Khwaja, Jahanzaib

Abstract Secondary central nervous system (CNS) large B-cell lymphoma (SCNSL) occurs in the de novo setting, as a CNS-isolated relapse, or synchronous (concomitant CNS and systemic) relapse. SCNSL is a devastating event without therapeutic consensus. Thus, we aimed to evaluate treatment outcomes in an international cohort. Progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and cumulative incidence of relapse (CIR, estimated using competing-risk models) were reported. Prognostic factors were identified in a 6-month landmark multivariate analysis. Outcomes after thiotepa autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) and chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy (CAR-T) delivered at relapse were compared after propensity score matching (PSM). A total of 1139 patients were included in the analysis (de novo: 537; relapsed SCNSL: 602). Two-year PFS estimates were 40.4%, 43.9%, and 16.2% for de novo SCNSL, CNS-isolated relapse, and synchronous relapse, respectively. Patients with CNS-isolated relapse demonstrated low rates of systemic recurrence (24-month CIR, 6%). Thiotepa-ASCT correlated with longer survival in de novo SCNSL (PFS: hazard ratio [HR], 0.57; P = .005; and OS: HR, 0.62; P = .023) and CNS-isolated relapses (PFS: HR, 0.55; P = .002; and OS: HR, 0.39; P< .0001). ASCT (thiotepa or no thiotepa) also associated with improved survival in synchronous relapses (PFS: HR, 0.57; P = .023; and OS: HR, 0.48; P = .019). Higher survival with thiotepa-ASCT than CAR-T was observed after PSM (PFS: HR, 0.45; P = .005 and OS: HR, 0.41; P = .014). These data support thiotepa-ASCT in eligible patients, particularly de novo disease and CNS-isolated relapses. CNS-isolated relapse was infrequently associated with systemic recurrence, supporting treatment regimens adopted from primary CNS lymphoma.

PURPOSE Outcomes in systemic light chain (AL) amyloidosis have improved with modern therapy limiting utility of existing risk stratification models. We validate a new staging system, incorporating longitudinal strain (LS) to the biomarker-based (NT-proBNP and Troponin-T) staging system in the contemporary treatment era (2015-2024). METHODS AL International Staging System (AL-ISS) was derived from a cohort of patients with AL amyloidosis from the UK National Amyloidosis Centre (2015-2019). The model was validated in patient cohorts from Europe (Greece, Italy, the Netherlands, and Switzerland), the United States (2015-2024), and the United Kingdom (2020-2024). RESULTS In total, 2,493 patients were included (derivation, n = 573; validation n = 1,920). In a multivariable model for the derivation cohort, LS ≥ –9% and cardiac biomarkers at previously validated thresholds (NT-proBNP 332 ng/L and 8,500 ng/L and high-sensitivity troponin T ≥ 50 ng/L) were independent poor prognostic factors stratifying patients into stages I, II, IIIA, IIIB, and IIIC. In the validation cohort, the patient stages were stage I: 317 (17%), II: 782 (41%), IIIA: 551 (29%), IIIB: 174 (9%), and IIIC: 96 (5%), respectively (first-line daratumumab treated: 826; 43%). With a median follow-up of 34 months, median overall survival (OS) was not reached (NR); estimated 1-year, 2-year, and 3-year OS was 82%, 74%, and 70% respectively. The median survival for stages I to II, IIIA, IIIB, and IIIC were NR, 67, 26, and 7 months (1-year OS IIIC 53% v 68% for IIIB in the daratumumab-treated patients), respectively ( P < .001). External validation exhibited good predictive performance: 12-month calibration slope was 1.09, Harrell C 0.69, Royston D 1.19, and R 2 D 0.25. Stage IIIC independently discriminated the poorest outcome across all cohorts. CONCLUSION This defines and validates a new staging system from systemic AL amyloidosis with robust identification of an ultra-poor risk stage (IIIC) in contemporarily treated patients.

Abstract Background: Systemic AL amyloidosis is an incurable disorder caused by misfolded light chain fibrils. Survival is determined by the extent of cardiac involvement and response to therapy. Mayo 2012 (stage I-IV) and European modified Mayo 2004 (stage I-IIIB) prognostic scores were developed in a historic treatment era, prior to widespread bortezomib and daratumumab use. These no longer discriminate those with the poorest outcomes. We presented a new model sub-stratifying IIIB into a high risk, ‘IIIC’ group, incorporating longitudinal strain (LS) to the European modified score (IIIC: LS &gt;-9% + NT-proBNP &gt;8500ng/L + high-sensitivity troponin T [hs-TnT] &gt;50ng/L) in the bortezomib-era (2015-2019) last year (Khwaja et al, ASH 2024). Here, we present an independent external validation of the IIIC model in the modern treatment era. Methods: The ‘IIIC model’ was derived from a large real-world cohort of adults from the UK National Amyloidosis Centre (2015-2019). Performance was externally validated across Europe (Greece, Italy, Netherlands, Switzerland), USA (2015-2024) and UK (2020-2024). Survival estimates were generated from diagnosis to death or last follow-up using the Kaplan-Meier method and groups compared using Cox regression (using Stata v18). Stage IIIB and IIIC were defined as follows IIIB: LS &lt;-9%, NT-proBNP &gt;8500ng/L, hs-TnT &gt;50ng/L and IIIC: LS &gt;-9%, NT-proBNP &gt;8500ng/L, hs-TnT &gt;50ng/L, respectively. Stage I, II and IIIa were defined as previously described in the European modification of Mayo 2004 staging system. Results: 2493 patients were analysed from 2015-2024 (derivation, n=573; validation: Europe, n=374, USA n=458, UK, n=1088). In the derivation cohort, LS ≥-9% and standard cardiac biomarkers (NT-proBNP 332ng/L and 8500ng/L and hs-TnT&gt;50ng/L) were selected as independent prognostic factors in a multivariable model. In the European and UK validation cohort (n=1462), median age at diagnosis was 67 years (range 35-95) with 1014 (69%) cardiac and 869 (60%) renal involvement. Median difference in involved and uninvolved free light chain (dFLC) was 181 mg/L (range 0-24933), NT-proBNP 1911ng/L (range 42-70000), hs-TnT 45ng/L (range 3-1221) and LS -14.7% (range -3- -28). In the US cohort median NT-proBNP was 1764 (range 13-71000) and hs-TnT 44 (6-687). Applying the new model staging, the patient stages were across Europe and UK were stage I: 224 (15%), II: 627 (43%), IIIA: 396 (27%), IIIB: 139 (10%) and IIIC: 76 (5%), respectively. 592 (41%) were treated with first-line daratumumab-based regimens. In the US dataset stage I: 103 (22%), II: 176 (38%), IIIA: 131 (29%), IIIB: 48 (10%) and IIIC: 16 (3%), respectively. 234 (51%) were treated with first-line daratumumab-based regimens. At a median follow-up of 30 months (95% CI 28-32) in the European and UK validation cohort, estimated median overall survival (OS) was not reached and 2-year OS was 74% (95% CI 72-77). Median survival for stages I-II, IIIA, IIIB and IIIC were not reached (NR), 67, 31 and 10 months, respectively (p&lt;0.001). Hazard ratios for stage II, IIIA, IIIB, IIIC were 2.01 (95% CI 1.32-3.07), 3.51 (95% CI 2.31-5.35), 5.67 (95% CI 3.60-8.91) and 11.12 (95% CI 6.93-17.87), respectively (p&lt;0.001). This was confirmed in the US cohort with a median survival for respective stages were NR, NR, NR, 8 and 2 months (p&lt;0.001). External validation in the European and UK cohorts exhibited good predictive performance: 12-month calibration slope was 1.00 (95% CI 0.81-1.20, p=0.98), Harrel's C was 0.90 (95% CI 0.76-1.00), Royston's D 1.07, R2D 0.21 (95% CI 0.15-0.28). In 1462 patients with dataset available, stage IIIC discriminated the poorest outcome despite a greater proportion treated with first-line daratumumab v IIIB in the validation cohort (59% v 40%, p=0.008). 12-month OS for IIIC v IIIB was 44% (95% CI 32-55) v 69% (95% CI 60-76), specificity for 12-month OS 97% v 92% and diagnostic odds ratio 6.62 v 2.36. Conclusions: This study validates the new staging system from stage I-IIIC with robust identification of an ultra-poor prognostic group (Stage IIIC) in a contemporarily treated patient cohort. Despite novel therapies, the OS remains &lt;12 month in the IIIC group and also poor in stage IIIB with median OS 31 months compared to a median of &gt;5 years for all other stages. This staging system can be considered as a new standard of care for risk stratification of AL amyloidosis. Novel approaches are required for patients with advanced risk.

Introduction: Scant data exist on prognostic factors, survival and treatment (Tx)-related outcomes in SCNSL. We conducted a multicenter international analysis to identify prognostic factors and outcomes in SCNSL at diagnosis (de novo), or after frontline Tx (1L) either with (concomitant) or without (isolated) systemic (syst) relapse. Methods: This study collected data from patients (pts) treated between 2001-2023 at 35 centers. Overall (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were calculated from SCNSL diagnosis to first event (death for OS, relapse/death for PFS) or last follow-up. Uni- (UVA) and multivariable (MVA) Cox analyses were performed to assess prognostic factors; Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate survival. Results: 1173 (US: 863, UK: 273, Canada: 37) pts with SCNSL were included. Baseline characteristics were median age: 62 years (interquartile range 52.5-69), male sex: 58.7%, elevated LDH: 71.1%, stage III/IV: 88.6%, HIV: 3%, transformed LBCL (tLBCL): 13.8%, non-germinal center B-cell like (non-GCB) subtype: 52.3%, double expressor (DE): 40%, MYC rearrangement (MYC-R): 28.3%, MYC/BCL2 double hit: 16.6%, MYC/BCL2/BCL6 triple hit (TH): 6.1%. Among 522 pts with de novo SCNSL, 84.2% had involvement of a single CNS compartment (44.7% brain parenchyma; 40.4% leptomeningeal [lepto]). 1L regimens included 36.2% R-CHOP with high-dose methotrexate (HD-MTX), 12.5% MARIETTA-type, and 9.8% R-CODOX-M/IVAC; 54.6% received intrathecal chemotherapy. Consolidation Thiotepa-based autologous stem cell transplant (TT-ASCT) occurred in 15.3%. The majority of pts who underwent TT-ASCT had previously achieved CR or PR in syst (92.5%) and CNS (72.5%) compartments. At median follow-up 25.7 months (mos), subsequent relapse was observed in 27.5% TT-ASCT recipients: 36.3% had isolated CNS, 27.4% syst, and 36.3% concomitant. 588 pts presented with SCNS after 1L (66.2% isolated, 33.8% concomitant). Brain parenchyma involvement was observed in 56.8%, lepto in 22.6%. Tx included 31.6% HD-MTX combination (eg, R-MPV, MTR); 18.4% HD-MTX +/- rituximab; 16.2% MARIETTA-type; and 9.4% platinum-based regimen. Consolidation TT-ASCT occurred in 22.4% (n=132), and 13.8% (n=81) received CAR-T cell therapy (excluding subsequent relapses in de novo group). Syst (65.1%) & CNS (69.1%) responses (CR/PR) were higher before TT-ASCT compared to CAR-T cell (49.5% & 54.5%, respectively). After TT-ASCT, 52 pts (39.3%) relapsed, mainly in the CNS (n=30, 57.7%), with only 4 (7.7%) concomitant. After CAR-T, 48 pts (59.3%) relapsed: 15 (31.2%) isolated in CNS and 15 (31.2%) concomitant. 12-month cumulative incidence of relapse (with death as competing risk) was 21.1% after TT-ASCT and 55.8% after CAR-T. In 63 pts (5.4%), the first CNS event occurred &gt;2 lines of Tx. With median follow-up of the entire cohort of 24.6 mos, median PFS and OS were 11 and 21 mos, respectively. mPFS and mOS were significantly better in pts with de novo SCNSL (13.4 & 47.4 mos) compared to SCNSL after 1L (10.4 & 14.2 mos) and &gt;2 lines of Tx (6.5 & 9.7 mos); P&lt;0.0001. Factors associated with significantly shorter OS in UVA across all presentations were age &gt;60, male sex, GCB subtype, MYC-R, tLBCL, DE, TH, elevated LDH, ECOG PS ≥2, SCNSL after 1L (vs. de novo), and failure to achieve syst/CNS response to 1L. Of these, age &gt;60, male sex, MYC-R, ECOG PS ≥2, and failure to achieve response to 1L remained significant in MVA. In de novo cases, age &gt;60, DE, ECOG PS≥2, and failure to achieve syst/CNS response to 1L were associated with poorer OS; for pts with SCNSL after 1L, age &gt;60, GCB subtype, and ECOG PS ≥2 were significant. Pts treated with HD-MTX-based regimens after 1L experienced longer OS than those treated with platinum regimens or high-dose cytarabine. In de novo cases, TT-ASCT was significantly associated with longer OS (HR=0.58; P=0.025) in MVA after adjusting for significant factors, 1L type, and response. For SCNSL at relapse, TT-ASCT (HR=0.34; P&lt;.0001) and isolated SCNSL presentation (vs. concomitant HR=0.70, P=0.007) were associated with longer OS, adjusting for significant factors, type of second-line Tx, & site of CNS relapse. Conclusions: This study represents the largest analysis of SCNSL inclusive of all modes of presentation. Concomitant SCNSL at relapse was associated with poor outcomes, while TT-ASCT consolidation was associated with improved OS in de novo & relapsed disease. Despite advances in LBCL SCNSL remains an unmet therapeutic need.

PURPOSE CNS progression or relapse is an uncommon but devastating complication of aggressive B-cell lymphoma. There is no consensus regarding the optimal approach to CNS prophylaxis. This study was designed to determine whether high-dose methotrexate (HD-MTX) is effective at preventing CNS progression in patients at high risk of this complication. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients age 18-80 years with aggressive B-cell lymphoma and high risk of CNS progression, treated with curative-intent anti–CD20-based chemoimmunotherapy, were included in this international, retrospective, observational study. Cause-specific hazard ratios (HRs) and cumulative risks of CNS progression were calculated according to use of HD-MTX, with time to CNS progression calculated from diagnosis for all patients (all-pts) and from completion of frontline systemic lymphoma induction therapy, for patients in complete response at completion of chemoimmunotherapy (CR-pts). RESULTS Two thousand four hundred eighteen all-pts (HD-MTX; n = 425) and 1,616 CR-pts (HD-MTX; n = 356) were included. CNS International Prognostic Index was 4-6 in 83.4% all-pts. Patients treated with HD-MTX had a lower risk of CNS progression (adjusted HR, 0.59 [95% CI, 0.38 to 0.90]; P = .014), but significance was not retained when confined to CR-pts (adjusted HR, 0.74 [95% CI, 0.42 to 1.30]; P = .29), with 5-year adjusted risk difference of 1.6% (95% CI, –1.5 to 4.4; all-pts) and 1.4% (95% CI, –1.5 to 4.1; CR-pts). Subgroups were underpowered to draw definitive conclusions regarding the efficacy of HD-MTX in individual high-risk clinical scenarios; however, there was no clear reduction in CNS progression risk with HD-MTX in any high-risk subgroup. CONCLUSION In this large study, high-risk patients receiving HD-MTX had a 7.2% 2-year risk of CNS progression, consistent with the progression risk in previously reported high-risk cohorts. Use of HD-MTX was not associated with a clinically meaningful reduction in risk of CNS progression.

Abstract Introduction Central nervous system relapse (secondary central nervous system lymphoma -SCNS) is an uncommon but devastating complication of aggressive B-cell lymphoma. Patients (Pts) with CNS-IPI 4-6 are at greatest risk (10.2% at 2 years). Intravenous high-dose methotrexate (HD-MTX) is widely used to mitigate SCNS risk but data supporting this practice are limited. Methods We performed a multicentre, retrospective study at 21 sites in Australia, Asia, North America and Europe. Chart or registry review was performed for consecutively diagnosed pts with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) and CNS-IPI 4-6, high grade B-cell lymphoma (HGBL) with rearrangements of MYC+BCL2 and/or BCL6 and primary breast/testicular DLBCL irrespective of CNS-IPI. Pts were diagnosed between 2000-2020, 18-80 years at diagnosis, and treated with curative intent anti-CD20 based chemo-immunotherapy. Pts with CNS involvement at diagnosis were excluded. HD-MTX was defined as at least one cycle of intravenous MTX at any dose. Time to SCNS was calculated from date of diagnosis (all-pts), and from the end of frontline systemic lymphoma therapy, defined as 6x21 days from diagnosis (complete response (CR-pts)), until SCNS, systemic relapse, death, or censoring, whichever came first. Cumulative risk of SCNS was computed using the Aalen-Johansen estimator treating death and systemic relapses as competing events. Adjusted cumulative risks were obtained by using an inverse probability of treatment weighting approach. The average treatment effect was computed as the difference in adjusted 5-year risk of SCNS. Results - 2300 and 1455 pts were included in the all-pts and CR-pts analyses, respectively. Baseline demographics and details of therapy are summarised in Table 1. Except for a predominance of males, pts ≤60 years and pts with ECOG 0-1 in the HD-MTX vs no HD-MTX groups, the demographics and treatments were well balanced. At a median follow up of 5.9 years (range 0.0-19.1) and 5.5 years from diagnosis (range 0.0-18.7), 201/2300 and 84/1455 pts experienced CNS events in the all-pts and CR-pts analyses respectively. For all-pts(n=2300), CNS-IPI was 4-6 in 2052(89.2%), with R-CHOP-like therapy given to 93.8%. 410 pts (17.8%) received HD-MTX (265 HD-MTX alone, 145 in combination with intrathecal methotrexate (IT-MTX);435 received IT-MTX alone;1455 received neither. There were 32/410 and 169/1890 SCNS events, with median time from diagnosis to SCNS of 8.8 and 6.7 months in the HD-MTX and no HD-MTX groups respectively. 5-year OS was 70% (95% CI, 65-76%) and 55% (95% CI 53-57%) in HD-MTX and no HD-MTX groups respectively. There was no difference in the adjusted 5-year risk of SCNS between the HD-MTX and no HD-MTX groups (8.4% vs 9.1%, adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0.71, p=0.100) (Figure 1). For CR-pts(n=1455), CNS-IPI was 4-6 in 1267(87.0%), with R-CHOP-like therapy given to 93.3%. 284 pts (19.5%) received HD-MTX (170 HD-MTX alone, 114 with IT-MTX);298 received IT-MTX alone;873 received neither. There were 16/284 and 68/1171 SCNS events, with median time from diagnosis to SCNS of 11.0 and 10.3 months in the HD-MTX and no HD-MTX groups respectively. 5-year OS was 74%(95% CI 67-81%) and 75%(95% CI 72-78%) in the HD-MTX groups and no HD-MTX groups respectively (adjusted HR 1.08, p=0.622). There was no difference in the 5-year risk of CNS relapse between the HD-MTX and no HD-MTX groups 5.0% vs 6.0% (adjusted HR 1.03, p=0.903) (Figure 2). Exploratory analysis of the impact of HD-MTX among the highest risk groups CNS IPI 5 (n=368), CNS-IPI 6 (n=59) and CNS-IPI 6 plus all pts with testicular, renal or adrenal involvement (n=349) did not reveal differences in SCNS rates in HD-MTX treated pts. Additional subgroup analyses will be presented at the meeting. Conclusions To our knowledge, this is the largest study of the efficacy of HD-MTX in reducing SCNS events focusing exclusively on high-risk pts. The overall incidence of CNS relapse observed was consistent with previous reports in similar patient cohorts at 9%. The use of HD-MTX did not lower SCNS rates overall or when analysis was confined to CR pts at completion of curative intent therapy to compensate for potential immortal bias associated with HD-MTX therapy. Despite the limitations of the non-randomized and retrospective design, it appears unlikely that HD-MTX is associated with a clinically meaningful reduction in SCNS rates in pts with high risk for SCNS. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Lewis: AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Patents & Royalties: Conference attendance; Janssen: Honoraria, Patents & Royalties: Conference attendance; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria. Villa: Janssen: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria; AstraZeneca: Honoraria; AbbVie: Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Lundbeck: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria; NanoString Technologies: Honoraria. Bobillo: F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Speakers Bureau. Ekstroem Smedby: Takeda: Consultancy; Janssen Cilag: Research Funding. Savage: Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Institutional clinical trial funding; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Institutional clinical trial funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Roche: Research Funding; Takeda: Other: Institutional clinical trial funding; Servier: Consultancy, Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria; Beigene: Other: Institutional clinical trial funding; Genentech: Research Funding. Eyre: Beigene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy; Secura Bio: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Gilead/KITE: Honoraria, Other: Travel support for conferences, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Loxo Oncology: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel to conferences; AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria. Cwynarski: Incyte: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Atara: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy, Other: travel to scientific conferences, Speakers Bureau; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Other: travel to scientific conferences, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Other: travel to scientific conferences; Roche: Consultancy, Other: travel to scientific conferences, Speakers Bureau; BMS/Celgene: Other: travel to scientific conferences. Stewart: Teva: Honoraria; Sandoz: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; AstraZeneca: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria; Abbvie: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria. Bishton: Gilead: Honoraria, Other: Travel grants; AbbVie: Honoraria, Other: Travel grants; Celgene/BMS: Honoraria, Other: travel grants; Celltrion: Honoraria, Other: Travel grants; Takeda.: Honoraria, Other: Travel grants . Fox: F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Joffe: Epizyme: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy. Eloranta: Janssen Pharmaceutical NV: Other: NV. Sehn: Genmab: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Debiopharm: Consultancy. Manos: Bristol-Myers Squibb: Other: Travel and meetings. Hawkes: Specialised Therapeutics: Consultancy; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck Sharpe Dohme: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Antigene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Regeneron: Speakers Bureau; Bristol Myers Squib/Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Merck KgA: Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel and accommodation expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Speakers Bureau. Minson: Novartis: Research Funding; Hoffman La Roche: Research Funding. Dickinson: Celgene: Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria; Takeda: Research Funding; Gilead Sciences: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; MSD: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel, accommodation, expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Øvlisen: Abbvie: Other: Travel expenses. Gregory: Roche: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel fees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy. Ku: Roche: Consultancy; Antegene: Consultancy; Genor Biopharma: Consultancy. Talaulikar: Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding; Jansenn: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; EUSA Pharma: Honoraria, Research Funding. Maurer: Pfizer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Morphosys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Nanostring: Research Funding. El-Galaly: Abbvie: Other: Speakers fee; ROCHE Ltd: Ended employment in the past 24 months. Cheah: Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: advisory and travel expenses, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: advisory; MSD: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: advisory, Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: advisory; Ascentage pharma: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: advisory; Beigene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: advisory; AbbVie: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: advisory; Loxo/Lilly: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: advisory; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: advisory.