Abstract: Allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) improves outcomes for patients with AML harboring an internal tandem duplication mutation of FLT3 ( FLT3-ITD) AML. These patients are routinely treated with a FLT3 inhibitor after HCT, but there is limited evidence to support this. Accordingly, we conducted a randomized trial of post-HCT maintenance with the FLT3 inhibitor gilteritinib (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02997202 ) to determine if all such patients benefit or if detection of measurable residual disease (MRD) could identify those who might benefit. METHODS Adults with FLT3-ITD AML in first remission underwent HCT and were randomly assigned to placebo or 120 mg once daily gilteritinib for 24 months after HCT. The primary end point was relapse-free survival (RFS). Secondary end points included overall survival (OS) and the effect of MRD pre- and post-HCT on RFS and OS. RESULTS Three hundred fifty-six participants were randomly assigned post-HCT to receive gilteritinib or placebo. Although RFS was higher in the gilteritinib arm, the difference was not statistically significant (hazard ratio [HR], 0.679 [95% CI, 0.459 to 1.005] ; two-sided P = .0518). However, 50.5% of participants had MRD detectable pre- or post-HCT, and, in a prespecified subgroup analysis, gilteritinib was beneficial in this population (HR, 0.515 [95% CI, 0.316 to 0.838]; P = .0065). Those without detectable MRD showed no benefit (HR, 1.213 [95% CI, 0.616 to 2.387] ; P = .575). CONCLUSION Although the overall improvement in RFS was not statistically significant, RFS was higher for participants with detectable FLT3-ITD MRD pre- or post-HCT who received gilteritinib treatment. To our knowledge, these data are among the first to support the effectiveness of MRD-based post-HCT therapy.

Abstract: Introduction: ECOG ACRIN E1910 is a randomized phase III trial that showed that adults with newly diagnosed BCR::ABL1 negative acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) who become MRD negative ( & lt;0.01%) after induction chemo who receive blinatumomab with conventional chemotherapy (chemo) have improved survival compared with those who received chemo only (Litzow et al, Blood (2022) 140: Supplement 2, LBA-1). However, not all pts were able to receive all four planned cycles of blinatumomab in consolidation. In this report we assessed outcomes of pts in the blinatumomab arm of the trial who received all 4 cycles of blinatumomab compared to those who received 1-2 cycles. Methods: Patient between the ages of 30 and 70 with newly diagnosed BCR::ABL1 negative B-lineage ALL were enrolled and initially received 2.5 months of combination induction chemo utilizing a BFM-like regimen adapted from the E2993/UKALLXII clinical trial, with pegaspargase (after induction only for patients & gt;=55 years of age) and addition of rituximab for CD20 positive patients. After remission induction (step 1) pts in morphologic complete remission (CR/CRi) received an intensification course of high dose methotrexate with pegaspargase for CNS prophylaxis (step 2). At the conclusion of step 2, remission and MRD status were determined centrally by 6-color flow cytometry with MRD negativity defined as & lt;0.01%. In the primary analysis subset, MRD negative patients were randomized to receive an additional 4cycles of consolidation chemo or 2 cycles of blinatumomab at 28 mcg/day (flat dose) for 28 days each cycle followed by 3 cycles of consolidation chemo, another 4-week cycle of blinatumomab (3rd cycle of blinatumomab) followed by an additional cycle of chemo and then a 4th cycle of blinatumomab (step 3). Following completion of consolidation chemo +/- blinatumomab, pts were given 2.5 years of POMP maintenance therapy timed from the start of the intensification cycle (step 4). Estimates of OS were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Comparison of OS between treatment arms were conducted using the stratified log-rank test and Cox proportional-hazards model with age, CD20 status, rituximab use, and whether pts intend to receive HSCT or not as stratification factors. As the number of cycles needed to optimize outcome has not been studied, an unplanned landmark analysis was used to compare OS of pts in the blinatumomab arm who received all 4 cycles o those who received 1-2 cycles. Time 0 was chosen as 9 months post step 3 randomization (the time that patients were supposed to complete 4 cycles of blina). Four pts who received blinatumomab but died within 9 months post step 3 randomization were therefore excluded from this analysis. Results: The study was activated on December 17, 2013 and closed to enrollment on October 15, 2019. 772 pts were screened for the trial and 488 were enrolled on step 1 induction therapy. The median age of the pts was 51 years (range 30-70). 224 MRD negative pts were randomized, 112 pts to each arm. In the blinatumomab arm 12 pts received 1 cycle (11%), 32 pts received 2 cycles (29%), 4 pts received 3 cycles (4%) and 63 pts received 4 cycles (57%). The OS of pts who received 1-2 cycles of blinatumomab was compared to control (Figure 1) The difference was not significant (hazard ratio 0.62, 95% CI 0.28 to 1.34, p=0.22). Fig 2 compares the survival of those who received 1-2 cycles to those who received 4 cycles ( (HR: 0.39, 95% CI 0.12 to 1.16, p=0.076). Conclusion: The addition of blinatumomab to consolidation chemotherapy resulted in a significantly better overall survival compared to chemotherapy alone in pts with newly diagnosed B-lineage ALL who were MRD negative after intensification. This represents a new standard of care for pts aged 30-70 years with BCR::ABL1 negative ALL. The optimal dose and number of cycles is however unknown. In this unplanned subgroup analysis we demonstrate that a survival benefit can only be confirmed in patients who receive the intended 4 cycles of blinatumomab during consolidation. Further studies will be needed to determine if fewer cycles can provide a similar benefit.

Abstract: Background RAS signaling pathway mutations, mainly NRAS, KRAS, and/or PTPN11 variants, are common somatic events in de novo and MR-AML. BRAF mutations occur with lower frequency in AML and are reported to be associated with poor treatment outcome. However, no comprehensive analysis exists that firmly delineates clinical and molecular characteristics of BRAF-mutated AML, including insights into clonal architecture and co-occurring mutations. Methods We identified 42 patients (pts) with BRAF-mutated AML among pts with molecularly profiled disease in the setting of large comprehensive cancer centers [enriched for relapsed/refractory (R/R) and secondary AML] and cooperative group frontline trials (Cancer and Leukemia Group B/Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology, enriched for de novo AML). All pts had NGS-based targeted sequencing data, cytogenetic information, and detailed clinical annotations available. To fully evaluate the molecular landscape, 6 pts underwent integrated genomic profiling including paired tumor/normal whole exome sequencing and total transcriptome sequencing. We also analyzed pt samples using simultaneous single-cell molecular profiling and cell surface protein expression (DNA+Protein) sequencing to assess cell states and clonal make-up at single-cell resolution in a subset of pts (n=8). Results The 42 pts with BRAF-mutated AML had a median age of 67 years (range, 19-84); 57% were male. BRAF mutations were most common in cases of MR-AML (as defined by WHO 5th edition), accounting for 32 (76%) pts. BRAF mutations were found in newly diagnosed (n=19, 45%), R/R (n=8, 19%) and secondary AML (n=15, 36%) pts. As detected by bulk NGS sequencing, BRAF mutations were found both as dominant clonal and subclonal events, present at variant allele fractions (VAF) of 1-83% ( Figure 1, BRAF VAF indicated via color scale). Most (n=30, 71%) pts had non-V600 BRAF mutations (including G469, n=12; D594, n=7 and other, n=12). The most frequent co-occurring mutations were in the TET2 (36%), ASXL1 (33%), NRAS (29%), KRAS (26%), RUNX1 (19%), DNMT3A, FLT3-ITD/TKD, NPM1 and SRSF2 (all 17%) genes. By whole exome sequencing, BRAF-mutated AML samples carried a median mutational burden of 15 non-synonymous coding variants (range, 9-30), including 6 RAS-pathway and 3 MR-AML mutations. In 2 pts with paired relapse material available, the BRAF mutation was either stable at relapse or lost and the pt instead acquired a IQGAP3 mutation, supporting the RAS-pathway “addiction” of this leukemia. Single-cell multi-omic sequencing studies uncovering unique genotype-immunophenotype relationships and confirming clonal hierarchies are ongoing and will be presented at the meeting. Clinically, the BRAF-mutated pts had extremely poor survival, regardless of therapy. Pts were treated with low intensity [LI, n=10 (29%); LI+venetoclax (VEN, n=10 (29%)], high-intensity [HI, n=12 (34%) or HI+VEN, n=3 (9%)] regimens. The overall composite remission (CR+CRi) rate was 39%. Median overall survival (OS) for the entire cohort was 7 months, with 31 (89%) of pts deceased at the time of last follow-up. There were no significant differences in OS based on treatment regimens ( Figure 2). Importantly, there was no impact of BRAF variant allele burden on OS, with pts wiith dominant clonal and those with subclonal mutations having similar outcomes. Given the enrichment of BRAF mutations in MR-AML, we assessed whether RAS pathway mutations generally represented poor outcome prognosticators in this subgroup. A comparison of a control cohort of MR-AML pts with (n=129) and without (n=403) RAS pathway mutations treated on cytarabine/daunorubicin-based frontline protocols, revealed no survival difference between RAS-mutated and wild-type pts, suggesting a negative survival impact specific to BRAF-carrying leukemic clones. Conclusions BRAF mutations are rare, but recurrent molecular alterations in AML that are enriched in MR-AML. They associate with distinctly poor prognosis regardless of their clonal burden, without significant therapeutic advantage of currently available treatment regimens. This suggests the need to assess the utility of BRAF inhibitors and/or RAS pathway-targeting regimens such as MEK inhibitors in pts with AML carrying BRAF mutations. Support: U10CA180821, U10CA180882, U24CA196171; Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT00048958 (CALGB 8461), NCT00899223 (CALGB 9665), NCT00900224 (CALGB 20202)

Abstract: Patients with acute myeloid leukemia with high-risk cytogenetics in first complete remission (CR1) achieve better outcomes if they undergo allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) compared with consolidation chemotherapy alone. However, only approximately 40% of such patients typically proceed to HCT. METHODS: We used a prospective organized approach to rapidly identify donors to improve the allogeneic HCT rate in adults with high-risk acute myeloid leukemia in CR1. Newly diagnosed patients had cytogenetics obtained at enrollment, and those with high-risk cytogenetics underwent expedited HLA typing and were encouraged to be referred for consultation with a transplantation team with the goal of conducting an allogeneic HCT in CR1. RESULTS: Of 738 eligible patients (median age, 49 years; range, 18-60 years of age), 159 (22%) had high-risk cytogenetics and 107 of these patients (67%) achieved CR1. Seventy (65%) of the high-risk patients underwent transplantation in CR1 ( P 〈 .001 compared with the historical rate of 40%). Median time to HCT from CR1 was 77 days (range, 20-356 days). In landmark analysis, overall survival (OS) among patients who underwent transplantation was significantly better compared with that of patients who did not undergo transplantation (2-year OS, 48% v 35%, respectively [ P = .031]). Median relapse-free survival after transplantation in the high-risk cohort who underwent transplantation in CR1 (n = 70) was 11.5 months (range, 4-47 months), and median OS after transplantation was 14 months (range, 4-44 months). CONCLUSION: Early cytogenetic testing with an organized effort to identify a suitable allogeneic HCT donor led to a CR1 transplantation rate of 65% in the high-risk group, which, in turn, led to an improvement in OS when compared with the OS of patients who did not undergo transplantation.

Abstract: Background: Adult acute myeloid leukemia (AML) patients with high-risk cytogenetics have a significantly worse survival compared to similarly treated intermediate- or favorable-risk patients. Although prior studies suggest better outcome in high-risk AML patients in first complete remission (CR1) who undergo allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) compared with consolidation chemotherapy, only 40% of patients proceed to HCT. The lack of a matched sibling donor (available in about 33%) should not be a barrier to HCT since alternative donors are available for the large majority of high-risk AMLpatients and recent data suggest outcomes after allogeneic HCT from fully matched unrelated donors are similar to those following matched related donor transplantation. We sought to determine if a prospective organized effort could rapidly identify alternative donors to improve the historical 40% allogeneic HCT rate in high-risk CR1 AML patients ≤ age 61. Secondly, we hypothesized that transplanting significantly more adults with high-risk AML in CR1 would lead to an improved outcome compared with the historical relapse-free survival (RFS) of 22%. Patients and Methods: Adult patients between ages 18 and 60 years with untreated AML were randomized to receive induction therapy with standard cytarabine plus daunorubicin (7+3; n=261), idarubicin with high-dose cytarabine (IA; n=261), or IA with vorinostat (IA+V; n=216). Conventional cytogenetics were obtained at time of enrollment and used to determine risk classification by standard criteria. All patients with high-risk cytogenetics underwent expedited HLA-typing. High-risk patientswere encouraged tobe referred for consultation with a transplant team with the goal of conducting an allogeneic HCT in CR1. Results: Of 738 eligible patients (median age, 49 years; range, 18-60), 159 (22%) had high-risk cytogenetics, of whom 60 (38%), 61 (38%), and 38 (24%) received induction with 7+3, IA, or IA+V, respectively. A total of 107 of the 159 high-risk patients achieved CR/CRi (67%). HCT was performed in 317 of all 738 patients (43%) and 68 (64%) of the high-risk patients received a transplant in CR1 (p 〈 0.001 compared to historical rate of 40%). Twenty-five (37%) had a matched related donor, 31 (45%) had a matched unrelated donor, 3 (4%) had a mismatched related donor, 8 (12%) had a mismatched unrelated donor, and 1 (1%) received an umbilical cord blood transplant. Sixty-six high-risk patients transplanted in CR/CRi have detailed data. Median time to HCT from CR1 was 76 days (range, 20-365). Fifty-seven patients (86%) received a myeloablative regimen and 9 (14%) reduced-intensity conditioning. Reasons for 39 high-risk CR1 patients not receiving a transplant in CR1 were: co-morbidities (n=1), death (n=6), no insurance (n=1), no donor (n=1), physician decision (n=3), patient decision (n=3), relapse (n=6), other (n=10), or unknown (n=8). The 2-year RFS estimate in the entire high-risk cohort is 32%, significantly higher than the 22% historical rate (p=0.05). Median RFS in the high-risk CR1 cohort (n=107) was 10 months [range, 1-32* (censored) months]. RFS and OS were similar among HCT patients using matched related [1 year estimates: 40% (95% CI 27%, 74%) and 56% (37%, 74%), respectively] and matched unrelated [1 year estimates: 52% (37%, 75%) and 56% (37%, 74%), respectively] donors in CR1. The HR (reference = unrelated) for RFS was 0.67 (0.32, 1.37) and for OS was 0.88 (0.41, 1.90). Median overall survival (OS) among all patients in the high-risk cohort (n=159) was 12 months [range, 1-33* (censored) months] and was 18 months [range 3-33* (censored) months] for those transplanted in CR1 (Fig. 1). Conclusions: In newly diagnosed adults with AML age 18-60, early cytogenetic testing with an organized effort to identify a suitable allogeneic HCT donorled to a CR1 transplant rate of 64% in the high-risk group, which in turn led to a significant improvement in RFS over historical controls. Better outcomes in poor prognosis AML patients may be achieved simply by rapidly finding unrelated donors and performing allogeneic HCT in CR1 as soon as possible. Clinical Trials Registry: NCT #0180233; Support: NIH/NCI grants: CA180888, CA180819, CA18020, CA180821, CA180863, CA077202; CCSRI #021039 Figure 1 Overall Survival (OS) among all patients in the high-risk cohort, all high-risk patients achieving CR1, and in those high-risk patients transplanted in CR1. Figure 1. Overall Survival (OS) among all patients in the high-risk cohort, all high-risk patients achieving CR1, and in those high-risk patients transplanted in CR1. Disclosures Othus: Glycomimetics: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy. Radich:Novartis: Consultancy, Other: laboratory contract; ARIAD: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; TwinStrand: Consultancy; Bristol-MyersSquibb: Consultancy. Strickland:Alexion Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Ambit: Consultancy; Baxalta: Consultancy; Boehringer Ingelheim: Consultancy, Research Funding; CTI Biopharma: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Sunesis Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Astellas Pharma: Research Funding; Celator: Research Funding; Cyclacel: Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding; Karyopharm Therapeutica: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding. Savoie:AbbVie: Consultancy; Lundbeck: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria; Velgene: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Jazz: Consultancy. Sekeres:Millenium/Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Stone:Amgen: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Xenetic Biosciences: Consultancy; Jansen: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; ONO: Consultancy; Juno Therapeutics: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Sunesis Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Agios: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Celator: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy. Erba:Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy; Jannsen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Juno: Research Funding; Celator: Research Funding; Ariad: Consultancy; Agios: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy, DSMB, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Gylcomimetics: Other: DSMB; Sunesis: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Astellas: Research Funding.

Abstract: Patients with multiple myeloma (MM) who are treated with lenalidomide rarely develop a secondary B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (B-ALL). The clonal and biological relationship between these sequential malignancies is not yet clear. We identified 17 patients with MM treated with lenalidomide, who subsequently developed B-ALL. Patient samples were evaluated through sequencing, cytogenetics/fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH), immunohistochemical (IHC) staining, and immunoglobulin heavy chain (IgH) clonality assessment. Samples were assessed for shared mutations and recurrently mutated genes. Through whole exome sequencing and cytogenetics/FISH analysis of 7 paired samples (MM vs matched B-ALL), no mutational overlap between samples was observed. Unique dominant IgH clonotypes between the tumors were observed in 5 paired MM/B-ALL samples. Across all 17 B-ALL samples, 14 (83%) had a TP53 variant detected. Three MM samples with sufficient sequencing depth ( & gt;500×) revealed rare cells (average of 0.6% variant allele frequency, or 1.2% of cells) with the same TP53 variant identified in the subsequent B-ALL sample. A lack of mutational overlap between MM and B-ALL samples shows that B-ALL developed as a second malignancy arising from a founding population of cells that likely represented unrelated clonal hematopoiesis caused by a TP53 mutation. The recurrent variants in TP53 in the B-ALL samples suggest a common path for malignant transformation that may be similar to that of TP53-mutant, treatment-related acute myeloid leukemia. The presence of rare cells containing TP53 variants in bone marrow at the initiation of lenalidomide treatment suggests that cellular populations containing TP53 variants expand in the presence of lenalidomide to increase the likelihood of B-ALL development.

Abstract: Introduction CPX-351 (Vyxeos), a liposomal formulation of cytarabine and daunorubicin encapsulated at a 5:1 molar ratio, has shown enhanced efficacy compared with standard induction in older adults with high-risk AML in phase II clinical trials. Presented here are pre-specified secondary subgroup results from a phase III randomized, open-label study of CPX-351 versus 7+3 (cytarabine plus daunorubicin) in newly diagnosed patients with high-risk features, focusing on efficacy results stratified by age group. Methods Eligible patients were aged 60 to 75 years and had secondary AML, either therapy-related or an antecedent myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS), chronic myelomonocytic leukemia, or AML with World Health Organization-defined MDS-related cytogenetic abnormalities. Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive CPX-351 induction (100 units/m2 [100 mg/m2 cytarabine + 44 mg daunorubicin mg/m2] on days 1, 3, and 5 [first induction only] ) or 7+3 induction (cytarabine 100 mg/m2/day x 7 days plus daunorubicin 60 mg/m2 on days 1, 2, and 3 [first induction] or x 5 days [reinduction/consolidation] plus daunorubicin 60 mg/m2 on days 1 and 2). A dynamic allocation procedure was performed to stratify patients by age group (60-69 or 70-75 years) for each arm of the study. The distribution of overall survival (OS) by treatment arm was estimated using the method of Kaplan-Meier. Efficacy for each age group was reported in terms of median OS in months and percentage of patients with a morphologic complete remission (CR) or CR with incomplete platelet or neutrophil recovery (CRi) according to International Working Group criteria. Results Three hundred and nine patients were enrolled from December 2012 to November 2014 at 39 US and Canadian sites, with 153 patients randomized to the CPX-351 arm and 156 to the 7+3 arm. Among patients aged 60-69 years, there were 96 patients in the CPX-351 arm and 102 in the 7+3 arm; for patients aged 70-75 years, there were 57 and 54 patients in each arm, respectively. Demographic data for these age subgroups were similar between the CPX-351 and 7+3 arms of the study. The CR+CRi rates for patients aged 60-69 years were 50.0% for patients in the CPX-351 arm and 36.3% in the 7+3 arm, with an odds ratio (OR) of 1.76 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00-3.10); for patients aged 70-75 years, the rates of CR+CRi were 43.9% and 27.8%, respectively, with an OR of 2.03 (95% CI, 0.92-4.49). Kaplan-Meier curves for OS by age group are shown in the Figure. Median OS in months for patients aged 60-69 years was 9.63 in the CPX-351 arm and 6.87 in the 7+3 arm, with a hazard ratio of 0.68 (95% CI, 0.49-0.95); for patients aged 70-75 years these were 8.87 for the CPX-351 arm and 5.62 for the 7+3 arm, with a hazard ratio of 0.55 (95% CI, 0.36-0.84). The allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant (HCT) rate in patients aged 60-69 years was 37.5% in the CPX-351 arm and 32.4% in the 7+3 arm, with an OR of 1.25 (95% CI, 0.70-2.25). For patients aged 70-75 years, the allogeneic HCT rates were 28.1% and 11.1%, respectively, with an OR of 3.12 (95% CI, 1.12-8.72). Incidence of grade 3-5 adverse events were virtually equal (92% vs 91%) and were similar in frequency and severity in both arms. The most common grade 3-5 nonhematologic adverse events ( 〉 10% overall) were febrile neutropenia (CPX-351: 68%; 7+3: 71%), pneumonia (CPX-351: 20%; 7+3: 15%), and hypoxia (CPX-351: 13%; 7+3: 15%). Conclusions This subgroup analysis of patients aged 60-69 and 70-75 years with untreated secondary AML demonstrated that CPX-351 treatment had substantially greater median OS and higher CR+CRi rates than standard 7+3 (cytarabine and daunorubicin) in both age groups. In addition, somewhat more patients in each age group in the CPX-351 arm received allogeneic HCT compared with the 7+3 arm, with the greatest difference in the older age group. Future studies with larger patient groups are warranted. Support: Celator Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a subsidiary of Jazz Pharmaceuticals plc. Disclosures Medeiros: Agios: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy; ARIAD: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Other: Travel, Accomodations, Expenses, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy; Roche/Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celator: Other: Travel, Accomodations, Expenses, Research Funding; MEI Pharma: Research Funding; Merck/Schering Plough: Research Funding. Lancet:Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Quantum First: Consultancy; Kalo Bios: Consultancy; Pfizer: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; ERYtech: Consultancy; Biopath Holdings: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Boehringer-Ingelheim: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Baxalta: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy. Cortes:ARIAD: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squib: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Teva: Research Funding. Ritchie:Celgene: Consultancy, Other: Travel, Accomodations, Expenses, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Ariad: Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Astellas Pharma: Research Funding; Bristol-Meyers Squibb: Research Funding; NS Pharma: Research Funding. Stuart:Astellas: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Agios: Research Funding; Sunesis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, Accomodations, Expenses, Research Funding; Bayer: Research Funding; Celator: Research Funding. Strickland:Sunesis Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Research Funding; Boehringer Ingelheim: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celator: Research Funding; Astellas Pharma: Research Funding; Alexion Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Sanofi: Research Funding; CTI Biopharma: Consultancy; Karyopharm Therapeutica: Research Funding; Baxalta: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Ambit: Consultancy; Abbvie: Research Funding; Cyclacel: Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding. Hogge:Sanofi: Consultancy; Roche: Other: Travel, Accomodations, Expenses. Stone:ONO: Consultancy; Xenetic Biosciences: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Agios: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Abbvie: 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; Novartis: Consultancy; Juno Therapeutics: Consultancy; Celator: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy; Sunesis Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Jansen: Consultancy. Kolitz:Gliead Sciences: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy. Schiller:Celator: Research Funding. Ryan:AbbVie: Equity Ownership; U of Rochester: Patents & Royalties. Chiarella:Celator Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a subsidiary of Jazz Pharmaceuticals plc.: Employment, Equity Ownership. Louie:Celator Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a subsidiary of Jazz Pharmaceuticals plc.: Employment, Equity Ownership. Uy:Glycomimetics: Consultancy; Boehringer Ingelheim: Consultancy.