Abstract: Background: Over-expression of Aurora A has been shown in many subtypes of non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) and is a negative prognostic factor in mantle cell lymphoma (MCL), where expression correlates with tumor proliferative signature (Ki67), and may contribute to cell cycle dysregulation. Aurora A regulates chromosomal stability through effects on mitosis and cell cycle regulation. Bortezomib increases both pro-apoptotic proteins and cell cycle dependent kinase inhibitors. Thus, there is a strong scientific rationale to combine Aurora A kinase and proteasome inhibition. We evaluated the combination of alistertib, an oral Aurora A kinase inhibitor, with bortezomib and rituximab in a CTEP sponsored phase 1 study of patients with relapsed /refractory (RR) low grade NHL or MCL. Methods: Patients with RR low grade NHL or MCL, who had received at least one line of immuno-chemotherapy were treated according to a 3 + 3 design with 3 dose escalation cohorts (DL1, DL2, and DL3) to identify the recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) with an expansion cohort at the RPTD. Patients received alisertib 30mg BID (DL1 and DL2) or 40mg BID (DL3) on days 1-7, bortezomib subcutaneous 1mg/m2 (DL1) or 1.3 mg/m2 (DL2 and DL3) on days 1, 8, and 15, and rituximab 375mg/m2 on day 1 for the first 8 cycles, and subsequently q 3 months. An expansion cohort was treated at DL3. Treatment cycles were 28 days. Dose Limiting Toxicity (DLT) was defined within the first cycle of therapy. Results: A total of 24 patients at 3 sites were enrolled between 06/2013 and 02/2018, including DL1: 3, DL2: 7; DL3: 14. Median age was 64 (range 46-87). Twelve patients (50%) were male. Nineteen patients had low grade NHL, and 5 patients had MCL. Performance status was 0-1 in 22 (92%) patients, and 2 in 2 (8%) patients. Dose Escalation and Safety: The recommended phase II dose (RP2D) was DL3, with the only DLT in DL3 (prolonged grade 4 neutropenia). The most common grade 3-4 AEs at all dose levels were neutropenia (34%), thrombocytopenia (13%), anemia (8%), and fatigue (8%); grade 2 alopecia occurred in 37% (Table 1). Other grade 4 AEs included hypertension & hypotension, respiratory failure, hyperkalemia and hyperuricemia (n=1 (4%) each); one patient died of GI hemorrhage deemed unrelated to study treatment (NSAID overdose). Grade 3 neutropenia and leukopenia was seen in 4 patients and thrombocytopenia in 1. There was one grade 3 AE each of: hypertension, pulmonary hypertension, pneumonitis, fatigue, diarrhea, infusion reaction, lung infection, and febrile neutropenia. Efficacy: A total of 18 patients were evaluable for response. Five patients were not evaluable for response for the following reasons: withdrawal of consent (3, 1 each DL1, 2, 3), non-compliance (1 DL2), and death unrelated to study drug (1, DL2). For patients who were treated with at least 3 cycles of therapy, and had a restaging CT scan, the median duration of therapy was 142 days, (range 29-590). Response was seen in 7/18 evaluable patients for an overall response rate (ORR) of 38%; 4 of 18 patients (22%) had a complete response (CR), and 4 of 18 patients (22%) had a partial response (PR). An additional 8/18 patients (44%) had stable disease for a clinical benefit rate of 88%. With a median follow-up of 30.9 months, the median PFS was 6.9 months (95%CI 4.1-28.0) and median OS not reached. OS at 3 years was 64.9% (95% CI 44.1-95.3%; Fig. 1). Median duration of response was 14.1 mo (95% CI 2.63-NR). Conclusion: Alisertib in combination with bortezomib and rituximab is a well-tolerated regimen with significant and durable activity in heavily pretreated low grade NHL and MCL. The RP2D is DL3 (R + bortezomib 1.3mg/m2 and 1.8 alisertib 40mg bid). A correlation of Aurora Kinase tumor expression with clinical outcome is planned. Disclosures Barta: Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck, Takeda, Celgene, Seattle Genetics, Bayer: Research Funding. Diefenbach:Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy; Incyte: Research Funding; Millenium/Takeda: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Denovo: Research Funding.

Abstract: Background: Relapsed/refractory (R/R) Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) remains a significant clinical challenge. We hypothesized that using immune checkpoint blockade to activate the immune cells in the tumor microenvironment, and concurrently targeting tumor cells with the CD30 targeting antibody-drug conjugate brentuximab vedotin (BV) could overcome tumor resistance. E4412 is a Phase 1/2 ECOG-ACRIN sponsored study of the combinations of BV, nivolumab (Nivo), and ipilimumab (Ipi) in patients with R/R HL. Here we present the preliminary safety and response data on the full cohort of patients treated in Phase 1 with BV + Ipi + Nivo (Arms G-I). Methods: Patients with confirmed R/R HL were treated with Nivo 3mg/kg, Ipi 1mg/kg and BV 1.2mg/kg (Arm G) or 1.8mg/kg (Arm H) with a 3+3 design, and an expansion cohort (Arm I) of 9 patients with BV at 1.8mg/kg. BV and Nivo are given every 21 days for 16 cycles; Nivo may be continued for an additional 12 months. Ipi is given every 12 weeks except for the first 2 patients in Arm G who received Ipi every 6 weeks for the first 3 cycles. Dose limiting toxicity (DLT) was defined within the first cycle of therapy. Results: As of 6/30/18 22 patients with a median of 2 prior therapies (range 1-5) have been treated; 7 in Arm G, 6 in Arm H, and 9 in Arm I. Median age was 35, range (19-60); 11 patients were male. Nine patients had prior SCT (1 alloSCT, 8 autoSCT); 1 patient had prior BV. Safety: All 22 enrolled patients are evaluable for safety. There were 3 DLTs, one in each arm. In Arm G one patient experienced grade 4 diabetic ketoacidosis and hyperglycemia, and went off treatment after cycle 1. In Arm H, one patient had transient grade 3 AST elevation; this was of no clinical significance and did not require a delay in therapy. In Arm I a post AlloSCT patient had grade 4 Steven-Johnson syndrome with grade 3 pruritis, rash, and GVHD, and came off therapy. Common toxicities considered at least possibly related to drug, are shown in Table 1, and grade 3 or greater toxicity in Table 2. There were no grade 5 AEs or additional grade 4 AEs. Significant grade 3 AEs were: rash, colitis, gastritis, pancreatitis, and arthritis each in one patient, resulting in dose delays but not discontinuation of therapy. One patient experienced grade 2 angioedema in cycle 1 and came off therapy. No significant infusion reactions were noted. Response: Nineteen of 22 patients are evaluable for response. Three patients discontinued treatment after cycle 1 and are not evaluable for response. For the full population the overall response rate (ORR) was 82% (18/22), with a complete response (CR) rate of 68% (15/22). For patients treated with at least 3 cycles of therapy who were evaluable for response, the ORR is 95% (18/19) with a CR rate of 79% (15/19). Six patients went from treatment to SCT. With a median follow-up of 0.52 years median progression free survival (PFS) has not been reached (Figure 1), and with a median follow-up of 0.82 years overall survival (OS) has not been reached (Figure 2). Conclusion: In this study of the triplet combination of BV, Ipi and Nivo for R/R HL, therapy was generally well tolerated, although more grade 3 AEs were seen than in the doublets. In a heavily pretreated patient population, with 9 patients post SCT, the ORR of 95% and CR rate of 79% in evaluable patients is extremely promising. Data will be updated to include longer term PFS and OS by the time of the meeting. Optimization of this strategy is ongoing in E4412, now a randomized phase 2 study comparing the doublet of BV-Nivo to the triplet of BV-Ipi-Nivo. Disclosures Diefenbach: Trillium: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Denovo: Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; Millenium/Takeda: Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding. Hong:Merck: Consultancy. Cohen:Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Research Funding; Millennium: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Infinity Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; BioInvent: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Advani:Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Autolus: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board, Research Funding; Kura: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Cell Medica: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board; Roche/Genentech: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board, Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board, Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Millenium: Research Funding; Infinity: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Agensys: Research Funding; Bayer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board; Astra Zeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board; Gilead/Kite: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board; Kyowa: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board; Forty Seven: Research Funding. Barta:Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck, Takeda, Celgene, Seattle Genetics, Bayer: Research Funding. Svoboda:Regeneron: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Kyowa: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; KITE: Consultancy. Karmali:AstraZeneca: Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Speakers Bureau. Kahl:Genentech: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; Acerta: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Juno: Consultancy; CTI: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy. Ansell:LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Celldex: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Merck & Co: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding.

Abstract: Introduction: Modern chemoimmunotherapy cures the majority of patients (pts) with newly diagnosed diffuse large B cell lymphomas (DLBCL). The paradigm for pts who relapse has been salvage chemotherapy followed by autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation (auto-HCT) when chemosensitive disease. This approach is often also applied to pts with primary treatment failure (PTF), although this group is heterogeneous and outcomes of HCT in this population have not been well described. Methods: Fifteen US academic medical centers contributed pts to the REgistry of diFfuse large B cell lymphoma with prImary treatmeNt failurE (REFINE) collaboration. REFINE retrospectively captured patient, disease and treatment characteristics and response as assessed by treating center. Eligible pts were ≥ 18 years diagnosed with DLBCL during 2008-2015, who received upfront therapy including anthracycline and CD20-directed antibody and developed one of 3 patterns of PTF: relapse 〈 6 months following CR (early relapse- ER); only partial remission (PR) or stable disease (SD) with upfront therapy (residual disease-RD); progressive disease (PD) while receiving upfront therapy (primary progression-PP). Pts with HIV infection, primary CNS lymphoma or lymphoma transforming from a more indolent histology were excluded. Results: Among 331 cases included in REFINE, patterns of PTF were ER in 95 (28.7%), RD in 92 (27.8%) and PP in 144 (43.5%) pts. Salvage therapy was administered to 94.6% of pts. We analyzed the 157 (47.4%) PTF pts who subsequently underwent HCT, 132 auto-HCT and 33 allo-HCT (8 after failure of auto-HCT) (Table). Nearly half of pts were in CR at transplant, after 1-2 lines of salvage therapy. Among all pts receiving auto-HCT, 2-year progression-free survival (PFS) from time of transplant was 38.4% (95% C.I. 29.6-47.2%) and overall survival (OS) 54.9% (95% C.I. 44.9-64.9%). Two-year OS from auto-HCT was affected by pattern of PTF: 71.3% for ER, 55.0% for RD and 41.7% for PP (P=0.05). OS at 2-years was 23.7% for auto-HCT pts with germinal center B (GCB)type,c-myc(+) (by FISH) tumors vs. 66.7% for GCB, c-myc (-), vs. 67.8% for non-germinal center (NGC) (P=0.01). Auto-HCT pts with intermediate-high/high NCCN-IPI at time of PTF had 2-year OS of 28.6% vs. 66.0% for intermediate-low and 80.9% for low risk (P 〈 0.001). In multivariate analysis, PP pattern, c-myc(+) status and intermediate-high/high NCCN-IPI at time of PTF, hereforth called ultra-high-risk (UHR) fetures, negatively affected survival. Auto-HCT pts with no UHR features had 2-year OS of 74.3%(95% C.I. 60.0-88.6%)vs. 59.6% (95% C.I. 44.5-74.7%)for pts with 1 vs. 10.7% (95% C.I. 0-24.4%)for pts with 2-3 features (Figure, P 〈 0.001). Among pts who underwent allo- HCT, 2-year PFS and OS were 20.5% (95% C.I. 6.4-34.6%)and 32.7% (95% C.I. 13.1-52.3%)respectively. Failure of allo-HCT was primarily due to disease progression, with only one death occuing due to HCT complications. Conclusions: Pts with DLBCL experiencing PTF and 2 or more UHF features have dismal outcome after auto-HCT and should be targeted for experimental modalities of cellular therapy. Outcomes of allo-HCT in DLBCL with PTF are poor, due to rapid and fatal relapses. Table. Table. Figure. Figure. Disclosures Costa: Sanofi: Honoraria, Research Funding. Reddy:INFINITY: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; KITE: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GILEAD: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Karmali:Celgene: Speakers Bureau. Chavez:Janssen: Speakers Bureau. Calzada:Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Barta:Janssen: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Celgene, Merck, Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Flowers:Pharmacyclics, LLC, an AbbVie Company: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic: Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; ECOG: Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Research Funding; NIH: Research Funding; Infinity: Research Funding; Millenium/Takeda: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding. Fenske:Seatle Genetics: Honoraria; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Millennium/Takeda: Research Funding. Cohen:Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millennium/Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Infinity: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding. Hamadani:Takeda: Research Funding.

Abstract: Background: Primary mediastinal B-cell lymphoma (PMBL) is a rare subtype of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) with distinctive clinical and immunophenotypic features. Most PMBL patients (pts) present at young age and with bulky mediastinal mass. Over 80% of PMBL cases are CD30 positive by immunohistochemistry (IHC). Standard frontline systemic therapy for PMBL remains controversial and the use of intensive regimens may be associated with increased toxicity. Brentuximab vedotin (BV) is a CD30-directed immunoconjugate with established efficacy in relapsed Hodgkin lymphoma and several other CD30 positive lymphoid malignancies, but this targeted agent has not been utilized in frontline combinations for PMBL. Methods: We designed an open label phase I/II trial using BV administered concurrently with rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and prednisone (standard R-CHOP with the omission of vincristine to minimize risk of neuropathy) as frontline treatment for PMBL, grey zone lymphoma (GZL), and other CD30-positive DLBCLs. Pts with any Ann Arbor stage and at least equivocal CD30 expression on IHC were eligible. Consolidative radiation was allowed after completion of therapy at discretion of the treating physician. Phase I utilized a 3+3 de-escalation design with starting dose of BV 1.8 mg/kg on Day 1 in combination with rituximab 375 mg/m2 on Day 1, cyclophosphamide 750 mg/m2 on Day 1, doxorubicin 50 mg/m2 on Day 1, and prednisone 100 mg daily on Days 1-5 every 3 weeks for 6 cycles. The primary objective of phase I was assessment of safety and dose limiting toxicity (DLT) defined as any grade 3/4 non-hematologic toxicity observed in Cycle 1 requiring dose delay 〉 14 days from the planned Day 1 of Cycle 2. Secondary end points included overall response rate (ORR), progression free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). The primary phase II objective was ORR with secondary endpoints of PFS, OS, safety, and correlation with CD30 expression. Revised Response Criteria for Malignant Lymphoma was used for response assessment (Cheson, 2007). Enrollment began in January 2014 and is reported through July 27, 2015. Results: Twelve pts including 9 PMBL (75%), 1 GZL (8%), and 2 DLBCL (17%) have been enrolled and treated; 11 patients are evaluable after completing protocol defined therapy. Median age was 37 years (range 25 - 58), 5 (45%) were female, 9 (82%) had elevated LDH, and 6 (55%) had stage III-IV disease. No DLT was observed during phase I and no BV dose de-escalation was required. There were no grade 3/4 non-hematologic adverse events (AEs). Hematologic grade 3/4 AEs included febrile neutropenia in 2 pts and afebrile neutropenia in 1 pt. Five pts had grade 2 non-hematologic AEs at least possibly related to BV including mucositis, nausea/vomiting, diarrhea, abdominal pain, anorexia, hypotension, and neuropathy. No study related deaths were observed. The ORR among evaluable pts was 100% (10 pts with CR, 1 pt with GZL with PR). The PFS and OS with median follow-up of 8 months (range: 4 -18 months) is 100%. Eight pts completed consolidative radiation therapy after systemic therapy. Conclusions: We established safety of administrating BV 1.8 mg/kg in combination with rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and prednisone as frontline therapy for PMBL, GZL and CD30-positive DLBCL. This outpatient regimen was well tolerated. Clinical outcomes observed in this initial cohort are very encouraging and will be validated in the ongoing phase II part of the trial. Disclosures Svoboda: Celgene: Research Funding; Immunomedics: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Celldex: Research Funding. Off Label Use: Brentuximab is not FDA approved for front-line therapy in PMBL and CD30+ DLBCL. Nasta:Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding. Mato:Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pronai Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy. Pro:Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Other: Travel expenses, Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses. Barta:Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Schuster:Janssen: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Nordic Nanovector: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genentech: Consultancy; Phamacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Hoffman-LaRoche: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding.

Abstract: Background: Outcomes to salvage therapy for patients with relapsed/refractory (R/R) non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) are suboptimal. Checkpoint blockade therapy (CBT) has been explored in the relapsed/refractory (R/R) NHL population, but response rates to single agent CBT therapy are modest. To date, there is no literature on whether treatment with CBT may sensitize NHL patients to subsequent therapy. We investigated the outcome of subsequent treatment in patients with R/R NHL who had received CBT in a large multicenter international retrospective analysis. Methods: Seventeen centers across the US and Canada are participating in this study to date. Medical records of each institution were queried to identify lymphoma patients who received CBT and were subsequently treated with an additional line of therapy. The primary aim of the current analysis was to determine the best response to post-CBT treatment in patients who discontinued CBT due to progression of disease (PD) or toxicity. Patients who discontinued CBT due to a complete response (CR), or patients whose best response to post-CBT therapy could not be determined due to death from another cause, were excluded from analysis. Responses were assessed using Lugano criteria. Survival status to date was analyzed for the entire study population and stratified by post-CBT treatment regimen categories and disease subgroups using the Kaplan-Meier method. Progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were calculated for patients with at least stable disease (SD) to post-CBT treatment. Log rank tests were performed to test for statistical significance. Two-sided P 〈 0.05 was considered to be statistically significant. Results: To date, out of 121 total lymphoma patients, we identified 42 NHL patients whom received therapy subsequent to CBT. The median age was 62 (range 27-85); 26 patients were men and 16 women. Twelve patients were stage 1-2, and 30 were stage 3-4. Forty patients, with 10 histologic subtypes (Table 1) were included in analysis. At least 24 patients (60%) had aggressive NHL; 12 (30%) had indolent histologies, and 4 (10%) were not otherwise specified (NOS). Seven patients had stem cell transplant (SCT) prior to CBT: 6 autologous (auto) and 1 allogeneic (allo). SCT occurred between 142 days and 8.3 years prior to treatment with CBT. The median number of treatments prior to CBT was 3 (range 1-9), and the median duration of response (DOR) to the treatment immediately prior to CBT was 2 months. The best response to CBT for these patients included: 4 partial response (PR), 11 SD, and 25 PD. Patients discontinued CBT due to PD (90%) and toxicity (10%). Post-CBT treatment regimens included standard chemotherapy (55%), targeted therapy (22.5%), and clinical trial drugs (22.5%). The overall response rate (ORR) to post-CBT treatment was 52.50% with 12 (30%) CR and 9 (22.5%) PR. Five patients (12.5%) had SD as their best response, and 14 (35.0%) PD. Of the patients with CR to post-CBT treatment, their best responses to CBT were PD for 6, SD for 4, and PR for 2. Currently, 13 patients have died: 12 from disease progression and 1 from AML, thus median overall survival (OS) has not been reached (Figure 1). Nine patients have not progressed on their subsequent therapy. For patients with CR, PR, or SD to post-CBT therapy, the median PFS is 12.5 months (Figure 2). The post-CBT treatment regimen used did not impact the survival outcome, and there is no significant evidence that post CBT treatment response and post CBT regimens are associated (Figure 3, Table 2). Fourteen patients had consolidative SCT after their post-CBT treatment: 11 allo and 3 auto. All of these patients remain alive and half have progressed. Conclusions: These data suggest that in a R/R NHL population, treatment with CBT may sensitize some patients to subsequent therapy even if they progress or do not respond to CBT. Patient survival and best response to post-CBT treatment were independent of the treatment regimen, but many of these treatments bridged patients to SCT. In many patients the post-CBT treatment responses with or without SCT were of a significantly greater duration than their pre-CBT DOR (2 months vs 1 year). For this population, especially if they are ineligible for SCT or CAR-T cell therapy, this may be a novel treatment approach. We plan to expand this analysis with additional patients prior to the December meeting. Disclosures Advani: Kura: Research Funding; Infinity: Research Funding; Kyowa: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board; Agensys: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Bayer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board; Forty Seven Inc.: Research Funding; Roche/Genentech: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Gilead/Kite: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board; Cell Medica: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board; Autolus: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board; Bristol Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board, Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board, Research Funding; Millenium: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Herrera:Immune Design: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Research Funding; Merck, Inc.: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Gilead Sciences: Research Funding; KiTE Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding. Chen:Affimed: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Millennium Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech Inc.: Consultancy; Merck & Co., Inc.: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Ramchandren:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics LLC an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding. Assouline:Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BMS: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Research Funding. Wagner-Johnston:Celgene: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; JUNO: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; ADC Therapeutics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; ASTEX: Research Funding. Svoboda:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; KITE: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kyowa: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding. Barta:Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck, Takeda, Celgene, Seattle Genetics, Bayer: Research Funding. Karmali:Gilead: Speakers Bureau; AstraZeneca: Speakers Bureau. Persky:Genentech: Honoraria; Morphosys (IDMC): Consultancy; Spectrum: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding. Smith:BMS: Consultancy; Portola: Honoraria. Chavez:Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Speakers Bureau; Merck: Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Kite: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Humanigen: Consultancy. Diefenbach:Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; Millenium/Takeda: Research Funding; Denovo: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy.

Abstract: Background: Checkpoint blockade therapies (CBT) have substantially improved outcomes for patients in a variety of cancers. However, they are associated with a unique spectrum of immune-related adverse events (AEs). Additionally, unlike standard chemotherapy, many patients (pts) remain on CBT for prolonged periods of time, thus immune-related symptomatic AEs may be chronic or low grade therefore important to capture long term tolerability when used as a single agent or in combination with chemotherapy. In this study, we applied the Toxicity over Time (ToxT) analytic approach (Thanarajasingam et al, Lancet Oncol 2016), which incorporates the dimension of time and includes chronic lower grade events, to the first 6 cohorts (A-F) of a Phase 1/2 ECOG-ACRIN sponsored study of the combinations of Brentuximab Vedotin (BV) and the CBT therapies ipilimumab (Ipi) and nivolumab (Nivo) in pts with relapsed or refractory Hodgkin lymphoma (R/R HL). Methods: Pts with confirmed R/R HL were treated with BV 1.8mg/kg + Ipi 1or 3 mg/kg (n=23); or Nivo 3mg/kg + BV: 1.2 or 1.8 mg/kg (n=19). BV was administered every 21 days for 16 cycles; Ipi every 21 days x 4 and then every 3 months for one year and Nivo every 21 days for up to 2 years. Seven symptomatic (subjective) AEs were selected: fatigue, peripheral sensory neuropathy (PSN), nausea/vomiting (NV), rash/skin (RS), diarrhea, ocular-all types, and hair loss. Treatment-related AEs of any grade were investigated by conventional maximum grade toxicity analysis (ToxC) and ToxT methods up to 12 cycles. Using ToxT, mean AE grades over cycles were analyzed for time trend with repeated measures models, time to grade 2 or higher AE (gr2+) was analyzed with time-to-event analysis; AE profile over the entire course of the study was summarized by area under the curve (AUC) analyses. Comparisons were performed between treatment groups: BV/Ipi(A-C arms) and BV/Nivo (D-F arms). Results: 9/23 (BV/Ipi) and 6/19 (BV/Nivo) pts completed 10 cycles. For BV/Ipi vs. BV/nivo, ToxC provides overall incidence rates (any grade): fatigue 52% vs 26% (p=0.09); PSN 61% vs 53%; NV 70% vs 53% ; RS 65% vs. 37% (p=0.07); diarrhea 57% vs. 21% (p=0.02); ocular 17% vs. 21% ; and hair loss 17% vs. 0% (p=0.06), respectively. Gr3 AE occurred in 1 pt (2.4%) each for PSN, NV, diarrhea, and 6 pts (14.3%) for RS, and were similar between BV/ipi and BV/nivo. AUC from ToxT which captures chronic lower grade AEs suggested for BV/Ipi: diarrhea (p=0.02) and NV (p=0.03) are significantly more substantial over time with a trend seen for fatigue (p=0.07), RS (p=0.07) and hair loss (p=0.07) . Additionally, ToxT captures the trajectory of AEs, demonstrated a rising incidence and worsening grade of PSN (BV-related) on BV/Ipi (c1: 9% gr1, c2: 21% gr1 5% gr2, c5: 11% gr1 and c10: 22% gr2 [p=0.005], Fig 1a). In contrast there was a slow but significant decreasing incidence of NV on both combinations; for BV/Nivo (c1:52% gr1, c5: 26% gr1 and c10: 22% gr1) and BV/Ipi (c1: 47% gr1 ,c5: 0% and c10 1% gr1) with p=0.006 (Fig 1b). RS and diarrhea appear early on treatment and are not cumulative (Fig1c and 1d). There is no significant difference in the time to gr 2+ toxicities in any of the 7 AE. Combining all 7 AEs and using the maximum grade as a pilot measure of overall AE burden , ToxC indicates no difference in any grade (100% vs 100%) but a significantly higher gr 3+ incidence (35% vs. 11%) for BV/Ipi. Additionally, ToxT further elucidates that BV/Ipi is associated with significantly higher overall AE over time (Fig 2a, p=0.02) and compared to BV/Nivo a significantly higher risk of developing gr 2+ toxicity ( 57% vs 16% gr2 + event by day 50) (HR=0.41, p=0.02, Fig 2b). Conclusions: The CBT therapies Ipi and Nivo, in combination with BV, are overall both well tolerated over time, although BV/Ipi has a higher overall AE burden. Neither regimen has significant cumulative immune toxicity. Results of this analysis should be interpreted in the context of limited number of pts in both cohorts. A larger scale examination of this analysis is planned to incorporate both phase 1 and the ongoing phase 2 components of E4412. Compared with conventional tox analysis, ToxT delineated important additional and clinically relevant depictions of AEs over time and adds a more comprehensive assessment of the tolerability of chronically administered immune therapies for lymphoma. Disclosures Hong: Merck: Consultancy. Ansell:Regeneron: Research Funding; Merck & Co: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Celldex: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding. Cohen:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Millennium: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Infinity Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Infinity Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BioInvent: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Millennium: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; BioInvent: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding. Advani:Kura: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Bayer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board; Autolus: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board; Bristol Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board, Research Funding; Roche/Genentech: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board, Research Funding; Cell Medica: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board; Kyowa: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board; Astra Zeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board; Millenium: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Agensys: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Infinity: Research Funding; Forty Seven Inc.: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Gilead/Kite: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board. Barta:Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck, Takeda, Celgene, Seattle Genetics, Bayer: Research Funding. Svoboda:Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; KITE: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kyowa: Consultancy. Karmali:AstraZeneca: Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Speakers Bureau. Witzig:Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Dueck:Bayer: Employment; Phytogine: Employment; Pfizer: Honoraria. Kahl:Genentech: Consultancy; Acerta: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; Juno: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; CTI: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy. Diefenbach:Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; Millenium/Takeda: Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy; Denovo: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding.

Abstract: Background: Peripheral T-cell lymphoma (PTCL) is a heterogeneous group of non-Hodgkin lymphomas associated with poor prognosis and repeated recurrence for most subtypes. Currently, anthracycline-based therapies such as cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine and prednisone (CHOP) or CHOP-like therapies are recommended as the first-line treatment for PTCL, but the prognosis remains poor with most patients relapsing within 5 years. Thus, improved treatment strategies are still needed. Belinostat is a potent, pan-histone deacetylase inhibitor that was recently approved in the United States for the treatment of patients with relapsed or refractory PTCL (R/R PTCL). Approval was based on results from the pivotal Phase 2 BELIEF study (O'Connor et al, JCO, 2015) of belinostat in R/R PTCL, which demonstrated durable clinical benefit (objective response rate [ORR] 25.8%) and tolerability. Since belinostat (Bel) and each of the components of the CHOP regimen target different aspects of the cell cycle with different mechanisms of action, there is potential for a synergistic effect of a Bel-CHOP combination treatment regimen for patients with PTCL. Methods: Patients with PTCL received CHOP in association with 1000 mg/m2 of belinostat on various schedules, repeated every 21-days for up to 6 cycles. The cohort schema followed a traditional "3+3" dose escalation design. The objective of Part A of the study was to determine the Maximum Tolerated Dose (MTD) of the Bel-CHOP combination. Once the MTD was determined, at least 10 more patients were to be treated in the Expansion Phase (Part B). Belinostat was to be administered as a 1000 mg/m2 IV infusion once daily for up to 5 days, depending on the assigned cohort (Fig 1). The starting cohort was Cohort 3 (CHOP + 1000 mg/m2 of daily belinostat on Days 1-3). Patients received primary prophylaxis with growth factor (G-CSF) support. Dose-limiting toxicities (DLT) were considered during the 1st cycle and included: non-hematological toxicity Grades 3-4, platelet count & lt; 25 X 109/L at any time or ANC & lt; 0.5 X 109/L lasting more than 7 days despite G-CSF administration. The primary endpoint of the study was the determination of the MTD of the Bel-CHOP combination. Secondary endpoints included safety, tolerability and ORR (complete response [CR] + partial response [PR] ) and pharmacokinetics. Results: A total of 23 patients were enrolled in the study, 11 of which were treated in Part A. One patient in Part A was deemed inevaluable because the patient died due to disease progression before completing Cycle 1. The MTD was determined to be 1000 mg/m2 on Days 1-5 (Cohort 5); 12 more patients were then treated at this dose level (Part B). The only DLT experienced in the study was in Cohort 3 (Grade 3 Nausea and Vomiting). At the time of this abstract, 18/23 patients (78%) have completed all 6 cycles of Bel-CHOP, with 87% completing at least 4 cycles. Ten patients (43%) had at least one serious adverse event (SAE) and 18 (78%) had at least one Grade 3 or 4 adverse event (AE). The most frequent Grade 3/4 AEs were hematological in nature: neutrophil count decreased (26%), anemia (22%), neutropenia (17%) and white blood cell count decreased (17%). The ORR for the18 patients that have completed an End of Study Visit is 89% (16/18), with the vast majority achieving a CR [72% (n=13)], and 17% (n=3) a PR. Progressive disease was reported in 2 patients. Conclusions: These results demonstrate that the combination of belinostat with CHOP (Bel-CHOP) is well tolerated, with all components of CHOP and belinostat being given at their standard therapeutic doses. The rates of AEs were consistent with those typically reported with CHOP alone, and clinical activity was demonstrated with a response rate of 89% based on 18 evaluable patients. Thus, Bel-CHOP is a promising new regimen in PTCL that will be further tested in a Phase 3 randomized trial. Table. Table. Figure 1. Summary of Demographic and Baseline Characteristics AITL= angioimmunoblastic T-cell lymphoma; ALCL =anaplastic large-cell lymphoma; ALK = anaplastic lymphoma kinase; NOS = not otherwise specified Figure 1. Summary of Demographic and Baseline Characteristics. / AITL= angioimmunoblastic T-cell lymphoma; ALCL =anaplastic large-cell lymphoma; ALK = anaplastic lymphoma kinase; NOS = not otherwise specified Disclosures Barta: Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Bhat:Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc: Employment. Song:Spectrum Pharmaceutical, Inc: Employment. Choi:Apectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc: Employment. Allen:Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc: Employment. Foss:Spectrum Pharmaceuticals; Celgene: Seattle Genetics: Infinity; Millenium: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau.

Abstract: Background: Bendamustine and rituximab (BR) is a commonly chosen frontline treatment for grade 1-2 (G 1-2) follicular lymphoma (FL). This regimen resulted in significantly longer progression-free survival (PFS) and less toxicity compared to R-CHOP in the STiL trial [Rummel et al., 2013] and similar results were observed when comparing BR vs. R-CHOP/R-CVP in the confirmatory BRIGHT trial [Flinn et al., 2014, updated ASCO 2017] . Importantly, patients (pts) with grade 3A (G 3A) FL were excluded from these studies, yet the conclusions are often extrapolated to the treatment of G 3A pts. Notably, G 3A pts were included in the GALLIUM trial which used both bendamustine as well as CHOP backbones. Several retrospective studies of FL pts treated with frontline R-CHOP have demonstrated equivalent or improved overall survival (OS) for G 3A relative to G 1-2 FL (Koch et al., 2016, Mustafa et al., 2017, Yuan et al., 2017, Maeshima et al., 2013). Early disease progression after diagnosis and treatment with frontline R-CHOP has been identified as a strong predictor of poor OS in FL pts [Casulo et al. 2015], but has not been assessed in pts treated with frontline BR. We retrospectively evaluated outcomes of a large cohort of FL pts treated with frontline BR and stratified the results based on histologic grade and early vs. late progression. Methods: We reviewed medical records of adult (age 〉 18) pts with FL treated with frontline BR at 18 US cancer centers. There was no central pathology review; each academic institution confirmed the diagnosis and grade of FL. Pts with unknown grade, grade 3B, or cutaneous FL were excluded. Baseline characteristics between grades were evaluated with the Chi-Square test for categorical variables and the Mann-Whitney U for continuous variables. Outcomes were calculated from time of initiation of BR. Patients were grouped according to whether or not they had progression of disease within 24 months of BR initiation (POD24). OS and PFS were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared using the log-rank test. Results: 687 pts were included (616 G 1-2, 71 G 3A). Median age at diagnosis was 60 years (range 21-94) with 53% men. The median time from diagnosis to treatment with BR was 1 month (range 0-139). The median duration of follow up for the entire cohort was 39 months. Characteristics including age, gender, ethnicity, ECOG, stage, LDH, and FLIPI are shown in the Table, and did not significantly differ between G 1-2 and G 3A pts. Rates of complete response (CR) and partial response (PR) to BR were similar between G 1-2 and G 3A (72%/22% vs. 66%/21%, respectively, p=0.114) but progressive disease (PD) was higher in G 3A pts (11.9%) relative to G 1-2 (4.8%, p=0.025). As shown in the Figure (A and B), 3-year PFS and OS was significantly longer for G 1-2 vs. G 3A pts (75% vs. 65%, log rank p= 0.035 and 90% vs. 86%, log rank p=0.007, respectively). Seventy-six (12.3%) of the 616 G 1-2 pts and 13 (18.3%) of the 71 G 3A pts experienced POD24 (p=0.19). For pts with both G 1-2 and G 3A FL, POD24 was associated with inferior OS (3-year OS 95% vs. 57% for G 1-2 pts, log rank p 〈 0.0001 and 3-year OS 93% vs. 37% for G 3A pts, log rank p 〈 0.0001) compared to patients without POD24. Conclusions: G 3A FL pts have an inferior OS and are significantly more likely to have PD to frontline BR compared to G 1-2, which differs from the published experience with R-CHOP. Similar to outcomes after frontline treatment with R-CHOP, POD24 after frontline BR for FL is associated with very poor OS. Future studies are needed to address optimal frontline management of pts with G3A as well as for pts with any grade FL with POD24 after frontline BR. Disclosures Nastoupil: Novartis: Honoraria; Genentech: Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; TG Therappeutics: Research Funding; Karus: Research Funding; Merck: Honoraria, Research Funding; Spectrum: Honoraria; Janssen: Research Funding; Juno: Honoraria. Cerhan:Jannsen: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Celgene: Research Funding; Nanostring: Research Funding. Maurer:Celgene: Research Funding; Nanostring: Research Funding; Morphosys: Research Funding. Smith:Genentech: Research Funding; Incyte Corporation: Research Funding; Portola Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Merck Sharp and Dohme Corp.: Consultancy, Research Funding; Acerta Pharma BV: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Lossos:Affimed: Research Funding. Portell:TG therapeutics: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy; Kite: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; BeiGene: Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; Genentech/Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; Infinity: Research Funding. Calzada:Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Cohen:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Infinity Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Infinity Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millennium: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Millennium: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BioInvent: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; BioInvent: Consultancy. Ghosh:Spectrum: Consultancy; SGN: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics, an Abbvie Company: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; TG Therapeutics: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; Juno: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Genentech: Research Funding; F. Hoffman-La Roche Ltd: Research Funding; PCYC: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Forty seven Inc: Research Funding. Barta:Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck, Takeda, Celgene, Seattle Genetics, Bayer: Research Funding. Caimi:Kite Pharma: Other: Advisory Board Participation; Genentech: Other: Advisory Board PArticipation, Research Funding; Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Kite Pharma: Other: Advisory Board Participation. Danilov:Gilead Sciences: Consultancy, Research Funding; Aptose Biosciences: Research Funding; Bayer Oncology: Consultancy, Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda Oncology: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; Verastem: Consultancy, Research Funding. Martin:AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Kite: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy. Kamdar:Seattle Genetics: Speakers Bureau; Genentech: Consultancy. Kahl:AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Acerta: Consultancy; Juno: Consultancy; CTI: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy. Hill:Abbvie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genentech: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.