Kumar, Shaji

Abstract The utility of systemic light chain (AL) amyloidosis staging systems has been validated for newly diagnosed patients, but their role in restaging after treatment has not been explored. We designed this study to evaluate whether the currently used systems are of prognostic value at 3 and 6 months of starting first-line treatment, and whether stage migration from diagnosis impacts survival. This is a retrospective study including Mayo Clinic patients with AL amyloidosis diagnosed between 1 January 2006 and 30 June 2019; 536 and 204 patients had restaging data for at least 1 system at 3 and 6 months, respectively. Using modified Mayo 2004 staging at 3 months, median overall survival (OSs) were 11.8, 10.8, 4.6, and 1.1 years for stage I, II, IIIa, and IIIb, respectively. Using Mayo 2012, median OSs were 11.8, 9.0, 5.2, and 0.8 years for stage I, II, III, and IV, respectively. Using modified Mayo 2004 staging at 6 months, median OSs were not reached (NR), NR, 5.4, and 0.9 years for stage I, II, IIIa, and IIIb, respectively. Using Mayo 2012, OSs were NR, NR, 4.6, and 0.9 years for stage I, II, III, and IV, respectively. Worsening stage at 3 or 6 months was associated with worse survival than retaining baseline stage. In conclusion, the current staging systems can be used for restaging at 3 and 6 months from treatment initiation. Migration to higher stage predicts poor prognosis.

Background: Here we describe an online network of patients with cancer, clinicians and researchers, layered on top of a comprehensive real world database of treatments and outcomes, continuously updated in near real time, and initially focused on multiple myeloma. Methods: Patients with multiple myeloma register at www.all4cure.com and sign HIPAA release forms to provide access to all of their medical records from all of the institutions from which they have received care. From the medical records, a structured dataset of treatments and lab results is extracted by a myeloma-dedicated team for display on each patient's de-identified, personalized dashboard. A discussion panel allows more than 1200 participating patients, clinicians and researchers to post comments or questions regarding each patient's specific circumstances. For each patient, lines of therapy and responses are determined according to IMWG and published criteria (Blood [2015] 126: 921-922). Here we report initial results from the treatments and responses among patients with multiple myeloma and plasma cell leukemia. Results: A total of 493 patients includes 26 with monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS), 51 with smoldering myeloma, 408 with multiple myeloma, and 8 with primary plasma cell leukemia. Among patients with multiple myeloma, 42 (10.3%) had antecedent MGUS and/or smoldering myeloma. The average age is 65.6 (+/- 9.7). 50.9% are male and 49.1% are female. 42 states in the U.S. and 8 other countries are represented. Two patients with multiple myeloma had not started treatment by the time of this report. The remaining 414 patients with multiple myeloma or plasma cell leukemia received 1 to 16 lines of therapy. Among the 414 patients that received at least one line of therapy, a remarkable 89 distinct first line therapies were administered. The most common first line therapies were lenalidomide, bortezomib, dexamethasone (n=92), cyclophosphamide, bortezomib, dexamethasone (n=50), lenalidomide, bortezomib, dexamethasone + autologous stem cell transplant + lenalidomide maintenance (n=41), lenalidomide and dexamethasone (n=29), and bortezomib and dexamethasone (n=22). 62 patients received a first line therapy that was not received by any other patient in our database. This variation was attributable to participation in clinical trials, variation in the availability of drugs over time and different geographic locations, and the very large number of distinct combinations associated with multi-agent regimens. Seventy six percent of patients with multiple myeloma or plasma cell leukemia received a second line of therapy, 52% received a third line of therapy, 34% received a fourth line of therapy, 23% received a fifth line of therapy, and 18% received a sixth line of therapy. We observed a trend toward a decline in favorable responses with successive lines of therapy (Table 1) consistent with previous reports, with a correlation coefficient between the line of therapy and overall response rate of -0.74. Among the 76 patients who received 6 or more lines of therapy (247 lines of therapy in total), only 7 achieved stringent complete responses (sCRs), of which 5 were associated with a CAR-T therapy. Table 1 also shows a trend toward more rapid changes in treatment associated with later lines of therapy. 57 of 493 patients (12%) are deceased. Conclusions: Our findings reveal remarkable variation in the treatment of myeloma and provide a potentially valuable resource of up to date and current clinical features, prognosis, treatments, side effects, and outcomes of patients with myeloma in the real world. Table 1. Summary of lines of therapy and outcomes across 414 patients with multiple myeloma and plasma cell leukemia. The percentages of patients achieving sCR, ≥ PR (overall response rate - ORR), and ≥MR (clinical benefit rate - CBR) are shown for each line of therapy. Also depicted is the interval mortality and the mean and median number of days between the beginning of a line therapy and the beginning of the next line of therapy. Table Disclosures Richter: Janssen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Consultancy; X4 pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Adaptive biotechnologies: Consultancy; Secura bio: Consultancy; Astra Zeneca: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Antengene: Consultancy. Chhun:All4Cure: Current Employment. Zheng:All4Cure: Current Employment. Piboonvaranggoon:All4Cure: Current Employment. Mallick:All4Cure: Current Employment. Wren:All4Cure: Current Employment. Nam:All4Cure: Current Employment. Lopez Barquilla:All4Cure: Current equity holder in private company. Blau:All4Cure: Current equity holder in private company. Cowan:Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Cellectar: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding. Bensinger:BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; GSK: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Regeneron: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Kumar:Amgen: Consultancy, Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments, Research Funding; Genecentrix: Consultancy; Celgene/BMS: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Novartis: Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen Oncology: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Carsgen: Other, Research Funding; Dr. Reddy's Laboratories: Honoraria; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy; Takeda: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; AbbVie: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; MedImmune: Research Funding; Tenebio: Other, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Cellectar: Other; Sanofi: Research Funding; Genentech/Roche: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Oncopeptides: Consultancy, Other: Independent Review Committee; IRC member; Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding. Richardson:Celgene/BMS, Oncopeptides, Takeda, Karyopharm: Research Funding. Anderson:Oncopep and C4 Therapeutics.: Other: Scientific Founder of Oncopep and C4 Therapeutics.; Bristol Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi-Aventis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millenium-Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Blau:All4Cure: Current Employment, Current equity holder in private company.

Introduction: Cardiac involvement is one of the main predictors for survival in patients with light chain (AL) amyloidosis. Biomarkers such as Troponin T and N-terminal pro b-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) are used routinely for detecting cardiac involvement. In addition echocardiogram (ECHO) is used to determine septal and left ventricular wall thickness and strain. Most patients with AL present with preserved ejection fraction (EF) however, the outcomes of AL patients undergoing autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) with decreased EF are not very well described. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed patients who had a diagnosis of AL amyloidosis and received ASCT between March 1996 and September 2017. All patients had an ECHO done before ASCT and the EF was documented. In our practice, the threshold for performing ASCT is an EF >40%. We evaluated the outcomes of patients who had an EF <55% compared to patients with an EF ≥55%. The baseline characteristics were compared between patients with high and low EF. Progression-free survival (PFS) was defined as time from ASCT to disease progression, relapse, or death of any cause. Overall survival (OS) was calculated from time of ASCT to death of any cause. Univariate and multivariate analysis for PFS and OS were done using the following variables: age>65 vs. ≤65 years, Mayo 2012 stage 3/4 vs. 1/2, bone marrow plasma cell percentage (BMPC) ≥ 10% vs. <10%, organs involved >2 vs. ≤2, melphalan conditioning 200mg/m2 vs. 140 mg/m2 ,ASCT year >2010 vs. ≤2010, and EF <55% vs. ≥55%. Results: We identified 716 patients and 69 (10%) had an EF<55%, with most (n=63, 91%)having cardiac involvement . Compared to patients with EF ≥55%, patients with EF <55% were more likely to have Mayo 2012 stage 3/4 (58% vs. 22%, P<0.0001) and more likely to have thicker interventricular septum (median 14 vs. 12 mm, P<0.0001). The day 100 transplant related mortality (TRM) was higher in patients with EF <55% compared to EF ≥55% (19% vs. 6%, P=0.0006). In patients with Mayo 2012 stage 3/4, the day 100 TRM was higher in patients with an EF<55% compared to EF ≥55% (27% vs. 7%, P=0.004). Overall, PFS and OS were significantly shorter in patients with EF <55% compared to patients with EF ≥55% (Figure 1 A,B). Evaluating PFS and OS according to EF specifically in Mayo 2012 stage 3/4 patients is displayed in Figure 1 (C,D). Predictors for PFS included Mayo 2012 stage 3/4 vs. 1/2 (hazard ratio (HR): 1.4, P=0.006), BMPC ≥ 10% vs. <10% (HR: 1.5,P=0.0005), melphalan conditioning 200mg/m2 vs. 140 mg/m2 (HR:0.7, P=0.01), ASCT year >2010 vs. ≤2010 (HR: 0.7, P=0.01), and EF <55% vs. ≥55% (HR: 1.5, P=0.02). For OS, age >65 vs. ≤65 years (HR:1.4, P=0.04), Mayo 2012 stage 3/4 vs. 1/2 (HR: 1.96, P<0.0001), melphalan conditioning 200mg/m2 vs. 140 mg/m2 (HR:0.5, P<0.0001), BMPC ≥ 10% vs. <10% (HR: 1.8, P=0.03), ASCT year >2010 vs. ≤2010 (HR: 0.5, P<0.0001), and EF <55% vs. ≥55%(HR:1.9, P=0.003) were predictive. Conclusion: Having an EF <55% is associated with a higher day 100 TRM and is an independent predictor for PFS and OS in patients with AL amyloidosis undergoing ASCT. Disclosures Sidiqi: Janssen: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria, Other: Travel grant. Dingli:Alexion: Consultancy; Apellis: Consultancy; Sanofi-Genzyme: Consultancy; Millenium: Consultancy; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; Rigel: Consultancy. Kapoor:Janssen: Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding; Cellectar: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding. Dispenzieri:Janssen: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Alnylam: Research Funding; Intellia: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Kumar:AbbVie: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Takeda: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Janssen Oncology: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Amgen: Consultancy, Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments, Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy; Celgene/BMS: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Dr. Reddy's Laboratories: Honoraria; Genentech/Roche: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Oncopeptides: Consultancy, Other: Independent Review Committee; IRC member; Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; MedImmune: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Tenebio: Other, Research Funding; Genecentrix: Consultancy; Cellectar: Other; Carsgen: Other, Research Funding. Gertz:Spectrum: Other: personal fee, Research Funding; Janssen: Other: personal fee; Sanofi: Other; Research to Practice: Other; Celgene: Other; Medscape: Other: personal fee, Speakers Bureau; Proclara: Other; DAVA oncology: Speakers Bureau; Alnylam: Other: personal fee; Johnson and Johnson: Speakers Bureau; Physicians Education Resource: Other: personal fee; Teva: Speakers Bureau; Ionis/Akcea: Other: personal fee; Amgen: Other: personal fee; Springer Publishing: Patents & Royalties; Aurora Bio: Other; Appellis: Other: personal fee; Abbvie: Other; Annexon: Other: personal fee; Prothena: Other: personal fee.

Introduction: VRD (bortezomib, lenalidomide, dexamethasone) and VCD (bortezomib, cyclophosphamide, dexamethasone) are the two most commonly used triplet induction regimens in transplant eligible patients with multiple myeloma (MM). VCD is commonly used in patients with renal dysfunction at diagnosis. Given the variable results seen in head to head comparison of these (or similar) regimens to date, no definitive conclusion can be made on whether they are equivalent. This large CIBMTR registry study compares the outcomes with VRD vs. VCD induction therapy in patients undergoing upfront autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT). Methods: Patients were included if they underwent upfront ASCT for MM from January 2013 to December 2018 within 6 months of diagnosis, received VRD or VCD induction therapy and achieved at least a partial response pre-transplant. Of 1,135 patients, 914 patients received VRD and 221 received VCD therapy. Cox proportional hazards models were created for progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). The following covariates were adjusted in the models: induction regimen (main effect), age, sex, race, performance score, hematopoietic cell transplant-comorbidity index (HCT-CI), estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) at diagnosis, immunoglobulin subtype, cytogenetics, ISS stage, response status at transplant, melphalan dose, and maintenance therapy. Results: As shown in Table 1, patients in the VRD and VCD cohorts had similar age at transplant, adjusted HCT-CI scores, and distribution of high-risk cytogenetics. Patients in the VCD group were more likely to have renal impairment and ISS stage III disease. An eGFR (mL/min/1.73m2) at diagnosis < 60 was seen in 26% of VRD patients vs. 48% of VCD patients. ISS stage III was seen in 17% vs. 34% of patients, respectively. Treatment and Response: Pre-transplant response in the VRD cohort was: complete response (CR)- 17%, very good partial response (VGPR)- 48% and partial response (PR)- 35%. Response in the VCD cohort was: CR- 17%, VGPR- 42% and PR- 41%. Conditioning dose was melphalan 200 mg/m2 in 80% of patients receiving VRD vs. 69% in the VCD group. Post-transplant response was at least VGPR in 74% vs. 75% of patients, respectively. Maintenance in the VRD group was: lenalidomide based (+/- bortezomib)- 80%, bortezomib based- 5%, other-3% and none- 12% of patients. In the VCD group, maintenance was: lenalidomide based- 63%, bortezomib based- 11%, other- 1% and none- 24%. Survival: Patients receiving VRD induction had superior outcomes compared to VCD induction with median PFS from transplant of 44.6 (38.0-55.8) months vs 34.1 (25.8-44.7) months, p 0.004 respectively. Median OS was not reached for either group, with 5-year OS 79 (74-83)% for VRD and 60 (50-69)% for VCD, p <0.001. Univariate PFS and OS outcomes by induction regimen and eGFR at diagnosis are shown in Table 2 and Figure 1. Multivariate analysis is shown in Table 3. After adjusting for prognostic factors, there was no statistically significant difference between the two induction regimens, with hazard ratio (HR) for PFS in the VCD vs VRD group being 1.22 (95% CI: 0.96-1.55, p=0.10). ISS stage, cytogenetics, disease status prior to transplant, and maintenance were independent prognostic factors for PFS. Similarly, on multivariate analysis for OS, there was no statistically significant difference in the two groups, with HR for OS in VCD vs VRD group being 1.33 (95% CI: 0.93-1.92, p=0.12). ISS stage, cytogenetics, disease status prior to transplant, and maintenance were independent prognostic factors for OS. Conclusions: In patients with MM undergoing upfront transplant after VRD or VCD induction, no difference in outcomes was seen based on the induction therapy received after adjusting for other prognostic factors. As several MM patients with renal dysfunction are started on VCD, it is reassuring to see that VCD was not associated with inferior PFS, likely due to the eventual transition to maintenance therapy in the majority due to subsequent improvement of renal function. The use of maintenance treatment was uniformly associated with superior outcomes. Disclosures Sidana: Janssen: Consultancy. Kumar:Oncopeptides: Consultancy, Other: Independent Review Committee; IRC member; Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech/Roche: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Celgene/BMS: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Dr. Reddy's Laboratories: Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments, Research Funding; Janssen Oncology: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Takeda: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; AbbVie: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Novartis: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; MedImmune: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Tenebio: Other, Research Funding; Genecentrix: Consultancy; Carsgen: Other, Research Funding; Cellectar: Other; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy. Giralt:Johnson & Johnson: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Actinuum: Other: Advisory board, Research Funding; Amgen: Other: Advisory Board, Research Funding; KITE: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; OMEROS: Research Funding; SPECTRUM Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; GSK: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; PFIZER: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Jensenn: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; TAKEDA: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; MILTENYI: Research Funding; JAZZ Pharmaceutical: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Qazilbash:Janssen: Research Funding; Bioclinica: Consultancy; Amgen: Research Funding; Angiocrine: Research Funding; Bioline: Research Funding. Shah:GSK, Amgen, Indapta Therapeutics, Sanofi, BMS, CareDx, Kite, Karyopharm: Consultancy; BMS, Janssen, Bluebird Bio, Sutro Biopharma, Teneobio, Poseida, Nektar: Research Funding. D'Souza:Janssen: Consultancy; Akcea: Consultancy; Imbrium: Consultancy; Merck: Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy; Teneobio: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding.

Background: Bortezomib, a proteasome inhibitor, has shown efficacy in the treatment of newly diagnosed and relapsed light chain (AL) amyloidosis, and the combination of bortezomib, cyclophosphamide and dexamethasone is a commonly used regimen in AL. Ixazomib is the first oral proteasome inhibitor to be approved, and the combination of ixazomib with cyclophosphamide and dexamethasone is an all oral effective regimen for the treatment of multiple myeloma. This phase 2 trial was designed to evaluate the efficacy of this regimen in patients with AL, who have not received any therapy. Patients and methods: Newly diagnosed patients with biopsy proven AL amyloidosis, with organ involvement requiring therapy, were enrolled if they had measurable disease (Serum immunoglobulin free light chain ≥5 mg/dL AND abnormal serum free light chain ratio) and adequate organ function. Patients with severe organ involvement were excluded (Alkaline phosphatase >750 U/L, creatinine clearance <30 mL/min or NT-ProBNP ≥ 7500 ng/dL). Treatment consisted of ixazomib 4 mg days 1, 8, 15; cyclophosphamide 500 mg PO weekly and dexamethasone 40 mg, weekly for twelve 28-day cycles, followed by ixazomib maintenance (days 1, 8, 15) at the last tolerated dose till progression. The primary objective was to determine the hematologic response rate of ixazomib, used in combination with cyclophosphamide and dexamethasone in patients with previously untreated AL. A one-stage binomial design was utilized to test the null hypothesis that the hematologic response rate is at most 30% against the alternative hypothesis that it is at least 50%, with 85% power and 9% type I error. Results: Thirty-five patients were enrolled, median age was 67 (range 38-78) years; 69% were male. Organ involvement included cardiac in 23 (65.7%), renal in 19 (54.3%), and nervous system involvement in 5 (14.3%). At data cutoff 8 patients still remain on study with a median follow up of 4.4 months for those who are alive. Across the trial a median of 4 cycles (range 0-23) of treatment have been completed; the most common reason for going off study was institution of alternate therapy in 17 patients (63%). The overall hematologic response was 57% (20/35) and included amyloid CR in 5 (14%), VGPR in 9 (26%) and a PR in 6 (17%) patients. Confirmed organ responses have been observed in 5 patients so far, 2 each for cardiac and renal and 1 hepatic. The median PFS and OS have not been reached; 4 patients had hematological progression; 6 patients (17%) have died. Across 193 cycles of treatment administered, dose modification was required in 5, 3, and 10 patients, respectively, for ixazomib, cyclophosphamide and dexamethasone. A grade 3 or higher adverse event (AE), at least possibly attributed to the study drugs, was observed in 41% of patients. The figure shows the maximum grade of adverse events for individual patients seen in more than one patient across the study. Conclusions: The all-oral regimen of ixazomib, cyclophosphamide, and dexamethasone is active in patients with previously untreated AL amyloidosis with hematologic responses observed in 57% of patients, including complete responses. Organ response has been observed but will likely need longer follow up for accurate assessment, given the delay in organ responses in this disease. Further evaluation of this combination is warranted. Disclosures Gertz: Alnylam: Consultancy; Ionis/Akcea: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Medscape: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Physicians Education Resource: Consultancy; Data Safety Monitoring board from Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy; Johnson and Johnson: Speakers Bureau; DAVA oncology: Speakers Bureau; Advisory Board for Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Advisory Board for Proclara: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; i3Health: Consultancy; Springer Publishing: Patents & Royalties; Amyloidosis Foundation: Research Funding; International Waldenstrom Foundation: Research Funding; NCI SPORE MM: Research Funding; Prothena: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Spectrum: Consultancy, Research Funding; Annexon: Consultancy; Appellis: Consultancy. Kapoor:Celgene: Honoraria; GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Cellectar: Consultancy. Larsen:Janssen Oncology: 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. Dingli:Apellis: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Sanofi-Genzyme: Consultancy; Rigel: Consultancy; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Research Funding; Alexion: Consultancy; Millenium: Consultancy. Dispenzieri:Janssen: Research Funding; Intellia: Research Funding; Alnylam: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding. Kumar:Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy; Carsgen: Other, Research Funding; AbbVie: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Janssen Oncology: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Genecentrix: Consultancy; Dr. Reddy's Laboratories: Honoraria; Tenebio: Other, Research Funding; Takeda: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Oncopeptides: Consultancy, Other: Independent Review Committee; IRC member; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments, Research Funding; Genentech/Roche: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Celgene/BMS: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Cellectar: Other; MedImmune: Research Funding.

Background: Multiple myeloma (MM) is a heterogeneous disease that may be evaluated by a broad array of imaging and laboratory techniques to measure disease activity and predict prognosis. FDG PET/CT has been shown to be predictive of patient outcomes throughout the disease course, with several studies demonstrating that PET/CT is an independent prognostic factor for progression free survival and overall survival (OS). We sought to corroborate these findings by specifically examining the prognostic impact of PET/CT in the post-transplant setting. We retrospectively analyzed PET/CT in MM patients after consolidation therapy with autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) and correlated these findings with time to progression (TTP) and OS to assess the impact of day 100 PET/CT findings as an independent prognostic factor. Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted on 231 myeloma patients who underwent ASCT between 2003-2016 and had a FDG PET/CT exam available for analysis at an average of day 104 post-transplant. We recorded the findings on PET/CT prior to transplant, where available. PET/CT without evidence of active/residual disease (PET-) was defined per IMWG guidelines (disappearance of every area of increased tracer uptake found on preceding PET/CT, or uptake < mediastinal blood pool, or decrease < surrounding normal tissue). PET/CT indicating active disease (PET+) was defined as any abnormal uptake or incompletely resolved uptake from previous exam. A Kaplan-Meier model was used to estimate median TTP and OS and the 2-sided log-rank test to compare groups. TTP and OS were calculated from the date of ASCT to the date of confirmed disease progression or death, respectively. Outcomes were then compared among patients with a PET/CT versus those without a PET/CT post-ASCT to assess for the presence of selection bias. A proportional hazards fit model was used for multivariate analysis. Results: The median length of follow-up for the entire cohort was 49 months (range: 43-58 mo), median TTP was 18.5 months (95% CI; 15.4-21.8), and median OS was 61.5 months (95% CI; 49-75). Among the entire cohort (n=231), 150 (65%) patients had a positive PET/CT exam at day 100 post-ASCT while 81 (35%) had a negative PET exam. There were 195 (84%) patients with a PET/CT exam prior to ASCT available for comparison, of which 161 (85%) were PET+ and 29 (15%) were PET-. Median time between PET/CT exams was 4.1 months (range 1.4-55). Median TTP among PET+ patients near day 100 was 12.4 months vs. 24 months PET- patients (p<.0001, Fig 1, panel A). Median OS in the PET+ group was 46 months compared to 99 months in the PET- group (p<.0001, Fig 1, panel B). Among patients with a prior PET/CT (195, 84%), median TTP was longer in patients with both exams negative compared to those who were day 100 PET- and previously PET+ (42.6 mo vs. 21.1 mo respectively; p<.0001). TTP was shorter in those who were day 100 PET+ and previously PET- compared to those with persistently PET+ on both exams (4.5 vs. 12.3 mo; p<.0001, Figure 2). Since PET/CT was not routinely ordered post ASCT, we also compared the outcomes between patients getting a PET/CT (n=231) and remaining patients undergoing ASCT (n=1764). Among patients with a day 100 PET/CT vs. those without a PET/CT exam, there was a slightly longer median TTP and OS in the group who did not have a post-ASCT PET/CT. Hazard ratios (HR) after adjusting for disease response (CR at day 100 vs. non-CR) were as follows: TTP PET+ HR 1.76 (1.2-2.4; p=0.003), OS PET+ HR 1.8 (1.2-2.6; p=.0016). Conclusions: MM is a heterogeneous disease that relies on different assessments for determining response, activity, and prognosis. Among these, PET/CT has shown promise in predicting prognosis, independent of disease state and conventional prognostic factors. Our study confirms these findings, demonstrating that an abnormal PET/CT near day 100 post-transplant is predictive of shorter TTP and OS. This prognostic significance remained even after adjusting for disease response (CR vs. non-CR), which could be explained by the sometimes patchy distribution of myeloma in the bone marrow, and identification of extramedullary disease by PET/CT. Taken together, these results demonstrate a possible role for incorporating PET/CT in the post-transplant setting as an independent prognostic variable in stratifying disease risk. Disclosures Dingli: Apellis: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Rigel: Consultancy; Millenium: Consultancy; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Research Funding; Sanofi-Genzyme: Consultancy; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Alexion: Consultancy. Gertz:NCI SPORE MM: Research Funding; International Waldenstrom Foundation: Research Funding; Amyloidosis Foundation: Research Funding; Springer Publishing: Patents & Royalties; i3Health: Consultancy; Advisory Board for Proclara: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Advisory Board for Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; DAVA oncology: Speakers Bureau; Johnson and Johnson: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy; Data Safety Monitoring board from Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Physicians Education Resource: Consultancy; Medscape: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy; Appellis: Consultancy; Annexon: Consultancy; Spectrum: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Prothena: Consultancy; Alnylam: Consultancy; Ionis/Akcea: Consultancy. Dispenzieri:Janssen: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Alnylam: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Intellia: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding. Kapoor:Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria; Cellectar: Consultancy; GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding. Lin:Sorrento: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Vineti: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy, Research Funding; Juno: Consultancy; Legend BioTech: Consultancy; Merck: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Gamida Cells: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding. Kumar:Amgen: Consultancy, Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments, Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy; Janssen Oncology: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Genentech/Roche: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Dr. Reddy's Laboratories: Honoraria; Novartis: Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Oncopeptides: Consultancy, Other: Independent Review Committee; IRC member; AbbVie: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Takeda: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Cellectar: Other; Tenebio: Other, Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; Celgene/BMS: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Carsgen: Other, Research Funding; Genecentrix: Consultancy; MedImmune: Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding.

Background: Multiple myeloma (MM) is a clonal plasma cell malignancy characterized by a complex genomic landscape with molecular and clinical heterogeneity. Venetoclax (Ven) is a selective, potent, oral BCL-2 inhibitor currently under investigation as a potential targeted therapy for the treatment of relapsed/refractory (RR) MM. Using a next-generation sequencing (NGS)-based approach, the mutational landscape and gene expression profile (GEP) of patients (pts) with RRMM in BELLINI was evaluated for potential impact on observed clinical outcomes in key biomarker subgroups. Methods: BELLINI (NCT02755597) is a randomized, double-blind, multicenter Phase 3 study of bortezomib + dexamethasone (Bd) + either Ven or placebo (Pbo) in pts with RRMM who received 1-3 prior therapies and were sensitive or naïve to proteasome inhibitors. Pts were randomized 2:1 to receive Ven 800 mg/d or Pbo + Bd. The following biomarker analyses were performed by central laboratory assessments of CD138-enriched bone marrow mononuclear cells collected at baseline: BCL2 gene expression by quantitative PCR (qPCR), cytogenetic abnormalities by interphase fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH), identification of somatic mutations by whole-exome sequencing (WES), and transcriptomic analysis by RNA sequencing (RNAseq). Correlation between mutational status, BCL2high status (Harrison et al. Blood. 2019:134 suppl:142), cytogenetics, GEP, and survival outcomes were examined by pairwise t-test and by hazard ratio (HR) from Cox proportional hazard model. Results: As of the data cutoff (13 Sep 2019), 291 pts were randomized (194 to Ven and 97 to Pbo); 262 pts (90.0%) were evaluable by FISH, 257 pts (88.3%) by qPCR, 197 pts (67.7%) by WES, and 184 pts (63.2%) by RNAseq. The mutational landscape of evaluable pts was highly heterogeneous (Figure 1A). MAPK pathway mutations were the most prevalent (62/197 pts; 31.5%); however, recurrent mutations in the NF-kB pathway (TRAF3 or CYLD) were also observed (12/197 pts; 6.1%). Within the MAPK pathway, the most frequently mutated genes were KRAS (39/197 pts; 19.8%), NRAS (8/197 pts; 4.1%), BRAF (8/197 pts; 4.1%), and NF1 (12/197 pts; 6.1%). Although a higher rate of pts with a MAPK mutation was observed in the t(11;14) and BCL2high subgroup compared to pts without these biomarkers (39/101 pts [38.6%] vs 23/95 pts [24.2%]; P=.04), improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) with Ven+Bd was observed in pts with (HR=0.08; 95% CI, 0.02-0.31; P<.001) or without (HR, 0.31 [95% CI, 0.16-0.63]; P=.001) a MAPK pathway mutation. High somatic mutation loads are associated with increased genomic instability, resistance to therapy, and decreased overall survival (OS) in MM. High tumor mutation burden (TMB), defined as ≥20 mutations/megabase of sequenced DNA, was observed in 12/197 pts (6.1%). Although there were a limited number of high TMB pts, reduced PFS (HR, 4.55 [95% CI, 2.33-8.88]; P<.001) and OS (HR, 3.89 [95% CI, 1.76-8.56]; P<.001) compared to low TMB pts was observed regardless of treatment arm. WES detected a recurrent BCL2 mutation (Ala43Thr) in 15/197 pts (7.6%). This BCL2 mutation has not previously been identified in MM and did not appear to affect survival outcomes among pts in either arm. Supervised clustering of RNAseq data grouped pts into respective MM GEP (Zhan et al. Blood. 2006;108:2020) at the following frequencies: CD-1 (2.7%), CD-2 (8.2%), HY (40.2%), MF (1.6%), MS (10.9%), LB (5.4%), and PR (31.0%). As shown in Figure 1B, 16/20 pts (80%) allocated to the CD-1/CD-2 cluster had a t(11;14) mutation, but 17/20 pts (85%) and 2/3 pts (67%) in MS and MF GEP groups had t(4;14) or t(14;16) mutations, respectively. The HY GEP group was primarily (56/74 pts; 76%) hyperdiploid by FISH. Though a higher rate of pts with a HY GEP (50/98 pts [51.0%] vs 24/86 pts [27.9%]; P<.001) and a lower rate of PR GEP (11/98 pts [11.2%] vs 46/86 pts [53.5%]; P<.001) were observed in the t(11;14) and BCL2high subgroups compared with non-t(11;14) and BCL2low subgroups, respectively, improvement in PFS with Ven+Bd was independent of GEP classification. Conclusion: Using an integrative approach of genomic and transcriptomic profiling, response to Ven+Bd in key biomarker subgroups was shown to be independent of concurrent mutations in key oncogenic signaling pathways and GEPs known to be prognostic in MM; however, high mutation load appears to be a clinically relevant risk factor that negatively affects survival in MM. Disclosures O'Dwyer: Celgene: Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company); BMS: Research Funding; Carrick Therapeutics: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company); Janssen: Consultancy, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company); AbbVie: Consultancy; ONK Therapeutics: Consultancy, Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding. Spencer:Roche: Honoraria; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pharmamar: Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Secura Bio: Consultancy, Honoraria; Servier: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; HaemaLogiX: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Kumar:Janssen Oncology: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Celgene/BMS: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Takeda: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Tenebio: Other, Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy, Other: Independent Review Committee; IRC member; Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Amgen: Consultancy, Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments, Research Funding; Genecentrix: Consultancy; Cellectar: Other; MedImmune: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Sanofi: Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy; Carsgen: Other, Research Funding; Dr. Reddy's Laboratories: Honoraria; Genentech/Roche: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Novartis: Research Funding. Popat:AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel support, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company); Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; GSK: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company); Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria. Moreau:Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene/Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria. Dail:Genentech: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Jalaluddin:AbbVie: Current Employment, Other: may hold stock or stock options. Yang:Abbvie: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Lu:AbbVie: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Zha:Abbvie: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Dunbar:Abbvie: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Vishwamitra:AbbVie, Inc.: Current Employment, Other: may hold stock or other options. Mantis:Abbvie: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Melhem-Bertrandt:AbbVie: Current Employment; Astellas: Ended employment in the past 24 months. Ross:AbbVie: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Harrison:F. Hoffmann-La Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria; CRISPR Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria; GSK: 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; Celgene: 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, Research Funding; Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Patents & Royalties: wrt panobinostat; Janssen: Honoraria; Haemalogix: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria.

Background: The absence of residual monoclonal protein in the serum and urine by IFE using specific antibodies to individual heavy and light chains has been an important part of response assessment and is required for categorizing patients as in complete response. MASS FIX has been shown to be more sensitive in picking up small amounts of monoclonal protein and represents an advancement in the field. Ongoing studies are examining the clinical significance of this increased sensitivity. We designed the following study using clinically obtained test results to examine this question. Patients and methods: The clinical laboratory at Mayo Clinic changed the process from IFE to MASS FIX in July 2018. We identified patients who had sequential testing before and after this date and collected test results from the last IFE prior to the date of transition and the first MASS FIX after the date of transition. Patients were grouped based on the paired results and outcomes compared between groups. Time to next therapy (TTNT) was defined as the time from the first MASS FIX date to the start of next therapy. Survival was estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method and these curves were compared using log rank test. Results: Overall, 739 patients with MM, who had a MASS FIX within 12 months of the IFE were studied; 380 (51%) patients had a negative IFE prior to implementation of MASS FIX. These patients had a MASS FIX test performed at a median of 3.7 (0.03-12) months from the last available IFE. The gap between IFE and MASS FIX was <6 months and < 3 months in 71% and 54% of the patients. Among the patients with a negative IFE, 130 (34%) tested positive on the subsequent MASS FIX. Limiting the analysis to those with a MASS FIX within 6 and 3 months yielded 32% in each group that turned positive from previous negative IFE. The median TTNT from the MASS FIX date was significantly shorter for those who became positive on MASSFIX; median was not reached for either group (P=0.002) (Figure). We then limited the analysis to those patients with a gap of <6 months and <3 months between the tests. The results were consistent: P= 0.012 for those with a gap of < 6 months and P=0.01 for those with a gap < 3 months. Conclusion: The results suggest that the additional sensitivity offered by MASS FIX have clinical significance in patients with MM, given that patients with residual disease identified by MASS FIX have an earlier relapse. The data supports the use of the more sensitive MASS FIX in the laboratory compared to the conventional IFE approaches. The study has the disadvantage that the samples were not tested simultaneously and some of the samples turning positive may reflect an early evidence of relapse, but the relative consistency of the finding irrespective of the gap between the tests argues against that. Ongoing studies are examining MASS FIX on the samples that were called to be negative by IFE initially. Figure Disclosures Murray: The Binding Site: Patents & Royalties: Patent Use of Mass Spec to identify monoclonal proteins licensed to The Binding Site. Dispenzieri:Takeda: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Intellia: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Alnylam: Research Funding. Kapoor:Cellectar: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding. Gertz:Janssen: Other: personal fee; Spectrum: Other: personal fee, Research Funding; Springer Publishing: Patents & Royalties; Abbvie: Other; Appellis: Other: personal fee; Annexon: Other: personal fee; Celgene: Other; Amgen: Other: personal fee; Physicians Education Resource: Other: personal fee; Medscape: Other: personal fee, Speakers Bureau; Research to Practice: Other; Sanofi: Other; Teva: Speakers Bureau; Johnson and Johnson: Speakers Bureau; DAVA oncology: Speakers Bureau; Proclara: Other; Aurora Bio: Other; Prothena: Other: personal fee; Alnylam: Other: personal fee; Ionis/Akcea: Other: personal fee. Dingli:Karyopharm Therapeutics: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Rigel: Consultancy; Sanofi-Genzyme: Consultancy; Millenium: Consultancy; Alexion: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Apellis: Consultancy. Lin:Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Gamida Cells: Consultancy; Sorrento: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Vineti: Consultancy; Legend BioTech: Consultancy; Merck: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy, Research Funding; Juno: Consultancy. Kumar:Dr. Reddy's Laboratories: Honoraria; AbbVie: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Carsgen: Other, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Tenebio: Other, Research Funding; Celgene/BMS: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy; Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; Takeda: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Janssen Oncology: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Genentech/Roche: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; MedImmune: Research Funding; Cellectar: Other; Genecentrix: Consultancy; Oncopeptides: Consultancy, Other: Independent Review Committee; IRC member; Amgen: Consultancy, Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding.