Gay, Francesca

PURPOSE Venetoclax, an oral BCL-2 inhibitor, has efficacy in t(11;14)-positive relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM), which is enhanced by dexamethasone, which promotes BCL-2 dependency. METHODS The randomized, open-label, phase III CANOVA study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03539744 ) enrolled adults with t(11;14)-positive RRMM who had received ≥2 previous lines of therapy. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to venetoclax-dexamethasone or pomalidomide-dexamethasone until progression or intolerable toxicity. The primary end point was independent review committee assessed–progression-free survival (PFS) in the intention-to-treat population analyzed by stratified log-rank test (two-sided type I error rate, α = .05), with hazard ratio (HR) and 95% CI estimated by stratified Cox proportional hazard model. Secondary end points included response rates, overall survival (OS), minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity rate (<10 –5 ), and safety. RESULTS Overall, 263 patients were randomly assigned (venetoclax-dexamethasone, n = 133; pomalidomide-dexamethasone, n = 130). Median PFS was 9.9 months (95% CI, 6.9 to 12.6) with venetoclax-dexamethasone versus 5.8 months (95% CI, 3.8 to 9.2) with pomalidomide-dexamethasone (HR, 0.823 [95% CI, 0.596 to 1.136]; P = .24). Overall response and very good partial response or better rates were 62% and 39%, respectively, with venetoclax-dexamethasone versus 35% and 14% with pomalidomide-dexamethasone. MRD negativity rate was 8% with venetoclax-dexamethasone and 0% with pomalidomide-dexamethasone. Median OS was 32.4 months (95% CI, 26.4 to 40.7) with venetoclax-dexamethasone and 26.9 months (95% CI, 20.4 to 38.9) with pomalidomide-dexamethasone (HR, 0.856 [95% CI, 0.612 to 1.197]). Grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse event rates were 67% with venetoclax-dexamethasone versus 83% with pomalidomide-dexamethasone. There were 16 (12%) treatment-emergent deaths with venetoclax-dexamethasone versus 8 (6%) with pomalidomide-dexamethasone. CONCLUSION The primary end point of PFS was not met. PFS and OS were numerically longer with venetoclax-dexamethasone versus pomalidomide-dexamethasone in t(11;14)-positive RRMM. Consistent with previous studies, infections were associated with venetoclax-dexamethasone; no new safety signals were observed.

ABSTRACT Acute renal failure due to cast nephropathy (CAN) is a severe complication of multiple myeloma (MM). Here, we aimed to identify parameters associated with renal outcomes and survival in newly diagnosed MM patients with CAN‐related acute renal failure and to validate the IMWG criteria for renal response. CAN diagnosis was based on biopsy or clinical assessment. Of 787 registered patients, 354 met the inclusion criteria, requiring at least two therapy cycles with documented chemotherapy response, renal response, and eGFR. Baseline free light chain (FLC) levels (median 6825.65 mg/L) decreased below 500 mg/L in 67.8% of patients. According to IMWG classification, renal complete response, partial response, and minimal response were achieved in 33.9%, 19.5%, and 28.0% of patients, respectively. The best eGFR values > 60 mL/min/1.73 m 2 were observed in 33.9% of patients, while 33.3%, 22.3%, and 10.5% had best eGFR values of 30–59, 15–29, and < 15 mL/min/1.73 m 2 , respectively. Renal response correlated with baseline FLC levels, IgG kappa, eGFR, and ECOG status in multivariate analysis, as well as with myeloma response and FLC reduction in univariate analysis. Median overall survival was 77.6 months. Survival correlated with age, myeloma response, ECOG status, FLC kappa type, baseline eGFR, standard‐risk cytogenetics, and calcium levels, among other factors. A comparison of IMWG renal response criteria with classification based solely on best eGFR showed similar utility. Of 136 patients requiring dialysis, 80 (58.8%) were able to discontinue dialysis during therapy. Bortezomib containing myeloma therapy, along with significant FLC reduction, was associated with favorable outcome.

Introduction: Acute kidney injury (AKI) due to cast nephropathy is a medical emergency that leads to a diagnosis of myeloma in less than 3% of cases, but up to 30% of patients develop kidney impairment during the course of their disease. Currently, studies aiming to identify parameters that correlate with kidney function recovery and response to myeloma are limited due to small sample size or single center reports. We have therefore initiated an international collaboration and collected a large number patients (pts) from 16 participating centers. Objectives: To assess the impact of pts and disease characteristics and treatment-specific factors on renal outcome and overall survival and to validate the IMWG criteria for renal response in pts with cast nephropathy and newly diagnosed MM. Patients and Methods: Three-hundred forty-three pts (median age: 65.5 range 35-93 yrs) with newly diagnosed MM and an eGFR &lt;40ml/min/1.73m2 have been selected from 704 pts that had been enrolled in the database hosted by RedCap. Eligibility criteria were a diagnosis of AKI due to cast nephropathy diagnosed either by kidney biopsy (n=119) or on clinical criteria (AKI in the setting of involved free light chain concentration of ≥500 mg/L), newly diagnosed multiple myeloma, &gt;2 cycles of therapy, time and type of therapy, best eGFR and best myeloma response available. Results: Median follow up was 36.9 months. Myeloma therapy resulted in renal CR, and PR as defined by the IMWG criteria in 131 (38.2%) and 57 (16.6%) pts, respectively, 54 (15.7%) and 82 (23.9%) pts had minor response or no response, respectively. Nineteen (5.5%) pts were not classifiable by the IMWG response criteria (pts with eGFR 15-&lt;30, with increase to eGFR to ≥30-&lt;40). An eGFR of &gt;60, ≥30-&lt;60, ≥15-&lt;30, and &lt;15ml/min was achieved by 131 (38.2%), 112 (32.7%), 67 (19.5%), and 33 (9.6%) pts respectively. Myeloma response (≥VGPR) correlated significantly with renal response (≥PRrenal) (OR 1.64, CI 1.05-2.56, p=0.03) and with OS compared to no myeloma response (median 89.7 vs. 39.7 months, HR 2.12, CI 1.55-2.89, p&lt;0.0001). A &gt;50% reduction in FLCs from baseline to treatment cycle 2 (OR 5.92, CI 2.15-19.23, p=0.001) and cycle 3 (OR 5.25, CI 2.15-19.25, p=0.006) were strongly associated with renal response Median OS was 69.6 months (CI 55.4-89.7). Forty-three pts died within the first 12 months of treatment and additional 146 during further FU. Pts with a best GFR of &gt;15ml/min had a significantly longer OS compared to those with GFR &lt;15ml/min (median: 77.9 vs 31.9 months, HR 1.85, CI 1.16-2.94, p=0.01). The comparison of survival of pts with different renal response groups and with the best eGFR showed no statistically significant difference (log rank p=0.1, long rank p=0.057, respectively). Other factors that correlated with longer OS were bortezomib-based therapy (77.9 vs. 44.0 months, HR 1.59, CI 1.05-2.38, p=0.03), M-protein isotype with κ as compared to l light chain type (84.9 vs. 51.4 months, HR 1.47, CI 1.09-2.00, p=0.013), and higher hemoglobin (HR 1.16, CI 1.06-1.26, p=0.001). In contrast, hypercalcemia which was noted in 101 (29.4%) pts (HR 1.10, CI 1.03-1.18, p=0.005), ISS stage III vs. I-II (57.8 vs. 126.2 months, HR 2.26, CI 1.22-4.17, p=0.009), and ECOG status 3+4 vs. 2 vs. 0+1 (24.4 vs. 44.6 vs. 103 months, HR 2.83, CI 2.15-3.74, p&lt;0.0001) were associated with shorter OS. Hypercalcemia, correlated with renal response (OR 1.27, CI 1.12-1.44, p=0.0002), and best eGFR ≥46.4 ml/min (median dichotomized) (OR 1.28, CI 1.14-1.46, p&lt;0.0001). 119 (34.7%) pts required initial dialysis, OS was significantly longer in those who achieved best eGFR levels of &gt;15ml/min. (77.6 vs 31.9 months, HR 0.54, CI 0.34-0.86, p=0.01); 64 (53%) pts discontinued dialysis. Conclusion: Myeloma response correlated with renal response as defined by IMWG criteria. A &gt;50% reduction in FLCs from baseline to treatment cycle ≥2 was strongly associated with renal response. OS was longer in pts with renal response, in pts receiving bortezomib-based therapy, and in pts with kappa light chain M-proteins. Hypercalcemia was frequent (29.4%), and associated with higher renal response rate and best eGFR, but shorter OS. Pts on dialysis who achieved eGFR &gt;15ml/min had better survival. Fast diagnostic work up, rapid treatment initiation and achieving significant myeloma response (≥VGPR) is essential to prevent irreversible kidney damage. Including novel immunotherapies may further improve outcome.

7510 Background: The randomized Phase 3 CANOVA study’s (NCT03539744) primary analysis showed multiple numerically improved efficacy endpoints with VenDex v PomDex, but the primary endpoint of mPFS by IRC was not statistically significant. Here, we report correlative biomarker analyses from CANOVA. Methods: CANOVA is a randomized, global, open-label Phase 3 study of VenDex v PomDex in pts with t(11;14)+ RRMM and ≥2 prior lines of therapy (LOTs). The primary endpoint was mPFS by IRC. Key secondary endpoints included ORR, ≥VGPR, mOS, and MRD negativity (<10-5). In post hoc mPFS sensitivity analysis, disease progression, death, and start of next LOT were defined as events. BCL2 gene expression by RNAseq (3.7 log2 FPKM prespecified median cutoff for BCL2high v BCL2low) and chr1q abnormalities by whole-exome sequencing (normal, gain, or amp) were assessed centrally from pretreatment, CD138-enriched BM aspirates. Results: mPFS, post hoc mPFS, and mOS in the VenDex arm were similar by BCL2 status, with numerically higher ORR, ≥VGPR, and MRD negativity rates in the BCL2highsubgroup. In contrast, mPFS and mOS within the PomDex arm were numerically longer in the BCL2lowsubgroup, despite equal ORR in both subgroups (Table). Presence of 1q abnormalities was evenly distributed across BCL2high v BCL2low subgroups in the VenDex arm (51% v 45%) but not in the PomDex arm (59% v 31%). Normal 1q and gain(1q) subgroups had numerically improved mPFS, mOS, ORR, ≥VGPR, and MRD negativity with VenDex; pts with amp(1q) had poor outcomes regardless of treatment, albeit the sample size was small. Conclusions: Pts with BCL2high or gain(1q) had numerically improved clinical efficacy with VenDex v PomDex. Clinical benefit was consistent across BCL2 subgroups ( BCL2high or BCL2low) with VenDex but not PomDex. Pts with amp(1q) fared poorly irrespective of treatment arm. Clinical trial information: NCT03539744 . [Table: see text]

Despite significant improvement in the outcomes of patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) with novel therapies, there is still an underserved high-risk (HR) population that experiences early disease progression and death. With the median survival crossing 10 years, we defined ultrahigh-risk (uHR)MM as MM leading to death within 24-36 months of diagnosis and HRMM as MM leading to death within 36-60 months. Several features have emerged as markers of uHRMM: the co-occurrence of two or more high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities, extramedullary disease, plasma cell leukemia and a high-risk gene expression profiling signature. The heterogeneous risk definition across trials, the few trials available designed for HR patients, and the small HR subgroups in all-comers trials make it difficult to generate recommendations with high levels of evidence. Nevertheless, regardless of treatment administered, several studies consistently showed that achieving and maintaining measurable residual disease negativity is now considered the main factor able to mitigate the adverse prognosis related to baseline features. For fit patients with HR transplant-eligible (TE) NDMM, quadruplet induction/consolidation treatment with anti-CD38 monoclonal antibodies, immunomodulatory agents, proteasome inhibitors and dexamethasone, and autologous stem-cell transplant and maintenance with, if available, at least a doublet combination could be considered the option of choice. For non-TE NDMM, considering the recent data generated and carefully reviewing those upcoming, quadruplet treatment consisting of anti-CD38 monoclonal antibodies, immunomodulatory agents, proteasome inhibitors, and dexamethasone should also be considered. Future trials integrating BCMA-directed novel generation immunotherapies hold great potential for further advancing the treatment landscape in all NDMM patients with HR disease.

Introduction: BCMA-directed CAR-T and Bispecific T-cell engager (BiTE) therapies have shown remarkable overall response rates in heavily pretreated patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). This has led to the approval of idecabtagene vicleucel, ciltacabtagene autoleucel and teclistamab by the FDA, EMA and other regulatory agencies. We performed a global survey on accessibility, practice patterns, and toxicity management of commercially available CAR-T and BiTE therapies. Methods: An online survey was completed by clinicians attending the International Myeloma Society's Immune Effector Cell Therapies in Multiple Myeloma Workshop, in-person or virtually, made available for 30 days after the meeting held in March 2023, Boston, MA. Results: 87 clinicians from 16 countries completed the survey, most practicing in an academic practice (86%) and in an urban environment (89%). Sixty-four percent of the respondents practice in North America followed by Europe (25.3%) including Germany, United Kingdom, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, Spain, France, Greece, and Cyprus, and 6.9% from Asia and 3.4% from Australia. Seventy-seven percent reported CAR-T cell therapy was approved in their country with 44.8% treating 1-5 patients and 14.9% treating &gt;5 patients per month; 67% reported BiTE therapy was approved in their country with 14.9% treating &gt;5 patients per month. Of evaluable responses (n = 40), 62% administered CAR-T therapy inpatient and 15% administered CAR-T therapy outpatient ≥ 50% of the time. Length of time between decision to treat with CAR-T therapy to infusion was 6-12 weeks for 42% of responders and &lt;6 weeks for only 20%. Most (75%) reported inpatient administration of BiTE therapy step-up dosing; 17.5% reported outpatient step-up dosing administered ≥ 50% of the time. Use of institutional or practice SOPs for CAR-T and BiTE therapy patient selection was reported by 85% and 58%, respectively, with the factors influencing SOP outlined in Table 1. Of available CAR-T therapies, 53% prefer cilta-cel and 23% reported CAR-T therapy preference depended most on patients' co-morbidities/frailty (89%), timing of next available apheresis (67%), age (56%), CNS disease (44%) and other factors. Maintenance therapy after CAR-T therapy was reportedly used by 25% and 5% of respondents in 1-10% and 11-50% of their patients, respectively, to “maintain level of response achieved” (50%) or “achieve a deeper level of response” (25%). About half (43%) of the respondents reported using an SOP or particular criteria for secondary Hemophagocytic Lympho-Histiocytosis/Macrophage Activation Syndrome/CAR-related-HLH (sHLH/MAS/CarHLH) management that varied between the use of ASTCT Working Group IEC associated HLH-like syndrome Criteria (47%) (Hines 2023), CARTOX HLH Criteria (24%) (Neelapu 2017) and HLH-2004 criteria (6%). Tocilizumab was used as cytokine release syndrome (CRS) prophylaxis only by one responder. Keppra neurologic prophylaxis was used by 47.5% and 15% of responders for CAR-T and BiTE therapy, respectively. Delayed neurotoxicity with CAR-T was reported in 1-5% of patients by 57.5% of responders and 6-10% of patients by 15% of responders; most common manifestations were other movement/neuromuscular disorder (62%), nerve palsy (55%), and Parkinsonism (45%). Infectious prophylaxis was used to protect against HSV (92.5%), PJP (90%), bacterial pathogens (55%), fungal pathogens (60%), and IVIG (77.5%). However, criteria for infectious prophylaxis use varies widely incorporating IgG levels, infectious history, CD4+ count, B-cell aplasia and cytopenias (48.1 - 88.9%). Most respondents (46.3 - 86.5%) reported completing an infectious work-up including CMV, EBV, Hep B/C, and HIV ( Table 2). Conclusions: Trends of CAR-T and BiTE therapy use and patterns of concurrent prophylactic and supportive care in MM vary widely among academic centers across the globe, demonstrating a need for further understanding of toxicity pathogenesis, toxicity management and consistent guidelines. This survey also demonstrates the great unmet need for access beyond urban centers among the international myeloma community. Prospective studies and claims data analysis should be utilized to evaluate the longitudinal cost of care, quality of life, duration of response and management of infectious disease, neurological or related complications of CAR-T and bispecific TCE therapies.

Summary: The multiple myeloma treatment landscape has changed dramatically. This change, paralleled by an increase in scientific knowledge, has resulted in significant improvement in survival. However, heterogeneity remains in clinical outcomes, with a proportion of patients not benefiting from current approaches and continuing to have a poor prognosis. A significant proportion of the variability in outcome can be predicted on the basis of clinical and biochemical parameters and tumor-acquired genetic variants, allowing for risk stratification and a more personalized approach to therapy. This article discusses the principles that can enable the rational and effective development of therapeutic approaches for high-risk multiple myeloma.

Abstract Background: Ciltacabtagene autoleucel (cilta-cel) is a novel chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy that is being evaluated in the CARTITUDE-1 trial (NCT03548207) in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) who are triple-class exposed (to immunomodulatory drugs, proteasome inhibitors, and an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody). As there is no clear standard of care for this patient population, and due to an absence of direct head-to-head trials evaluating cilta-cel and other relevant treatments, indirect treatment comparisons (ITCs) between cilta-cel and treatments used in current clinical practice, ie, physician's choice of treatment (PCT), have been previously conducted. Meta-analyses were performed to derive single summary effect estimates for overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) by pooling ITCs evaluating cilta-cel versus PCT in patients with triple-class exposed RRMM. Methods: ITCs examining the comparative effectiveness of cilta-cel versus PCT on OS and PFS were included. Data on cilta-cel corresponded to the February 2021 data-cut for CARTITUDE-1. Data on PCT was leveraged from the following sources: (i) the Flatiron database, a primarily US community-based multiple myeloma registry, (ii) the long-term follow-up results of three global RRMM daratumumab randomized clinical trials (POLLUX [NCT02076009], CASTOR [NCT02136134], and EQUULEUS [NCT01998971]), (iii) the US-based retrospective MAMMOTH study, and (iv) a representative German patient registry maintained by OncologyInformationService (OIs). In each ITC, the PCT group was comprised of patients who satisfied key eligibility criteria for CARTITUDE-1 and was made comparable to CARTITUDE-1 using inverse probability of treatment weighting. Hence, the ITCs were deemed appropriate to meta-analyze. The meta-analyses used a robust variance estimator to account for the use of CARTITUDE-1 in each pairwise ITC. The main meta-analyses considered all participants treated with cilta-cel in CARTITUDE-1 compared with PCT. Sensitivity analyses considered ITC effect estimates based on all enrolled participants in CARTITUDE-1. Pooled summary effect estimates were presented as hazard ratios (HRs) with the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results: Based on availability of data, the main meta-analyses included four ITCs for OS and three ITCs for PFS. Cilta-cel was associated with a statistically significant improvement in OS (HR: 0.21, 95% CI: 0.13 to 0.34; Figure 1) and PFS (HR: 0.20, 95% CI: 0.07 to 0.63; Figure 2) compared to PCT. Sensitivity analyses including all enrolled participants confirmed the results of the main meta-analyses. Conclusions: In the meta-analyses, cilta-cel demonstrated a significant advantage over PCT in terms of OS and PFS, highlighting its potential as an effective therapy in patients with triple-class exposed RRMM. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Hari: GSK: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene-BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Sanofi: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Oncopeptides: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Adaptive Biotech: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Millenium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Berdeja: EMD Sorono, Genentech: Research Funding; Celularity, CRISPR Therapeutics: Research Funding; Bluebird bio, BMS, Celgene, CRISPR Therapeutics, Janssen, Kite Pharma, Legend Biotech, SecuraBio, Takeda: Consultancy; Abbvie, Acetylon, Amgen: Research Funding; GSK, Ichnos Sciences, Incyte: Research Funding; Lilly, Novartis: Research Funding; Poseida, Sanofi, Teva: Research Funding. Gay: Bluebird Bio: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncopeptides: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GlaxoSmithKline: 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; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria. Hooper: Eversana: Current Employment; Janssen: Consultancy. Haltner: Eversana: Current Employment; Janssen: Consultancy. Kumar: Carsgen: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy; Roche-Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Antengene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Beigene: Consultancy; KITE: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Tenebio: Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Adaptive: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding. Martin: Sanofi: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy; Amgen: Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy. Mateos: AbbVie: Honoraria; Oncopeptides: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Regeneron: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene - Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bluebird bio: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncopeptides: Honoraria; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sea-Gen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GSK: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Moreau: Sanofi: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene BMS: Honoraria; Oncopeptides: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Abbvie: Honoraria. Rosta: EVERSANA: Current Employment; Janssen Inc.: Consultancy. Samjoo: EVERSANA: Current Employment; Janssen Inc.: Consultancy. Usmani: GSK: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy; Array BioPharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene/BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; EdoPharma: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen Oncology: Consultancy, Research Funding; SkylineDX: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Weisel: Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; GSK: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Honoraria; Oncopeptides: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy; Novartis: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria. Jackson: Janssen: Current Employment; Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center: Consultancy. Olyslager: Janssen: Current Employment. Schecter: Janssen: Current Employment, Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company. Vogel: Janssen Global Services, LLC: Current Employment, Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company, Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company, Divested equity in a private or publicly-traded company in the past 24 months. Garrett: Legend Biotech USA: Current Employment. Lee: Legend Biotech: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Nesheiwat: Legend Biotech USA: Current Employment. Pacaud: Legend Biotech: Current Employment. Valluri: Janssen: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Costa: Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria. Lin: Merck: Research Funding; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy, Research Funding; Juno: Consultancy; Takeda: Research Funding; Legend: Consultancy; Sorrento: Consultancy; Gamida Cell: Consultancy; Vineti: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding.