Citations

AbstractIntroductionLeisure activities impact brain aging and may be prevention targets. We characterized how physical and cognitive activities relate to brain health for the first time in autosomal dominant frontotemporal lobar degeneration (FTLD).MethodsA total of 105 mutation carriers (C9orf72/MAPT/GRN) and 69 non‐carriers reported current physical and cognitive activities at baseline, and completed longitudinal neurobehavioral assessments and brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans.ResultsGreater physical and cognitive activities were each associated with an estimated >55% slower clinical decline per year among dominant gene carriers. There was also an interaction between leisure activities and frontotemporal atrophy on cognition in mutation carriers. High‐activity carriers with frontotemporal atrophy (−1 standard deviation/year) demonstrated >two‐fold better cognitive performances per year compared to their less active peers with comparable atrophy rates.DiscussionActive lifestyles were associated with less functional decline and moderated brain‐to‐behavior relationships longitudinally. More active carriers “outperformed” brain volume, commensurate with a cognitive reserve hypothesis. Lifestyle may confer clinical resilience, even in autosomal dominant FTLD.

Abstract Persons of African ancestry (AA) have a twofold higher risk for multiple myeloma (MM) compared with persons of European ancestry (EA). Genome-wide association studies (GWASs) support a genetic contribution to MM etiology in individuals of EA. Little is known about genetic risk factors for MM in individuals of AA. We performed a meta-analysis of 2 GWASs of MM in 1813 cases and 8871 controls and conducted an admixture mapping scan to identify risk alleles. We fine-mapped the 23 known susceptibility loci to find markers that could better capture MM risk in individuals of AA and constructed a polygenic risk score (PRS) to assess the aggregated effect of known MM risk alleles. In GWAS meta-analysis, we identified 2 suggestive novel loci located at 9p24.3 and 9p13.1 at P < 1 × 10−6; however, no genome-wide significant association was noted. In admixture mapping, we observed a genome-wide significant inverse association between local AA at 2p24.1-23.1 and MM risk in AA individuals. Of the 23 known EA risk variants, 20 showed directional consistency, and 9 replicated at P < .05 in AA individuals. In 8 regions, we identified markers that better capture MM risk in persons with AA. AA individuals with a PRS in the top 10% had a 1.82-fold (95% confidence interval, 1.56-2.11) increased MM risk compared with those with average risk (25%-75%). The strongest functional association was between the risk allele for variant rs56219066 at 5q15 and lower ELL2 expression (P = 5.1 × 10−12). Our study shows that common genetic variation contributes to MM risk in individuals with AA.

Liver diseases affecting the mother and infant dyad may present in the perinatal period from 20 weeks of gestation to 28 days of life. This review will focus on the current approach to neonatal acute liver failure and the progress made in the diagnosis and management of gestational alloimmune liver disease. It will highlight mother‐to‐child transmission of viral hepatitis, both management and public health implications. Emerging concepts implicating maternal obesity and nutrition in the development of a rapidly progressive nonalcoholic steatohepatitis phenotype in the offspring will be discussed. Finally, the presentation and management of acute fatty liver of pregnancy and intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy, and their impact on the fetus, will be reviewed.

Key Points The MAGIC algorithm probability, computed from 2 serum biomarkers, predicts mortality in all GVHD grades after 4 weeks of treatment. Dynamic changes in the MAGIC algorithm probability occur within all biomarker risk groups and can guide therapy.

AbstractIntroductionThe Advancing Research and Treatment in Frontotemporal Lobar Degeneration and Longitudinal Evaluation of Familial Frontotemporal Dementia Subjects longitudinal studies were designed to describe the natural history of familial‐frontotemporal lobar degeneration due to autosomal dominant mutations.MethodsWe examined cognitive performance, behavioral ratings, and brain volumes from the first time point in 320 MAPT, GRN, and C9orf72 family members, including 102 non–mutation carriers, 103 asymptomatic carriers, 43 mildly/questionably symptomatic carriers, and 72 carriers with dementia.ResultsAsymptomatic carriers showed similar scores on all clinical measures compared with noncarriers but reduced frontal and temporal volumes. Those with mild/questionable impairment showed decreased verbal recall, fluency, and Trail Making Test performance and impaired mood and self‐monitoring. Dementia was associated with impairment in all measures. All MAPT carriers with dementia showed temporal atrophy, but otherwise, there was no single cognitive test or brain region that was abnormal in all subjects.DiscussionImaging changes appear to precede clinical changes in familial‐frontotemporal lobar degeneration, but specific early clinical and imaging changes vary across individuals.

Multiple myeloma (MM) is a neoplasm thought to arise from a damaged germinal center B-cell that progresses to a plasma cell clone arising in bone marrow. MM comprises 20% of all hematologic cancer deaths. Persons of African ancestry (AA) have a 1.5 to 2-fold higher risk compared to individuals of European ancestry (EA). Genetically driven differences in hematopoiesis may lead to variation in the levels white blood cell (WBC) subsets which could, in turn, be associated with MM etiology. There are differences in genetic determinants of WBC traits between EA and AA populations, with possible implications for the racial disparity in risk. We tested the above hypothesis using Mendelian randomization (MR), an approach that leverages genetic determinants of specific traits (i.e. WBC counts) to estimate their effects on the risk of an outcome; and a transcriptome-wide association study (TWAS), which utilizes genetic predictors of gene expression to identify susceptibility genes. These analytic approaches were applied to data from the African American Multiple Myeloma Study (AAMMS) consisting of 1813 cases and 8871 AA cancer-free controls to examine how differences in heritable WBC gene expression profiles influence MM risk. Genetic determinants of variation in WBC subsets in AA were obtained from the literature and supplemented with new genome-wide association findings in AA subjects from the UK Biobank cohort (n=6108). Odds ratios (OR) for MM per 1 standard deviation (SD) increase in each WBC phenotype were estimated using independent (linkage disequilibrium (LD) r2<0.10) variants with P<10-6 as genetic instruments. Analyses based on variants associated with WBC traits in AA populations did not identify any statistically-significant associations between MM risk and WBC overall (p=0.81, using 15 SNPs) or subsets (lymphocytes, monocytes, eosinophils, neutrophils and basophils, p>0.05 for each). However, when we applied genetic determinants of WBC identified in 330,000 cancer-free EA UK Biobank participants (P<10-8, replication P<0.05, LD r2<0.05), a statistically significant inverse relationship emerged between increasing lymphocyte counts and MM risk (OR=0.80, 95% CI: 0.66-0.97, p=0.02, using 385 SNPs), as well as increasing basophil counts (OR=0.63, 95% CI: 0.41-0.96, p=0.03, using 140 SNPs). Next, we examined the association between WBC gene expression profiles and MM risk in AAMMS data. We applied published and validated ancestry-specific models developed using the PrediXcan approach, which leverage germline genetic and transcriptomic data from the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA) (Mogil et al. PMID: 30096133). The primary TWAS used gene expression models trained in AA subjects (n=233), with sensitivity analyses using models developed in AA and Hispanic subjects (n=585). The TWAS significance threshold was based on the number of genes with significant germline prediction models (p<0.05 and R2 ≥0.05) in AA, corresponding to P < 0.05/2700 = 1.85×10-5. The expression of two genes was significantly associated with MM risk: KANK1at 9p24.3 (P = 1.01×10-5) and DNAJC27at 2p23.3 (P = 1.56×10-5). KANK1is a candidate tumor suppressor gene for renal cell carcinoma and has recently been associated with MM risk in AA [Du, Blood 2017 130:3058]. Here we provide additional evidence for its role in MM etiology via gene expression-mediated mechanisms. DNAJC27 (previously known as RBJ) is a novel MM risk gene linked to constitutive activation of ERK in solid tumors. We also identified two suggestively associated genes: PRR14 (P = 1.34×10-4; combined AA-Hispanic sample: P = 1.56×10-6), which has been linked to MM risk in EA populations, and PARP16 (P = 9.46×10-5). To our knowledge this is the first study to comprehensively examine variation in WBC traits and gene expression profiles with respect to MM risk in AA. Our TWAS analysis leveraged data from the largest collection of genetic and gene expression data in AA, enabling ancestry-matched inference and identification of two novel risk genes. Although the limited availability of genetic instruments for WBC limited the power of MR analysis, findings using variants identified in European populations may offer some insight into trans-ethnic etiologic pathways and contribute to risk stratification strategies using genetic and blood cell count biomarkers. Future studies, particularly with MGUS-free controls, are needed to validate these results. Disclosures Song: Millennium Pharmaceuticals Inc: Employment. Rand:Ancestry.com: Employment. Ailawadhi:Cellectar: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy. Nooka:Takeda: Honoraria, Other: advisory board participation; Janssen: Honoraria, Other: advisory board participation; GSK: Honoraria, Other: advisory board participation; Spectrum pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Other: advisory board participation; Adaptive technologies: Honoraria, Other: advisory board participation; Amgen: Honoraria, Other: advisory board participation; Celgene: Honoraria, Other: advisory board participation; BMS: Honoraria, Other: advisory board participation. Singhal:Bureau of Millennium/Takeda, Celgene, Janssen, Celgene, Bristol-Myers Squibb and Bluebird: Speakers Bureau. van Rhee:Takeda: Consultancy; Sanofi Genzyme: Consultancy; Castleman Disease Collaborative Network: Consultancy; EUSA: Consultancy; Adicet Bio: Consultancy; Kite Pharma: Consultancy; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Consultancy. Mehta:Millennium/Takeda, Celgene; stock in Celgene, Bristol-Myers Squibb and Bluebird: Speakers Bureau. Wolf:Takeda: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy. Martin:Roche and Juno: Consultancy; Amgen, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Fiala:Incyte: Research Funding. Terebelo:Jannsen: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Honoraria; Newland Medical Asociates: Employment. Anderson:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Other: Scientific Founder; Oncopep: Other: Scientific Founder; Amgen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi-Aventis: Other: Advisory Board. Vij:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Genentech: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Karyopharm: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding. Bernal-Mizrachi:TAKEDA: Research Funding; Kodikas Therapeutic Solutions, Inc: Equity Ownership; Winship Cancer Institute: Employment, Patents & Royalties. Morgan:Amgen, Roche, Abbvie, Takeda, Celgene, Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Other: research grant, Research Funding. Zonder:Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Intellia: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Caelum: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Alnylam: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncopeptides: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Huff:Member of Safety Monitoring Board for Johnson and Johnson: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Karyopharm, Sanofi, MiDiagnostics: Consultancy. Lonial:Karyopharm: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; GSK: Consultancy; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy. Orlowski:Poseida Therapeutics, Inc.: Research Funding.

Introduction Despite more robust attempts to deliver chemotherapy in the outpatient setting, certain regimens for hematologic malignancies require inpatient hospitalization for treatment and monitoring clinical status. Increased length of stay (LOS) for planned chemotherapy admissions leads to increased healthcare utilization and decreased patient satisfaction. We sought to identify potentially modifiable risk factors for increased LOS. Methods Planned chemotherapy admissions to the inpatient hematology services at Mayo Clinic (Rochester, MN) from October 2018 through March 2019 were reviewed. We included patients who had treatment plans based on four pre-specified common regimens for acute myeloid leukemia, relapsed non-Hodgkins lymphoma and multiple myeloma. Patients who remained in the hospital for lack of caregiver support were excluded. Patient characteristics, including age, malignancy type, and chemotherapy regimen were recorded. Encounter characteristics included day of week of admission, time of admission, time chemotherapy plan initiated, and whether or not all necessary procedures (labs, vascular access, chemo orders) were completed prior to admission. Primary outcome was LOS. Secondary outcome was time to treatment initiation (TTI) after admission. Results There were 100 planned admissions for patients receiving four regimens: cytarabine consolidation, EPOCH, ICE, VDT-PACE, during the six month review period. Thirty-six admissions did not occur as planned (regimen changed, rescheduled, or disease progression). Of the remaining 66 admissions, 11 outliers were excluded from primary analysis. Baseline characteristics are summarized in Table 1. Univariate analysis with independent t-test found no difference in LOS for patients who had physician chemotherapy orders in place prior to admission. To the contrary, we detected a non-significant trend toward longer mean length of stay for patients that were not seen in clinic on day of admission (Table 2). On ANOVA, there was a statistically significant difference in LOS when comparing Monday admissions 3.93 days (95% CI 3.07 to 4.79) vs Friday 5.25 days (95% CI, 4.86 to 5.64), but not between any other days. There were no statistically significant differences in TTI when comparing by day of week, physician order status, or chemotherapy regimen. Again, a non-significant trend toward increased TTI was observed for patients not seen in clinic on the same day as admission. Conclusions This study serves as a starting point towards identifying modifiable factors that are essential to delivery of safe, satisfying inpatient care to our hematological malignancy patients.Our noteworthy finding regarding patients who were admitted on Friday having a longer LOS than those admitted on Monday requires further exploration. This study is ongoing with mature data to be presented at the meeting. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Background: Multiple myeloma (MM) treatment has advanced considerably with proteasome inhibitors, immunomodulatory drugs (IMiDs), and, most recently, monoclonal antibodies. However, treatment response is quite heterogeneous, and many patients still progress even with novel combination therapies. Thus, understanding the factors that underlie response to treatment is a priority. Several somatic genomic aberrations and mutations predict poor response to therapy. However, germline variation has not previously been investigated as a predictor of treatment response in MM. We used genome-wide association and transcriptome-wide association approaches to identify germline genetic predictors of treatment response in MM. Methods: We included 510 MM patients from Mayo Clinic and 324 MM patients from UCSF diagnosed from 1999-2015. Basic demographics, laboratory values and pathology at diagnosis, type of initial therapy, duration of therapy, and follow-up were ascertained by chart review. Patients were grouped into categories of treatment based on their first line therapy: proteasome inhibitor-based regimen, IMiD based regimen, combination proteasome and IMiD based regimen, or other. Response was assessed using International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG) response criteria after 4-6 cycles of induction. As such, response was categorized into progressive disease (PD), minimal response (MR), partial response (PR), very good partial response (VGPR), or complete response (CR). Germline samples were genotyped using Illumina or Affymetrix arrays and were imputed based on the Haplotype Reference Consortium (HRC). For the genome-wide association study (GWAS), we included all SNPs with minor allele frequency >0.01 and imputation r2 of >0.5. We tested each SNP for association with treatment response using a linear regression model that adjusted for age, gender, and genetic ancestry (from principal components analysis (PCA)). To perform the transcriptome-wide association study (TWAS), we calculated predicted gene expression data using PREDIXCAN software on a reference cohort of 922 individuals with genotype and RNA expression data from peripheral blood. We then tested the association between predicted gene expression and response to therapy using linear regression models. Both the GWAS and TWAS were performed on subgroups of patients who received either proteasome inhibitors or IMiD therapies. The analyses of patients on proteasome inhibitors were adjusted for IMiD use as a covariate and analyses of patients on IMiDs were adjusted for proteasome inhibitor use. The threshold for genome-wide significance loci was set at P = 5 x 10-8 and the threshold for suggestive loci was set at P = 10-6. The threshold for significance for TWAS was set at P = 4 x 10-6 by using a Bonferroni correction for the number of genes for which genetic models of expression could be developed by PREDIXCAN. Results: Overall, 42.7% (59 of 138) of patients on proteasome inhibitors alone, 32.5% (66 of 203) of patients on IMiDs alone, and 58.1% (50 of 86) of patients on combination achieved at least a VGPR. There were no significant differences in response across centers in analyses that adjusted for age, sex and types of therapy. There were no genome wide significant loci to predict for response. We identified 8 suggestive SNPs associated with proteasome inhibitor response and 4 suggestive SNPs associated with IMiD response. TWAS identified ZNF622 as a candidate genetic modifier of proteasome inhibitor effect that was significant after correction for multiple hypothesis testing (P = 1.6 x 10-6). Higher genetically predicted expression was associated with improved response to proteasome inhibitor therapy. Among patients above the median of predicted expression of ZNF622 on proteasome inhibitors, 62.6% achieved at least VGPR; among patients at or below the median of expression, only 37.6% achieved at least VGPR. Conclusions: We identified an association between predicted expression of ZNF622 and clinical response to proteasome inhibitor therapy among MM patients. ZNF622 is a zinc finger binding protein which is known to be co-activator of B Myb activity and to affect apoptosis in response to oxidative stress. Our work highlights the potential importance of pharmacogenetic modifiers of treatment response in MM. Disclosures Shah: Nkarta: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Indapta Therapeutics: Equity Ownership; University of California, San Francisco: Employment; Celgene, Janssen, Bluebird Bio, Sutro Biopharma: Research Funding; Genentech, Seattle Genetics, Oncopeptides, Karoypharm, Surface Oncology, Precision biosciences GSK, Nektar, Amgen, Indapta Therapeutics, Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Poseida: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kite: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Teneobio: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Wong:Celgene: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Fortis: Research Funding. Martin:Roche and Juno: Consultancy; Amgen, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Kumar:Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding.

Abstract Relapse of malignancy and lethal graft versus host disease (GVHD) are the principal causes of failure of allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant (HCT). Recently we have shown that at seven days after HCT an algorithm using two serum biomarkers (ST2 and REG3α) can predict severe GVHD (Hartwell et al. JCI Insight 2017). We determined whether serial testing (in the first month following HCT) of patients with low probability biomarkers would improve the predictive accuracy of the algorithm and identify patients with different risks of relapse and lethal GVHD. Patients who received an HCT at 18 centers in the Mount Sinai Acute GVHD International Consortium (MAGIC) for hematologic malignancy and who supplied three blood samples were divided into a training set and validation set with equal numbers of lethal GVHD events, which was defined as death from GVHD or infection during treatment for GVHD. Patients in the training set (n=702) underwent HCT from January 1, 2006 until June 30, 2015, whereas patients in the validation set (n=906) underwent HCT from July 1, 2015 to May 1, 2017. Serum samples were analyzed using the previously published algorithm of two biomarkers up to three times (day 7, day 14, day 28 or GVHD onset, if onset occurred within the first 28 days). The algorithm generates a predicted probability of lethal GVHD between 0 and 1 for each patient. Patients were categorized as either low probability (LP) or high probability (HP) for lethal GVHD. HP thresholds of 0.20 and 0.16 were used to classify patients with and without GVHD symptoms, respectively (once categorized as HP, patients remained in that category and were not retested). All results were similar between training and validation sets, and we present here the validation set results. Serial testing identified 28% of patients as HP with a three-fold greater cumulative incidence of lethal GVHD at one year (13% vs 4%, p<0.001, Figure 1). Relapse rates were the same in both probability groups, and thus LP patients experienced significantly better relapse free survival (RFS) (69% vs 53%, p<0.001). As expected, significantly fewer LP patients experienced severe GVHD at onset (as measured by Minnesota risk), maximum grade III/IV GVHD, or steroid resistant GVHD by day 180 after HCT (Figure 2, p<0.001 for all three parameters). To measure the accuracy of prediction, at each timepoint we calculated the area under the curve (AUC) of receiver operating characteristic curves; the AUC increased significantly with each subsequent evaluation, from 0.59 at one timepoint (dotted line) to 0.74 at the third timepoint (solid line) (p<0.001), with a final sensitivity of 65% and specificity of 74% (Figure 3A). Early development of GVHD (by day 28) is a risk factor for lethal GVHD. Therefore, we next plotted RFS (dashed line), relapse (solid line), and lethal GVHD (dotted line) rates in patients who developed GVHD by day 28. 25% of patients with GVHD were categorized as HP and had a cumulative incidence of lethal GVHD more than four times higher (28%) than that of relapse (6%); however the risks were reversed for the 75% of patients who were LP, where relapse (15%) occurred twice as often as lethal GVHD (7%) (Figure 3B). In patients who did not develop GVHD in the first month, this reversal of risks was even more dramatic. Approximately half (53%) of the entire validation cohort did not develop GVHD by day 28 and was LP at all three evaluations. These patients had an exceptionally low risk of lethal GVHD and thus they relapsed (25%) much more often than they died from GVHD (3%). When malignancies were classified according to risk for relapse by the disease risk index (DRI) (Figure 3C), the probability of relapse was three fold higher than lethal GVHD in malignancies with a low DRI (12%), six fold higher for intermediate DRI (20%), and eleven fold higher for high/very high DRI (33%). We conclude that a serial monitoring strategy using GVHD biomarkers for one month after HCT is able to identify two groups of patients with very different risks of lethal GVHD and relapse. For these patients, the intensity of immunosuppression after day 28 could be tailored according to the probabilities of developing lethal GVHD and relapse in the context of clinical trials. Disclosures Aziz: Doris Duke Charitable Foundation: Research Funding. Ayuk:Therakos (Mallinckrodt): Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy. Chen:REGiMMUNE: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Magenta Therapeutics: Consultancy; Takeda Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy. Merli:Neovii Biotech: Honoraria; AMGEN: Honoraria. Roesler:Sanofi: Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses; Amgen: Equity Ownership; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses; Immunomedics: Equity Ownership; Biogen: Equity Ownership; Merck: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy. Kitko:Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Mallinckrodt: Honoraria, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses. Qayed:Novartis: Consultancy. Wölfl:Bristol-myers Squibb: Equity Ownership; Novartis: Equity Ownership; Taheda: Equity Ownership; Juno: Equity Ownership; Neovii: Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses. Mielke:Celgene: Speakers Bureau; DGHO: Speakers Bureau; EHA: Speakers Bureau; Kiadis Pharma: Speakers Bureau; Miltenyi: Speakers Bureau. Wudhikarn:Takeda Oncology: Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses. Nakamura:Celgene: Honoraria; Molmed: Honoraria; Merck: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Atara: Consultancy; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy. Pulsipher:CSL Behring: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Adaptive Biotech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria. Reshef:Pfizer: Consultancy; Atara Biotherapeutics: Consultancy; Kite Pharma: Consultancy; Takeda Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy. Levine:Therakos: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Bluebird: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy; Kamada: Research Funding; Viracor: Patents & Royalties. Ferrara:Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses; Xenikos: Consultancy, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses; Kamada: Consultancy, Research Funding; Viracor: Consultancy, Patents & Royalties.