Abstract: 7006 Background: AlloHCT has been regarded as risky in HIV pts, with concern about fatal infection. We set out to assess feasibility and safety of alloHCT in this first prospective multicenter trial. Methods: The primary endpoint was 100-day non-relapse mortality (NRM). Pts had drug-susceptible HIV; age ≥ 15 yr; adequate organ function; acute myeloid leukemia (AML) or acute lymphocytic leukemia (ALL), high risk myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS), or Hodgkin (HL) or non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) beyond first CR; an 8/8 HLA-matched related or at least a 7/8 unrelated donor. Pts received myeloablative (MA) or reduced intensity (RI) regimens. HIV outgrowth assays (VOA) were performed with resting CD4+T-cells in pts who had clinically undetectable HIV plasma RNA at 1 yr. Results: Between 5/2012 and 12/2015, 17 pts underwent alloHCT. Pts were: male (17); white (11), African American (3), Other/Unknown (3); median age 47 yrs (25-64). Associated malignancies were AML (9), ALL (2), MDS (2), HL (1), NHL (3). Median CD4 was 224 (55-833). Conditioning was MA (8) and RI (9). At 100 days there was no NRM, 13 pts were in CR, 4 pts had relapsed/progressive disease; and 8 pts achieved complete chimerism. The cumulative incidence of Grades (Gr) II-IV acute Graft vs Host Disease (GvHD) was 41 % (95%CI: 18 %, 64%). At 6 mo, OS was 82 % (95% confidence interval [CI] : 55%, 94%); 9 pts achieved complete chimerism. At 1 year, OS was 57 % (CI: 31%, 77 %); 8 deaths were from relapsed/progressive disease (5), acute GvHD (1), adult respiratory distress syndrome (1) and liver failure (1). Infections were reported in 11 pts (3 Gr 2, 8 Gr 3). Infectious HIV was detected by VOA in 2 of 3 pts who were mixed chimeras but 0 of 2 who were 100% donor. Median follow up of survivors is 24 mo (7 to 27 ). Conclusions: HIV pts with heme malignancies underwent MA or RI alloHCT without any100-day NRM and there were no infectious deaths at 1 year. AlloHCT should be considered the standard of care for HIV pts who meet usual eligibility criteria. Clinical trial information: NCT01410344.

Abstract: Background: Clinical outcomes for patients with HIV-related lymphomas who have undergone autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation (AHCT) are similar to HIV-negative patients (Alvarnas et al., Blood 2016). Here we report a detailed, longitudinal immunophenotypic and functional evaluation of immune recovery of patients enrolled on the BMT CTN 0803/AMC 071 multicenter phase II study (clinicaltrials.gov NCT01141712). Methods: Comprehensive analysis of cellular immunome was performed using 5 color flow cytometry. Acquisition and analysis was performed via FC500 cytometry analyzers with CXP software and prism plot. Comparisons were made between HIV+ and HIV- cohorts of peripheral blood mononuclear cell (PBMC) subsets at 56, 180, and 360 days post AHCT. The HIV- cohort was collected from 30 multiple myeloma patients enrolled in a longitudinal immune recovery study after AHCT (median age 52.5 years (18-71); 57% male, no post AHCT exposure to IMID or other treatment). Control samples were collected from 72 healthy volunteers (median age of 49 (21-68); 53%, M). A Wilcoxon rank sum test was utilized to compare the HIV+ and HIV- groups to controls and to each other at each time point for 18 immune cell subsets common to all three panels. An unsupervised analysis was performed utilizing a principal component analysis (PCA) to look for overall differences in the cohorts. Similar methodologies were used to compare HIV+ to controls that analyzed 100 PBMC subsets. Functional immune recovery was evaluated by IFNg Elispot assay where 2x105 PBMC collected at each time point were pulsed with control, EBV (BZLF1) or HIV (GAG) pepmix preparations. As a control for TCR responsiveness, anti CD3/CD28 antibody-beads were used to immobilize TCR in ELISPOT assay. T cell responses from PBMCs of each of the three time points of HIV+ patients on trial were compared to PBMCs from HIV- donors (n=6). Results: Wilcoxon Rank sum tests show significant differences between transplant patients and controls and between HIV+ and HIV- patients at all visits. There are fewer cell subsets significantly different at day 365 compared to day 56 or 120 in all comparisons. The PCA showed group differences between HIV+, HIV- and control subjects. CD3+/HLA-DR+ (late activation), CD8+/CD25- (cytotoxic T cells) and CD3+/CD314+ (T cells with activating NKG2D) were found to be more prevalent in HIV+ transplant patients. These findings may be consistent with expanded populations of chronically activated cytotoxic T lymphocytes in HIV+ transplant patients. Subsets of NK, Th1 and Th2 cells showed statistically significant differences between HIV+ (low), HIV- (higher) and controls (higher). When the principal components are plotted by visit there is a pattern of both HIV+ and HIV- transplant patients clustering closer to controls as patients recover from AHCT. The PCA was also utilized to compare the HIV+ cohort to controls which had the same panel of cell subsets tested and allowed for the use of 100 cell subsets in the analysis. This analysis showed a similar group separation and pattern of clustering closer to controls in later visits. These findings demonstrate complex interactions between T and NK cell subsets. Functional assessment of antigen-specific T cell responsiveness was evaluated in Elispot assays with EBV (BZLF1) and HIV (GAG) recall antigens and anti-CD3/CD28 controls. Of 30 evaluable patients, 28 HIV+ patients demonstrated measurable IFNg production in response to GAG (spots/2x105 PBMC, range: 8-615), 21 showed measurable response to BZLF1 pepmix (range 12-450); and all patients demonstrated responsiveness to anti CD3/CD28 stimulation. Magnitude of IFNg production from HIV+ samples was generally higher than that observed healthy, HIV- controls. Assessment of NK cell responsiveness is currently underway. Conclusions: While clinical outcomes following AHCT between HIV+ and HIV- patients is comparable, clear distinctions were observed with immune recovery of specific PBMC subsets during the first year following AHCT with differences diminishing as patients recover post transplant. Longitudinal immune responsiveness of PBMC from HIV+ patients to EBV and HIV recall antigens and TCR stimulation generally showed more robust IFNg production compared to PBMCs from HIV- volunteer controls. These data provide further justification supporting AHCT as an option for HIV+ patients provided they meet standard transplant criteria. Disclosures Little: This study was coordinated by the ECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research Group (Robert L. Comis, MD and Mitchell D. Schnall, MD, PhD, Group Co-Chairs) and supported by the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health under the following award number: Employment. Noy:Pharmacyclics, LLC, an AbbVie Company: Other: travel, accommodations, expenses, Research Funding. Krishnan:celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; takeda: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; janssen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; onyx: Speakers Bureau. Hofmeister:Signal Genetics, Inc.: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Research Funding; Arno Therapeutics, Inc.: Research Funding; Incyte, Corp: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Pharmaceutical Companies of Johnson & Johnson: Research Funding; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Research Funding; Takeda Pharmaceutical Company: Research Funding; Teva: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Forman:Mustang Therpapeutics: Other: Construct licensed by City of Hope. Lozanski:Boehringer Ingelheim: Research Funding; Beckman Coulter: Research Funding; Stemline Therapeutics Inc.: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding. Baiocchi:Essanex: Research Funding.

Abstract: Introduction. Our previous flow cytometry-based comparison of HIV(+) and HIV(-) autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplant (auto-HSCT) recipient immunomes at 56, 180 and 365 days post-transplant to each other and to healthy controls (HCs) showed that both sets of auto-HSCT recipient immunomes approached HCs over time, but retained significant differences. HIV(+), but not HIV(-), auto-AHCT recipients retained pro-inflammatory features consistent with chronic HIV infection. Here, we report the results of a quantitative and functional analysis of immune reconstitution in HIV(+) patients treated with allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant (allo-HSCT), in comparison with HIV(+) auto-HSCT recipients and HCs. Methods. Blood samples were collected for analysis at days 56, 180 and 365 post-transplant from HIV(+) transplant recipients and at 1 time point from HCs. Whole blood analysis was performed by five-color flow cytometry across 100 immune marker combinations. Comparisons were made between HIV(+) allo-HSCT recipients (n=17, acute myeloid leukemia, acute lymphocytic leukemia, myelodysplastic syndrome, Hodgkin and non-Hodgkin lymphoma that received myeloablative or reduced intensity conditioning on the BMT-CTN-0903/AMC-080 trial), HIV(+) auto-HSCT recipients (n=36, aggressive B cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma or Hodgkin lymphoma that received myeloablative conditioning on the BMT-CTN-0803/AMC-071 trial) and 71 HCs. Unsupervised principal component analysis (PCA) examined differences in immune cell proportions, identified by flow cytometry across 100 cell subsets at each time point. Wilcoxon rank-sum tests compared median absolute counts and median proportions of cell subsets. An independent feature importance score analysis (FIS) identified contributions of immune cell populations expressing specific immune marker combinations to the differences between HIV(+) auto-HSCT recipients, HIV(+) allo-HSCT recipients and HCs. Functional responsiveness of HIV(+) allo-HSCT recipients' T cells to stimulation with CD3- and CD28-directed antibodies, NK cells to stimulation with IL-12 and IL-18 and monocytes to stimulation with lipopolysaccharide (LPS) was assessed in a preliminary mass cytometry on peripheral blood mononuclear cells isolated at the same time points (n=2) and compared to HCs (n=2). Results. PCA showed that immunomes of HIV(+) allo-HSCT recipients and HIV(+) auto-HSCT recipients clustered together with each other, but away from HCs at all time points throughout the post-transplant year. FIS identified: 1) 13 cell subsets that defined the difference between HIV(+) allo-HSCT recipients (all visits) and HCs, and 2) 11 immune cell subsets that defined the difference between HIV(+) auto-HSCT recipients (all visits) and HCs; in both of these comparisons, activated CD3+/HLA-DR+ T cells had the greatest impact on the difference between HIV(+) and HC immunomes. At 1 year, both HIV(+) transplant recipient cohorts had higher absolute numbers of activated T cells, effector T cells and CD8+ T cells than HCs (Wilcoxon rank-sum test, p 〈 0.0031). HIV(+) autologous and allogeneic HSCT recipients also had lower numbers of CD4+ T cells, naïve T cells and activated NK cells compared to HCs (p 〈 0.0031). FIS also identified 20 immune cell subsets that defined the difference between HIV(+) autologous and allogeneic HSCT recipients immunomes at 1 year, with CD8+/CD27- effector T cell subset exerting the highest impact on the difference. Preliminary functional mass cytometry analysis of 2 HIV(+) allo-HSCT recipients and 2 HCs showed that: 1) IFNʏ production by CD8+ T cells was increased above that of HCs at all time points. 2) Expanded populations of CD4+/T-bet+ cytotoxic cells expressing granzyme B and perforin, and CD8+ cytotoxic T cells expressing granzyme B and perforin, persisted in HIV(+) allo-HSCT recipients at all time points, but not in HCs. 3) NK cells retained an ability to produce IFNʏ in response to stimulation with IL-12 and IL-18 in HIV(+) allo-SCT recipients. 4) Monocytes showed an enhanced production of TNFα in response to stimulation with LPS in HIV(+) allo-HSCT recipients compared to HCs at 1 year post-HSCT. Conclusion. Chronic HIV infection confers the pro-inflammatory immune features on the phenotypic and functional profiling of the T lymphocyte immunome of stem cell transplant recipients, irrespective of allogeneic or autologous stem cell donor source. Disclosures Devine: Bristol Myers: Other: Grant for monitoring support & travel support; Kiadis Pharma: Other: Protocol development (via institution); Magenta Therapeutics: Other: Travel support for advisory board; My employer (National Marrow Donor Program) has equity interest in Magenta. Noy:Janssen: Consultancy; Medscape: Honoraria; Prime Oncology: Honoraria; NIH: Research Funding; Pharamcyclics: Research Funding; Raphael Pharma: Research Funding. Popat:Bayer: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Jazz: Consultancy. Hofmeister:Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Nektar: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Karyopharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Imbrium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncopeptides: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Navarro:Atara Biotherapeutics: Employment, Equity Ownership. Behbehani:Fluidigm corporation: Other: Travel funding. Lozanski:Boehringer Ingelheim: Research Funding; Beckman Coulter: Research Funding; Stemline Therapeutics Inc.: Research Funding; Genentec: Research Funding. Baiocchi:Prelude: Consultancy.

Abstract: We report a first in-depth comparison of immune reconstitution in patients with HIV-related lymphoma following autologous hematopoietic cell transplant (AHCT) recipients (n=37, lymphoma, BEAM conditioning), HIV(-) AHCT recipients (n=30, myeloma, melphalan conditioning) at 56, 180, and 365 days post-AHCT, and 71 healthy control subjects. Principal component analysis showed that immune cell composition in HIV(+) and HIV(-) AHCT recipients clustered away from healthy controls and from each other at each time point, but approached healthy controls over time. Unsupervised feature importance score analysis identified activated T cells, cytotoxic memory and effector T cells [higher in HIV(+)], and naïve and memory T helper cells [lower HIV(+)] as a having a significant impact on differences between HIV(+) AHCT recipient and healthy control lymphocyte composition (p & lt;0.0033). HIV(+) AHCT recipients also demonstrated lower median absolute numbers of activated B cells and lower NK cell sub-populations, compared to healthy controls (p & lt;0.0033) and HIV(-) AHCT recipients (p & lt;0.006). HIV(+) patient T cells showed robust IFNγ production in response to HIV and EBV recall antigens. Overall, HIV(+) AHCT recipients, but not HIV(-) AHCT recipients, exhibited reconstitution of pro-inflammatory immune profiling that was consistent with that seen in patients with chronic HIV infection treated with antiretroviral regimens. Our results further support the use of AHCT in HIV(+) individuals with relapsed/refractory lymphoma.

Abstract: BACKGROUND: Chemoimmunotherapy with fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab (FCR) has been the standard therapy for younger patients with CLL. FCR therapy is particularly effective in patients with immunoglobulin heavy chain variable region (IGHV) mutated CLL. Approximately half of IGHV mutated patients are progression free 8 years after FCR therapy. At the ASH 2018 meeting, we reported the initial results of the ECOG 1912 (E1912) trial, a phase 3 trial comparing the FCR regimen to the combination of ibrutinib and rituximab (IR) for previously untreated CLL patients age 70 or younger who required therapy. With median follow-up of approximately 34 months, the trial demonstrated both a progression-free survival (PFS) and an overall survival (OS) benefit relative to FCR. On sub-set analysis by IGHV mutation status, the difference in PFS was statistically significant for IGHV unmutated patients but, with current follow-up, not IGHV mutated patients. Here, we present updated results for PFS in the E1912 trial. METHODS: As previously reported, eligible patients were treatment-naive individuals with CLL age 70 or younger. Patients with deletion 17p- were excluded from participating in the E1912 trial given their known poor response to FCR therapy. Patients were randomly assigned in a two-to-one ratio to receive ibrutinib (420 mg/day until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity) and rituximab (50 mg/m2 on day 1 of cycle 2, 325 mg/m2 on day 2 of cycle 2, and then 500 mg/m2 on day 1 of cycles 3-7) or six courses of intravenous fludarabine (25 mg/m2 days 1-3), cyclophosphamide (250 mg/m2 days 1-3) and rituximab (50 mg/m2 on day 1 of cycle 1, 325 mg/m2 on day 2 of cycle 1, and then 500 mg/m2 on day 1 of cycles 2-6) every 28-days. Adverse events (AEs) were graded according to the NCI Common Toxicity Criteria (version 4). Dose adjustments for cytopenias were based on the IWCLL CLL Working Group grading scale. The primary endpoint of the trial was PFS with OS a secondary endpoint. Analysis was by intention to treat. RESULTS: With median follow-up of 45 months, 257 (73%) of 354 patients randomized to IR remain on ibrutinib. With extended follow-up, grade 3 and above treatment-related AEs were observed in 70% of IR and 80% of FCR treated patients (OR=0.56; 95% CI 0.34 - 0.90; p=0.013). Among IR-treated patients, the median time on treatment is currently 43 months (range=0.2-61). Among the 95 patients who have discontinued ibrutinib, the reason for discontinuation was progression or death in 23 (7% of patients who started IR; 24% of those who discontinued treatment), AE or complication in 48 (14% of patients who started IR; 51% of those who discontinued treatment), and withdrawal of consent or other reasons in 24 (7% of patients who started IR; 25% of those who discontinued treatment). On multivariable Cox regression adjusting for Timed Up and Go test score, Cumulative Illness Rating Scale (CIRS) score, age, gender, ECOG performance status, creatinine clearance, and baseline anemia/thrombocytopenia, only CIRS score (range 0 - 14) predicted discontinuation of ibrutinib for a reason other than progression or death (HR=1.13 per unit increase; 95% CI 1.03 - 1.23; p=0.009). Among the 72 patients who discontinued ibrutinib for a reason other than progression or death, the median time on ibrutinib was 15.1 months (range 0.2-58.2 months). The median time from ibrutinib discontinuation to disease progression or death was 23 months. With current follow-up, we observed 110 PFS events. The hazard ratio (HR) for PFS favored IR over FCR (HR=0.39; 95% CI 0.26-0.57; p & lt;0.0001). Updated analysis of OS will be presented. On sub-group analysis by IGHV mutation status, IR was superior to FCR for IGHV unmutated patients (HR=0.28; 95% CI 0.17-0.48; p & lt;0.0001). With current follow-up the difference is not significant in IGHV mutated patients (HR=0.42; 95% CI 0.16-1.16; p=0.086). Kaplan-Meier estimates for PFS are shown in Figure 1. CONCLUSIONS: Although less than 7% of ibrutinib treated patients progressed while on therapy, roughly 1 in 5 patients have discontinued ibrutinib for a reason other than progression or death. The only parameter significantly associated with discontinuation for a reason other than progression was increased baseline CIRS score. With extended follow-up, the combination of ibrutinib and rituximab continues to provide superior PFS compared to FCR for younger patients with previously untreated CLL. Disclosures Shanafelt: Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Patent: Patents & Royalties: US14/292,075 on green tea extract epigallocatechin gallate in combination with chemotherapy for chronic lymphocytic leukemia; Polyphenon E International: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Glaxo-SmithKline: Research Funding; Hospira: Research Funding; Cephalon: Research Funding. Kay:MorphoSys: Other: Data Safety Monitoring Board; Infinity Pharmaceuticals: Other: DSMB; Celgene: Other: Data Safety Monitoring Board; Agios: Other: DSMB. O'Brien:Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Astellas: Consultancy; Aptose Biosciences, Inc: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Alexion: Consultancy; Acerta: Research Funding; Eisai: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy, Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy; Verastem: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Sunesis: Consultancy, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Vaniam Group LLC: Consultancy; Regeneron: Research Funding; Kite: Research Funding. Barrientos:AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Janssen: Honoraria; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sandoz: Consultancy; Oncternal Therapeutics: Research Funding. Coutre:Astellas: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Acerta: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; BeiGene: Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses & Data Safety Monitoring Committee; Genentech: Consultancy. Barr:Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie company: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy; Verastem: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Astra Zeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding. Cashen:Celgene: Other: Speaker's Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Other: Speaker's Bureau; Novartis: Other: Speaker's Bureau. Mato:AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sunesis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; Johnson & Johnson: Consultancy, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Other: DSMB member , Research Funding; LOXO: Consultancy, Research Funding; DTRM Biopharma: Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Acerta: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy. Erba:Amgen: Consultancy; MacroGenics: Consultancy, Other: Lecture fees, Research Funding; MacroGenics: Consultancy, Other: Lecture fees, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Agios: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Agios: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; ImmunoGen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Astellas Pharma: Consultancy; Astellas Pharma: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; GlycoMimetics: Consultancy, Other: Chair, data and safety monitoring board, Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Other: chair, AML Registry Scientific Steering Committee, Speakers Bureau; ImmunoGen: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Other: Chair, IRC for phase III studies, Research Funding; GlycoMimetics: Consultancy, Other: Chair, data and safety monitoring board, Research Funding; Covance: Other: Fees for serving as chair on an independent review board for AbbVie Phase III studies; Covance: Other: Fees for serving as chair on an independent review board for AbbVie Phase III studies; AbbVie: Consultancy, Other: Chair, IRC for phase III studies, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Other: chair, AML Registry Scientific Steering Committee, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Research Funding. Stone:Arog Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Otsuka-Astex Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Fujifilm: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Celator Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Ono Pharmaceutical-Theradex Oncology: Consultancy; Cornerstone Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Takeda: Other: Fees for serving on a data and safety monitoring board ; Orsenix: Consultancy; MacroGenics: Consultancy; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Agios: Consultancy, Research Funding; Stemline Therapeutics: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Other: Fees for serving on a steering committee, and fees for serving on a data and safety monitoring board; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Actinium Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astellas Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Argenx: Other: Fees for serving on a data and safety monitoring board ; Roche: Consultancy. Tallman:Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncolyze: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.