Citations

Abstract The diagnosis of acute promyelocytic leukemia (APL) relies on the identification of PML::RARA fusion. While the majority of APL cases harbor a typical t(15;17)(q24;q21), atypical genetic mechanisms leading to the oncogenic PML::RARA fusion have been reported yet their frequency and scope remain poorly characterized. We assessed the genetic findings of 831 cases with APL investigated with concurrent chromosome banding analysis and dual‐color dual‐fusion fluorescence in situ hybridization (D‐FISH) analysis at our institution over an 18.5‐year timeframe. Seven hundred twenty‐three (87%) cases had a typical balanced t(15;17) with both testing modalities. Atypical karyotypic results including complex translocations, unbalanced rearrangements and insertional events occurred in 50 (6%) cases, while 6 (0.7%) cases were cryptic by conventional chromosome studies despite PML::RARA fusion by D‐FISH evaluation. Atypical FISH patterns were observed in 48 (6%) cases despite apparently balanced t(15;17) on chromosome banding analysis. Two hundred fifty (30%) cases displayed additional chromosome abnormalities of which trisomy/tetrasomy 8 (37%), del(7q)/add(7q) (12%), and del(9q) (7%) were most frequent. Complex and very complex karyotypes were observed in 81 (10%) and 34 (4%) cases, respectively. In addition, 4 (0.5%) cases presented as an apparently doubled, near‐tetraploid stemline clone. This report provides the largest appraisal of cytogenetic findings in APL with conventional chromosome and PML::RARA D‐FISH analysis. By characterizing the frequency and breadth of typical and atypical results through the lens of these cytogenetic testing modalities, this study serves as a pragmatic source of information for those involved in the investigation of APL in both the clinical and research laboratory settings.

AbstractTherapy‐related myeloid neoplasms (t‐MN) are aggressive malignancies in need of effective therapies. The BCL‐2 inhibitor venetoclax represents a paradigm shift in the treatment of acute myeloid leukemia. However, the effectiveness of venetoclax has not been studied in a large cohort of t‐MN. We retrospectively analyzed 378 t‐MN patients, of which 96 (25.4%, 47 therapy‐related acute myeloid leukemia, 1 therapy‐related chronic myelomonocytic leukemia, 48 therapy‐related myelodysplastic syndrome) received venetoclax. Median interval from t‐MN to venetoclax initiation was 2.9 (Interquartile range [IQR] 0.7–12) months, and patients received a median of 3 (IQR 1–4) cycles. The composite complete remission (CRc) rate, median progression‐free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) were 39.1%, 4.9 months, and 7 months, respectively. The upfront use of venetoclax and achieving CRc were associated with improved survival, whereas the presence of Chromosome 7 abnormalities was associated with an inferior survival. Neither the TP53‐status nor the percent bone marrow blast predicted the likelihood of CRc or survival. Paired genetic analysis performed at venetoclax initiation and failure did not show the evidence of the selection of the TP53‐mutated clone. In a propensity‐matched analysis, the use of venetoclax‐based regimen as the first‐line therapy was associated with a superior survival compared to hypomethylating agent (HMA)‐based first‐line therapy (9.4 vs. 6.1 months, p = .01). We conclude that the upfront use of venetoclax with HMA improved survival, though PFS and OS remain poor. As the phenotype at diagnosis or the percent blasts did not predict outcomes, venetoclax should be studied in all t‐MN phenotypes.

Background: The morphologic distinction between thymic carcinomas and thymomas, specifically types B3, A, and occasionally micronodular thymomas with lymphoid stroma (MNTLS) can be challenging, as has also been shown in interobserver reproducibility studies. Since thymic carcinomas have a worse prognosis than thymomas, the diagnosis is important for patient management and treatment. This study aimed to identify a panel of immunohistochemical (IHC) markers that aid in the distinction between thymomas and thymic carcinomas in routine practice. Materials and Method: Thymic carcinomas, type A and B3 thymomas, and MNTLS were identified in an institutional database of thymic epithelial tumors (TET) (1963–2021). IHC was performed using antibodies against TdT, Glut-1, CD5, CD117, BAP1, and mTAP. Percent tumor cell staining was recorded (Glut-1, CD5, CD117); loss of expression (BAP1, mTAP) was considered if essentially all tumor cells were negative; TdT was recorded as thymocytes present or absent (including rare thymocytes). Results: 81 specimens included 44 thymomas (25 type A, 11 type B3, 8 MNTLS) and 37 thymic carcinomas (including 24 squamous cell carcinomas). Using BAP1, mTAP, CD117 (cut-off, 10%), and TdT, 88.9% of thymic carcinomas (95.7% of squamous cell carcinomas) and 77.8% of thymomas could be predicted. Glut-1 expression was not found to be useful in that distinction. All tumors that expressed CD5 in ≥50% of tumor cells also expressed CD117 in ≥10% of tumor cells. In four carcinomas with homozygous deletion of CDKN2A, mTAP expression was lost in two squamous cell carcinomas and in a subset of tumor cells of an adenocarcinoma and was preserved in a lymphoepithelial carcinoma. Conclusion: A panel of immunostains including BAP1, mTAP, CD117 (using a cut-off of 10% tumor cell expression), and TdT can be useful in the distinction between thymomas and thymic carcinomas, with only a minority of cases being inconclusive.

AbstractFusion genes have been identified in a wide array of human neoplasms including hematologic and solid tumors, including gastrointestinal tract neoplasia. A fusion gene is the product of parts of two genes that are joined together following a deletion, translocation, or chromosomal inversion. Together with single nucleotide variants, insertions, deletions, and amplification, fusion genes represent one of the key genomic mechanisms for tumor development. Detecting fusions in the clinic is accomplished by a variety of techniques including break‐apart fluorescence in situ hybridization, reverse transcription‐polymerase chain reaction, and next‐generation sequencing. Some recurrent gene fusions have been successfully targeted by small molecule or monoclonal antibody therapies (ie targeted therapies), while others are used as biomarkers for diagnostic and prognostic purposes. The purpose of this review article is to discuss the clinical utility of detection of gene fusions in carcinomas and neoplasms arising primarily in the digestive system.

Abstract The World Health Organization category of myeloid/lymphoid neoplasms with eosinophilia and PDGFRA rearrangements is composed of a heterogeneous group of neoplasms that can present as a myeloproliferative neoplasm, acute myeloid leukemia, myeloid sarcoma, or lymphoblastic leukemia/lymphoma. The overall outcome of these neoplasms is favorable with imatinib therapy. Herein, we describe an adult female patient with a myeloid neoplasm accompanied by eosinophilia and a novel USP25::PDGFRA gene fusion.

Abstract Background: trALL is an important secondary primary malignancy (SPM) that has recently been appreciated. While patients (pts) with MM have an 8%-17% risk of developing an SPM while on lenalidomide (R) maintenance following autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT), trALL has been rarely observed. Little is known about the characteristics of trALL in pts with MM compared to pts who had other malignancies prior to the development of trALL. We define tALL as any prior exposure to cytotoxic chemotherapy and/or radiation for another malignancy, and herein, we report a comparative analysis of characteristics and outcomes of pts with trALL with and without MM from the Mayo Clinic Cancer Center (MCCC). Methods: We performed a systematic search in the 3-site MCCC registry and included all pts diagnosed and received at least 1 cycle of ALL-directed therapy and/or underwent allogeneic transplantation (AlloHCT) for ALL between 2007-2020. All cases of trALL in this series are B-ALL. Comparisons of characteristics between trALL patients with and without MM were made using a Wilcoxon rank sum test (continuous variables) or Fisher's exact test (categorical variables). Time-to-event variables were compared using unadjusted Cox proportional hazards regression models. Results: 70 trALL pts (14 MM [20%], 56 non-MM [80%]) were identified during the study period. The median age at trALL diagnosis was 63.9 (range 47-71) for MM pts and 63.1 (range 18.2-84) for non-MM pts. Median follow-up from trALL diagnosis was 1.42 years (range 0.02-10.6 years). The most common prior non-MM malignancies among tALL pts were breast (28.6%), lymphoma (17.9%), myeloid (17.9%), and GU/GYN (14.3%). Amongst the 14 MM pts, 100% (n=10) had ISS-I disease, 8 (57%) had IgG K MM, 1 (n=10) had high risk cytogenetics, 8 (57.1%) received R-based induction , 4 (28.6%) received CyBorD induction, 4(28.6%) received VRD induction, 3 (21.4%) received RD induction. 10 (71.4%) pts were actively on R when they developed trALL, 8 (57.1%) pts received prior ASCT. The median time to develop trALL following ASCT for MM was 46.3 months (m), (95% CI 20.4-67.6), 12 (85.7%) pts received R maintenance with a median duration of 53m (95% CI 16.9-121). The median time to develop trALL after initiation of R maintenance was 61.2m (95% CI 16.9-123.4). The most common trALL induction regimen received was HyperCVAD which was used in 71.4% of MM pts and 51.8% of non-MM pts. In comparison to non-MM pts, MM patients had a significantly lower WBC at diagnosis (Median: 2.0 vs. 5.8, P=0.005),no t(9;22) BCR/ABL1 cytogenetics (0.0% vs. 35.7%, P=0.008), a higher frequency of hypodiploid/near-triploid (Ho-Tri) cytogenetics (42.9% vs. 12.5%, P=0.009), and a lower frequency of prior radiation therapy (7.1% vs. 44.6%, P=0.012). MM pts had a higher frequency of AlloHCT for trALL (71.4% vs. 42.9%, P=0.075) and were more commonly in complete response (CR) at transplant (100.0% vs. 70.8%, P=0.078). No trALL in MM pts were Ph-like ALL. There was a statistically significant difference in time to development of trALL between previous malignancy locations (P=0.018), with GU/GYN (Median: 9 years) having the longest time and myeloid (Median: 3 years) having the shortest time; MM was 6 years. In the overall pt cohort, 56 (80%) pts achieved a complete response after induction and 60% (n=25) were minimal residual disease (MRD)+ after induction. Pts with MM had a significantly lower likelihood of being MRD+ after induction (OR=0.09, P=0.015). Overall, 24.3% of pts relapsed after induction therapy for trALL; 39 (55.5%) died after trALL diagnosis including 43% (n=35) who died after AlloHCT. Although pts with MM tended to have better outcomes compared to non-MM trALL pts in terms of overall survival after trALL diagnosis (Figure 1A), survival after AlloHCT (Figure 1B), relapse rate after trALL diagnosis and non-relapse mortality after AlloHCT, none of these findings were statistically significant in this small cohort (Figure 1C). Conclusion: trALL is a unique SPM that can occur in pts with MM. It is associated with Ho-Tri cytogenetics and is BCR/ABL1 negative. The majority of MM pts that developed trALL had undergone prior ASCT and were on R maintenance when they developed trALL. Despite being more likely to have adverse cytogenetics features, MM-associated trALL has similar survival compared to non-MM-associated trALL which speaks to the poor survival outcomes of this SPM. Further research on trALL in MM pts is merited. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Litzow: Amgen: Research Funding; Pluristem: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Actinium: Research Funding; Astellas: Research Funding; Omeros: Other: Advisory Board; Jazz: Other: Advisory Board; Biosight: Other: Data monitoring committee. Bergsagel: Janssen: Consultancy. Fonseca: Scientific Advisory Board: Adaptive Biotechnologies: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Caris Life Sciences: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Consultancy; Patent: Prognosticaton of myeloma via FISH: Patents & Royalties; Bayer: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Mayo Clinic in Arizona: Current Employment; Juno: Consultancy; Kite: Consultancy; Aduro: Consultancy; OncoTracker: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GSK: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy. Dispenzieri: Takeda: Research Funding; Alnylam: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Sorrento Therapeutics: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding. Murthy: CRISPR Therapeutics: Research Funding. Ailawadhi: GSK: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy; Medimmune: Research Funding; Xencor: Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Cellectar: Research Funding; Beigene: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Ascentage: Research Funding. Foran: actinium: Research Funding; taiho: Honoraria; bms: Honoraria; servier: Honoraria; pfizer: Honoraria; novartis: Honoraria; OncLive: Honoraria; abbvie: Research Funding; boehringer ingelheim: Research Funding; takeda: Research Funding; trillium: Research Funding; aptose: Research Funding; revolution medicine: Honoraria; syros: Honoraria; sanofi aventis: Honoraria; certara: Honoraria; gamida: Honoraria; kura: Research Funding; h3bioscience: Research Funding; aprea: Research Funding; sellas: Research Funding; stemline: Research Funding.

Abstract Background: The DEAD-box helicase 41 (DDX41), an RNA helicase, have been described as a component of the RNA spliceosome (Cheah et al. International Journal of Hematology 2017). Although DDX41 mutations predispose to late-onset higher grade myeloid neoplasms (MN), these patients may have a trend toward favorable prognosis and outcomes. In this work, we describe the clinical characteristics and survival outcomes of isolated and co-mutated DDX41 patients (pts). Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 4,524 consecutive pts who underwent next-generation sequencing (NGS) (OncoHeme 42 genes panel, Mayo Clinic) testing and included 32 pts harboring pathogenic DDX41 mutation and one pt with proven DDX41 germline variant of unknown significance (VUS). Chart review of DDX41-mutated (m) cases between 2009 and 2021 was conducted after IRB approval. We compared overall survival (OS) of unmatched 27 t(8;21)AML and 40 inv(16) AML pts with 10 m DDX41-AML pts. JMP® Pro 14.1.0 Software was used for statistical analysis. Results: DDX41 mutations characteristics: Our cohort included 19 (58%) myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS), 10 (30%) acute myelogenous leukemia (AML), 2 (6%) myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPN), one clonal cytopenia of undetermined significance (CCUS) (3%) and one (3%) germline carrier. Germline testing was carried out in 10 pts, 9 of whom (90%) were confirmed to be germline). The start-loss variant (p.M1I) was the most common mutation type (N=10, 31%). Other types were frameshift (N=9, 28%), missense mutation (N=8, 25%), nonsense (N=3, 9%), and splice site mutation (N=2, 2%). Twenty-one (65.6%) DDX41 mutations clustered in the N-terminus (NT), 7 (22%) in the helicase-C domain (HCD), and 4 (12.5%) in the DEAD-box domain. Compared to NT mutations, patients with HCD mutation had no family history of solid tumors and were more likely to have an accompanying additional DDX41-VUS (0% vs 70%; p=.001) and (N=6, 86% vs. N=2,10%; p=.0001); respectively. I solated vs. co-mutated DDX41: Twenty (60%) pts were isolated-DDX41 and 13 (40%) were co-mutated. The median DDX41-VAF was 48% vs. 45% (p= .2) in the isolated compared to the co-mutated cases, respectively. The median number of co-mutations in the 13 co-mutated cases was 1 (range,1-3) with DNMT3A (38%), ASXL1 (30%), JAK2 (N=3, 23%), and EZH2 (N=2, 15%) were the most common co-mutations detected. Isolated DDX41 had more males (85% vs. 54%, p=.05), the p.M1I variant (47% vs. 8%, p=.02), normal cytogenetics (100% vs. 91%, p= .02), and less family history of solid tumors (77% vs. 33%, p= .02) compared to their co-mutated counterparts. However, there was no difference in OS (p=.99). Comparison of clinical characteristics and hematological features of isolated and co-mutated DDX41 pts are reported in (Table 1). Treatment and survival outcomes in DDX41-MDS/AML : Twenty-three (80%) patients were treated, MDS pts received hypomethylating agents (HMA) (N=10, 71%), HMA plus Venetoclax (HMA+VEN) (N=1, 7%), erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (N=2, 14%) and lenalidomide (N=1 ,7%). AML pts were treated with induction chemotherapy (N=6, 67%) and HMA+VEN (N=3, 33%). Overall response rate of MDS/AML patients was 77% and 100% of AML pts achieved complete remission (CR) when treated with induction chemotherapy or HMA+VEN regimen. There was no significant difference in OS between responders vs. non-responders 2-yr-OS (90% vs. 50%; p=.38) and treated vs. untreated 2-yr-OS (83% vs. 100%; p=.52). Comparing m DDX41-AML vs. core binding factor-AML: After a median follow-up of 33.3 months, all m DDX41-AML patients were alive. There was a significantly better OS in mDDX41-AML patients compared to pts with t(8;21) AML with 2-yr-OS (100% vs. 51%; p=.024) and a trend of better survival when compared to inv(16) AML 2-yr-OS (100% vs. 84%; p=.2). Conclusion We describe the characteristics and outcomes of m DDX41 patients. We demonstrated that isolated and co-mutated m DDX41 patients have different features. Isolated DDX41 patients had male predominance, more p.M1I variant, normal cytogenetics and less family history of solid tumors. In this study we found that m DDX41 AML has high response to treatment and has comparable (if not possibly better) OS compared to other "favorable risk" AML. This study, although limited by the small number of patients, supports the universal testing for DDX41 mutation in adults with MN diagnosis. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Al-Kali: Astex: Other: Research support to institution; Novartis: Research Funding. Foran: abbvie: Research Funding; OncLive: Honoraria; boehringer ingelheim: Research Funding; trillium: Research Funding; pfizer: Honoraria; takeda: Research Funding; revolution medicine: Honoraria; bms: Honoraria; gamida: Honoraria; actinium: Research Funding; aptose: Research Funding; novartis: Honoraria; servier: Honoraria; taiho: Honoraria; syros: Honoraria; sanofi aventis: Honoraria; certara: Honoraria; kura: Research Funding; h3bioscience: Research Funding; aprea: Research Funding; sellas: Research Funding; stemline: Research Funding. Badar: Pfizer Hematology-Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Salama: Mayo Clinic: Current Employment, Other: Mayo Clinic had the contractual work for the central pathology review for this study and I was one of the reviewing pathologists; Constellation Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Litzow: Astellas: Research Funding; Biosight: Other: Data monitoring committee; Amgen: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Actinium: Research Funding; Pluristem: Research Funding; Jazz: Other: Advisory Board; Omeros: Other: Advisory Board. Patnaik: Stemline Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kura Oncology: Research Funding; Stemline Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Abstract Purpose: Multiple myeloma (MM) is a plasma cell malignancy characterized by a collection of cytogenetic abnormalities that drive clinical presentation, response to treatment, and prognosis. The most common immunoglobulin heavy chain (IGH) translocation found in MM, t(11;14), results in CCND1 overexpression. Although t(11;14) is considered a standard risk cytogenetic abnormality, heterogeneity in patient outcomes and response to therapy within the t(11;14) group has been reported. In contrast to t(11;14) mantle cell lymphoma, where most cases (73%) have a typical, balanced t(11;14) rearrangement, only 47% of t(11;14) MM have a typical, balanced t(11;14) FISH pattern; the remaining 53% of MM are characterized by an atypical t(11;14) FISH result (Dalland, Genes Chromosomes Cancer, 2021). Here, we compared the genetic characteristics of typical vs. atypical t(11;14) MM and the association with other genomic abnormalities, CCND1 expression, IGH breakpoint location and patient outcomes. Methods: We performed a retrospective study of newly diagnosed t(11;14) MM patients seen at Mayo Clinic (N=411) or enrolled in the MMRF CoMMpass trial (N=167). The t(11;14) FISH results of the Mayo Clinic samples were segmented into two groups: typical CCND1/IGH signal pattern (n=179, 3 red, 3 green, 2 fusion signals) and atypical CCND1/IGH signal pattern (n=232, any FISH pattern deviating from typical). The CoMMpass cases had both RNAseq and long-insert WGS data and were analyzed to detect gene expression, structural and copy number variants and IGH breakpoint locations. These data were used to classify the t(11;14) as typical (n=63) or atypical (n=104) and whether there was a single t(11;14) fusion (n=107) or a gain of the t(11;14) fusion (n=60), and whether these cases were associated with changes in gene expression or breakpoint location. Differences between the groups were measured using χ2 and Wilcoxon tests. Survival curves were estimated using Kaplan Meier and compared using the Log-Rank test. Statistical significance was determined at p<0.05. Results: Of the Mayo t(11;14) cohort, 232/411 (56%) had an atypical t(11;14) FISH pattern and 179/411 (44%) had a typical t(11;14) FISH pattern. Although an atypical t(11;14) FISH pattern was not significantly associated with monosomy 17/17p deletion, MYC rearrangements, 1q gain or ISS stage III, it was significantly associated with the presence of any trisomy in comparison to typical t(11;14) cases (40/222=18% vs.12/166=7%, p=0.002). Atypical t(11;14) cases had an increase in CCND1 gene expression compared to typical t(11;14) cases (median 375.0 RPKM vs. 266.4 RPKM, p<0.0001) and cases with a gain of the t(11;14) fusion were associated with even greater CCND1 expression compared to cases with a single t(11;14) fusion (median 459.4 RPKM vs. 263.2 RPKM, p<0.0001). We next evaluated whether the t(11:14) FISH pattern was associated with differences in IGH breakpoint locations. Nearly 80.0% of atypical t(11;14) cases had a breakpoint within the constant region of the IGH locus commonly reported for MM, while only 61.0% of the typical cases had constant region breakpoints (p=0.035); the remaining cases had breakpoints involving the VDJ region. We next evaluated the impact of atypical t(11;14) FISH on OS. In Mayo cases, OS was significantly shorter in patients with atypical FISH patterns compared to typical t(11;14) FISH patterns (6.9 years [95% CI: 5.1-7.8] vs. 9.0 years [95% CI: 7.0-11.6], p=0.019). Although atypical t(11;14) was associated with increased risk of death (RR 1.45, p=0.021), this finding was not retained in a multivariate model including high risk abnormalities such as age, ISS stage, 17p deletion and 1q gain demonstrating atypical t(11;14) is not an independent predictor of poor outcome when treated with standard therapies. Conclusions: Atypical t(11;14) FISH in MM is found in approximately half of t(11;14) cases, is associated with trisomies, higher CCND1 expression and is more likely to have a breakpoint involving the constant region of the IGH locus. The enrichment of VDJ breakpoints within typical t(11;14) MM is consistent with enrichment of VDJ IGH breakpoints in MCL, which are mostly characterized by typical t(11;14) FISH patterns. While not an independent predictor of outcome with standard therapies, it remains to be evaluated whether patients with typical or atypical t(11;14) have a differential response to novel agents, such as venetoclax. Disclosures Fonseca: Janssen: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; Juno: Consultancy; Caris Life Sciences: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kite: Consultancy; Aduro: Consultancy; OncoTracker: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GSK: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Patent: Prognosticaton of myeloma via FISH: Patents & Royalties; Mayo Clinic in Arizona: Current Employment; Amgen: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; Scientific Advisory Board: Adaptive Biotechnologies: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Bergsagel: Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; GSK: Consultancy, Honoraria; Oncopeptides: Consultancy, Honoraria; Genetech: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Patents & Royalties: human CRBN mouse. Kumar: Merck: Research Funding; Carsgen: Research Funding; Roche-Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Beigene: Consultancy; KITE: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy; Antengene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Adaptive: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Tenebio: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding.