Citations

7521 Background: In MCL, outcomes are heterogeneous and the clinical significance of the timing of relapse following autoHCT and its impact on OS is not well defined. Using the CIBMTR database, we evaluate the effect of post-autoHCT time to relapse on OS over time. Methods: Adult MCL pts treated with up to two lines of rituximab-based induction therapy followed by first autoHCT within 1-year of diagnosis were identified between 2000-2018. Primary outcomes included OS and post-relapse OS. A dynamic landmark analysis was performed at 6-month intervals following autoHCT to evaluate the impact of relapse on OS while adjusting for significant patient- and disease-related variables. Post-relapse OS was evaluated in pts who experienced relapse. Results: Of the 461 pts included in the analysis, the median age was 60 years (range 29-78), 57% had a KPS of ≥ 90, 83% had stage III-IV disease at diagnosis, and 76% had extranodal involvement. BEAM was the most common conditioning regimen (58%) and 23% of pts received post-autoHCT maintenance rituximab. With a median follow-up of 67 months, the 5-year progression-free survival was 45.8% with a 5-year OS of 69.6%. On multivariate analysis, age ≥60 years was associated with worse OS (HR= 1.55, 95% CI 1.08-2.24, p=0.0191) at all landmark timepoints. Additionally, the impact of relapse on OS varied with time (p=0.006) and was greatest at the 6-month (HR=7.68), 12-month (HR=6.68), and 18-month (HR=5.81) landmark timepoints. The risk of death for relapsing pts decreased with time and was mirrored by an improvement in adjusted OS for both relapsing and non-relapsing pts. In total, 9.3% of patients relapsed prior to the 18-month landmark timepoint. Relapse at the 6-month, 12-month, and 18-month landmark timepoints correlated with a poor median post-relapse OS of 9 months, 24 months, and 34 months, respectively (Table). Conversely, patients relapsing after the 18-month landmark timepoint experienced a median post-relapse OS ranging from 44-67 months. Conclusions: In MCL, early relapse (< 18-months) following autoHCT defines a high-risk group with inferior post-relapse OS. This population should be considered for clinical trials or novel therapeutic approaches including early utilization of chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy.[Table: see text]

AbstractIntroductionWhile most patients with mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) receive therapy shortly after diagnosis, a subset of patients with indolent‐behaving disease can safely defer treatment. In this subgroup, we evaluated the importance of treatment intensity in patients with MCL who defer initial therapy.MethodsOut of 1134 patients with MCL from 12 academic centers, we analyzed 219 patients who initiated therapy at least 90 days after diagnosis. Patients who received induction with high‐dose cytarabine and/or autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) in first remission were considered to have received intensive therapy (n = 88) while all other approaches were non‐intensive (n = 131).ResultsThere was no difference in progression‐free (PFS; P = .224) or overall survival (OS; P = .167) in deferred patients who received non‐intensive vs. intensive therapy. Additionally, univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazards models were performed for PFS and OS. Treatment at an academic center (HR 0.43, P = .015) was associated with improved OS in both univariate and multivariate models, while intensity of treatment was not associated with improved OS in either model.ConclusionsThese results indicate that intensified initial treatment is not associated with improved survival after deferring initial therapy, although prospective studies are needed to determine which of these patients with MCL may benefit from intensive therapy.

INTRODUCTION Primary DLBCL of the CNS (PCNSL) is a rare, extra-nodal non-Hodgkin lymphoma with high risk of relapse without consolidation therapies. AutoHCT has emerged as an accepted consolidation strategy, especially with increasing use of CNS penetrant chemotherapy agents in transplant conditioning. However, studies defining the optimal conditioning regimen for PCNSL have not been performed. The use of two common conditioning regimens in the U.S., thiotepa/busulfan/cyclophosphamide (TBC) and thiotepa/carmustine (TT-BCNU), is supported by phase II trials, but lack comparative data. Extrapolating experience from systemic lymphomas, BEAM (BCNU/etoposide/cytarabine/melphalan) is also prescribed for PCNSL in the U.S. Using the Center for International Blood & Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR) registry, we compared outcomes for PCNSL patients undergoing autoHCT using the three most commonly employed conditioning regimens: TBC vs. TT-BCNU vs. BEAM. METHODS Six hundred and eight adult PCNSL patients who underwent a first autoHCT between 2010-2018 were included. Conditioning regimens included TBC (n = 265), TT-BCNU (n = 278), and BEAM (n = 65). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints included (a) time to hematopoietic recovery, (b) relapse/progression, (c) non-relapse mortality (NRM), and (d) overall survival (OS). Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate probabilities of PFS and OS. Cox proportional hazard analysis was used to identify prognostic factors for relapse, NRM, PFS, and OS. Variables considered in regression model include patient age, sex, race, performance status, HCT-comorbidity index (HCT-CI), rituximab use during conditioning, interval between diagnosis and HCT, and remission status. Covariates with a p&lt;0.05 were considered significant. RESULTS Baseline characteristics are presented in Table 1. The groups were comparable with regards to median patient age, gender, race, HCT-CI, and remission status. The cumulative incidences of neutrophil recovery at 1-month for the three conditioning regimens were: TBC 96% (95%CI 94-98%), TT-BCNU 100% (95%CI 98-100%), and BEAM 100% (95%CI 100%), (p &lt; 0.001). The cumulative incidence rate of relapse for TBC, TT-BCNU, and BEAM at 1-year were 6% (95%CI 3-9%), 10% (95%CI 7-14%), and 23% (95%CI 14-35%), respectively (p = 0.003). The corresponding cumulative incidence rate of relapse at 3-years were 11% (95%CI 7-16%), 15% (95%CI 10-20%) and 37% (95%CI 25-50%) (p &lt; 0.001) respectively. The adjusted NRM were higher for TBC: 100-day 7% (95%CI 4-10%) and 1-year 11% (95%CI 7-15%), compared to TT-BCNU: 100-day 2% (95%CI 0.2-3%) and 1-year 4% (95%CI 2-6%), and BEAM: 100-day 0% (95%CI 0%) and 1-year 4% (95%CI 0-9%) (1-year p=0.01). The 3-year adjusted PFS across the three conditioning regimens were: TBC 75% (95%CI 69-81%), TT-BCNU 76% (95%CI 70-82%), and BEAM 58% (95%CI 46-70%) (p = 0.03) [Figure 1a]. The adjusted OS at 3-years were: TBC 81% (95%CI 75-86%), TT-BCNU 78% (95%CI 72-85%) and BEAM 69% (95%CI 58-80%), (p = 0.17) [Figure 1b]. Relapse of primary disease was the most common cause of death in all three cohorts: TBC 38% (n=20), TT-BCNU 72% (n=33) and BEAM 76% (n=19). Other significant causes of death in the TBC group included infections 15% (n=8) and organ failure 21% (n=11). CONCLUSIONS In this CIBMTR analysis in patients with PCNSL, we found favorable outcomes with thiotepa-containing conditioning regimens. Adjusted 3-year PFS favored TBC and TT-BCNU over BEAM and suggest that use of BEAM should be discouraged in this specific setting. Whether TBC or TT-BCNU is the optimal conditioning regimen requires further inquiry in a prospective clinical trial. Disclosures Scordo: McKinsey & Company: Consultancy; Omeros Corporation: Consultancy; Kite - A Gilead Company: Other: Ad-hoc advisory board; Angiocrine Bioscience, Inc.: Consultancy, Research Funding. Kharfan-Dabaja:Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy. Herrera:Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Other: Travel, Accomodations, Expenses, Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech, Inc./F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gilead Sciences: Consultancy, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Research Funding; Immune Design: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding. Hamadani:Janssen R&D; Incyte Corporation; ADC Therapeutics; Celgene Corporation; Pharmacyclics, Omeros, AbGenomics, Verastem, TeneoBio: Consultancy; Sanofi Genzyme, AstraZeneca: Speakers Bureau; Takeda Pharmaceutical Company; Spectrum Pharmaceuticals; Astellas Pharma: Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Sauter:Sanofi-Genzyme: Consultancy, Research Funding; Spectrum Pharamaceuticals: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Genmab: Consultancy; Precision Biosciences: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kite - a Gilead Company: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gamida Cell: Consultancy; GSK: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Juno Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding.

SummaryReduced‐intensity conditioning (RIC) allogeneic haematopoietic cell transplantation (allo‐HCT) is a curative option for select relapsed/refractory Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) patients; however, there are sparse data to support superiority of any particular conditioning regimen. We analyzed 492 adult patients undergoing human leucocyte antigen (HLA)‐matched sibling or unrelated donor allo‐HCT for HL between 2008 and 2016, utilizing RIC with either fludarabine/busulfan (Flu/Bu), fludarabine/melphalan (Flu/Mel140) or fludarabine/cyclophosphamide (Flu/Cy). Multivariable regression analysis was performed using a significance level of <0·01. There were no significant differences between regimens in risk for non‐relapse mortality (NRM) (P = 0·54), relapse/progression (P = 0·02) or progression‐free survival (PFS) (P = 0·14). Flu/Cy conditioning was associated with decreased risk of mortality in the first 11 months after allo‐HCT (HR = 0·28; 95% CI = 0·10–0·73; P = 0·009), but beyond 11 months post allo‐HCT it was associated with a significantly higher risk of mortality, (HR = 2·46; 95% CI = 0·1.32–4·61; P = 0·005). Four‐year adjusted overall survival (OS) was similar across regimens at 62% for Flu/Bu, 59% for Flu/Mel140 and 55% for Flu/Cy (P = 0·64), respectively. These data confirm the choice of RIC for allo‐HCT in HL does not influence risk of relapse, NRM or PFS. Although no OS benefit was seen between Flu/Bu and Flu/Mel 140; Flu/Cy was associated with a significantly higher risk of mortality beyond 11 months from allo‐HCT (possibly due to late NRM events).

TPS8612 Background: Brentuximab vedotin, a CD30-targeted antibody-drug conjugate, has conditional approval in Europe for relapsed/refractory (RR) CD30-positive HL following autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) or following ≥2 prior therapies when ASCT or multi-agent chemotherapy is not a treatment option. ABVD, a common front-line regimen for advanced HL, achieves complete response (CR) rates of 70–80%. However, 10–20% of patients (pts) are refractory to front-line treatment and up to 35% relapse after front-line multi-modality therapy. In pts with relapsed HL post-ASCT, single-agent brentuximab vedotin yields an objective response rate of 75% (CR, 33%; Chen ASH 2012). In a phase 1 study in treatment-naïve HL pts, A+AVD was associated with manageable toxicity and a CR rate of 96%; brentuximab vedotin + ABVD was contraindicated due to pulmonary toxicity (Ansell ASH 2012). We hypothesized that substituting bleomycin with brentuximab vedotin would eliminate bleomycin-associated pulmonary toxicity and improve progression-free survival (PFS) compared to a standard ABVD regimen. Methods: This ongoing, open-label, randomized, multicenter study (NCT01712490) will compare A+AVD vs ABVD in 1040 pts with stage III/IV classical HL. Primary endpoint: modified (m) PFS (death, progression, and receipt of chemotherapy or radiotherapy by pts not in CR after completing A+AVD or ABVD will count as progression event). Key secondary endpoint: overall survival. Key inclusion criteria: histologically-confirmed previously untreated stage III/IV classical HL. Pts will be stratified by region and International Prognostic Score, and will be randomized 1:1 to receive A+AVD (brentuximab vedotin 1.2 mg/kg with each dose of AVD) or ABVD administered intravenously on Days 1 and 15 of 28-day cycles, for up to 6 cycles. Disease status and survival will be evaluated regularly until study closure. Safety assessments: incidence and severity of adverse events, changes to physical and laboratory tests. Clinical trial information: NCT01712490.

Introduction: Rituximab-based high-dose therapy (HDT) is frequently prescribed to DLBCL patients (pts) undergoing auto-HCT. However data supporting the benefit of adding R to auto-HCT conditioning are not available. Herein, we report the impact of R-based conditioning on auto-HCT outcomes of DLBCL pts. Methods: Using the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research registry, 862 adult (≥18 years) DLBCL pts undergoing auto-HCT, between 2003-2017 were included. Analysis was limited to pts receiving BEAM (BCNU, etoposide, cytarabine, melphalan)-based HDT, as R was infrequently used with non-BEAM conditioning regimens. All pts received R-containing chemoimmunotherapy in the frontline setting and had chemosensitive disease prior to HCT. Early chemoimmunotherapy failure (ECitF) was defined as not achieving a complete remission (CR) after frontline chemoimmunotherapy or relapsing within 1 year of initial diagnosis. Primary outcome was overall survival (OS). Secondary outcomes included non-relapse mortality (NRM), relapse, progression-free survival (PFS) and infectious complications within 100 days post-HCT. Results: The study cohort was divided into 2 groups; BEAM (n=667) and R-BEAM (n=195). The baseline characteristics of the 2 cohorts were comparable including age at auto-HCT, disease stage, Karnofsky performance score, extranodal involvement, time from diagnosis to auto-HCT, number of prior therapies, remission status, and ECitF. However, significantly more R-BEAM cohort patients received R as part of last therapy line before auto-HCT (75% vs. 86%; P=0.001). Median follow-up of survivors was 48 (range 1-171) and 64 (range 3-142) months in the BEAM and R-BEAM cohorts, respectively. On univariate analysis, the 4 year cumulative incidence of relapse (41% vs 44%), NRM (11% vs 9%), PFS (48% vs 47%; Figure 1) and OS (58% vs 61%; Figure 2) were similar in the R-BEAM and BEAM groups, respectively (Table 1). On multivariate analysis, no significant difference was seen in OS (HR 0.81; 95% CI 0.81-1.31; P=0.83) or PFS (HR 0.94; 95% CI 0.76-1.18; P=0.61) (Table 1) between the two cohorts. Addition of R had no impact on risk of relapse (HR 0.83; 95% CI 0.65-1.07; P=0.15) or NRM (HR 1.43; 95% CI 0.909-2.26; P=0.12). Variables independently associated with lower OS included older age (HR 3.05; 95% CI 1.81-5.13; P&lt;0.001), not being in CR at auto-HCT (HR 1.67, 95% CI 1.39-2.07; P&lt;0.001) and presence of ECitF (HR 1.52, 95% CI 0.54-3.26; P&lt;0.001). Older age (HR 2.26, 95% CI 1.48-3.45; P&lt;0.0002) and not being in CR at auto-HCT (HR 1.78, CI 1.47-2.14; P&lt;0.0001) were also associated with inferior PFS. There was no significant difference in the 100-day cumulative incidence of bacterial, viral or fungal infections between the two cohorts. Disease relapse was the main cause of death in both BEAM and R-BEAM cohorts (66% vs 55%). Conclusion: In this large registry analysis of DLBCL pts undergoing auto-HCT, adding R to BEAM conditioning had no impact on transplantation outcomes. Older age, absence of CR and ECitF were associated with inferior survival. Disclosures Majhail: Mallinckrodt: Honoraria; Incyte: Consultancy; Nkarta: Consultancy; Anthem, Inc.: Consultancy; Atara Bio: Consultancy. Sureda:Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel Support; Gilead: Honoraria; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Kharfan-Dabaja:Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy. Hamadani:ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Medimmune: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; Otsuka: Research Funding; Sanofi Genzyme: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau.

Introduction: Anti-PD-1 monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) are highly active in relapsed/refractory classical Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL), but most patients (pts) will still relapse. Given this, allogeneic stem cell transplantation (alloHSCT) remains an important option for pts after PD-1 blockade, as it offers the possibility of cure. Prior reports have suggested that alloHSCT after PD-1 mAbs may be associated with severe immune-related complications including acute graft-versus-host disease (GVHD), veno-occlusive disease (VOD) and cytokine release/febrile non-infectious syndrome (CRS). Prior studies of alloHSCT after PD-1 blockade in cHL have been limited by the small number of pts and short follow-up, preventing an accurate assessment of long-term outcomes and complications, risk factors for early toxicity, and the impact of transplant strategies such as choice of GVHD prophylaxis. We therefore assembled a large retrospective international cohort of cHL pts who underwent alloHSCT after PD-(L)1 blockade to better answer these questions, including an assessment of the impact of post-transplant cyclophosphamide (PTCy) on efficacy and toxicity. Methods: Medical records and databases were reviewed at 26 European and United States transplant centers to identify pts with cHL who underwent an alloHSCT any time after receiving a PD-1 or PD-L1 mAb. Response assessment was performed by local investigators according to Lugano 2014 criteria. Overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), cumulative incidence (CumInc) of relapse (CIR), non-relapse mortality (NRM), acute (a) and chronic (c) GVHD were estimated, as was the association between baseline variables and these outcomes. Results: Between 2014 and 2019, 150 pts were identified who underwent alloHSCT after a median of 10 (range, 1-74) doses of nivolumab (n=118), pembrolizumab (n=31), or avelumab (n=1). The median age was 31 (range 17-68) and pts had received a median of 4 (range, 2-11) lines of therapy prior to PD-(L)1 blockade. 138 pts (92%) had failed BV and 111 (74%) autologous HSCT. The best overall response to PD-(L)1 mAbs was CR for 62 pts (41%), PR for 55 (37%), SD for 17 (11%), PD for 15 (10%) and unknown for 1 (1%). Median time from last dose of PD-(L)1 mAb to alloHSCT was 80 days (range, 17-756) with 70 pts (47%) receiving intervening systemic therapy. At alloHSCT, 90 pts were in CR (60%), 45 in PR (30%), 5 in SD (3%), and 10 in PD (7%). Donors were haploidentical (n=71, 47%), matched sibling (n=29, 19%), matched unrelated (n=39, 26%), mismatched unrelated (n=7, 5%), cord blood (n=2, 1%), or unknown (n=2, 1%). Stem cell source was bone marrow (n=38, 25%), peripheral blood (n=110, 73%), or cord blood (n=2, 1%). GVHD prophylaxis included PTCy in 88 pts (59%) (69/71 (97%) with haploidentical donors; 19/79 (24%) with other donors). With a median post-alloHSCT follow-up for survivors of 23.8 months (range, 1-67), the 2y OS and PFS were 79% (95CI 71-86%) and 65% (95CI 55-73%), respectively, while the 2y CumIncs of relapse and NRM were 21% (95CI 13-29%) and 14%, (95CI, 8-22%), respectively (Fig. 1A-B). 27 pts have died, 3 due to disease and 24 to NRM, including aGVHD (n=7) and VOD (n=2). Veno-occlusive disease (VOD) occurred in 5 pts (day 100 CumInc 4%) and 29 pts (19%) developed CRS (grade 1 n=16; grade 2 n=7; grade 3 n=4; grade 4 n=2). The 6-month CumIncs of grade 2-4, grade 3-4 and grade 4 aGVHD were 39%, 16% and 8%, respectively. Hyperacute GVHD (onset ≤ 14 days after alloHSCT) occurred in 4% of pts and was fatal in 2 pts. The 2y CumInc of cGVHD was 45%. Neither receipt of &gt; 10 doses (median) of anti-PD-(L)1 mAb nor undergoing alloHSCT ≤80 days (median) after last dose of PD-(L)1 mAb were associated with PFS or OS. However, pts with a shorter time to transplant (≤80 days) appeared to have a higher risk of severe (grade 3-4) aGVHD (6m CumInc 24% vs 9%, p=0.006). Recipients of PTCy in this cohort had lower 2y CumIncs of cGVHD (34% vs 58%, p=0.01) and relapse (12% vs 31%, p=0.02), superior 2y PFS (76% vs 54%, p=0.015), and similar rates of severe aGVHD (15% vs 18%, p=0.5), 2y NRM (12% vs 16%, p=0.5), and 2y OS (82% vs 78%, p=0.6). Conclusions: With extended follow-up of a large international cohort, our results argue that alloSCT performed after PD-(L)1 mAbs is a feasible strategy associated with an excellent PFS and a very low CIR for this disease. The use of PT-Cy appears to be associated with improved outcomes and may at present represent the optimal transplant strategy in this pt population. Figure Disclosures Corradini: kite: Honoraria; Abbvie: Honoraria; Servier: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; KiowaKirin: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria; Daiichi Sankyo: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria. Ho:Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Omeros Corporation: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Jaglowski:Kite: Consultancy, Other: advisory board, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Other: advisory board, Research Funding; Juno: Consultancy, Other: advisory board; Unum Therapeutics Inc.: Research Funding. Herrera:Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gilead Sciences: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech, Inc.: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Immune Design: Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding. Blaise:Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Pierre Fabre medicaments: Honoraria; Molmed: Consultancy, Honoraria. Hamadani:Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Sanofi Genzyme: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Merck: Research Funding; Otsuka: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; Medimmune: Consultancy, Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy. Ansell:LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Affimed: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Regeneron: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding. Nieto:Astra-Zeneca: Research Funding; Affimed: Consultancy; Affimed: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding. Feldman:Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Research Funding; AbbVie: Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses, Speakers Bureau; Portola Pharma: Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses, Speakers Bureau; Kyowa Hakko Kirin: Research Funding; Eisai: Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Research Funding; Cell Medica: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Corvus: Research Funding; Viracta: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. McGuirk:ArticulateScience LLC: Other: Assistance with manuscript preparation; Bellicum Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Kite Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Gamida Cell: Research Funding; Pluristem Ltd: Research Funding; Juno Therapeutics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Astellas: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Fresenius Biotech: Research Funding. Mohty:Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Research Funding. Stamatoulas Bastard:Celgene: Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy. Houot:Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Merck Sharp Dohme: Honoraria. Manson:Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria. Orvain:Incyte: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Other: Travel & accommodations; Pfizer: Other: Travel & accommodations. Bouabdallah:Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Frigault:Novartis: Consultancy; Kite/Gilead: Honoraria; Nkarta: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy; Juno/Celgene: Consultancy; Foundation Medicine: Consultancy; Xenetic: Consultancy. Chen:Takeda: Consultancy; Kiadis: Consultancy; Magenta: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy. Lynch:T.G. Therapeutics: Research Funding; Rhizen Pharmaceuticals S.A: Research Funding; Takeda Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Juno Therapeutics: Research Funding; Incyte Corporation: Research Funding; Johnson Graffe Keay Moniz & Wick LLP: Consultancy. Smith:AstraZeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp: Consultancy, Research Funding; Acerta Pharma BV: Research Funding; Portola Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb (spouse): Research Funding; Denovo Biopharma: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Ignyta (spouse): Research Funding; Incyte Corporation: Research Funding; Ayala (spouse): Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Byrne:Karyopharm: Research Funding. Cohen:Hutchison: Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Research Funding; Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol-Meyers Squibb Company: Research Funding; Takeda Pharmaceuticals North America, Inc.: Research Funding; Gilead/Kite: Consultancy; Genentech, Inc.: Consultancy, Research Funding; UNUM: Research Funding; ASH: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Lymphoma Research Foundation: Research Funding. Svoboda:AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Celgene: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kyowa: Consultancy; Merck: Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding. Santoro:Bayer: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; MSD: Speakers Bureau; Arqule: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; AstraZeneca: Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Servier: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Speakers Bureau; BMS: Speakers Bureau; Roche: Speakers Bureau; Abb-Vie: Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Speakers Bureau; BMS: Consultancy; Lilly: Speakers Bureau; Sandoz: Speakers Bureau; Eisai: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Armand:Sigma Tau: Research Funding; Otsuka: Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; Tensha: Research Funding; Affimed: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Adaptive: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Infinity: Consultancy; Genentech: Research Funding. Zinzani:Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Portola: 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; Immune Design: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Sandoz: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Servier: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celltrion: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Consultancy; Eusapharma: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Verastem: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; MSD: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Kyowa Kirin: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; TG Therapeutics: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Carlo-Stella:Servier: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, accommodations; Genenta Science srl: Consultancy; Boehringer Ingelheim: Consultancy; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Honoraria, Other: Travel, accommodations, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Other: Travel, accommodations, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; Rhizen Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria; AstraZeneca: Honoraria; Janssen Oncology: Honoraria; MSD: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; Janssen: Other: Travel, accommodations; Takeda: Other: Travel, accommodations.