCL. A detailed comparison of expert and user data from the online tool will be presented. Disclosures Ansell: LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Trillium: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Affimed: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Trillium: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Regeneron: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding. Leonard:Nordic Nanovector: Consultancy; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy; Sutro Biopharma: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; MorphoSys: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; Nordic Nanovector: Consultancy; Akcea Therapeutics: Consultancy; MorphoSys: Consultancy; Miltenyi: Consultancy; Epizyme, Inc: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Bayer Corporation: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; Genentech, Inc./F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Bayer Corporation: Consultancy; Genentech, Inc./F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Consultancy; Sutro Biopharma: Consultancy; Epizyme, Inc: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; Sandoz: Consultancy; Akcea Therapeutics: Consultancy; Miltenyi: Consultancy; Sandoz: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy. Vose:Acerta Pharma: Honoraria, Other: Grants, Research Funding; Bristol-Meyers Squibb Company: Research Funding; Celgene Corporation: Research Funding; Incyte Corporation: Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Honoraria, Other: Grants, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Epizyme: Consultancy, Honoraria; Legend Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria. Wang:BioInvent: Consultancy, Research Funding; Dava Oncology: Honoraria; Aviara: Research Funding; Juno Therapeutics: Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; VelosBio: Research Funding; Acerta Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Guidepoint Global: Consultancy; MoreHealth: Consultancy, Equity Ownership; Loxo Oncology: Research Funding. Flowers:BeiGene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Denovo Biopharma: Consultancy; Millenium/Takeda: Research Funding; V Foundation: Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy; Acerta: Research Funding; Genentech, Inc./F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Burroughs Wellcome Fund: Research Funding; Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group: Research Funding; National Cancer Institute: Research Funding; Optimum Rx: Consultancy; Spectrum: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics/Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy.

Introduction Brentuximab vedotin (BV) targets CD30, a receptor expressed on the Reed-Sternberg cells of classic Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL). Nivolumab (Nivo) restores antitumor immunity by blocking the PD-1 receptor on activated T-cells. In this phase 1/2 study, combination treatment (tx) with BV + Nivo demonstrated durable efficacy in patients (pts) with relapsed/refractory (R/R) cHL (Herrera, Blood 2018; NCT02572167). Biomarkers consistent with innate and adaptive immune activation were observed in the peripheral blood of pts treated with the combination regimen. Herein, we associate biomarkers in the peripheral blood with clinical response, and present follow-up results for pts who received BV + Nivo under staggered and concurrent dosing schedules. Methods Enrolled pts had cHL that relapsed or was refractory to frontline chemotherapy. In Parts 1 and 2 (staggered dosing), pts received up to 4 cycles of BV 1.8 mg/kg and Nivo 3.0 mg/kg given on Days 1 and 8 of Cycle 1, respectively, and together on Day 1 of Cycles 2-4. Pts in Part 3 (concurrent dosing) received the same dose of both agents on Day 1 of all 4 cycles. After investigators assessed response (Cheson 2014, with the incorporation of LYRIC [Cheson 2016] for pts in Part 3), pts could undergo ASCT. Results Demographics and baseline characteristics were similar across all treated pts (N=91) in the staggered and concurrent dosing cohorts; median age 34 years (yrs, range; 18-69), 42% with primary refractory disease, and 30% with relapse within 1 yr of frontline therapy. All 91 pts are off-tx and have been observed through the 100-day safety reporting period. A total of 86 pts (92%) completed all 4 cycles of BV + Nivo. Early tx discontinuations were due to; AE (peripheral neuropathy and increased GGT [1 pt each]), progressive disease (PD), investigator decision, and pt decision (1 pt each). Most common AEs prior to ASCT or additional salvage therapy were nausea (52%) and infusion-related reactions (IRRs, 43%). Excluding IRRs, 14% of pts had immune-related AEs requiring tx with systemic steroids, including rash (8%), pneumonitis (4%), and AST increased, diarrhea, and Guillain-Barre syndrome (1% each). The ORR for all-treated pts was 85%, with 67% complete response (CR). A total of 67 pts (74%) underwent ASCT after tx with BV + Nivo. There were 22 pts who received additional salvage therapy after BV + Nivo (7 PD, 6 partial response, 5 stable disease, and 4 CR at EOT), 17 of whom later underwent ASCT. At a median of 22.6 months (range; 1.2, 41.2) from the start of tx, the estimated 2-yr PFS rate in all treated pts was 78%, and for pts who underwent ASCT after tx with BV + Nivo was 91% (Figure 1). At 2 years, the estimated OS rate for all treated pts was 93%. Staggered and concurrent dosing of BV + Nivo resulted in increased levels of activated and dividing CD4+ T cells, activated and dividing CD8+ T cells (concurrent dosing-only), regulatory T cells (Tregs), and circulating plasmablasts in blood. We did not observe any associations between the magnitude of these changes and clinical response. Pts with CR exhibited trends for higher pre-tx blood levels of CD30+ Tregs and CD30+ Th subsets compared to pts without CR, suggesting BV depletion of these populations may have a role in the clinical mode of action of BV + Nivo. Although pre-tx levels of cytotoxic lymphocytes (CTLs) in blood did not differentiate pts with CR from other pts, pts in the lower quartile of pre-tx CTL levels showed significantly shorter PFS than other pts, suggesting a potential association between CTLs and disease control. Changes in blood cytokine and chemokine levels were observed after BV + Nivo, including increased levels of IL-18, IP-10, I-TAC, and sCD30, and decreased levels of TARC, IL-2Ra, and IL-6. Our analyses support strong correlations between pre-tx cytokine/chemokine levels and clinical benefit including trends linking lower pre-tx levels of IL-18, I-TAC, and IL-2RA to achieving CR and longer PFS. Conclusion BV + Nivo, both staggered and current dosing, showed tolerability and high CR rates with durable remissions among pts with R/R cHL. Analysis of blood biomarkers identified trends potentially linking baseline levels of CD30+ immune cells and the baseline pt inflammatory state with the activity of BV + Nivo. Together, these encouraging results support further investigation of BV + Nivo as initial salvage therapy in pts with R/R cHL. Figure 1 Disclosures Moskowitz: Kyowa Hakko Kirin Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Erytech Pharma: Consultancy; Erytech Pharma: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; Merck: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Cell Medica: Consultancy; Takeda Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Merck: Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Erytech Pharma: Consultancy; Takeda Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Incyte: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kyowa Hakko Kirin Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Cell Medica: Consultancy; Takeda Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Cell Medica: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; Incyte: Research Funding; Takeda Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Takeda Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Merck: Research Funding; Kyowa Hakko Kirin Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Cell Medica: Consultancy; Kyowa Hakko Kirin Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Kyowa Hakko Kirin Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kyowa Hakko Kirin Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Cell Medica: Consultancy; miRagen Therapeutics Inc: Consultancy, Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Takeda Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Cell Medica: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; Erytech Pharma: Consultancy; Erytech Pharma: Consultancy; Erytech Pharma: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Erytech Pharma: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; miRagen Therapeutics Inc: Consultancy, Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; miRagen Therapeutics Inc: Consultancy, Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Cell Medica: Consultancy; Kyowa Hakko Kirin Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Erytech Pharma: Consultancy; Takeda Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Takeda Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Merck: Research Funding; Takeda Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Kyowa Hakko Kirin Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Cell Medica: Consultancy; Kyowa Hakko Kirin Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kyowa Hakko Kirin Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; Merck: Research Funding; Kyowa Hakko Kirin Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; Incyte: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Cell Medica: Consultancy; Incyte: Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; Erytech Pharma: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Erytech Pharma: Consultancy; Takeda Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Takeda Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Cell Medica: Consultancy; Kyowa Hakko Kirin Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Cell Medica: Consultancy; Erytech Pharma: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Erytech Pharma: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; miRagen Therapeutics Inc: Consultancy, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; miRagen Therapeutics Inc: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kyowa Hakko Kirin Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kyowa Hakko Kirin Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; miRagen Therapeutics Inc: Consultancy, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Cell Medica: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; miRagen Therapeutics Inc: Consultancy, Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; miRagen Therapeutics Inc: Consultancy, Research Funding; miRagen Therapeutics Inc: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kyowa Hakko Kirin Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; miRagen Therapeutics Inc: Consultancy, Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Erytech Pharma: Consultancy; Erytech Pharma: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; Incyte: Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; miRagen Therapeutics Inc: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; miRagen Therapeutics Inc: Consultancy, Research Funding; miRagen Therapeutics Inc: Consultancy, Research Funding; miRagen Therapeutics Inc: Consultancy, Research Funding; miRagen Therapeutics Inc: Consultancy, Research Funding; Cell Medica: Consultancy; Cell Medica: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Erytech Pharma: Consultancy; Takeda Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; Cell Medica: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Advani:Celmed: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Research Funding; Forty-Seven: Research Funding; Infinity Pharma: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Gilead Sciences, Inc./Kite Pharma, Inc.: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Regeneron: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kyowa Kirin Pharmaceutical Developments, Inc.: Consultancy; Merck: Research Funding; Kura: Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Autolus: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Agensys: Research Funding; Cell Medica, Ltd: Consultancy; Stanford University: Employment, Equity Ownership; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Millennium: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Roche/Genentech: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Bartlett:Affimed Therapeutics: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Dynavax: Research Funding; Forty-Seven: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Immune Design: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Medimmune: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Millennium: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Vose:Acerta Pharma: Honoraria, Other: Grants, Research Funding; Bristol-Meyers Squibb Company: Research Funding; Celgene Corporation: Research Funding; Incyte Corporation: Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Honoraria, Other: Grants, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Epizyme: Consultancy, Honoraria; Legend Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria. Ramchandren:Genentech: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics LLC, an Abbvie company: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Sandoz-Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Feldman:Takeda: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses, Speakers Bureau; AbbVie: Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses, Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Kite Pharma: Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses, Speakers Bureau; 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; Eisai: Research Funding; Kyowa Hakko Kirin: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Portola Pharma: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Viracta: Research Funding. LaCasce:BMS: Consultancy; Research to Practice: Speakers Bureau; Humanigen: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding. Christian:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Genentech: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Cephalon: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Immunomedics: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; Triphase: Research Funding; Millennium Pharmaceuticals Inc: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding. Ansell:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Affimed: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding. Moskowitz:ADC Therapeutics: Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding. Brown:Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership. Taft:Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership. Ansari:Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership. Zak:Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership. Sacchi:Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Research Funding. Manley:Seattle Genetics: Employment, Equity Ownership. Herrera:Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Immune Design: Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech, Inc.: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gilead Sciences: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding.

Introduction: Axicabtagene Ciloleucel (axi-cel), a CD19 chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy, was approved for the treatment of relapsed/refractory aggressive B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma in October, 2017. In the ZUMA-1 trial leading to axi-cel FDA approval, patients (pts) with prior or active secondary central nervous system (CNS) lymphoma involvement were excluded. A recent publication of 8 pts with secondary CNS lymphoma who underwent Tisagenlecleucel CAR T cell therapy was reported (Frigault M.J.2019). Since the two FDA approved CAR T cell products have a different neurotoxicity profile, understanding outcomes of axi-cel in this setting is important. We report here the real-world experience of 17 pts treated with axi-cel who had a history of secondary CNS involvement or had active CNS disease at time of CAR T infusion. Methods: Seventeen academic centers from the US Lymphoma CAR T Consortium contributed data independently from the manufacturer. Data regarding secondary CNS involvement, management, and outcome were obtained in addition to CAR T therapy outcome for pts who were identified as having active, secondary CNS involvement at the time of evaluation for CAR-T therapy. Nine centers reported data on 17 cases with CNS involvement. Follow-up data was missing for one pt in the CNS cohort. Lee criteria or the modified Lee grading scale were used for cytokine release syndrome (CRS). CTCAEv4 or CARTOX grading were used for immune effector cells associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS). All leukapheresed pts were included in the intention to treat (ITT) analysis for response rate and event-free survival (EFS). EFS was defined as date of leukapheresis until progression or death due to any cause. EFS was evaluated using Kaplan Meier curves with log-rank test. Differences in clinical characteristics and response between CNS and non-CNS pts were not formally tested due to small sample size and multiple comparison concerns. Results: With a data cut-off of 4/30/2019, 300 pts underwent leukapheresis with intention to manufacture standard of care axi-cel. By the time of leukapheresis, 17 (6%) had secondary CNS involvement (4 parenchymal disease, 10 leptomeningeal/CSF, 3 data not available). Compared to the non-CNS cohort, baseline demographics were comparable (Panel A). Manufactured axi-cel was within specification for 100% of the CNS cohort. There was a higher rate of bridging therapy use in the CNS cohort 82% (1 steroids only, 2 radiation therapy, 12 systemic therapy) vs 52% in non-CNS cohort; p=0.022. Time from leukapheresis to CAR T infusion was 3.5 days longer in the CNS cohort as opposed to the non-CNS cohort: median time of 29.5 (range 20-76) vs. 26 days (range 5-67), (p=0.029), respectively. The CAR T infusion rate was 88% for the CNS cohort (15/17) compared to 93% (262/283) in the non-CNS cohort. Among the 15 infused pts in the CNS cohort, 10 had resolution of CNS involvement, and 5 had persistent active CNS disease at time of CAR T infusion. After axi-cel infusion, the incidence of CRS and ICANS, of any grade or grade 3 or higher, were comparable between the CNS and non-CNS cohorts. Tocilizumab and steroid use were comparable between the two groups (Panel B). No seizures or cerebral edema were noted in the CNS cohort. With a median follow-up of 10.1 months from leukapheresis (range 7.6-12.6), the ITT best overall response rates (CR+PR) and ongoing responses at month 6 between CNS and non-CNS cohorts were 75% vs. 59%, and 41% vs. 31%, respectively (Panel B). In the 5 pts with active CNS disease at time of CAR T infusion, the response of CNS disease were 2 CR, 1 PR and 2 PD as best response. In the 10 pts with resolved CNS disease at time of CAR T infusion, 2 PD were seen and both occurred systemically. EFS from leukapheresis was not statistically significantly different between CNS and non-CNS cohorts (6 months EFS: CNS cohort, 36%; non-CNS cohort 57%. HR=1.58, 95% CI: 0.83-3.01, p=0.16, Panel C). Six month EFS from the date of infusion for the CNS cohort was 49.9% (Panel D). Conclusions: Pts attempting CAR T therapy with secondary CNS disease in the real world setting had similar rates of CAR T infusion, toxicity, and outcomes when compared to patients without CNS disease. Small sample size and limited follow-up caution the strength of conclusions for application to clinical practice, but these results support further investigation of CAR T in pts with history of or active secondary CNS lymphoma. Figure Disclosures Bennani: Seattle Genetics: Other: Advisory board; Adicet Bio: Other: Advisory board; Purdue Pharma: Other: Advisory board; Purdue Pharma: Other: Advisory board; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Purdue Pharma: Other: Advisory board; Seattle Genetics: Other: Advisory board; Kite Pharma: Other: Advisory board; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Other: Advisory board; Seattle Genetics: Other: Advisory board; Adicet Bio: Other: Advisory board; Adicet Bio: Other: Advisory board; Kite Pharma: Other: Advisory board. Maurer:Celgene: Research Funding; Nanostring: Research Funding; Morphosys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Nastoupil:Bayer: Honoraria; Spectrum: Honoraria; TG Therapeutics: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead: Honoraria; Genentech, Inc.: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding. Jain:Kite/Gilead: Consultancy. Chavez:Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kite: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Genentech: 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; Karyopharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bayer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Cashen:Seattle Genetics: Other: Speaker's Bureau; Novartis: Other: Speaker's Bureau; Celgene: Other: Speaker's Bureau. Reagan:Kite, A Gilead Company: Consultancy; Curis: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Oluwole:Pfizer: Consultancy; Spectrum: Consultancy; Gilead Sciences: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy. McGuirk:Novartis: Research Funding; Fresenius Biotech: Research Funding; Astellas: Research Funding; 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; ArticulateScience LLC: Other: Assistance with manuscript preparation; Juno Therapeutics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Deol:Novartis: Other: Advisory board; Kite: Other: Advisory board; Agios: Other: Advisory board. Sehgal:Juno/Celgene: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Kite/Gilead: Research Funding. Goy:COTA: Equity Ownership, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: leadership role for profit healthcare company; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astrazenca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; University of Nebraska: Research Funding; Hakensackumc: Research Funding; Takeda: Other: Grants outside of the submitted work; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Grants outside of the submitted work; Pharmacyclics/Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Grants outside of the submitted work, Research Funding; Genentech: Other: Grants outside of the submitted work, Research Funding; Hackensack University Medical Center, RCCA: Employment; Acerta: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Grants outside of the submitted work, Research Funding. Hill:Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; TG therapeutics: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria; Kite: Consultancy, Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celegene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding. Vu:Celgene: Other: Stock. Andreadis:Genentech: Equity Ownership, Other: Spouse is Employee; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy. Munoz:Incyte: Research Funding; Portola: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; AstraZeneca: Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics LLC an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Fosunkite: Speakers Bureau; Kyowa: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Vose:Acerta Pharma: Honoraria, Other: Grants, Research Funding; Bristol-Meyers Squibb Company: Research Funding; Celgene Corporation: Research Funding; Incyte Corporation: Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Honoraria, Other: Grants, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Epizyme: Consultancy, Honoraria; Legend Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria. Miklos:Miltenyi Biotech: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Becton Dickinson: Research Funding; AlloGene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Precision Bioscience: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kite-Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Juno: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Locke:Kite: Other: Scientific Advisor; Novartis: Other: Scientific Advisor; Cellular BioMedicine Group Inc.: Consultancy. Neelapu:Unum Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy; Poseida: Research Funding; Allogene: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; Karus: Research Funding; Precision Biosciences: Consultancy; Cell Medica: Consultancy; Acerta: Research Funding; Cellectis: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy. Lin:Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Juno: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kite/Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BlueBird Bio: 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; Sorrento: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.