O’Reilly, Eileen M.

343 Background: Alliance/CALGB 80802, a randomized phase III trial, evaluated sorafenib plus doxorubicin vs. doxorubicin in pts with HCC and showed no improvement in median overall survival (OS) (HR[95CI] 1.05[0.83-1.31]) or PFS (HR[95CI] 0.93[0.75-1.16]). In HCC surrogacy of tumor response with OS remains controversial, in part due to varying criteria used for response evaluation (e.g., RECIST1.1 and mRECIST). We evaluated the performance of several models to predict OS using pretreatment clinical and radiomic variables. Methods: In CALBG 80802, we segmented all measurable tumor lesions on sequential CT scans. A lesion’s imaging phenotype was deciphered with 23 uncorrelated quantitative imaging features measured at baseline and week (wk) 10 (first follow-up). An OS landmark survival analysis was conducted at wk 10. Patients were randomly assigned (3:1) to training (n = 92) and validation (n = 37) sets. In a training set, 6 random forest predictive models (6 signatures) used features that best predicted OS using 3 sets of variables: radiomics only (n = 23), clinical only (n = 9), radiomics and clinical (n = 32). Two time points (baseline only or baseline + wk 10) were assessed. Each signature's output was an individualized prediction and a continuous value ranging from 0 to 1 (from most to least favorable predicted OS). The primary endpoint was to compare these models' performance to predict OS using error rate (Harrell's concordance-index) in the validation set. Results: Of the 6 training signatures evaluated, the one achieving the highest performance in the validation set was an 8-feature signature combining radiomics and clinical variables measured at two time points (baseline + wk 10) with an error rate of 35.6%. The variables [rank of importance] (table) selected by the signature included baseline clinical features (albumin[1], AFP[2], Child-Pugh[4]), baseline radiomics features (component 17[3], component 1[5], component 9[7], tumor volume[8]) and wk 10 radiomics features (delta tumor volume[6]). Variable delta tumor volume [6] used a more enhanced estimation of tumor burden at baseline and a delta tumor volumetric measurement; compared to RECIST1.1 measurement of percentage change in unidimensional measurement of a subset of target lesions. The four quartiles of the signature were significantly associated with OS (Log-Rank, P < 0.0001). Conclusions: The selected combined radiomic and clinical composite signature provided the best prediction for OS in the 80802 study patients’ population. It is a suggested way forward to go beyond single anatomic measurement techniques such as RECIST or mRECIST. [Table: see text]

325 Background: Alliance/CALGB 80802 randomized phase III trial evaluated DO+S vs. S in pts with aHCC, and showed no improvement in median OS. Multi-drug resistant pathway mitigation by the Ras/Raf/MEK/ERK pathway and bFGF-mediated activation of Raf-1 promotes the formation of antiapoptotic Raf-1 and ASK1 complex, induced by anthracyclines. S efficiently blocks NS5A-recruited c-Raf mediated HCV replication and viral gene expression. Once inhibited by S, VEGF expression of HepG2 may limit HCV cellular entry. Release of Raf-1-Ask-1 dimer and inhibition of Raf-1 via S putatively differ in the presence or absence of DO. We hypothesize treatment with S reduces HCV titer levels (TL) and influence pts’ outcome. Methods: In 80802 HCV pts, TL were evaluated in both arms at baseline and post-baseline at Day 1 of Cycles 2, 3, and every 2 cycles and at progression or discontinuation of therapy. HCV undetectable (HCV-UN) levels were defined as < 50 copies/mL. TL were evaluated in relation to OS and PFS. HCV RNA levels were measured by TaqMan PCR and by genotype. Results: Of 356 pts, 83 were HCV+ with more Black/African American (25/50 = 50%) vs. White (54/239 = 23%) or other race groups (4/67 = 6%) (p < 0.0001). HCV titer data were available on 54 pts (S: 28, DO+S: 26). At baseline, 12 pts (S: 7, DO+S: 5) were HCV-UN, and post-baseline HCV TL did not significantly differ between treatment arms; one patient in each arm went from detectable (HCV-D) to HCV-UN. Post-baseline, 40 pts were HCV-D vs. 14 who were HCV-UN (S+DO: 8, S: 6 pts). Except for the two pts who became HCV-UN, baseline HCV-D vs. HCV-UN titers was similar to that status post-baseline. PFS and OS between HCV-D and HCV-UN both at baseline and post-baseline are delineated in the table. Conclusions: We observed that S did not influence HCV TL. Pts treated with DO+S vs. S had worse PFS if they had HCV-UN, and further that higher levels of HCV titers at baseline were associated with significantly improved PFS. Given the small sample size, these findings warrant further prospective evaluation. Support: U10CA180821, U10CA180882, U24CA196171; Bayer, Bristol-Myers-Squibb, and Sanofi. https://acknowledgments.alliancefound.org . Clinical trial information: NCT01015833. [Table: see text]

10 Background: In colon cancer, tumor deposits (TD) have been associated with worse prognosis, but they are included in the TNM staging system only in the absence of lymph node metastasis (i.e., stage III pN1c tumors). Here we aimed at evaluating the prognostic value of TD and the impact of the addition of TD in the count of lymph node metastases in patients with stage III colon cancer from the CALGB/SWOG 80702 phase III trial (NCT01150045). Methods: Pathological reports of all patients were reviewed for the presence and the count of TD, primary tumor sidedness, lymphovascular invasion and perineural invasion. Cases without available pathological report or without specific information of TD were excluded. Prognostic associations were evaluated by multi-variable Cox models adjusting for treatment arm, T-stage, N-stage, lymphovascular invasion, perineural invasion and lymph node ratio. Results: Overall, 2028 patients were included, with 524 (26%) TD-positive and 1504 (74%) TD-negative stage III tumors. Of the TD-positive patients, 80 (15.4%) were node negative (i.e., pN1c), 239 (46.1%) were pN1a/b and 200 (38.55%) were pN2. 17.2% and 37.0% of all pN1a/b and pN2 tumors had TD. Overall median follow-up was 69.3 months. The presence of TD was associated with poorer DFS (adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) = 1.59, 95%CI 1.28-1.91) and OS (aHR = 1.52, 95%CI 1.18-1.95) in the overall population. The negative effect of TD on DFS and OS was observed for both pN1a/b and pN2 groups and confirmed in multivariate Cox model. Among TD-positive patients, the number of TD had a linear negative effect on DFS and OS. Adding TD to the count of lymph node metastases, 104 of 1570 (6.6%) patients initially considered as pN1 were re-staged as pN2. Re-staged pN2 patients experienced worse DFS (3-year DFS rate: 65.5% versus 80.3%, P = .0003) and OS (5-year OS rate: 69.1 versus 87.8%, P = .0005) than patients confirmed as pN1. Re-staged pN2 patients had similar DFS than patients initially staged as pN2 (3-year DFS rate: 65.5% versus 63.1%, P = .1992). OS curves of these 2 groups crossed, with better outcomes during the first 3 years of follow-up but poorer 5-year estimates for re-staged pN2 patients (5-year OS rate: 69.1% versus 74.8%, P = .0436). Conclusions: TD are found in more than one fourth of stage III colon cancer specimens. The number of TD has a linear deleterious effect on patients’ prognosis. Adding the number of TD to the count of lymph node metastases improves the prognostication accuracy of the TNM staging. Support: U10CA180821, U10CA180882; https://acknowledgments.alliancefound.org . Clinical trial information: NCT01150045.

AbstractBackgroundEnergy balance-related biomarkers are associated with risk and prognosis of various malignancies. Their relationship to survival in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) requires further study.MethodsBaseline plasma insulin-like growth factor (IGF)-1, IGF-binding protein (IGFBP)-3, IGFBP-7, C-peptide, and adiponectin were measured at time of trial registration in a prospective cohort of patients with mCRC participating in a National Cancer Institute–sponsored trial of first-line systemic therapy. We used Cox proportional hazards regression to adjust for confounders and examine associations of each biomarker with overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). P values are 2-sided.ResultsMedian follow-up for 1086 patients was 6.2 years. Compared with patients in the lowest IGFBP-3 quintile, patients in the highest IGFBP-3 quintile experienced an adjusted hazard ratio (HR) for OS of 0.57 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.42 to 0.78; Pnonlinearity &lt; .001) and for PFS of 0.61 (95% CI = 0.45 to 0.82; Ptrend = .003). Compared with patients in the lowest IGFBP-7 quintile, patients in the highest IGFBP-7 quintile experienced an adjusted hazard ratio for OS of 1.60 (95% CI = 1.30 to 1.97; Ptrend &lt; .001) and for PFS of 1.38 (95% CI = 1.13 to 1.69; Ptrend &lt; .001). Plasma C-peptide and IGF-1 were not associated with patient outcomes. Adiponectin was not associated with OS; there was a nonlinear U-shaped association between adiponectin and PFS (Pnonlinearity = .03).ConclusionsAmong patients with mCRC, high plasma IGFBP-3 and low IGFBP-7 were associated with longer OS and PFS. Extreme levels of adiponectin were associated with shorter PFS. These findings suggest potential avenues for prognostic and therapeutic innovation.

TPS4661 Background: Liposomal irinotecan administered with 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin (5-FU/LV) is approved in the USA for metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (mPDAC) following progression with gemcitabine-based therapy. A phase 1/2 study in previously untreated locally advanced/metastatic PDAC showed promising anti-tumor activity with liposomal irinotecan 50 mg/m2 free base + 5-FU 2400 mg/m2 + LV 400 mg/m2 + oxaliplatin (OX) 60 mg/m2 on days 1 and 15 of a 28-day cycle (Wainberg et al. Ann Oncol 2019;30 Suppl 4: SO-005). Herein, we present the design of the phase 3 NAPOLI-3 study investigating the efficacy and safety of this regimen as first-line therapy in patients with mPDAC. Methods: NAPOLI-3 (NCT04083235) is a phase 3, open-label, randomized, global study in adults with histologically/cytologically confirmed pancreatic adenocarcinoma not previously treated in the metastatic setting. Patients are required to have one or more metastatic tumors measurable with computed tomography/magnetic resonance imaging and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score of 0–1. Site activation began in Dec 2019 and enrollment is ongoing. Random allocation (1:1) of 750 patients is planned to liposomal irinotecan + 5-FU/LV + OX (regimen as per phase 1/2 study) or nab-paclitaxel 125 mg/m2 + gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 on days 1, 8 and 15 in a 28-day cycle. The primary endpoint is overall survival (OS). Secondary endpoints (progression-free survival [PFS] and overall response rate assessed with Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors v1.1 criteria) will be compared only if the primary endpoint shows superiority for liposomal irinotecan + 5-FU/ LV + OX over nab-paclitaxel + gemcitabine. Safety assessments include adverse-event monitoring. Patients will continue treatment until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity or study withdrawal, and will then be followed for survival every 2 months until death or study end (when all patients have died, withdrawn consent or are lost to follow-up). Clinical trial information: NCT04083235 .

e16076 Background: Median overall survival (mOS) of patients (pt) with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) has improved steadily over the past two decades. However, epidemiological data suggest that cancer outcomes for rural compared to urban dwelling pts are worse. In this study, we retrospectively compared progression free survival (PFS) and OS among mCRC pts residing in urban versus rural areas enrolled in N9741 (1997-2004) and CALGB 80405 (2005-2012) clinical trials. Methods: Zip code data from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) were used to classify pts into rural or urban dwellers. Chi-square and Kruskal Wallis analyses were used to compare the groups. Survival outcomes were evaluated using Kaplan-Meier estimates, compared by stratified log rank and cox proportional hazards models. Results: In N9741 and 80405 respectively, 217 (35%) and 521 (21%) pts resided in rural areas. Median age of mCRC pts at diagnosis was 60.5 yrs. (rural) compared to 58.6 yrs. (urban) in 80405 (P < 0.01) and 59.6 yrs. to 60.2 yrs. in N9741 (P = 0.4). In 80405, pts in rural areas were less likely to be female (35% vs 43%, P < 0.01) black (6.6% vs 15.1%, P < 0.01), unmarried (51% vs 62%, P < 0.01), and to have private insurance (PI) (45% vs 50%, P = 0.03) when compared to pts in urban areas. In N9741, gender (P = 0.8) and PI (P = 0.3) distribution was similar; pts in rural areas were less likely to be black (1.4% vs 9.1%, P < 0.01). Rural vs urban pt PFS was no different in either trial. MOS was worse in pts in rural areas when compared to urban dwellers in 80405 (Table). OS outcomes stratified based on the use of cetuximab based regimen in 80405 showed worse outcomes for pts in rural compared to urban dwellers (21.9 vs 26.3 mo. HR: 1.22 (1.03-1.44), P = 0.02). Conclusions: MCRC pts from rural areas had a significantly worse mOS when compared to pts in urban areas in 80405. Furthermore, mOS with cetuximab based regimens was 4.4 months shorter in rural pts. The observed rural vs urban dweller mOS disparities in 80405 pts justifies additional research searching for causal factors and the necessity to identify actionable approaches in order to improve pt outcomes in rural areas. Support: U10CA180821, U10CA180882, U10CA180888, UG1CA180830; Pfizer, Sanofi, BMS, Genentech, https://acknowledgments.alliancefound.org . ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00003594, NCT00265850. [Table: see text]

Abstract Background Diabetes is a prognostic factor for some malignancies, but its association with outcome in patients with advanced or metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC) is less clear. Methods This cohort study was nested within a randomized trial of first-line chemotherapy and bevacizumab and/or cetuximab for advanced or metastatic CRC. Patients were enrolled at 508 community and academic centers throughout the National Clinical Trials Network. The primary exposure was physician-documented diabetes at the time of enrollment. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS); secondary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS) and adverse events. Tests of statistical significance were two-sided. Results Among 2326 patients, 378 (16.3%) had diabetes. The median follow-up time was 6.0 years. We observed 1973 OS events and 2173 PFS events. The median time to an OS event was 22.7 months among those with diabetes and 27.1 months among those without diabetes (HR = 1.27, 95% CI = 1.13 to 1.44; P &lt; .001). The median time to a PFS event was 9.7 months among those with diabetes and 10.8 months among those without diabetes (HR = 1.16, 95% CI = 1.03 to 1.30; P = .02). Patients with diabetes were more likely to experience no less than grade 3 hypertension (8.1% vs 4.4%; P = .054) but were not more likely to experience other adverse events, including neuropathy. Conclusions Diabetes is associated with an increased risk of mortality and tumor progression in patients with advanced or metastatic CRC. Patients with diabetes tolerate first-line treatment with chemotherapy and monoclonal antibodies similarly to patients without diabetes.

Abstract Background: Patients on systemic therapy for cancer are at varying risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE) and its consequences. Thromboprophylaxis is recommended in hospitalized medical and surgical cancer patients, but most VTE occurs in ambulatory cancer patients where risk can be estimated with a validated score. However, the benefit of extended outpatient thromboprophylaxis is uncertain with heparins and has not been tested with direct oral anticoagulants. Methods: We conducted a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, multicenter study in adult ambulatory patients with various cancers initiating a new systemic regimen and at increased risk for VTE (defined as Khorana score ≥ 2). Enrolled subjects were screened for deep-vein thrombosis (DVT) and if none found randomized 1:1 to rivaroxaban 10 mg once daily or placebo up to day 180. Subjects were screened with lower extremity ultrasounds every 8 weeks on study. Primary efficacy endpoint was a composite of objectively confirmed symptomatic or asymptomatic lower-extremity proximal DVT, symptomatic upper- or lower-extremity distal DVT, symptomatic or incidental pulmonary embolism and VTE-related death. ISTH-defined major bleeding was the primary safety endpoint. All endpoints were adjudicated by blinded independent committees. Analyses for efficacy endpoints were conducted for intent-to-treat (ITT) population (all randomized patients) for the up-to-day 180 observation period (primary) and the on-treatment period (supportive). Safety analyses were conducted for on-treatment period only for patients who received at least one dose of study drug. Results: Of 1,080 patients who provided consent, 49 (4.53%) had DVT on baseline screening and another 190 screen-failed due to other reasons. Of 841 randomized patients, 274 (32.6%) had pancreatic cancer; 698 (83%) were white and 428 (50.9%) were male. The primary efficacy endpoint occurred in 25 of 420 patients (5.95%) and 37 of 421 patients (8.79%) (HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.40 to 1.09; p=0.101) in the rivaroxaban and placebo groups respectively (number needed to treat, NNT=35) in the up-to-day 180 observation period (Figure 1A). Of all patients with VTE, 38.70% experienced events after discontinuing study drug. In a pre-specified analysis of all randomized patients during the on-treatment period, the primary endpoint occurred in 11 of 420 patients (2.62%) and 27 of 421 (6.41%) in rivaroxaban and placebo groups respectively (HR 0.40, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.80, p=0.007) (NNT=26) (Figure 1B). Major bleeding occurred in 8 of 405 (1.98%) in the rivaroxaban group and in 4 of 404 (0.99%) patients in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 1.96; 95% CI, 0.59 to 6.49; p=0.265) (number needed to harm, NNH=101). Clinically relevant non-major bleeding occurred in 2.72% and 1.98% of rivaroxaban and placebo groups, respectively (HR, 1.34; 95% CI, 0.54 to 3.32; p=0.53) (NNH=135). Adverse events were comparable between groups. For secondary efficacy endpoints, a pre-specified analysis of the composite of primary endpoint with addition of arterial and visceral thromboembolic events in the up-to-day 180 observation period showed significantly fewer events in rivaroxaban versus placebo group (6.90% versus 10.70% respectively; HR, 0.62; 95% CI: 0.39, 0.99; p=0.04). All-cause mortality occurred in 20.0% of patients in rivaroxaban group and 23.8% in placebo group (HR=0.83, 95% CI 0.62, 1.11; p=0.213). A pre-specified composite of the primary endpoint with all-cause mortality occurred in 23.1% of patients in rivaroxaban group and 29.5% in placebo group (HR 0.75; 95% CI 0.57 to 0.97; p=0.03) (Figure 1C). Conclusions: Rivaroxaban significantly reduced VTE and VTE-related death during the on-treatment period but not during the full study period; over one-third of events occurred post discontinuation of study drug. The incidence of major bleeding was low. The Khorana risk score cut-off of ≥2 identified cancer patients at high risk of thrombotic events both at baseline (4.53%) and during study (8.79% with additional 1.66% arterial events in placebo group). These results should inform future recommendations regarding thromboprophylaxis in at-risk ambulatory cancer patients. (Funded by Janssen; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02555878) Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Khorana: Parexel: Other: Personal fees and non-financial support for travel; Sanofi: Consultancy, Other: Personal fees and non-financial support for travel; Pfizer: Consultancy, Other: Personal fees and non-financial support for travel; Janssen: Consultancy, Other: Personal fees, Research Funding; TriSalus: Other: Personal fees; Halozyme: Other: Personal fees and non-financial support for travel; Seattle Genetics: Other: Personal fees and non-financial support for travel; AngioDynamics: Other: Personal fees and non-financial support for travel; LEO Pharma: Other: Personal fees and non-financial support for travel; Medscape/WebMD: Other: Personal fees and non-financial support for travel; Pharmacyclics: Other: Personal fees; PharmaCyte: Other: Personal fees; Bayer: Consultancy, Other: Personal fees and non-financial support for travel. Soff:Janssen: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding. Kakkar:Bayer AG: Consultancy, Research Funding; Boehringer Ingelheim: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo Europe: Consultancy; Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Sanofi S.A.: Consultancy; Verseon: Consultancy. Vadhan-Raj:AMAG Pharmaceuticals, Inc: Other: received funding from Amag to support clinical trial; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding. Riess:Janssen Scientific Affairs: Other: Travel reimbursement; Bayer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Boehringer Ingelheim: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Daiichi Sankyo: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Wun:Eli Lilly, Inc.: Research Funding; Emmaus, Inc.: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Glycomimetics, Inc.: Research Funding; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer, Inc.: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Streiff:Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; CSL Behring: Other: outcome adjudication committee; Daiichi Sankyo: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Boehringer Ingelheim: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Portola: Consultancy, Research Funding. Garcia:Shingoi: Consultancy; Portola: Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Research Funding; Bristol Meyers Squibb: Consultancy; Boehringer Ingelheim: Consultancy; Retham Technologies LLC: Consultancy; Genzyme Corporation: Consultancy; Alexion: Consultancy. Liebman:Janssen (Johnson & Johnson): Other: steering committee of the CASSINI trial during the conduct of the study. Belani:Janssen: Consultancy. O'Reilly:3DMed, Agios, AlignMed, Amgen, Antengene, Aptus, ASLAN, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BeiGene, Bioline, BMS, Boston Scientific, Bridgebio, CARsgen, Celgene, CASI, Cipla, CytomX, Daiichi, Debio, Delcath, Eisai, Exelixis, Genoscience, Gilead, Halozyme: Consultancy; Hengrui, Incyte, Inovio, Ipsen, Jazz, Janssen, Kyowa Kirin, LAM, Lilly, Loxo, Merck, Mina, NewLink Genetics, Novella, Onxeo, PCI Biotech, Pfizer, PharmaCyte, Pharmacyclics, Pieris, QED, RedHill, Sanofi, Servier, Silenseed, Sillajen, Sobi, Targovax: Consultancy; Janssen: Research Funding; Acta Biologica, Agios, Array, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BeiGene, BMS, CASI, Celgene, Exelixis, Genentech, Halozyme, Incyte, Lilly, MabVax, Novartis, OncoQuest, Polaris Puma, QED, and Roche: Research Funding; Tekmira, twoXAR, Vicus, Yakult, and Yiviva: Consultancy. Patel:Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding. Yimer:Seattle Genetics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Speakers Bureau; AstraZeneca: Speakers Bureau; Epizyme: Equity Ownership; Clovis Oncology: Equity Ownership; Puma Biotechnology: Equity Ownership. Wildgoose:Janssen Scientific Affairs: Employment; Johnson & Johnson: Equity Ownership. Burton:Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Employment; Johnson & Johnson: Equity Ownership. Vijapurkar:Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment; Johnson & Johnson: Equity Ownership. Kaul:Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment; Johnson & Johnson: Equity Ownership. Eikelboom:AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Pfizer, Daiichi Sankyo, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, sanofi-aventis, and Eli Lilly: Honoraria, Research Funding; Heart and Stroke Foundation: Other: Personnel award. Bauer:Janssen: Consultancy. Kuderer:Celldex: Consultancy; Mylan: Consultancy, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses; Myriad Genetics: Consultancy; Halozyme: Consultancy; Coherus Biosciences: Consultancy, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses; Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC: Consultancy, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses; Pfizer: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy. Lyman:Halozyme; G1 Therapeutics; Coherus Biosciences: Consultancy; Generex Biotechnology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Other: Research support.