Dual targeting of CD19 and CD22 with Bicistronic CAR-T cells in Patients with Relapsed/Refractory Large B Cell Lymphoma

Relapse following CD19-directed chimeric antigen receptor T-cells (CAR-T) for relapsed/refractory large B-cell lymphoma (r/r LBCL) is commonly ascribed to antigen loss or CAR-T exhaustion. Multi-antigen targeting and PD-1 blockade are rational approaches to prevent relapse. Here, we test CD19/22 dual-targeting CAR-T (AUTO3) plus pembrolizumab in r/r LBCL as inpatient or outpatient therapy (NCT03289455, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03289455). Endpoints include toxicity (primary) and response rates (secondary). AUTO3 was manufactured for 62 patients using autologous leukapheresis, modified with a bicistronic transgene. 52 patients received AUTO3 (7/52,50x106; 45/52,150-450x106) and 48/52 received pembrolizumab. Median age was 59 years (range,27-83) and 46/52 had stage III/IV disease. Median follow-up was 21.6 months (range,15.1-51.3) at last data cut (Feb 28, 2022). AUTO3 was safe: grade 1-2 and grade 3 CRS affected 18/52 (34.6%) and 1/52 (1.9%) patients, neurotoxicity arose in 4 patients (2/4, grade 3-4), HLH affected 2 patients, and no Pembrolizumab-associated autoimmune sequalae were observed. On this basis, outpatient administration was tested in 20 patients, saving a median of 14 hospital days/patient. AUTO3 was effective: overall response rates were 66% (48.9%, CR; 17%, PR). For patients with CR, median DOR was not reached, with 54.4% (CI: 32.8, 71.7) projected to remain progression-free beyond 12 months after onset of remission. DOR for all responding patients was 8.3 months (95% CI: 3.0, NE) with 42.6% projected to remain progression-free beyond 12 months after onset of remission. Overall, AUTO3 +/- pembrolizumab for r/r LBCL was safe, lending itself to outpatient administration, and delivered durable remissions in 54.4% of complete responders, associated with robust CAR-T expansion. Neither dual-targeting CAR-T nor pembrolizumab prevented relapse in a significant proportion of patients, and future developments include next-generation-AUTO3, engineered for superior expansion/persistence in vivo, and selection of CAR binders active at low antigen densities

Quantitative Change in Metabolic Tumor Volume May Assist in Distinguishing between Pseudoprogressors and Responders in Patients with Relapsed/Refractory Classical Hodgkin Lymphoma Treated with PD-1 Blockade

Abstract Background: In untreated Hodgkin lymphoma (HL), metabolic tumor volume (MTV) significantly declined following pembrolizumab monotherapy, regardless of baseline MTV, and may serve as a better measure of treatment response to PD-1 blockade than the Lugano Classification (Allen, et al. Blood 2021). Furthermore, standard PET evaluation can fail to differentiate between malignancy, pseudoprogression and physiological background in patients (pts) receiving PD-1 blockade. The predictive power and prognostic significance of MTV in patients with relapsed or refractory (RR) HL receiving PD-1 blockade is unknown. We sought to examine the role of MTV in HL pts treated with PD-1 blockade. Methods: We identified 30 pts who received pembrolizumab or nivolumab-based therapy off-study for RR HL between July 2015 and May 2021. In the PET/CT analysis, all lesions were visually identified, and all measurable lesions were selected for the analysis. Responses were assessed by Lugano Classification. Indeterminant response (IR) was defined as evidence of progression on PET without clinical deterioration as per the Lyric Criteria. MTV was obtained by summing the metabolic volumes of all measurable lesions, using the 41% SUVmax threshold to measure each lesion MTV using Beth Israel plugin. MTV was evaluated at baseline (MTV0) and at first reassessment (MTV1) after initiation of PD-1 blockade. Δ (delta) MTV was calculated as % change in MTV from MTV0 to MTV1. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was performed for ΔMTV and best overall response rate (BOR) to determine the optimal cut-off value. Overall survival (OS) was measured from PD-1 blockade initiation to death or last follow-up. We examined the association between MTV and clinical factors, PET-1 response, and overall survival using Cox proportional hazards model and Fisher exact test, respectively. Results: 25 patients had complete clinical data and PET/CT analysis (Table 1). The median age at first relapse was 39 years (range: 18-81); 64% were male. 6 pts previously received PD-1 blockade on clinical trials and discontinued treatment due to study completion or toxicity. The median time between PET0 and PET1 was 3.4 months (range 2.0-7.3). Median MTV0 and MTV1 values were 39.8 ml and 17.1 ml, respectively. With a median follow up from initiation of PD-1 blockade among survivors of 38.7 months, 5 pts (19%) died. The median OS of the entire cohort was not reached (95%CI: 76.4-NR) (Figure 1). The best response to PD-1 blockade included 15 (60%) with complete metabolic response (CMR), 5 (20%) with partial metabolic response (PMR), and 5 (20%) with progression of disease (POD). Median ΔMTV was -70% (range -100 to +909%). MTV0 was not predictive of OS, PET1 response, or BOR. However, ΔMTV predicted for PET1 response (p=0.004) and BOR (p=0.004). 18 (72%) pts had a reduction in ΔMTV (range: -100, -22), while 7 (28%) pts had an increase in ΔMTV (range: 33-909). The optimal ΔMTV threshold for prediction of BOR was 120% (Figure 1). ΔMTV <120% was associated with improved OS with a median OS not reached (95% CI: NA-NA) compared to 61.7 Mo (95% CI: 9.4-NR) (Log-rank p=0.05) (Figure 2). Among pts with IR on PET-1, ΔMTV <120% appeared to distinguish eventual responders from those with POD. Of 4 pts with IR who eventually achieved response at later time points, 3 had ΔMTV below the 120% threshold. Conversely, of 4 pts with IR with eventual POD at their subsequent evaluation, all 4 had ΔMTV above the 120% threshold. Conclusions: Quantitative change in MTV from baseline to first reassessment may aid in predicting treatment response and long-term outcomes in patients with RR HL receiving PD-1 blockade, particularly those initially characterized as achieving indeterminate response. Further prospective clinical trials are needed to validate the role of ΔMTV in predicting response and long-term outcomes for RR HL pts receiving PD-1 blockade. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Moskowitz: Merck & Co., Inc.: Research Funding. Matasar: Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bayer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Genentech, Inc.: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center: Current Employment; Juno Therapeutics: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Research Funding; Rocket Medical: Consultancy, Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; GlaxoSmithKline: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; ImmunoVaccine Technologies: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Merck Sharp & Dohme: Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company; Teva: Consultancy; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; IGM Biosciences: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria. Zelenetz: Amgen: Honoraria; MorphoSys: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; MEI Pharma: Honoraria, Research Funding; Beigene: Honoraria, Other, Research Funding; Gilead: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria; SecuraBio: Honoraria; Genentech/Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding; Abbvie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Verastem: Honoraria; BMS/Celgene/JUNO: Honoraria, Other; MethylGene: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; NCCN: Other; LFR: Other; Gilead: Honoraria. Joffe: AstraZeneca. Epizyme: Consultancy. von Keudell: Merck: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Honoraria. Batlevi: Medscape: Honoraria; Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center: Current Employment; Moderna: Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company; Pfizer: Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; Regeneron: Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; Kite Pharma: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; TouchIME: Honoraria; BMS: Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company; Bayer: Research Funding; Viatris: Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Juno/Celgene: Consultancy; Life Sciences: Consultancy; Dava Oncology: Honoraria; GLG Pharma: Consultancy; Xynomic: Research Funding; Roche/Genentech: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Epizyme: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Autolus: Research Funding. Caron: Astra-Zeneca: Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company; bristol myers: Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company; GlaxoSmithKlein: Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company; Johnson and Johnson: Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company; Novartis: Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company; pfizer: Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company; Teva: Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company. Noy: Rafael Parhma: Research Funding; Morphosys: Consultancy; Medscape: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Targeted Oncology: Consultancy; Epizyme: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria. Salles: Velosbio: Consultancy; Morphosys: Consultancy, Honoraria; Regeneron: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy; Epizyme: Consultancy, Honoraria; Allogene: Consultancy; Rapt: Consultancy; Genentech/Roche: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Miltneiy: Consultancy; Loxo: Consultancy; Kite/Gilead: Consultancy; Genmab: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy; Ipsen: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Debiopharm: Consultancy; BMS/Celgene: Consultancy; Beigene: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bayer: Honoraria. Moskowitz: ADC Therapeutics: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy; Incyte: Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; Beigene: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Miragen: Research Funding; Janpix Ltd.: Consultancy; Imbrium Therapeutics L.P./Purdue: Consultancy

Early data from a phase II trial investigating the combination of pembrolizumab (PEM) and entinostat (ENT) in relapsed and refractory (R/R) Hodgkin lymphoma (HL)

Abstract only e20018 Background: Histone deacetylase (HDAC) inhibitors have single agent activity in various types of lymphoma. They have been shown to restore antigen-specific immune recognition in cancer cells and to downregulate PD-1 expression in circulating T lymphocytes. In preclinical studies, the combination of HDAC inhibitors and anti-PD-1 antibodies acts synergistically against various tumor models in mice. Accordingly, we investigated the safety and efficacy of the novel combination of the HDAC inhibitor ENT and the PD-1-blocking antibody PEM in patients with R/R HL. Methods: Patients with R/R HL received ENT 5-7 mg orally once weekly and PEM 200 mg intravenously once every three weeks. The primary objective is overall response rate (ORR) and 12-month progression-free survival (PFS). Multiplexed serum cytokine analysis of 20 pro-inflammatory cytokines and chemokines was performed on sera from peripheral blood samples collected at baseline and at 21 days on treatment. Results: At data cutoff on 2/5/20, 14 patients with HL have been enrolled. Out of 13 evaluable patients, 12 responded (92% ORR), including 3 who progressed on prior anti-PD-1 therapy. With a median duration of follow-up of 176 days (21-632), 9 patients are currently receiving treatment on study, 2 discontinued due to toxicity, 1 for progression, and 2 for consolidation with transplant or radiation. After 21 days on treatment, there was a decrease in median serum levels of eotaxin (-39%, p = 0.002), eotaxin-3 (-56%, p = 0.04), MDC (-78%, p = 0.025), MIP1a (-60%, p = 0.025), and TARC (-98%, p < 0.001) and a 3-fold increase in median levels of IFNγ (p = 0.032). There was an association between extent of tumor reduction and greater decrease in the cytokines eotaxin-3 (-62%, p = 0.064), MDC (-90%, p = 0.064), and MIP1a (-85%, p = 0.064), which trended towards statistical significance. Out of 22 total patients enrolled in this study (including 8 patients with follicular lymphoma), 62% had grade ≥3 adverse events (AE), which were predominantly hematologic, including neutropenia (48%), thrombocytopenia (19%), and anemia (10%). Immune-related AEs included 3 cases of hypothyroidism, 2 cases of hepatitis and 1 case of pneumonitis. Four patients who experienced serious AEs due to pericarditis (n = 2), hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis, and bullous dermatitis were taken off study. Conclusions: Early results from this ongoing phase II clinical trial suggest that the combination of PEM and ENT is safe with encouraging responses in HL. Clinical trial information: NCT03179930

Impact of interim PET on Hodgkin lymphoma treatment outcome and survival in clinical practice

Abstract only e20017 Background: FDG avidity above liver on interim PET (PET2) during frontline ABVD is considered a marker of impending treatment failure and an indication to switch to an intensified regimen. However, in clinical practice the utility of PET2 for treatment decisions is less clear. We describe outcomes of patients with positive PET2 who continued treatment with ABVD in the clinical setting. Methods: A retrospective study of all patients with newly diagnosed advanced-stage Hodgkin lymphoma treated with frontline ABVD at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center between 2008-2017. Eligibility criteria were set to correspond with the RATHL inclusion criteria (stage IIB - IV, or IIA bulky or ≥ 3 involved sites). We identified all PET2 reports indicating suspected residual uptake. All positive PET2 images were then reviewed by a single study radiologist. To increase reproducibility and avoid selection of borderline cases, we defined as PET2 positive only those cases with a lesion-to-liver (mean) SUV ratio ≥ 1.3. We also used a recently published stringent criterion of lesion-to-liver (max) ratio ≥ 1.4 (mPET2+). Progression-free and overall survival (PFS, OS) were calculated from the date of initial treatment until progression or death of any cause. Consolidative radiation was not considered a PFS event, and all progressions were verified by biopsy. Results: We identified 227 patients fitting RATHL inclusion criteria treated with ABVD. Median age was 34, with 25% (58) ≥ 45 years, 12% (26) had an IPS ≥ 4; 28% (64) stage II (5% II-X) and 38% (87) with extranodal involvement. 57 (25%) patients had a PET2 report indicating suspected residual lymphoma (PET2+), however, only 32 (14%) met the more stringent mPET2+ criterion. Most patients with PET2+ continued ABVD (84%, 48), and 9 switched to escBEACOPP (this subset of patients had substantially worse disease and are not the focus of this analysis). 21 (9%) patients received consolidative radiation. With a median follow-up of 47 months (42-54m), PET2+ patients who continued ABVD had a 3yPFS of 70% (58-85%, n = 48); mPET+ had a 3yPFS of 71% (55-92%, n = 24). Overall survival was excellent regardless of PET2 status (5yOS 97%). Conclusions: The outcome of PET2+ patients in this analysis was better than previously reported and the continuation of ABVD was appropriate for most patients. Use of a confirmatory biopsy is important for identifying true progressions. Patients with PET2+ had an excellent OS. Evaluation of the superiority of alternative regimens in PET2+ patients requires an ABVD comparator arm

Outcomes of Patients with Positive Interim Positron Emission Tomography (PET) Continuing ABVD in the Clinical Setting

Recent prospective clinical trial data suggest that patients with Hodgkin's lymphoma who continue treatment with ABVD, despite failing to attain a complete metabolic response on interim PET (PET2+), may fare better than previously published. We describe the outcomes of PET2+ patients who continued ABVD and compare the performance of a quantitative measure based on the lesion-to-liver SUV ratio (LLS qPET2+) to that of the subjective Deauville criteria (dvPET2+). We analyzed all patients with newly diagnosed advanced-stage Hodgkin lymphoma treated with frontline ABVD at the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center between 2008 and 2017. Eligibility was set to correspond with the RATHL inclusion criteria. Images were reviewed by two nuclear medicine physicians and discordant cases were resolved with a third expert in consensus. qPET2+ was defined as LLS ≥ 1.3. We identified 227 patients of whom 25% (57) were qPET2+, but only 14% (31) were dvPET2+. Forty-eight patients (84%) continued ABVD with a 3-year PFS of 70% for qPET2+ and 64% for dvPET2+. In conclusion, interim PET interpretation in clinical practice may be associated with a higher rate of scans deemed positive. Irrespective of the criteria for PET2 positivity, a subset of patients may continue ABVD without a dismal outcome

Frontline Sequential Immunochemotherapy Plus Lenalidomide for Mantle Cell Lymphoma Incorporating MRD Evaluation: Phase II, Investigator-Initiated, Single-Center Study

Background: Fit patients (pts) with mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) are commonly treated with immunochemotherapy and consolidative high-dose therapy + stem cell rescue (cHDT/SCR), yet this approach has not demonstrated an overall survival (OS) benefit in a randomized trial. Outcomes for pts with high-risk MCL (TP53 aberrancy, high proliferation index, blastic histology) after cHDT/SCR are poor, and not all pts with MCL are eligible for this approach. Methods: We conducted a phase II study of sequential immunochemotherapy incorporating lenalidomide enriching for pts with high-risk disease features (defined as blastoid/pleomorphic histology and/or Ki67 >=30%). The three phases of tx were: 1) lenalidomide (15 mg daily, days 1-14) plus R-CHOP for four 21-day cycles; 2) R-HiDAC for 2 cycles (initially age-based cytarabine 1-3 g/m2; 3 g/m2 dose removed after 16 pts due to hematologic toxicity); and 3) rituximab monthly plus lenalidomide (15 mg daily) for 6 months (mos). Eligibility requirements were untreated stage II-IV MCL, KPS ≥70%, and adequate organ function; we sought ≥2/3 high-risk pts. We performed MRD testing on peripheral blood (cellular DNA) using the clonoSEQ Assay (Adaptive Biotechnologies). We obtained PET/CT and MRD testing after each phase of treatment and also MRD evaluation at 6 mos post-rituximab + lenalidomide maintenance. The primary endpoint was the rate of 3-yr progression-free survival (PFS), (acceptable PFS ≥75%, unacceptable ≤60%, based on desired proportion of high-risk pts). Results: Among 49 pts enrolled, 47 were evaluable for PFS (1 had progressive disease (PD) and 1 had toxicity during len-R-CHOP). Characteristics for 47 evaluable pts are shown in Table 1: 64% were high-risk and 18% had TP53 mutation. 45 completed maintenance (1 had PD during R-HiDAC and 1 withdrew to pursue cHDT/SCR) and 43 achieved complete response (CR), 1 stable disease, and 1 PD at end of treatment (EoT), yielding overall response rate of 91%, all CR (Figure 1). With a median follow-up of 2.8 yrs among survivors, the 3-yr PFS was 64% (95 CI 50, 82) and OS 85% (95 CI 74, 99). Three-yr PFS differed by TP53 status (14% mut vs. 85% wt, P < 0.0001, Table 2). Of 4 pts with PD, 3 had TP53 mutation and 1 had an unknown mutation status. Among TP53 wt pts, there was no significant difference in outcomes by risk (Table 2). MRD results were not obtained in 4 pts. Among 45 pts with MRD results, tumor clonal characterization for MRD evaluation was successful in 87% (39/45). MRD results are shown in Figure 2. Examining the initial phase of treatment (len-R-CHOP and R-HiDAC), among 37 pts with results at 1x10-5 sensitivity (1E5) following len-RCHOP, a substantial proportion (32%, 12/37 pts) remained MRD+ and 11 of 12 MRD+ pts post len-RCHOP converted to MRD- following R-HiDAC. At 1x10-6 sensitivity (1E6) following R-HiDAC, 5/20 pts were MRD+, and among responding pts, shorter median PFS was observed in MRD+ versus MRD- pts (23.1 mos vs. NR, P = 0.03). Examining the final phase of treatment (rituximab + lenalidomide maintenance) and observation period, among 37 pts with MRD results at 1E5 at EoT, 4 were MRD+, 2 of which were simultaneous (within 2 weeks of testing) with relapse; the remaining two MRD+ pts had median PFS 4.9 mos versus 37.4 mos for the 32 non-relapsed MRD- pts (P < 0.001). At 1E6, 6 pts who were MRD- at EoT converted to MRD+ after 6 mos of observation. MRD status at 1E6 at 6-mos post-EOT correlated with PFS: among 20 non-relapsed pts (6 MRD+, 14 MRD-), median PFS was 30.8 mos for MRD- versus 13.2 mos for MRD+ (P = 0.02). Conclusions: In a novel approach of sequential immunochemotherapy plus lenalidomide enrolling majority high-risk pts, outcomes for TP53-mutant pts were poor and we did not reach our primary endpoint of 3-yr PFS ≥75%. Among TP53-wt pts, this treatment program was highly effective even among pts with elevated Ki-67 (>=30%) and was associated with a high response rate, a 3-yr rate of PFS of 85%, and a high rate of MRD- at EoT. A substantial proportion of pts converted to MRD- after receipt of R-HiDAC, highlighting the efficacy of cytarabine in MCL. There was a high rate of MRD- after induction chemoimmunotherapy (Len-R-CHOP + R-HiDAC) at 1E5 (97%) and at 1E6 (80%), and the latter predicted remission duration. Several pts converted from MRD- to MRD+ at 6-mos post-EOT and eventually relapsed, suggesting that a more prolonged period of maintenance may be beneficial. Finally, MRD at 1E6 at 6 mos following EoT predicted response duration. Disclosures Batlevi: Life Sci, GLG, Juno/Celgene, Seattle Genetics, Kite: Consultancy; Janssen, Novartis, Epizyme, Xynomics, Bayer, Autolus, Roche/Genentech: Research Funding. Dogan:National Cancer Institute: Research Funding; EUSA Pharma: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Corvus Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Physicians Education Resource: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy. Drullinsky:Novartis: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding. Gerecitano:Janssen: Current Employment. Hamlin:Portola Pharmaceutics: Consultancy; J&J Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Juno Therapeutics: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Incyte: Research Funding; Molecular Templates: Research Funding; Portola: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy. Ho:Invivoscribe, Inc.: Honoraria. Jacob:Adaptive Biotechnologies: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Matasar:Rocket Medical: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; GlaxoSmithKline: Honoraria, Research Funding; IGM Biosciences: Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Research Funding; Immunovaccine Technologies: Honoraria, Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Juno Therapeutics: Consultancy; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Teva: Consultancy; Genentech, Inc.: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Moskowitz:Incyte: Research Funding; Imbrium Therapeutics, L.P.: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Miragen Therapeutics: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding. Mullins:Adaptive Biotechnologies: Current Employment, Other: shareholder. Straus:Elsevier: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: CME writer; NY Lymphoma Rounds: Consultancy; Imedex, Inc.: Speakers Bureau; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Targeted Oncology: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; ASH: Other: Conference in December 2019 on HL to other physicians during ASH; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; OncLive: Speakers Bureau; Takeda Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Younes:BioPath: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Current Employment; BMS: Consultancy; Curis: Consultancy; Epizyme: Consultancy; HCM: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy. Zelenetz:Amgen: Consultancy; Celgene: Research Funding; Genentech/Roche: Consultancy; Sandoz: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Adaptive Biotechnology: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; BeiGene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Research Funding; MorphoSys: Research Funding; MEI Pharma: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding. Kumar:Celgene: Honoraria, Other: Honoraria for Advisory Board; Astra Zeneca: Honoraria, Other: Honoraria for Advisory Board; Celgene: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnologies,: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Kite Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Other: Honoraria for Advisory Board