Citations

AbstractAs prevention trials advance with autosomal dominant Alzheimer disease (ADAD) participants, understanding the similarities and differences between ADAD and “sporadic” late‐onset AD (LOAD) is critical to determine generalizability of findings between these cohorts. Cognitive trajectories of ADAD mutation carriers (MCs) and autopsy‐confirmed LOAD individuals were compared to address this question. Longitudinal rates of change on cognitive measures were compared in ADAD MCs (n = 310) and autopsy‐confirmed LOAD participants (n = 163) before and after symptom onset (estimated/observed). LOAD participants declined more rapidly in the presymptomatic (preclinical) period and performed more poorly at symptom onset than ADAD participants on a cognitive composite. After symptom onset, however, the younger ADAD MCs declined more rapidly. The similar but not identical cognitive trajectories (declining but at different rates) for ADAD and LOAD suggest common AD pathologies but with some differences.

Abstract Background The study aimed to evaluate whether simplified chemotherapy followed by dose-reduced irradiation was effective for treating patients (ages 3–21 years) with localized germinoma. The primary endpoint was 3-year progression-free survival (PFS) rate. Methods Patients with a complete response to chemotherapy with carboplatin and etoposide received 18 Gy WVI + 12 Gy boost to the tumor bed. Patients with partial response proceeded to 24 Gy WVI + 12 Gy. Longitudinal cognitive functioning was evaluated prospectively on ALTE07C1 and was a primary study aim. Results One hundred and fifty-one patients were enrolled; 137 were eligible. Among 90 evaluable patients, 74 were treated with 18 Gy and 16 with 24 Gy WVI. The study failed to demonstrate noninferiority of the 18 Gy WVI regimen compared to the design threshold of 95% 3-year PFS rate, where, per design, patients who could not be assessed for progression at 3 years were counted as failures. The Kaplan-Meier (KM)-based 3-year PFS estimates were 94.5 ± 2.7% and 93.75 ± 6.1% for the 18 Gy and 24 Gy WVI cohorts, respectively. Collectively, estimated mean IQ and attention/concentration were within normal range. A lower mean attention score was observed at 9 months for patients treated with 24 Gy. Acute effects in processing speed were observed in the 18 Gy cohort at 9 months which improved at 30-month assessment. Conclusions While a failure according to the prospective statistical noninferiority design, this study demonstrated high rates of chemotherapy responses, favorable KM-based PFS and OS estimates in the context of reduced irradiation doses and holds promise for lower long-term morbidities for patients with germinoma.

Abstract We conducted a national survey of pediatric infectious diseases (ID) clinicians on outpatient parenteral antibiotic therapy (OPAT) practices and post-discharge ID follow-up. Only 15% of sites required ID consultation for all OPAT. ID division resources for post-discharge care varied. Opportunities exist to increase ID involvement in post-discharge management of serious infections.

Abstract Background: Erdheim-Chester disease (ECD) is characterized by multi-organ infiltration of clonal histiocytes bearing activating mutations predominantly in the MAPK pathway. The diagnosis of ECD is clinico-pathologic; histopathologic findings alone are often non-specific. Characteristic pathognomonic finding of ECD is the symmetric osteosclerosis of the distal femur and proximal tibia/fibula, seen in >90% of cases, and referred to herein as classic ECD (C-ECD). There is a paucity of data on the phenotypic and mutational differences between C-ECD and non-classic ECD (NC-ECD). Determining phenotypic patterns may allow for earlier suspicion and diagnosis. Methods: Patients who met the revised ECD criteria proposed by Haroche J et al (Blood 2020;135:1311-1318) and had full body imaging that included the lower legs (18-FDG-PET/CT or CT/bone scan) were included. ECD diagnosis was made when >1 major criteria plus >1 minor criteria were present. Major criteria: 1) symmetric meta-diaphyseal osteosclerosis in legs; 2) "hairy kidneys"; "coated aorta", right atrial pseudotumor, xanthelasma, exophthalmos; or osteosclerosis of paranasal sinuses. Minor criteria: 1) histologic finding of typical foamy histiocytes (CD68+/CD163+/CD1a-) associated with fibrosis; 2) mutation/gene fusion of BRAF, CSF1R, or MAPK/PI3K pathways. We compared the organ involvement and BRAF V600Emutational status between C-ECD and NC-ECD. Results: A total of 105 patients were included. The median age at diagnosis was 57 years (range, 38-81) and most were males (62%). Majority had 18-FDG-PET/CT (83%) and BRAF V600E testing (65%). The main organ systems involved were skeletal (83%), renal (64%), adrenal (44%), and pulmonary (42%). Central diabetes insipidus (DI), "hairy kidneys", and "coated aorta" were present in 27 (26%), 54 (51%), and 44 (42%) patients, respectively. Among those tested, BRAF V600E mutation was found in 48/67 (72%) by immunohistochemistry. In our cohort, most patients (n=87. 83%) had C-ECD. NC-ECD had significantly lower number of organs/systems involved compared with C-ECD (median 3 vs 6, p=0.002). C-ECD had significantly higher rates of involvement of paranasal sinuses (51%/7%, p=0.002), DI (26%/0%, p=0.02), and similar rates of lung (44%/43%), cardiac (34%/14%), and skin (14%14%) involvement when compared to NC-ECD. BRAF V600E was significantly more common in C-ECD (88%/30%, p=0.004). Thirty-nine (37%) patients underwent next generation sequencing, of whom 33 (31%) had successful testing. In C-ECD, 3 patients had mutations other than BRAF V600E, these included: NRAS, MAP2K1, and MEF2C-FLT3 fusion. In NC-ECD, 5 patients had mutations other than BRAF V600E, these included: MAP2K1, KRAS, and NF1. Conclusions: Our study suggests distinct differences in clinical presentation and molecular findings exist between C-ECD and NC-ECD. C-ECD has a higher degree of organ involvement and harbor BRAF V600E more frequently than NC-ECD. Further analysis of histopathologic findings and outcomes in this cohort may provide insights into these ECD subsets that can optimize future management of this disease. Figure 1: Sites of involvement of classical Erdheim-Chester Disease (C-ECD) versus non-classical Erdheim-Chester Disease (NC-ECD) Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Vassallo: Bristol-Myers-Squibb: Research Funding; Sun Pharma.: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding. Tobin: Mayo Clinic Center for MS and Autoimmune Neurology: Research Funding; Mallinckrodt Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; National Institutes of Health: Research Funding. Bennani: Verastem: Other: Advisory Board; Purdue Pharma: Other: Advisory Board; Vividion: Consultancy, Other: Advisory Board; Daichii Sankyo Inc: Other: Advisory Board; Kyowa Kirin: Other: Advisory Board.

Abstract MAJIC is a phase II trial of Ruxolitinib (RUX) vs Best Available Therapy (BAT) in polycythemia vera (PV) patients with resistance/intolerance to Hydroxycarbamide (HC). This analysis involved a primary comparison between the RUX and BAT arms for quality of life (QOL) durability over 60 months, with secondary comparisons of best QOL response within first year in complete hematologic responders (CR) vs a group of partial or no response (NR/PR). This is a unique analysis due to cross-over nature of prior studies. Patients were stratified by treatment arm with either RUX or BAT. QOL was assessed over 0-60 months using the Myeloproliferative Neoplasms Symptom Assessment Form (MPN-SAF). MPN-SAF Total Symptom Score (TSS) was computed as the average of all completed items multiplied by 10 (scale 0-100, higher score represents higher symptom burden). Estimates of change from baseline and between arm differences in change by timepoint were made using a linear mixed model with compound symmetry covariance structure, which included covariates for categorical time point, treatment arm, and the interaction between time point and treatment arm. The difference between arms in proportion of patients with best post-baseline TSS response of 50% or greater was testing using a Chi-square test. In this study, 147 of the 190 trial patients had started treatment and completed at least their baseline assessment and were included in the analysis with 39 patients completing through 60 months. Groups were comprised of 76 patients in the RUX group (31 females, 45 males, mean age 64.2 [SD 11.4]) and 71 patients in the BAT group (29 females, 42 males, mean age 64.6 [SD 11.5]). Symptom scores at baseline were similar between arms, with MPN-SAF weight loss the only statistically significant difference (BAT 0.7 [SD 1.71] vs RUX 1.7 [SD 2.83], p=0.02). Significant, durable improvements in TSS were noted in RUX patients with symptom improvements lasting a mean of 52 months. BAT patients experienced a worsening of their symptom burden with improvements back to baseline notable at 56 months (Figure 1). MPN-SAF TSS there were significant differences between treatment arms in change from baseline to months 2-32, 44, and 48 (all p<0.05). In all months the trend was in the direction of larger improvement in the RUX arm, with the point estimate for difference ranging from 2.1 (at month 56) to 11.3 (at month 4) with most prominent changes occurring between months 2 and 32. Of the 80 patients with MPN-SAF TSS scores at baseline and at least one post-baseline timepoint, 13/41 (31.7%) BAT and 24/39 (61.5%) RUX patients had TSS reduction of 50% or greater in at least one time point, which was statistically significant (p=0.008). In regard to specific symptoms, there was a statistically significant between arm difference seen in over 5 timepoints for fatigue, early satiety, night-sweats, itching, bone pain, and weight loss. Comparing MPN-SAF TSS in Complete Response (CR n=51) vs Non-Responder/Partial Responders (NR/PR) (n=96) there was no difference at baseline in any of the measures at any time point. A possible limitation of this study is the potential for bias in which the patients who were lost to follow up could be different then the patients who remained in the study through all 60 months which would affect generalization, particularly at time points at the later years. The novel findings of this investigation demonstrate that Ruxolitinib ameliorates the PV symptom burden in patients resistant or intolerant to HC in a robust durable manner over at least four years, while patients receiving BAT have worsening of their symptom burden over this same time period. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Mead: Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Celgene/BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria. Yap: Celgene: Honoraria; Faron Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria. Scherber: Incyte Corporation: Current Employment, Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company. Knapper: Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Astellas: Ended employment in the past 24 months, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Jazz: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Drummond: Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; CTI: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. McMullin: Novartis: 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, Speakers Bureau; Bristol Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: clinical trial support, Research Funding; AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; AOP Orphan: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Mesa: CTI: Research Funding; AOP: Consultancy; Celgene: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Gilead: Research Funding; Pharma: Consultancy; Promedior: Research Funding; Constellation Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Research Funding; CTI: Research Funding; Samus: Research Funding; Sierra Oncology: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Incyte Corporation: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; La Jolla Pharma: Consultancy. Harrison: CTI BioPharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Gilead Sciences: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Shire: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Geron: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Constellation Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Galacteo: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Honoraria, 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, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Incyte Corporation: Speakers Bureau; Sierra Oncology: Honoraria; Promedior: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; AOP Orphan Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Keros: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau.

Abstract Background: Patients with relapsed indolent NHL (iNHL) have limited standard treatment options. Lenalidomide combined with rituximab (R 2) has shown complimentary clinical activity and is a tolerable regimen in both untreated and relapsed or refractory (R/R) patients with iNHL (RELEVANCE : N Engl J Med 2018;379:934 and AUGMENT: J Clin Oncol. 2019;37:1188). Methods: MAGNIFY is a multicenter, phase 3b trial in patients with R/R follicular lymphoma (FL) grades 1-3b, transformed FL (tFL), marginal zone lymphoma (MZL), or mantle cell lymphoma (MCL; NCT01996865) exploring optimal lenalidomide duration. In the induction phase, lenalidomide 20 mg PO on days 1-21 of a 28-day cycle + rituximab IV at 375 mg/m 2/week cycle 1 and then every 8 weeks starting with cycle 3 (R 2) are administered for 12 cycles. Patients with stable disease, partial response, or complete response/complete response unconfirmed (CR/CRu) were randomized 1:1 to R 2 vs rituximab maintenance for 18 months. Data presented here are the complete analysis from the induction phase in efficacy-evaluable patients with FL grades 1-3a or MZL (FL grade 3b, tFL, and MCL not included). The focus of this interim analysis was overall response rate (ORR) by 1999 IWG criteria in the induction intention-to-treat population. Results: As of March 5, 2021, 394 patients (318 [81%] FL gr1-3a; 76 [19%] MZL) were enrolled. The median follow-up was 40.6 mo (range, 0.6-79.6). Median age was 66 y (range, 35-91), 328 (83%) had stage III/IV disease, with a median of 2 prior therapies (94% prior rituximab-containing). ORR was 71% (n = 279) with 42% (n = 164) CR/CRu (Table). All patients have completed R 2 induction (n = 232, 59%) or discontinued study treatment (n = 162, 41%). 141 patients (36%) prematurely discontinued both lenalidomide and rituximab, primarily due to adverse events (AEs) (n = 54, 14%) or progressive disease (n = 42, 11%). The majority of patients who have completed induction have been randomized and entered maintenance (n = 217). Median duration of response in the induction period was not reached (95% CI, 43.9 mo-NR), and median progression-free survival in the induction safety population (n = 393) was 50.5 mo (95% CI, 39.5-NR). Efficacy results are reported in the table by histology subgroups (FL vs MZL), and rituximab-refractory, double-refractory, and early relapse statuses. Most common all-grade AEs were 47% fatigue, 43% neutropenia, 37% diarrhea, 30% nausea, and 30% constipation. Grade 3/4 AEs occurring in ≥ 5% of patients included 37% neutropenia (10 patients [3%] had febrile neutropenia), 8% leukopenia, 6% thrombocytopenia, 5% anemia, and 5% fatigue. Conclusions: These data represent complete analysis of all patients in the induction phase of MAGNIFY which continue to support that R 2 is active with a tolerable safety profile in patients with R/R FL grade 1-3a and MZL, including rituximab-refractory, double-refractory, and early relapse patients. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Lansigan: Celgene/BMS: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Andorsky: Abbvie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene/BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Epizyme: Research Funding. Coleman: immunomedics: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company, Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company; Abbvie: Research Funding; Bristol Myers: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; BeiGene: Research Funding; Innocare: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding. Yacoub: Dynavex: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Cara: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Ardelyx: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Agios: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; ACCELERON PHARMA: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; CTI Biopharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Hylapharm: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Melear: TG Therapeutics: Speakers Bureau; Astrazeneca: Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Speakers Bureau. Fanning: Sanofi: Speakers Bureau; Genmab: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; TG Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Genentech: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Speakers Bureau; ADC Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Speakers Bureau. Kolibaba: TG Therapeutics: Current Employment, Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company, Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company; Atara Biotechm: Consultancy; McKesson Specialty Health: Consultancy; Sunitomo Dainippon Pharma: Consultancy; Tolero Pharma: Consultancy, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company). Nowakowski: Incyte: Consultancy; Kymera Therapeutics: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; Blueprint Medicines: Consultancy; Nanostrings: Research Funding; Curis: Consultancy; Selvita: Consultancy; Zai Labolatory: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Bantham Pharmaceutical: Consultancy; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Consultancy; Ryvu Therapeutics: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kyte Pharma: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene/Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; MorphoSys: Consultancy. Gharibo: BMS: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company, Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company. Ahn: Bristol Myers Squibb: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; ADC therapeutics: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Li: BMS: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company, Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company), Research Funding. Sharman: BeiGene: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; Lilly: Consultancy; Centessa: Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy.

Abstract The myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPN) polycythaemia vera (PV) and essential thrombocythaemia (ET) are associated with significant symptom burden with impaired quality of life (QoL). In the MAJIC study patients refractory/intolerant to hydroxycarbamide (HC), were randomised to treatment with ruxolitinib (Rux) or best available therapy (BAT). In this unique and comprehensive analysis we explore quality of life (QoL) outcomes in the MAJIC study using the MPN10 Self-Assessment Form (SAF) in particular using this unique dataset to explore for the first time differences between JAK2 ET vs PV, and JAK2 ET vs CALR ET at baseline and 12 months of therapy with Rux or BAT. Methods 306 patients were randomised, (190, PV and 116 ET arm) and followed for 5 years, no cross over was permitted. MPN10 SAF was assessed at baseline, 2, 4, 8 and 12 months in both arms. Equal variance two sample t-tests were used to test differences between diagnosis groups (JAK2 ET vs PV & JAK2 ET vs CALR ET) in baseline scores and 12-month change from baseline scores, here negative change from baseline indicates improvement. QoL data was also collected using MD Anderson Symptoms Inventory (MDASI) and 5 level EQ5D at the same time points as the MPN10 SAF. Results JAK2 ET vs PV 110 participants with JAK2 mutation were included in the analysis for JAK2 ET vs PV. 81 (74%) had PV and 29 (26%) had JAK2 ET; 44 patients (54.3%) with PV and 18 (62.1%) patients with ET were randomised to Rux, and 37 (45.6%) patients with PV and 11 (37.9%) with ET to BAT. Baseline mean total symptom score (TSS) was similar (JAK2 ET: 18.9. SD 18.4 and PV: 23.7, SD 17.81 (p=0.27). Mean for pruritus was 1.9 (SD 2.47) in JAK2 ET and 3.5 (SD 2.99) in PV (p=0.03). Other baseline scores were comparable: mean scores for fatigue was 3.3 (SD 3.07) for JAK2 ET vs 4.7 (SD 2.68) for PV, for early satiety was 2.6 (SD 2.78) for JAK2 ET vs 2.1 (SD 2.40) for PV, for abdominal discomfort 3.0 (SD 3.34) for JAK2 ET vs 2.0 (SD 2.78) for PV, for inactivity was 2.4 (SD 2.86) for JAK2 ET vs 3.2 (SD 2.72) for PV; for concentration problems was 2.2 (SD 2.51) for JAK2 ET vs 2.9 (SD 3.11) for PV, for night sweats was 1.6 (SD 2.20) for JAK2 ET vs 2.1 (SD 2.66) for PV, for bone pain was 1.8 (SD 2.97) for JAK2 ET vs 2.0 (SD 2.86) for PV, for fever was 0.5 (SD 1.46) for JAK2 ET vs 0.5 (SD 1.70) for PV and for weight loss was 0.3 (SD 0.73) for JAK2 ET vs 1.0 (SD 2.15) for PV (p>0.05 for all). Concerning change at 12 months, mean (SD) change in TSS was -0.5 (SD 10.86) for JAK2 ET (n=21) vs -0.8 (SD 13.32) for PV (n=66) (P=0.93). Mean for individual symptom scores at 12 months were also not significantly different between the two phenotypic disease group (P>0.05 for all parameters). (Fig 1, top panels). CALR vs JAK2 ET Exploring symptoms for CALR vs JAK2 ET: 45 patients were included; 9/16 (56.3%) CALR and 18/29 (62.1%) JAK2 patients were assigned to Rux (p=0.70). 10/16 (62.5%) CALR ET and 19/29 (65.5%) JAK2 ET. Baseline mean total symptom score (TSS) was similar (JAK2 ET: 18.9, SD 18.4 and CALR ET: 18.8, SD 16.99 (p=0. 0.98). All other baseline scores were comparable in this intolerant/ refractory population (p>0.05 for all. Concerning change at 12 months, mean (SD) change in TSS was -0.5 (SD 10.86) for JAK2 ET vs -2.8 (SD 9.96) for CALR ET (P=0.56). Mean for individual symptom scores at 12 months were also not significantly different between the two phenotypic disease group (P>0.05 for all parameters); the mean change in night sweats approached but did not reach significance similar (JAK2 ET: 0.2 (SD 1.89) and CALR ET: 1.8 (SD 3.07) (p=0. 0.06). (Fig 1, lower panels). Preliminary analysis of the MDASI and EQ5D-5L data at baseline and at 12 months shows similar results and will be presented. Conclusion This first analysis of its kind compared the symptom burden and other parameters of QoL of patients with PV and ET, resistant/intolerant to HC shows that with the exception of pruritus at baseline there were no substantial differences between JAK2 ET or PV. Equally changes in symptom burden across 12 months did not substantially differ between JAK2 ET or PV. A second analysis of JAK2 vs CALR ET also failed to show substantial differences. This data should be expanded in a larger cohort but supports a symptom continuum of JAK2 ET and PV and also JAK2 vs CALR ET. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Mead: Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene/BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Yap: Faron Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Knapper: Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Astellas: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Drummond: CTI: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Mesa: Pharma: Consultancy; CTI: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; AOP: Consultancy; Incyte Corporation: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sierra Oncology: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; La Jolla Pharma: Consultancy; Samus: Research Funding; Promedior: Research Funding; Constellation Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; CTI: Research Funding. Scherber: Incyte Corporation: Current Employment, Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company. McMullin: Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; AOP Orphan: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Bristol Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: clinical trial support, Research Funding. Harrison: CTI BioPharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Promedior: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Gilead Sciences: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Keros: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; AOP Orphan Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Shire: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Sierra Oncology: Honoraria; Constellation Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Incyte Corporation: Speakers Bureau; Geron: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Galacteo: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau.

Abstract INTRODUCTION Rosai-Dorfman disease (RDD) is a rare histiocytic disorder associated with histiocytes expressing high level of macrophage colony stimulating factor receptor (c-fms). Mutations in mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) pathway have been reported in RDD, indicating an underlying clonal process in some patients. Aberrant activation of MAPK pathway can occur due to mutations or high c-fms expression. Data on the use of MAPK/extracellular-signal-related kinase (ERK)-inhibitor therapy in RDD are very limited. Cobimetinib is a MEK inhibitor, which is listed in the National Comprehensive Cancer Network Compendium ® for the treatment of RDD. We present our retrospective experience of cobimetinib treatment in a large series of patients with RDD. METHODS Following approval of the institutional reviewed board, patients (pts) with RDD who were consecutively seen at Mayo Clinic and treated with cobimetinib between 2013-2021 were included. Response was assessed as described by Goyal et al (Haematologica 2020;105:2). Cobimetinib was given 20-60 mg once a day by mouth for 21 days in a 28-day cycle. Adverse events (AEs) were graded using the National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria v5.0. Time-to-event analyses were calculated from the time of treatment initiation, while duration of response was calculated from the time of 1 st response. Tumor genomic profile was analyzed using Tempus-xT ® assay (Chicago, IL), which includes targeted DNA sequencing (648 oncogenes) and whole transcriptome sequencing. RESULTS Of the 54 pts with RDD, ten were treated with cobimetinib and included in this study. The median follow-up was 16 months (m) [95% confidence interval (CI): 13-not reached (NR)] and most (n=8; 80%) were females. The median age at the time of treatment was 63 years (range: 36-74). Cobimetinib was used as first line therapy in four pts. Overall response rate was 70%, with 30% and 40% achieving complete (CR) and partial (PR) responses, respectively. One had stable disease (SD) and two had progressive disease (PD) (Table 1). The median progression-free-survival was 6.4 m (95%CI: 4.9-NR) and at 6 and 12 m, 67% and 50% of pts remained free from disease progression or death, respectively (Figure 1). The median duration of response was 7.6 m (95%CI: 3.1-NR). At the time of last follow-up, nine (90%) pts were alive. One pt died due to myelodysplastic syndrome with excessive blasts. She had multiple chemotherapy treatments before initiation of cobimetinib. Cobimetinib was discontinued in this pt due to grade 3 anemia and skin toxicity after 6 m of therapy and had SD as the best response. Median duration of treatment for the entire cohort was 6 m (range: 2-14). In the seven pts who responded, the median duration of treatment was 7 m (range: 2-14). Cobimetinib was discontinued in seven pts: disease progression (n=3; one disease progression after achieving PR and two PD while on therapy), grade 3 left ventricular systolic dysfunction (n=1), grade 3 diarrhea (n=1), grade 3 anemia (n=1), and grade 2 creatinine elevation (n=1). Five (50%) pts were started at a reduced dose of cobimetinib at the discretion of treating physician [20 mg (n=4) and 40mg, (n=1)]. Two pts were started at 60 mg and dose reduced to 20 mg after one cycle of treatment due to grade 2 skin toxicity in one and grade 2 skin toxicity and diarrhea in the other. Both pts achieved a PR but progressed after four and six cycles, respectively. One pt started at 40 mg and reduced to 20 mg due to grade 2 skin toxicity after two cycles achieving a PR. The response was sustained in this pt for at least 9 months, until the time of last follow-up (Table 1). Tissue molecular testing showed five pts with MAPK pathway alterations and all of them responded to therapy (CR=3 and PR=2). Of the other five pts who either did not have a MAPK pathway alteration (n=4) or had test failure (n=1), responses were observed in two (40%) pts, both PR (Table 1). CONCLUSION Our study suggests that cobimetinib is an effective treatment in RDD, with responses observed in all pts having MAPK pathway alterations. Less than half of pts without a MAPK pathway alteration achieved a response. However, treatment discontinuations due to AEs were common despite dose reductions. Patients who were treated at low doses of cobimetinib also had remarkable clinical response. Further studies are needed in evaluating other MAPK pathway inhibitors with better toxicity profile to improve adherence and outcomes. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Tobin: National Institutes of Health: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Center for MS and Autoimmune Neurology: Research Funding; Mallinckrodt Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding. Bennani: Vividion: Other: Advisory Board; Kyowa Kirin: Other: Advisory Board; Daichii Sankyo Inc: Other: Advisory Board; Verastem: Other: Advisory Board; Purdue Pharma: Other: Advisory Board; Kymera: Other: Advisory Board. Vassallo: Pfizer: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers-Squibb: Research Funding; Sun Pharma.: Research Funding.

Abstract INTRODUCTION: Luxeptinib (CG-806) is a potent, non-covalent oral inhibitor of BTK and FLT3. It suppresses BCR signaling pathways (LYN, SYK, BTK, AKT, ERK) and other oncogenic pathways in cell lines and primary CLL cells, kills malignant B-cells insensitive to ibrutinib or venetoclax at low nM concentrations, and shows enhanced activity in combination with venetoclax. Luxeptinib is currently being evaluated in a Phase 1a/b trial in patients with relapsed or refractory B-cell malignancies (NCT03893682). AIMS: Primary objectives are to assess the safety and tolerability of luxeptinib and determine the recommended expansion dose for future clinical trials in patients with R/R CLL/SLL or B-NHL. Key secondary objectives include elucidation of the pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic (PD) characteristics, and evidence of antitumor activity. METHODS: Luxeptinib is administered continuously as oral capsules BID in 28-day cycles, in ascending cohorts of 3 patients. Treatment emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and tumor responses are evaluated per disease specific guidelines. RESULTS: As of June 7, 2021, a total of 23 patients (median age 64.0 years, 11 CLL/SLL, 4 follicular lymphoma (FL), 1 Richter's transformation lymphoma, 2 Waldenstrom's macroglobulinemia (WM), 2 mantle cell lymphoma, 3 diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL)) with a median of 3 prior systemic regimens (range of 1 - 12) have been treated with luxeptinib at doses of 150 mg (n=1), 300 mg (n=1), 450 mg (n=9), 600 mg (n=4) and 750 mg (n=8). Drug related grade ≥ 3 TEAEs included neutropenia (n=5, 21.7%), leukocytosis (n=2, 8.7%), decreased white blood cell count, decreased platelet count, anemia, increased alanine aminotransferase, diarrhea, hypertension, and headache (n=1, 4.3 % each). One patient, who experienced progressive hypertension before receiving luxeptinib, developed grade 1 hypertension during screening evolving to grade 2 prior to dosing on C1D1, experienced grade 4 hypertension after luxeptinib treatment at 750 mg BID for 5 days. While this was considered a DLT per protocol, luxeptinib plasma levels in this patient were lower than those observed in patients at this and lower dose levels, and no drug-related hypertension has been observed in any other patient treated to date. The average steady-state (C min) plasma levels of luxeptinib in patients treated with 750 mg BID were > 1µM and were sustained over multiple cycles. PD analysis demonstrated that C min of luxeptinib in the plasma of patients treated with doses of 300 mg or higher significantly reduced levels of phosphorylated BTK, SYK, ERK and FLT3 in EOL-1 reporter cells in a plasma inhibitor activity assay, demonstrating multi-target engagement. Response evaluations were available for 12 patients who had at least one imaging study or IgM measurements (WM patients) after starting treatment. Eight out of these 12 patients had various reductions of lesion size or IgM measurements compared to baseline (3 SLL, 2 FL, 1 CLL, 1 WM and 1 DLBCL), demonstrating anti-tumor activity. FDG PET-CT scans in one FL patient, who had 2 prior regimens, revealed lesion growth during treatment with luxeptinib at 450 mg BID for 7 cycles. After dose-escalation to 600 mg BID in Cycle 8, lesion measurements demonstrated continuous reduction. By C15D1, target lesions decreased by 42.5% and 11.3% when compared with peak tumor size and baseline measurements, respectively. One WM patient in Cohort 5 (750 mg BID), who had 2 prior regimens including ibrutinib, has had a 24.9% reduction in IgM level by C3D1 compared with baseline as her best response so far. CONCLUSIONS: Luxeptinib has a favorable safety profile in patients treated with 150 mg to 600 mg BID over multiple cycles. A single apparent DLT (grade 4 hypertension in one patient with pre-existing hypertension) led to expansion of the 750 mg dose level to 6 patients. Pharmacodynamic studies documented inhibition of SYK, BTK and ERK in the BCR signaling pathway. Anti-tumor activity was observed in multiple B-NHL subtypes and CLL/SLL patients. Enrollment of patients with R/R CLL/SLL and B-NHL at dose level 5 (750 mg) is ongoing and updated clinical data will be presented at the meeting. Disclosures Samaniego: Arog: Research Funding; Imbrium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Burke: AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Verastem: Consultancy; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Epizyme: Consultancy; Kura: Consultancy; Kymera: Consultancy; SeaGen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; X4 Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy; Beigene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; AbbVie: Consultancy; MorphoSys: Consultancy; Roche/Genentech: Consultancy. Mahadevan: caris: Speakers Bureau; Guardanthealt: Speakers Bureau; PFIZER: Other: Clinical trial Adverse events committee; TG Therapeuticals: Other: Clinical trial Adverse events committee. Cherry: Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Sadiq: Dava Oncology: Honoraria. Reid: ADC Therapeutics: Other: Serves as Principle Investigator, Research Funding; Aptose Biosciences: Other: Serves as Principle Investigator, Research Funding; Millennium Pharmaceuticals: Other: Serves as Principle Investigator, Research Funding; Xencor: Other: Serves as Principle Investigator, Research Funding. Roeker: TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Janssen, LOXO, Pharmacyclics, TG Therapeutics, Vaniam Group, Verastem: Consultancy; Loxo Oncology: Consultancy; Abbot Laboratories: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy. Melear: Astrazeneca: Speakers Bureau; TG Therapeutics: Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Speakers Bureau. Zhang: Aptose Biosciences, Inc.: Current Employment. Rastgoo: Aptose Biosciences, Inc.: Current Employment. Benbatoul: Aptose Biosciences, Inc.: Current Employment. Haney: Aptose Biosciences, Inc.: Current Employment. Jin: Aptose Biosciences, Inc.: Current Employment. Marango: Aptose Biosciences, Inc.: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Howell: Aptose Biosciences, Inc.: Consultancy, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Rice: Oncolytics Biotech Inc.: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Aptose Biosciences, Inc.: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Patents & Royalties. Bejar: Astex: Consultancy; Silence Therapeutics: Consultancy; Aptose Biosciences, Inc.: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Epizyme: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding.

Abstract Introduction: Light chain (AL) amyloidosis is a plasma cell disease characterized by the deposition of insoluble amyloid fibrils into organs leading to organ dysfunction and death. The analysis at 6 and 12 months of the ANDROMEDA study (NCT03201965) showed that the addition of subcutaneous (SC) daratumumab to the standard of care combination of bortezomib, cyclophosphamide, and dexamethasone (VCd) was superior to VCd alone, with higher rates of hematologic complete response (CR) and an acceptable safety profile. Based on these findings daratumumab with VCd (D-VCd) was approved for newly diagnosed AL amyloidosis in January 2021 in the US and June 2021 in the EU. Here, we present data from the analysis at 18 months of the ANDROMEDA study. Methods: ANDROMEDA is a randomized, open-label, active-controlled phase 3 study including patients with newly diagnosed AL amyloidosis with measurable hematologic disease, ≥1 involved organ, cardiac stage I-IIIA, estimated glomerular filtration rate ≥20 mL/min, and absence of symptomatic multiple myeloma. Patients were randomized (1:1) to D-VCd or VCd for 6 28-day cycles. Bortezomib (1.3 mg/m 2), cyclophosphamide (300 mg/m 2 up to 500 mg per week), and dexamethasone (20-40 mg) were administered weekly. SC daratumumab (1800 mg co-formulated with recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 in 15 mL) was administered once weekly in cycles 1 and 2 and every 2 weeks in cycles 3 to 6. Patients in the D-VCd arm received only SC daratumumab after cycle 6, every 4 weeks (up to a total of 24 cycles from first dose). The primary endpoint was overall (ie, at any time) hematologic CR rate, defined here as normalization of free light chain (FLC) levels and ratio (FLCr) and negative serum and urine immunofixation, confirmed at a subsequent visit; normalization of uninvolved FLC level and FLCr were not required if involved FLC was lower than the upper limit of normal. Secondary endpoints included major organ deterioration progression-free survival (PFS), organ response rate, time to hematologic response, overall survival (OS), and safety. Results: A total of 388 patients were randomized to receive D-VCd (N=195) or VCd alone (N=193). At the May 2021 clinical cutoff, the median duration of treatment for D-VCd and VCd arms was 21.3 and 5.3 months, respectively. In the D-VCd arm, 149 patients (77.2%) received daratumumab monotherapy after completing 6 cycles of D-VCd; of those, 17 (11.4%) were still receiving treatment. The rates of deep hematological responses favored the D-VCd treatment arm (Table). At a median follow-up of 25.8 months, the rate of hematologic CR was significantly higher in the D-VCd arm vs the VCd arm (59.5% vs 19.2%; odds ratio [95% confidence interval (CI)], 6.03 [3.80-9.58]; P<0.0001). Similarly, more patients achieved a very good partial response or better (≥VGPR) (D-VCd vs VCd, 79.0% vs 50.3%; odds ratio [95% CI], 3.74 [2.39-5.86]; P<0.0001). Among patients who responded, the median time from randomization to ≥VGPR was shorter in the D-VCd arm (0.56 months) vs the VCd arm (0.82 months). Comparable to the cardiac response analysis at 6 months (D-VCd vs VCd, 42% vs 22%), greater cardiac response rates were achieved with D-VCd compared with VCd at 18 months (53% vs 24%). Similarly, renal response rates remained superior with D-VCd vs VCd alone at 18 months (58% vs 26% compared with 6 months [54% vs 27%]). A total of 79 deaths occurred (D-VCd, N=34; VCd, N=45). In the D-VCd arm, only 1 additional grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse event occurred over 18 months vs 12 months (119 [61.7%] vs 118 [61.1%] patients) and no additional infusion-related reactions were reported. OS will be analyzed and major organ deterioration PFS will be updated after approximately 200 events have occurred. Conclusions: These results demonstrate the sustained clinical benefits of D-VCd vs VCd in terms of hematologic and organ responses with longer follow-up, although it should be noted that many patients in the D-VCd arm received daratumumab monotherapy following 6 cycles of D-VCd, while patients in the VCd group stopped study treatment. Nevertheless, the study continues to support the use of D-VCd over VCd alone in patients with newly diagnosed AL amyloidosis. Following its recent approval, D-VCd represents a new SOC for patients with AL amyloidosis. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Comenzo: Prothena Biosciences: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Unum: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Research Funding; Caelum: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sanofi-Aventis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Patents & Royalties: WO2016187546A1, Research Funding. Palladini: Pfizer: Honoraria; Siemens: Honoraria; Janssen Global Services: Honoraria, Other: advisory board fees. Kastritis: Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Genesis Pharma: Honoraria. Minnema: Janssen: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Kite/Gilead: Consultancy; Celgene: Other: Travel expenses; Alnylam: Consultancy; Cilag: Consultancy. Wechalekar: Amgen: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; Takeda: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Caelum Biosciences: Other: Clinical Trial Funding; Alexion, AstraZeneca Rare Disease: Consultancy. Jaccard: Pfizer: Honoraria; Abbvie: Honoraria; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Dispenzieri: Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sorrento Therapeutics: Consultancy; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Alnylam: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding. Lee: Karyopharm: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Takeda Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; Legend Biotech: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Oncopetides: Consultancy; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Regeneron: Research Funding. Sanchorawala: Oncopeptide: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Research Funding; Sorrento: Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria; Proclara: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Regeneron: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Caelum: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Prothena: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Gibbs: AbbVie: Consultancy; Janssen, Celgene, Amgen, Takeda, BMS and Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria. Mollee: Janssen, Pfizer: Research Funding; Amgen, BMS, Janssen, Caelum, EUSA, Pfizer, SkylineDx, Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: No personal fees received. Venner: BMS: Honoraria; Amgen: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria. Schönland: Janssen: Honoraria, Other: Travel grants, Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria, Other: Travel grants; Prothena: Honoraria, Other: Travel grants; Sanofi: Research Funding. Suzuki: Abie: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; ONO: Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria. Kim: BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Cibeira: Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Akcea: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Beksac: Oncopeptides: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Libby: Genentech: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; GSK: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding. Valent: Caelum Biosciences: Other: Clinical Trial Funding; Celgene Corporation: Speakers Bureau; Takeda Pharmaceuticals: Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Speakers Bureau. Hungria: Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Support for attending meetings/travel ; Abbvie: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria, Other: Support for attending meetings/travel ; Takeda: Honoraria. Wong: Amgen: Consultancy; Genentech: Research Funding; Fortis: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; GloxoSmithKlein: Research Funding; Dren Biosciences: Consultancy; Caelum: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Rosenzweig: Janssen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Bristol Myers Squibb: Speakers Bureau; Akcea: Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Speakers Bureau; Onocopeptides: Speakers Bureau. Bumma: Amgen, Sanofi: Speakers Bureau; Janssen, Oncopeptides, Sanofi: Consultancy. Tran: Janssen: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Qin: Janssen: Current Employment. Khaled: Jazz: Honoraria; Astellas: Honoraria; Alexion: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Omeros: Honoraria; Janssen: Current Employment. Vermeulen: Janssen: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company.