Citations

Rationale, aims, and objectives: Post-hospitalization follow-up within 30 days following discharge has been shown to positively impact time to readmission, healthcare costs, and patient self-reported adherence and satisfaction. We aimed to improve resident satisfaction with the process of establishing post-hospitalization, primary care provider (PCP) follow-up. Methods: In this quality improvement study we surveyed all internal medicine residents at our institution regarding their satisfaction with the process of establishing PCP follow-up at the time of hospital discharge. A streamlined process was developed and two subsequent interventions were enacted; a dedicated teaching session and distribution of pocket cards outlining the process. Residents were then surveyed following each intervention to assess for impact on overall satisfaction and burden of work. Results: Initially, 77.3% of residents were not satisfied with the process of establishing post-hospitalization PCP follow-up. Following the first intervention there was a trend towards increasing satisfaction rates by 16.7% (p= 0.20), and after the second intervention there was a statistically significant increase in satisfaction rates from baseline by 44% (p= 0.007). There was also a reduction in the feeling of workload burden associated with establishing PCP follow-up from 32% to 25%, and over 67% of participants either agreed or strongly agreed that the workload was not too burdensome. Conclusion: This quality improvement initiative established that resident physicians at our institution previously found the process of establishing PCP follow-up at the time of patient discharge both confusing and burdensome. Through the implementation of our interventions we were able to achieve our aims of improving resident satisfaction.

AbstractThe scope of pharmacy practice in global health has expanded over the past decade creating additional education and training opportunities for students, residents and pharmacists. There has also been a shift from short‐term educational and clinical experiences to more sustainable bidirectional partnerships between high‐income countries (HICs) and low‐ to middle‐income countries (LMICs). As more institutional and individual partnerships between HICs and LMICs begin to form, it is clear that there is a lack of guidance for pharmacists on how to build meaningful, sustainable, and mutually beneficial programs. The aim of this paper is to provide guidance for pharmacists in HICs to make informed decisions on global health partnerships and identify opportunities for engagement in LMICs that yield mutually beneficial collaborations. This paper uses the foundations of global health principles to identify five pillars of global health engagement when developing partnerships: (a) sustainability, (b) shared leadership, (c) mutually beneficial partnerships, (d) local needs‐based care and (e) host‐driven experiential and didactic education. Finally, this paper highlights ways pharmacists can use the pillars as a framework to engage and support health care systems, collaborate with academic institutions, conduct research, and interface with governments to improve health policy.

BACKGROUND: Axi-cel is an autologous anti-CD19 chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy that is approved for treatment of relapsed/refractory (R/R) large B-cell lymphoma and is associated with high response rates and durable remissions. Recent data show that axi-cel is effective across various adverse prognostic features, namely cell of origin, disease bulkiness, and extranodal disease, among others. Hypoalbuminemia is a known adverse prognostic factor in lymphomas. It is unknown if axi-cel overcomes the adverse prognostic feature of hypoalbuminemia in R/R large B-cell or transformed follicular lymphoma. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis of patients treated with axi-cel across three Mayo Clinic campuses (Rochester, Jacksonville, and Phoenix) from 06/01/2018 until 04/01/2019. The primary objective of this analysis was to assess the impact of hypoalbuminemia (defined at day 0, prior to infusion) on outcome after axi-cel therapy. RESULTS: A total of 50 (male=37, 74%) patients (pts), median age of 53 (26-67) years received axi-cel. The median number of prior lines of therapy was 3 (2-8) (Table 1). Two pts had no available serum albumin levels at time of axi-cel infusion. Seven (15%) of 48 pts had serum albumin levels lower than 3.5 g/dL (median= 3.3 g/dL (range 2.6-3.4)) and the median follow up of survivors was 7.6 (1.9-14.3) months. The best overall response rate (ORR) and complete remission (CR) rates in these pts were 57% and 57%, respectively. One (14%) patient had stable disease and 2 (29%) had disease progression. The median overall survival (OS) for pts with hypoalbuminemia was not reached. On the other hand, 41 (85%) pts had a normal serum albumin level (median=4.0 (range 3.5-5.1) g/dL) and the median follow up for survivors was 6.3 months. The best objective response rate (ORR) and complete remission (CR) rates in these pts were 82% and 44%, respectively. The median OS for pts with normal serum albumin was 14 (95%CI=6.3-29.6) months. There was no significant difference at 6-months and 1-year OS between pts with hypoalbuminemia vs. those with normal baseline serum albumin levels [6-month=100% vs. 79%(95%CI=64-93%); 1-year (100% vs. 54% (95%CI=26-82%), p=0.17] (Figure 1). All grades cytokine release syndrome (CRS) was diagnosed in all 7 pts with hypoalbuminemia (100%) and in 38 of 41 (92%) pts without hypoalbuminemia. There was no difference in the median duration of CRS between pts with or without hypoalbuminemia [6 (range 1-11) days vs 5 (range 1-19) days, p=0.89]. Neurotoxicity (all grades) was observed in 5 (71%) pts with hypoalbuminemia compared 26 (63%) with normal albumin levels. There was no statistically significant difference in median duration of neurotoxicity between pts with hypoalbuminemia and those with normal baseline albumin levels [9 (range 1-10) days vs. 3 (range 0-25) days, p= 0.72]. CONCLUSIONS: Hypoalbuminemia does not have a significant impact on the outcomes of axi-cel therapy, including the incidence of CRS or neurotoxicity. These results need to be validated in a large collaborative multicenter study. Further investigation is needed to assess the prognostic impact of severe hypoalbuminemia (<3g/dL) on axi-cel therapy. Disclosures Ansell: Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Affimed: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Trillium: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding. Bennani:Seattle Genetics: Other: Advisory board; Kite Pharma: Other: Advisory board; Seattle Genetics: Other: Advisory board; Adicet Bio: Other: Advisory board; Seattle Genetics: Other: Advisory board; Purdue Pharma: Other: Advisory board; Adicet Bio: Other: Advisory board; Purdue Pharma: Other: Advisory board; Purdue Pharma: Other: Advisory board; Adicet Bio: Other: Advisory board; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Other: Advisory board; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Other: Advisory board. Paludo:Verily Life Sciences: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Verily Life Sciences: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Tun:DTRM Biopharma: Research Funding; Mundi-pharma: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Curis: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding. Foran:Agios: Honoraria, Research Funding. Kharfan-Dabaja:Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy.

Background: Chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) therapy has revolutionized the treatment of relapsed/refractory B-cell lymphoid malignancies. Axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel), an anti-CD19 CAR-T not only targets the malignant B-cell, but can potentially also target and eliminate normal B-cells. This can interfere with the normal B-cell repertoire, compromising host humoral immunity such as decreased titers of common vaccines (DTaP, MMR). To assess if this was a clinically significant problem, we evaluated all recipients of axi-cel at our center between 6/2018 through 7/2019. Patients and methods: For patients who received commercial axi-cel, humoral immunity was evaluated both quantitatively [absolute lymphocyte count (ALC)] as well as qualitatively by serology titers [IgG antibodies (Abs)] for diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, measles, mumps, and rubella, and total Immunoglobulin G (IgG) levels. Data was collected within 30 days prior to CAR-T infusion, then at day +30 and between days +60 and +100 after CAR-T infusion. Results: We identified 10 patients (males = 5, 50%), with a median age of 49.9 years (range 30-65) who received commercial axi-cel during the study period. Patient characteristics and indications for CAR-T therapy are shown in Table 1; the cohort represented a heavily pre-treated aggressive B-cell lymphoma patient population. Baseline information on antibody (Ab) titers was available in 8 patients. At baseline, all patients had positive tetanus IgG Abs (≥0.01 IU/mL), 7 had positive diphtheria IgG Abs (≥0.01 IU/mL), 6 had positive measles IgG Abs (≥ 1.1 AI), 5 had positive rubella IgG Abs (≥ 1.0 AI), 3 had positive mumps IgG Abs (≥ 1.1 AI). None of the patients had a positive pertussis IgG Abs (≥100 IU/mL). At follow-up, all patients with positive Ab at baseline maintained titers in the positive range at day +30 and between days +60 and +100 (Figure 1). None of the patients demonstrated a clinically meaningful decrease in Abs titers, despite a drop in ALC and IgG levels (table 2). Conclusions: Albeit a small sample size, IgG Ab titers for diphtheria, tetanus, measles, mumps, and rubella did not appear to be affected by axi-cel at a short interval follow-up after infusion (up to day +100). We plan to extend this analysis in a larger cohort with a longer-term prospective follow-up to validate our findings, especially in light of dropping absolute lymphocyte counts and IgG levels. Disclosures Ailawadhi: Celgene: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Cellectar: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding. Foran:Agios: Honoraria, Research Funding. Tun:Celgene: Research Funding; Curis: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Mundi-pharma: Research Funding; DTRM Biopharma: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding. Chanan-Khan:Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Jansen: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic: Employment; Ascentage: Research Funding; Millennium: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Xencor: Research Funding. Kharfan-Dabaja:Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy.

Key PointsClinical, research and mentorship experiences in hematology are positively associated with fellows' plans to pursue hematology-only careers.

Abstract Background: Bendamustine and rituximab (BR) is a commonly chosen frontline treatment for grade 1-2 (G 1-2) follicular lymphoma (FL). This regimen resulted in significantly longer progression-free survival (PFS) and less toxicity compared to R-CHOP in the STiL trial [Rummel et al., 2013] and similar results were observed when comparing BR vs. R-CHOP/R-CVP in the confirmatory BRIGHT trial [Flinn et al., 2014, updated ASCO 2017]. Importantly, patients (pts) with grade 3A (G 3A) FL were excluded from these studies, yet the conclusions are often extrapolated to the treatment of G 3A pts. Notably, G 3A pts were included in the GALLIUM trial which used both bendamustine as well as CHOP backbones. Several retrospective studies of FL pts treated with frontline R-CHOP have demonstrated equivalent or improved overall survival (OS) for G 3A relative to G 1-2 FL (Koch et al., 2016, Mustafa et al., 2017, Yuan et al., 2017, Maeshima et al., 2013). Early disease progression after diagnosis and treatment with frontline R-CHOP has been identified as a strong predictor of poor OS in FL pts [Casulo et al. 2015], but has not been assessed in pts treated with frontline BR. We retrospectively evaluated outcomes of a large cohort of FL pts treated with frontline BR and stratified the results based on histologic grade and early vs. late progression. Methods: We reviewed medical records of adult (age >18) pts with FL treated with frontline BR at 18 US cancer centers. There was no central pathology review; each academic institution confirmed the diagnosis and grade of FL. Pts with unknown grade, grade 3B, or cutaneous FL were excluded. Baseline characteristics between grades were evaluated with the Chi-Square test for categorical variables and the Mann-Whitney U for continuous variables. Outcomes were calculated from time of initiation of BR. Patients were grouped according to whether or not they had progression of disease within 24 months of BR initiation (POD24). OS and PFS were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared using the log-rank test. Results: 687 pts were included (616 G 1-2, 71 G 3A). Median age at diagnosis was 60 years (range 21-94) with 53% men. The median time from diagnosis to treatment with BR was 1 month (range 0-139). The median duration of follow up for the entire cohort was 39 months. Characteristics including age, gender, ethnicity, ECOG, stage, LDH, and FLIPI are shown in the Table, and did not significantly differ between G 1-2 and G 3A pts. Rates of complete response (CR) and partial response (PR) to BR were similar between G 1-2 and G 3A (72%/22% vs. 66%/21%, respectively, p=0.114) but progressive disease (PD) was higher in G 3A pts (11.9%) relative to G 1-2 (4.8%, p=0.025). As shown in the Figure (A and B), 3-year PFS and OS was significantly longer for G 1-2 vs. G 3A pts (75% vs. 65%, log rank p= 0.035 and 90% vs. 86%, log rank p=0.007, respectively). Seventy-six (12.3%) of the 616 G 1-2 pts and 13 (18.3%) of the 71 G 3A pts experienced POD24 (p=0.19). For pts with both G 1-2 and G 3A FL, POD24 was associated with inferior OS (3-year OS 95% vs. 57% for G 1-2 pts, log rank p<0.0001 and 3-year OS 93% vs. 37% for G 3A pts, log rank p<0.0001) compared to patients without POD24. Conclusions: G 3A FL pts have an inferior OS and are significantly more likely to have PD to frontline BR compared to G 1-2, which differs from the published experience with R-CHOP. Similar to outcomes after frontline treatment with R-CHOP, POD24 after frontline BR for FL is associated with very poor OS. Future studies are needed to address optimal frontline management of pts with G3A as well as for pts with any grade FL with POD24 after frontline BR. Disclosures Nastoupil: Novartis: Honoraria; Genentech: Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; TG Therappeutics: Research Funding; Karus: Research Funding; Merck: Honoraria, Research Funding; Spectrum: Honoraria; Janssen: Research Funding; Juno: Honoraria. Cerhan:Jannsen: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Celgene: Research Funding; Nanostring: Research Funding. Maurer:Celgene: Research Funding; Nanostring: Research Funding; Morphosys: Research Funding. Smith:Genentech: Research Funding; Incyte Corporation: Research Funding; Portola Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Merck Sharp and Dohme Corp.: Consultancy, Research Funding; Acerta Pharma BV: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Lossos:Affimed: Research Funding. Portell:TG therapeutics: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy; Kite: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; BeiGene: Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; Genentech/Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; Infinity: Research Funding. Calzada:Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Cohen:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Infinity Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Infinity Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millennium: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Millennium: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BioInvent: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; BioInvent: Consultancy. Ghosh:Spectrum: Consultancy; SGN: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics, an Abbvie Company: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; TG Therapeutics: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; Juno: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Genentech: Research Funding; F. Hoffman-La Roche Ltd: Research Funding; PCYC: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Forty seven Inc: Research Funding. Barta:Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck, Takeda, Celgene, Seattle Genetics, Bayer: Research Funding. Caimi:Kite Pharma: Other: Advisory Board Participation; Genentech: Other: Advisory Board PArticipation, Research Funding; Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Kite Pharma: Other: Advisory Board Participation. Danilov:Gilead Sciences: Consultancy, Research Funding; Aptose Biosciences: Research Funding; Bayer Oncology: Consultancy, Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda Oncology: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; Verastem: Consultancy, Research Funding. Martin:AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Kite: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy. Kamdar:Seattle Genetics: Speakers Bureau; Genentech: Consultancy. Kahl:AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Acerta: Consultancy; Juno: Consultancy; CTI: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy. Hill:Abbvie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genentech: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Abstract CONTEXT AND OBJECTIVE: Refractory anemia with ring sideroblasts and thrombocytosis (RARS-T) is a provisional entity included in the MDS/MPN overlap syndromes, with features of refractory anemia with ring sideroblasts (RARS) and thrombocytosis (platelet count ³ 450 x 10/L), recently renamed MDS/MPN with ring sideroblasts and thrombocytosis. Management of RARS-T is extrapolated from MDS and MPN treatment options namely for alleviating symptoms of anemia and, occasionally, for thrombocytosis. Individual case reports have suggested that lenalidomide may be effective in treating RARS-T. In non-del 5q, low-risk MDS, 25% of patients (pts) became red blood cell transfusion independent (RBC-TI). In the phase II study of lenalidomide in non-del 5q lower risk MDS, 35% of pts with RARS treated with lenalidomide achieved RBC-TI. The primary objective of this study is to evaluate a series of pts with RARS-T and compare hematological improvement (HI) responses among different treatment options. METHODS: This is a retrospective, single-center study. Patients with RARS-T were identified from the MDS Database at Moffitt Cancer Center. Samples for somatic mutation testing were obtained at time of referral. Descriptive statistics were used to describe baseline characteristics and response rates to treatment. The primary endpoint was HI using international working group criteria (IWG) 2006. The median overall survival (OS) was calculated from time of diagnosis. RESULTS: We identified 33 pts with RARS-T. The mean age was 67 years (38-80), 15 pts were male (45.5%), and majority were Caucasians (n=27, 82%). According to international prognostic scoring system (IPSS), 24 patients (73%) were low risk and 9 pts (27%) were int-1 risk. By revised IPSS, 11 pts (33%), 18 (55%), 3 (9%), and 1 (3%) were very low, low, intermediate, and high risk, respectively. The mean WBC was 7.7 (2.8-25.7), the mean Hemoglobin was 9.9 g/dl (7.3-12.4), and the mean platelet count was 682 (372-1644). Among 20 pts who had Next generation sequencing for somatic mutations at time of referral, 19 pts (95%) had SF3B1 mutation and 4 pts (20%) had JAK-2 V617 F mutation. The median OS was 90 mo (95% CI 47-134). For pts with JAK-2 V617F mutations, the median OS was 110 mo versus 74 mo for those with wild type (p=0.24). The rate of AML transformation was 3% (one patient only). Among the 33 pts, 8 pts had no treatment (observation only), 22 pts (67%) received erythroid stimulating agent (ESA) prior to any active therapy, 2 patients received lenalidomide with no prior ESA, and 1 pt ruxolitinib with no prior ESA. Twelve pts (36%) received lenalidomide (7 as first line active therapy after ESA and 2 without prior ESA exposure) and 13 pts (33%) received azacitidine (6 as first line active therapy after ESA). The HI rate for ESA was 36% (12/22) with a median duration of ESA treatment of 33mo. The HI rate for lenalidomide was 50% (6/12) with a median duration of lenalidomide treatment of 10.3mo. Among the 9 pts who received lenalidomide as first line active therapy (2 pts without prior ESA exposure) HI rate was 56%. The HI rate for azacitidine was 15% (2/13) with a median duration of azacitidine treatment of 6.3mo. CONCLUSIONS: Pts with RARS-T had favorable outcomes, with long overall survival and a low rate of AML transformation. Rates of hematological improvement with the use of azacitidine were lower than expected. Lenalidomide is an effective treatment option and should be considered when treating patients with RARS-T. Figure. Figure. Disclosures Sallman: Celgene: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. List:Celgene: Research Funding. Komrokji:Novartis: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau.