Kooperativer Bibliotheksverbund

In: Haematologica, Ferrata Storti Foundation (Haematologica), Vol. 106, No. 7 ( 2021-02-04), p. 1932-1942

Abstract: Central nervous system (CNS) involvement in Burkitt lymphoma (BL) poses a major therapeutic challenge, and the relative ability of contemporary regimens to treat CNS involvement remains uncertain. We described prognostic significance of CNS involvement and incidence of CNS recurrence/progression after contemporary immunochemotherapy using real-world clinicopathologic data on adults with BL diagnosed between 2009 and 2018 across 30 US institutions. We examined associations between baseline CNS involvement, patient characteristics, complete response (CR) rates, and survival. We also examined risk factors for CNS recurrence. Nineteen percent (120/641) of patients (age 18-88 years) had CNS involvement. It was independently associated with HIV infection, poor performance status, involvement of ≥2 extranodal sites, or bone marrow involvement. First-line regimen selection was unaffected by CNS involvement (P=0.93). Patients with CNS disease had significantly lower rates of CR (59% versus 77% without; P 〈 0.001), worse 3-year progression-free survival (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.53, 95% confidence interval [CI] , 1.14-2.06, P=0.004) and overall survival (aHR, 1.62, 95%CI, 1.18-2.22, P=0.003). The 3-year cumulative incidence of CNS recurrence was 6% (95%CI, 4-8%). It was significantly lower among patients receiving other regimens (CODOX-M/IVAC, 4%, or hyperCVAD/MA, 3%) compared with DA-EPOCH-R (13%; adjusted sub-HR, 4.38, 95%CI, 2.16-8.87, P 〈 0.001). Baseline CNS involvement in BL is relatively common and portends inferior prognosis independent of first-line regimen selection. In real-world practice, regimens with highly CNS-penetrant intravenous systemic agents were associated with a lower risk of CNS recurrence. This finding may be influenced by observed suboptimal adherence to the strict CNS staging and intrathecal therapy procedures incorporated in DA-EPOCH-R.

Type of Medium: Online Resource

ISSN: 1592-8721 , 0390-6078

URL: Article

DOI: 10.3324/haematol.2020.270876

Language: Unknown

Publisher: Ferrata Storti Foundation (Haematologica)

Publication Date: 2021

detail.hit.zdb_id: 2186022-1

detail.hit.zdb_id: 2030158-3

detail.hit.zdb_id: 2805244-4

In: Blood Advances, American Society of Hematology, Vol. 5, No. 14 ( 2021-07-27), p. 2852-2862

Abstract: Data addressing prognostication in patients with HIV related Burkitt lymphoma (HIV-BL) currently treated remain scarce. We present an international analysis of 249 (United States: 140; United Kingdom: 109) patients with HIV-BL treated from 2008 to 2019 aiming to identify prognostic factors and outcomes. With a median follow up of 4.5 years, the 3-year progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were 61% (95% confidence interval [CI] 55% to 67%) and 66% (95%CI 59% to 71%), respectively, with similar results in both countries. Patients with baseline central nervous system (CNS) involvement had shorter 3-year PFS (36%) compared to patients without CNS involvement (69%; P & lt; .001) independent of frontline treatment. The incidence of CNS recurrence at 3 years across all treatments was 11% with a higher incidence observed after dose-adjusted infusional etoposide, doxorubicin, vincristine, prednisone, cyclophosphamide (DA-EPOCH) (subdistribution hazard ratio: 2.52; P = .03 vs other regimens) without difference by CD4 count 100/mm3. In multivariate models, factors independently associated with inferior PFS were Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status 2-4 (hazard ratio [HR] 1.87; P = .007), baseline CNS involvement (HR 1.70; P = .023), lactate dehydrogenase & gt;5 upper limit of normal (HR 2.09; P & lt; .001); and & gt;1 extranodal sites (HR 1.58; P = .043). The same variables were significant in multivariate models for OS. Adjusting for these prognostic factors, treatment with cyclophosphamide, vincristine, doxorubicin, and high-dose methotrexate, ifosfamide, etoposide, and high-dose cytarabine (CODOX-M/IVAC) was associated with longer PFS (adjusted HR [aHR] 0.45; P = .005) and OS (aHR 0.44; P = .007). Remarkably, HIV features no longer influence prognosis in contemporaneously treated HIV-BL.

Type of Medium: Online Resource

ISSN: 2473-9529 , 2473-9537

URL: Article

DOI: 10.1182/bloodadvances.2021004458

Language: English

Publisher: American Society of Hematology

Publication Date: 2021

detail.hit.zdb_id: 2876449-3

In: Blood, American Society of Hematology, Vol. 134, No. Supplement_1 ( 2019-11-13), p. 397-397

Abstract: Introduction: Historically, outcomes for BL have improved in adults using dose intensive chemotherapy regimens and early CNS prophylaxis. More recent data using a less intensive regimen, DA-EPOCH, have been reported. We analyzed detailed patient (pt) & disease characteristics and treatment patterns across 26 US CCs over a recent 9 year (yr) period and also determined survival rates & prognostication. Methods: We conducted a large multicenter retrospective study of newly diagnosed (dx) adult BL pts (6/2009 - 6/2018). Dx was established by institutional expert pathology review; all cases were verified for BL based on 2016 WHO criteria (high grade B cell lymphoma, BL like, etc were excluded). Survival rates were estimated by Kaplan-Meier with differences assessed by log rank test. Univariate (UVA) associations were derived via Cox model with variables P ≤0.05 entered stepwise into a multivariate (MVA) model. Using significant factors from the MVA, a prognostic survival model was constructed. Results: Among N=557 verified BL cases, clinical features included: median age 47 yrs (17-88 yrs; 24% ≥60 yrs); male 76%; HIV+ 22%; ECOG PS 0/1 76%; B symptoms 51%; elevated LDH 78% (3, 5, & 10x elevation: 44%, 29% & 15%, respectively); hemoglobin & lt;10.5 gm/dL 32%; albumin & lt;3.5 30%; bone marrow (BM) involved 35%; non-BM extranodal (EN) in 80%; & gt;1 EN 43%; and 76% stage 3-4 disease (10% stage 1). Additionally, 16% and 3% of pts had baseline leptomeningeal (CSF or cranial nerve palsy) or parenchymal CNS involvement, respectively (see Zayac A et al. ASH 2019 for details). For MYC partner, 68% had t(8;14), 4% light chain, 5% negative FISH (otherwise classic BL) and 23% + break apart probe. HIV+ pts had several clinical differences: CSF+ 23% vs 12% P=0.003; CNS 19% vs 8% P & lt;0.001; ECOG PS 2-4 32% vs 21% P=0.002; BM 64% vs 34% P=0.03; and & gt;1 EN 60% vs 38% P & lt;0.001. For all pts, 87% had Tx at an academic CC (13% at community CC). Tx regimens were: CODOX-M/IVAC (Magrath) 31%, HyperCVAD/MA 29%, DA-EPOCH 28%, other 10% (mostly CHOP-based & CALGB Tx) & 1% were never treated. 90% of pts received rituximab as part of Tx (69% inpatient (inpt) & 31% outpatient) & 2% had consolidative autologous SCT. Response among all pts were CR 72%, PR 6%, SD 1%, PD 14%, 7% not evaluable. The treatment related mortality (TRM) rate across all pts was 8.9% (HIV+ vs not: 13% vs 8% P=0.09); most common: sepsis 48%, GI bleed/perforation 14% & respiratory failure 12%. TRM by Tx: hyperCVAD/MA 11.5%, EPOCH 6.4%, Magrath 6.3% & other 18.9%. With 39 month median follow-up, 3 year progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were 65% and 72%, respectively (Fig 1A). Among all pts who experienced disease progression, 90% occurred & lt;12 months from dx (4% after 2 yrs). There were 20 cases (4%) of 2nd cancers seen including 7 secondary MDS/AML (median 26 months) & 6 cases of Hodgkin or other NHL (median 54 months). For prognostication, outcomes were inferior for pts ages ≥40 yrs & LDH & gt;3x normal (Fig 1B/C). Notably, survival rates were not different based on HIV status (Fig 1D) or by the 3 most common Tx regimens (Fig 1E). However, there were important Tx differences based on presence of CNS involvement (see Zayac A et al. ASH 2019). Additionally, use of rituximab was associated with improved PFS & OS (Fig 1F), while outcomes were similar whether rituximab was given inpt vs outpatient (inpt PFS HR 1.25, P=0.19). Furthermore, Tx at an academic CC was associated with improved outcomes, which persisted on MVA (PFS HR 0.54, 95%CI 0.33-0.88 P=0.01; OS HR 0.50, 95%CI 0.29-0.87 P=0.01) & achievement of initial CR was strongly prognostic (Fig 1G). Baseline factors significant on UVA for PFS & OS were: age ≥40 yrs; PS 2-4; LDH & gt;3x; anemia, low albumin; BM involvement; Stage 3-4; CSF+; & & gt;1 EN. On MVA, factors associated with inferior survival were: age ≥40 yrs (PFS HR 1.57, P & lt;0.001; OS HR 1.89, P=0.001); PS 2-4 (PFS HR 1.57, P=0.002; OS HR 2.16, P & lt;0.001); & LDH & gt;3x (PFS HR 2.28, P & lt;0.0001; OS HR 1.96, P & lt;0.0001). Collectively, these factors yielded a BL survival model (Fig 1H/I). Conclusions: Outcomes for adult BL in this contemporary, large, multicenter RW analysis appear inferior to smaller published series. Interestingly, despite increased adverse prognostic factors, survival rates appeared similar in HIV+ pts. In addition, use of rituximab, achievement of initial CR, and Tx at an academic CC were associated with improved survival. Finally, a novel BL-specific survival model identified pts with markedly divergent outcomes. Disclosures Evens: Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Epizyme: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Tesaro: Research Funding; Verastem: Consultancy, Honoraria. Danilov:Janssen: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; MEI: Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Takeda Oncology: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; Curis: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Aptose Biosciences: Research Funding; Verastem Oncology: Consultancy, Other: Travel Reimbursement , Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bayer Oncology: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; Bristol-Meyers Squibb: Research Funding; MEI: Research Funding; Gilead Sciences: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy; Bristol-Meyers Squibb: Research Funding. Reddy:KITE Pharma: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; Genentech: Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy. Farooq:Celgene: Honoraria; Kite Pharma: Research Funding. Khan:Janssen: Other: Educational Content/Symposium; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol Myers: Other: Research Funds; Seattle Genetics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Yazdy:Genentech: Research Funding; Bayer: Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy; Octapharma: Consultancy. Karmali:Gilead/Kite; Juno/Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Astrazeneca: Speakers Bureau; Takeda, BMS: Other: Research Funding to Institution. Martin:Janssen: Consultancy; Teneobio: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Sandoz: Consultancy; I-MAB: Consultancy. Diefenbach:LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Millenium/Takeda: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; MEI: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Denovo: Research Funding. Epperla:Pharmacyclics: Honoraria; Verastem Oncology: Speakers Bureau. Feldman:Eisai: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Cell Medica: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Corvus: Research Funding; Kyowa Hakko Kirin: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Viracta: Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses, Speakers Bureau; AbbVie: Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses, Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Kite Pharma: Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses, Speakers Bureau; Portola Pharma: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding. Lossos:Janssen Scientific: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; NIH: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Naik:Celgene: Other: Advisory board. Kamdar:Celgene: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Speakers Bureau; University of Colorado: Employment; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy. Portell:AbbVie: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kite: Consultancy, Research Funding; Acerta/AstraZeneca: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Xencor: Research Funding; Roche/Genentech: Research Funding; Infinity: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy. Olszewski:Spectrum Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Research Funding. Alderuccio:Agios: Other: Immediate family member; Puma Biotechnology: Other: Immediate family member; Foundation Medicine: Other: Immediate family member; Targeted Oncology: Honoraria; Inovio Pharmaceuticals: Other: Immediate family member; OncLive: Consultancy.

Type of Medium: Online Resource

ISSN: 0006-4971 , 1528-0020

URL: Article

DOI: 10.1182/blood-2019-122971

Language: English

Publisher: American Society of Hematology

Publication Date: 2019

detail.hit.zdb_id: 1468538-3

detail.hit.zdb_id: 80069-7

In: Blood, American Society of Hematology, Vol. 136, No. Supplement 1 ( 2020-11-5), p. 49-50

Abstract: Introduction: There are few data about prognostication and outcomes in patients (pts) with HIV-BL treated in the cART era. Optimal treatment strategies to minimize treatment-related mortality (TRM) remain unclear and current recommendations are based on small studies. We conducted a multicenter international analysis to identify prognostic factors and outcomes in pts with HIV-BL treated in the cART era. Methods: This retrospective analysis included a subcohort from a recent study across 30 US sites (Evens et al. Blood 2020) augmented by data from 5 UK centers treated 2009-2018. Progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were estimated by Kaplan-Meier & differences assessed by log-rank test. Univariate (UVA) associations were derived via Cox model and multivariable (MVA) models were constructed by forward selection of significant variables with P & lt;0.05. Results: 249 (US: 140 & UK: 109) pts with newly diagnosed HIV-BL were included. Clinical features included median age 43 (IQR 35-50 years [yrs]); male sex: 84%; ECOG PS: 2-4: 48%; elevated LDH: 85% ( & gt; 3x upper limit of normal (ULN) 49% & & gt;5xULN 39%); & gt;1 extranodal (EN) site: 60%; any CNS involvement (CNSinv) 25%; and +bone marrow (BM) 46%. MYC rearrangement was reported in 93% of pts with t(8;14) in 49%, break-apart probe in 41% and MYC-light chain in 3%; the rest had classical BL with negative MYC testing (4%) or missing result (3%) (otherwise classical BL). Median CD4 count was 217 (IQR 90-392 cells/µL) with 68% pts having CD4 & gt;100 cells/µL. At BL diagnosis, HIV viral load was detectable in 55%; 39% of pts were on cART. Baseline features were similar between the US & UK cohorts with significant differences only in ECOG PS 2-4 (32% vs 65%; P & lt;0.001) & baseline CNSinv (30% vs 17%, respectively; P=0.02). Tx regimens included: CODOX-M/IVAC (Magrath) 60%, DA-EPOCH 25%, HyperCVAD/MA 13%, & other 1%; most pts (87%) received rituximab (R). Similar regimens were used in pts with baseline CNSinv: Magrath 64%, DA-EPOCH 24% & HyperCVAD 12%. In the US, pts most frequently received DA-EPOCH (42%) followed by Magrath (32%) & HyperCVAD/MA (24%), whereas in the UK, 96% received Magrath. R was more frequently given in the US (94% vs 79%, P & lt;0.001). Similar baseline features were seen in US pts selected for DA-EPOCH as those selected for Magrath or HyperCVAD/MA except for lower median CD4 count (144 vs 260 cells/µL; P=0.04). Overall response to Tx was: CR 70%, PR 9%, PD 14%, not evaluable 7%. TRM was 18% following HyperCVAD/MA, 13% after DA-EPOCH & 7% in patients treated with Magrath. Overall, 33% of pts had a relapse of HIV-BL with 23% systemic only & 10% CNS. With median follow-up of 4.5 yrs, 3-yr PFS & OS were 61% & 66%, respectively, and nearly identical in both countries (Fig A). Pts with CD4 & gt;100 cells/µL had better 3-yr PFS (Fig B) & OS (68% vs 57% P=0.03). We observed significantly worse outcomes in pts with baseline CNSinv (3-yr PFS 36% vs 69%, P & lt;0.001; OS 41% vs 73%, P & lt;0.001; Fig C). Magrath was associated with the highest 3-yr PFS (66%) compared with 63% after HyperCVAD/MA & 51% after DA-EPOCH, but the difference was not significant (P=0.13; Fig D). Pts receiving R had numerically higher PFS, but also not statistically significant (63% vs 53% P=0.16). We observed poor outcomes in pts with baseline CNSinv regardless of frontline Tx (3-yr PFS HyperCVAD/MA 40%, Magrath 39%, DA-EPOCH 32%; P=0.93; Fig E). The incidence of CNS recurrence at 3 yr across all Tx was 11%. Higher incidence was observed with DA-EPOCH (P=0.032 vs other regimens; Fig F) with no difference according to CD4 count. Variables associated with PFS & OS on UVA included: ECOG PS 2-4, & gt;1 EN, +BM, baseline CNSinv, LDH & gt;ULN, CD4 & lt;100 cells/µL. On MVA, the variables independently associated with inferior PFS were ECOG PS 2-4 (HR 1.87 P=0.007); baseline CNSinv (HR 1.70, P=0.023); LDH & gt;5xULN (HR 2.09, P & lt;0.001); and & gt;1 EN sites (HR 1.58 P=0.043). The same variables were significant on MVA for OS. Adjusting for all of the prognostic variables, Tx with Magrath was associated with longer PFS (adjusted HR, 0.45, P=0.005). Conclusions: These data represent the largest analysis of HIV-BL to date. There were favorable tolerance and outcomes with intensive R-containing regimens with Magrath being associated with lower TRM and the highest PFS. In addition, prognostic factors for pt outcomes were associated with lymphoma characteristics rather than with HIV-related features. Pts with baseline CNSinv represent a high-risk group with unmet therapeutic needs. Disclosures Alderuccio: Oncinfo: Honoraria; Puma Biotechnology: Other: Family member; ADC Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; OncLive: Honoraria; Inovio Pharmaceuticals: Other: Family member; Foundation Medicine: Other: Family member; Forma Therapeutics: Other: Family member; Agios Pharmaceuticals: Other: Family member. Olszewski:Spectrum Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Research Funding; Genentech, Inc.: Research Funding. Evens:Epizyme: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Mylteni: Consultancy, Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; MorphoSys: Consultancy, Honoraria; Research To Practice: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria. Collins:Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; MSD: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Taekda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel, accommodations, expenses, Speakers Bureau; BeiGene: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel, accommodations, expenses , Speakers Bureau; Celleron: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria. Danilov:Astra Zeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding; Verastem Oncology: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda Oncology: Research Funding; Gilead Sciences: Research Funding; Bayer Oncology: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; Nurix: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Aptose Biosciences: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Rigel Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy. Jagadeesh:Seattle Genetics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Debiopharm Group: Research Funding; MEI Pharma: Research Funding; Verastem: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Regeneron: Research Funding. Reddy:Genentech: Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; KITE Pharma: Consultancy. Farooq:Kite, a Gilead Company: Honoraria. Bond:Seattle Genetics: Honoraria. Khan:Celgene: Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Yazdy:Bayer: Honoraria; Genentech: Research Funding; Octapharma: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy. Karmali:Karyopharm: Honoraria; Takeda: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Speakers Bureau; BeiGene: Speakers Bureau; BMS/Celgene/Juno: Honoraria, Other, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Gilead/Kite: Honoraria, Other, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Martin:Janssen: Consultancy; Regeneron: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; Sandoz: Consultancy; I-MAB: Consultancy; Beigene: Consultancy; Cellectar: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy; Kite: Consultancy; Morphosys: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Teneobio: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Research Funding. Diefenbach:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Denovo: Research Funding; Genentech, Inc.: Consultancy, Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; MEI: Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Millenium/Takeda: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding. Klein:Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Haverkos:Viracta THerapeutics: Consultancy. Epperla:Verastem Oncology: Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria. Caimi:Amgen: Other: Advisory Board; Bayer: Other: Advisory Board; Kite Pharma: Other: Advisory Board; ADC Therapeutics: Other: Advisory Board, Research Funding; Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Verastem: Other: Advisory Board. Kamdar:Roche: Research Funding. Feldman:Eisai: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Kyowa Kirin: Consultancy, Research Funding; Portola: Research Funding; Janssen: Speakers Bureau; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Trillium: Research Funding; Cell Medica: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Other, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Honoraria; Bayer: Consultancy, Honoraria; Viracta: Research Funding; Rhizen: Research Funding; Corvus: Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Kite: Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses; Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Smith:AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Millenium/Takeda: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Beigene: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Ayala: Research Funding; Bayer: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Research Funding; Acerta Pharma BV: Research Funding; Bristol Meyers Squibb: Research Funding; Portola: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Ignyta: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; De Novo Biopharma: Research Funding. Portell:Amgen: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; AbbVie: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Xencor: Research Funding; Kite: Consultancy, Research Funding; Acerta/AstraZeneca: Research Funding; Infinity: Research Funding; Roche/Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding. Naik:Celgene: Other: advisory board; Sanofi: Other: advisory board. Lossos:Janssen Biotech: Honoraria; Verastem: Consultancy, Honoraria; Stanford University: Patents & Royalties; NCI: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Other; Janssen Scientific: Consultancy, Other. Cwynarski:Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel Support, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel Support; Roche: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel Support, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Atara: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; KITE: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel Support, Speakers Bureau.

Type of Medium: Online Resource

ISSN: 0006-4971 , 1528-0020

URL: Article

DOI: 10.1182/blood-2020-136989

Language: English

Publisher: American Society of Hematology

Publication Date: 2020

detail.hit.zdb_id: 1468538-3

detail.hit.zdb_id: 80069-7

In: Blood Advances, American Society of Hematology, Vol. 4, No. 2 ( 2020-01-28), p. 253-262

Abstract: There is a paucity of data regarding outcomes and response to standard therapy in patients with limited-stage (LS) agressive B-cell lymphoma (LS-ABCL) who harbor MYC rearrangement (MYC-R) with or without BCL2 and/or BCL6 rearrangements. We conducted a multicenter retrospective study of MYC-R LS-ABCL patients who received either rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CHOP), or more intensive immunochemotherapy (IIC) plus or minus consolidative involved-field radiation therapy (IFRT). One hundred four patients from 15 academic centers were included. Forty four patients (42%) received R-CHOP, of whom 52% had IFRT. Sixty patients (58%) received IIC, of whom 40% had IFRT. Overall response rate was 91% (84% complete response [CR]; 7% partial response). Patients with double-hit lymphoma (DHL; n = 40) had a lower CR rate compared with patients with MYC-R only (75% vs 98%; P = .003). CR rate was higher in the IFRT vs no-IFRT group (98% vs 72%; P & lt; .001). Median follow-up was 3.2 years; 2-year progression-free survival (PFS) and overal survival (OS) were 78% and 86% for the entire cohort, and 74% and 81% for the DHL patients, respectively. PFS and OS were similar across treatment groups (IFRT vs no IFRT, R-CHOP vs IIC) in the entire cohort and in DHL patients. Our data provide a historical benchmark for MYC-R LS-ABCL and LS-DHL patients and show that outcomes for this population may be better than previously recognized. There was no benefit of using IIC over R-CHOP in patients with MYC-R LS-ABCL and LS-DHL.

Type of Medium: Online Resource

ISSN: 2473-9529 , 2473-9537

URL: Article

DOI: 10.1182/bloodadvances.2019000875

Language: English

Publisher: American Society of Hematology

Publication Date: 2020

detail.hit.zdb_id: 2876449-3

In: Blood, American Society of Hematology, Vol. 137, No. 3 ( 2021-01-21), p. 374-386

Abstract: We examined adults with untreated Burkitt lymphoma (BL) from 2009 to 2018 across 30 US cancer centers. Factors associated with progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were evaluated in univariate and multivariate Cox models. Among 641 BL patients, baseline features included the following: median age, 47 years; HIV+, 22%; Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (PS) 2 to 4, 23%; & gt;1 extranodal site, 43%; advanced stage, 78%; and central nervous system (CNS) involvement, 19%. Treatment-related mortality was 10%, with most common causes being sepsis, gastrointestinal bleed/perforation, and respiratory failure. With 45-month median follow-up, 3-year PFS and OS rates were 64% and 70%, respectively, without differences by HIV status. Survival was better for patients who received rituximab vs not (3-year PFS, 67% vs 38%; OS, 72% vs 44%; P & lt; .001) and without difference based on setting of administration (ie, inpatient vs outpatient). Outcomes were also improved at an academic vs community cancer center (3-year PFS, 67% vs 46%, P = .006; OS, 72% vs 53%, P = .01). In multivariate models, age ≥ 40 years (PFS, hazard ratio [HR] = 1.70, P = .001; OS, HR = 2.09, P & lt; .001), ECOG PS 2 to 4 (PFS, HR = 1.60, P & lt; .001; OS, HR = 1.74, P = .003), lactate dehydrogenase & gt; 3× normal (PFS, HR = 1.83, P & lt; .001; OS, HR = 1.63, P = .009), and CNS involvement (PFS, HR = 1.52, P = .017; OS, HR = 1.67, P = .014) predicted inferior survival. Furthermore, survival varied based on number of factors present (0, 1, 2 to 4 factors) yielding 3-year PFS rates of 91%, 73%, and 50%, respectively; and 3-year OS rates of 95%, 77%, and 56%, respectively. Collectively, outcomes for adult BL in this real-world analysis appeared more modest compared with results of clinical trials and smaller series. In addition, clinical prognostic factors at diagnosis identified patients with divergent survival rates.

Type of Medium: Online Resource

ISSN: 0006-4971 , 1528-0020

URL: Article

DOI: 10.1182/blood.2020006926

Language: English

Publisher: American Society of Hematology

Publication Date: 2021

detail.hit.zdb_id: 1468538-3

detail.hit.zdb_id: 80069-7

In: Blood, American Society of Hematology, Vol. 134, No. Supplement_1 ( 2019-11-13), p. 402-402

Abstract: Background: BL is associated with a high risk of primary or secondary CNS involvement, warranting intrathecal (IT) and/or systemic therapy that penetrates the blood-brain barrier (BBB). The lower-intensity DA-EPOCH-R regimen has recently shown high survival rates in BL (Dunleavy, NEJM 2013), but it omits drugs traditionally used for CNS prophylaxis (like high-dose methotrexate [HDMTX]). The objective of this multi-institutional retrospective study was to examine treatments, risk factors, and CNS-related outcomes among patients (pts) with BL. Methods: We collected data from 26 US centers on adult BL pts diagnosed (dx) in 6/2009-6/2018. Using institutional expert pathology review and 2016 WHO criteria, we excluded other high-grade lymphomas (including BL-like/unclassifiable), or cases with inadequate clinicopathologic data. We studied factors associated with baseline CNS involvement (CNSinv) using logistic regression reporting odds ratios (OR). Progression-free (PFS), overall survival (OS), and cumulative incidence function of CNS recurrence (in a competing risk analysis) were examined in Cox or Fine-Gray models reporting hazard (HR) or subhazard ratios (SHR), respectively. All estimates report 95% confidence intervals (in square brackets). Results: Among 557 BL pts (median age, 47 years [yr], 24% women, 23% HIV+), 107 (19%) had CNSinv at dx, including 89 (16%) with leptomeningeal, and 15 (3%) with parenchymal CNS disease. In a multivariable model, factors significantly associated with CNSinv at dx included stage 3/4 (OR, 11.2 [1.47-85.9] ), poor performance status (PS; OR, 2.12 [1.22-3.69]), ≥2 extranodal sites (OR, 3.77 [2.02-7.03] ), or marrow involvement (OR, 2.44 [1.35-4.39]), whereas intestinal involvement conferred low risk of CNSinv (OR, 0.27 [0.11-0.65] ). CNSinv at dx was not significantly associated with use of specific chemotherapy regimens (Fig. A,P=.75) or receipt of IT chemotherapy (91% vs 84%, P=.065). Pts with CNSinv were less likely to achieve a complete response (62% vs 76%, P=.005), had worse 3 yr PFS (47% vs 69%; P & lt;.001, Fig. B) and OS (52% vs 75%; P & lt;.001, Fig. C). However, these associations were not significant when adjusted for other prognostic factors (age ≥40y, poor PS, LDH & gt;3x upper limit of normal [LDH & gt;3x]; see Evens AM et al, ASH 2019 for further details). With median follow up of 3.6 yrs, 33 pts (6%) experienced a CNS recurrence (82% within 1 yr from dx; 79% purely in CNS, and 21% with concurrent systemic BL). The cumulative risk of CNS recurrence was 6% [4-8%] at 3y (Fig. D). Univariate significant predictors of CNS recurrence included baseline CNSinv, HIV+ status, stage 3/4, poor PS, LDH & gt;3x, involvement of ≥2 extranodal sites, marrow, or testis. However, in a multivariate model only baseline CNSinv (SHR, 3.35 [1.53-7.31]) and poor PS (SHR, 2.24 [1.03-4.90] ) retained significance. The 3 yr risk of CNS recurrence varied from 3% for pts with no risk factor, to 10% with one, and 17% with both factors (Fig. E). In addition, the risk of CNS recurrence differed according to chemotherapy regimen, and was significantly higher for pts treated with DA-EPOCH (12% at 3y [8-18%]; Fig. F) compared with CODOX-M/IVAC (4% [2-8%] ) or hyperCVAD/MA (3% [1-6%]; SHR for DA-EPOCH vs. others, 3.50 [1.69-7.22] ). All pts recurring after DA-EPOCH had received IT chemotherapy. Higher risk of CNS recurrence persisted with DA-EPOCH regardless of baseline CNSinv (Pinteraction=.70), poor PS (Pint=.14), or HIV status (Pint=.89). Baseline CNSinv was the strongest factor associated with CNS recurrence after DA-EPOCH (3 yr risk, 30% vs 8%, P & lt;.001). Of 7 pts who received HDMTX with DA-EPOCH (6 with leptomeningeal CNSinv at dx), 3 (43%) experienced CNS recurrence. Median OS among all BL pts with CNS recurrence was 2.8 months [1.9-3.9] (Fig. G). After recurrence, 67% of pts received salvage systemic and 9% IT chemotherapy, 3% radiation, and 21% hospice care. Conclusions: In adult BL, baseline CNSinv and poor PS predicted subsequent CNS recurrence, an outcome that is associated with a dismal prognosis. Furthermore, treatment with DA-EPOCH was associated with a significantly increased risk of CNS recurrence in this real-world analysis. For BL pts with baseline CNSinv treated in routine clinical practice, regimens with highly BBB-penetrant drugs (e.g. CODOX-M/IVAC, hyperCVAD/MA) may be preferred. Studies should delineate ways to mitigate the risk of CNS recurrence with lower-intensity programs. Disclosures Evens: Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Research to Practice: Honoraria; Verastem: Consultancy, Honoraria; Affimed: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Other: DMC; Bayer: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding. Smith:Incyte Corporation: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Portola Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Acerta Pharma BV: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Ignyta (spouse): Research Funding; Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp: Consultancy, Research Funding; Denovo Biopharma: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb (spouse): Research Funding; Ayala (spouse): Research Funding. Naik:Celgene: Other: Advisory board. Reddy:KITE Pharma: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; Genentech: Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy. Farooq:Celgene: Honoraria; Kite Pharma: Research Funding. Epperla:Verastem Oncology: Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria. Khan:Seattle Genetics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Other: Educational Content/Symposium; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol Myers: Other: Research Funds. Alderuccio:Puma Biotechnology: Other: Immediate family member; Agios: Other: Immediate family member; Inovio Pharmaceuticals: Other: Immediate family member; Targeted Oncology: Honoraria; OncLive: Consultancy; Foundation Medicine: Other: Immediate family member. Yazdy:Bayer: Honoraria; Genentech: Research Funding; Octapharma: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy. Diefenbach:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Denovo: Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; MEI: Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Millenium/Takeda: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding. Karmali:Astrazeneca: Speakers Bureau; Takeda, BMS: Other: Research Funding to Institution; Gilead/Kite; Juno/Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Martin:Celgene: Consultancy; Teneobio: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Sandoz: Consultancy; I-MAB: Consultancy. Magarelli:Tevan Oncology: Speakers Bureau. Kamdar:Seattle Genetics: Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; University of Colorado: Employment. Portell:Xencor: Research Funding; Roche/Genentech: Research Funding; Infinity: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kite: Consultancy, Research Funding; Acerta/AstraZeneca: Research Funding. Lossos:Janssen Scientific: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Seattle Genetics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; NIH: Research Funding. Olszewski:Genentech: Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Spectrum Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding.

Type of Medium: Online Resource

ISSN: 0006-4971 , 1528-0020

URL: Article

DOI: 10.1182/blood-2019-122990

Language: English

Publisher: American Society of Hematology

Publication Date: 2019

detail.hit.zdb_id: 1468538-3

detail.hit.zdb_id: 80069-7

In: Blood, American Society of Hematology, Vol. 132, No. Supplement 1 ( 2018-11-29), p. 451-451

Abstract: Introduction: Patients (pts) with limited stage (LS) aggressive large B-cell lymphoma (ALBCL) comprise 30-40% of ALBCLs and are usually treated with R-CHOP with or without consolidative involved field radiation therapy (IFRT). In pts with ALBCL, cytogenetic studies have identified a subset with high-risk disease who harbor MYC rearrangement (MYC-R) with or without BCL2 (BCL2-R) and/or BCL6 (BCL6-R) rearrangements. This has led to the adoption of intensive induction strategies in this population; however, it is unclear if such an approach is necessary in limited stage disease. Methods: We conducted a multi-center (15 US academic centers) retrospective study of MYC-R LS-ALBCL pts with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) and high-grade B-cell lymphoma (HGBL) morphology. LS was defined by stage I and II confined to a single radiation field as determined by the treating center. Pts diagnosed between 1/1/2005 and 3/1/2017 were included. All pts received either R-CHOP or more intensive immuno-chemotherapy (IIC) (i.e. R-DA-EPOCH, R-hyperCVAD/MA, or R-CODOX-M/IVAC) with or without IFRT. Baseline demographic, clinical, laboratory, pathology and outcomes data was collected by retrospective chart review. Stage-modified IPI (sm-IPI) score was calculated [stage II (vs 1), age 〉 60, elevated LDH, and ECOG performance status ≥ 2]. Differences in overall response rate (ORR), complete remission (CR) rate, 2-year progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were compared in pts treated with R-CHOP vs IIC and in pts treated with IFRT vs no IFRT. Results: A total of 142 pts with MYC-R LS-ALBCL were identified, of which 105 fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Baseline characteristics included: median age 65 yrs (range 21-85), 66% male; 14% stage I, 32% stage IE, 28% stage II, 26% stage IIE disease; 17% bulky, 58% extra-nodal, 15% transformed disease, 40% elevated LDH. The majority of pts (70%) had germinal center B-cell phenotype. Eighty-two pts had data on BCL2-R and BCL6-R, of which 41 (50%) had double-hit lymphoma (DHL), including 4 pts with triple-hit lymphoma. Forty-five pts (43%) received R-CHOP, of which 56% had IFRT. Sixty pts (57%) received IIC, of which 42% had IFRT. R-DA-EPOCH was the most common IIC regimen used (85%), followed by R-hyperCVAD/MA (12%). Age (p=0.38), stage (p=0.32), extra-nodal disease (p=0.84), LDH (p=0.09), sm-IPI (p=0.24), morphology (p=0.44) and double-hit status (p=1.00) were similar between pts receiving R-CHOP and IIC. Median no. of cycles (NOC) (6 vs 6) and proportion of pts who received IFRT (56% vs 42%, p=0.17) did not differ in the 2 groups. Median NOC were lower in IFRT vs no IFRT group (4 vs 6; p=0.02). Pts receiving IIC (vs. R-CHOP) were more likely to undergo CNS prophylaxis (CNS-P) (75% vs 29%, p 〈 0.001). No. of pts receiving CNS-P were similar in DHL vs MYC-R only (64% vs 49%; p=0.23). ORR was 90% (83% CR, 7% PR). Pts with DHL were less likely to achieve a CR compared to pts with MYC-R only (73% vs 98%; p=0.011). CR rate was higher in the IFRT vs no-IFRT group (92% vs. 75%, p=0.028). In the 27 pts who had relapsed/refractory disease, distant relapses were more common in the IFRT vs no-IFRT group (87% vs 33%, p=0.007). Median follow-up was 3.2 yrs; 35 (33%) pts progressed or died. Of the 23 deaths, 15 were due to progressive lymphoma, 1 due to treatment-related toxicity and 7 due to unrelated causes. 2-year PFS and OS were 78% and 86% for the entire cohort and 72% and 82% respectively for DHL pts. Sm-IPI ≥ 2 (HR: 2.81, p=0.02) and age ≥ 70 (HR: 4.07, P 〈 0.001) were associated with inferior OS. Stage, extra-nodal disease, morphology, LDH and double hit status did not affect survival. PFS and OS were similar across treatment groups (IFRT vs no IFRT, R-CHOP vs IIC) in the entire cohort (Figures 1 and 2) and in DHL pts (Figures 3 and 4). Use of CNS-P was not associated with improved PFS (HR: 0.57 [95% CI: 023, 1.43]) or OS (HR 0.98 [95% CI: 0.34, 2.85] ). Conclusions: Outcomes of MYC-R LS-ALBCL pts are excellent with 2-year PFS and OS of 78% and 86% respectively. There was no benefit of choosing IIC over R-CHOP or using CNS prophylaxis in pts with MYC-R LS-ALBCL and LS-DHL in our study. While IFRT was effective in inducing CRs and preventing local relapses, distant relapses limited its benefit. Pts with LS-DHL had lower CR rates with similar PFS and OS when compared to those with MYC-R as the sole cytogenetic abnormality. Longer follow up is needed to assess the impact of upfront treatment strategies on late relapses. Disclosures Landsburg: Takeda: Consultancy; Curis: Consultancy, Research Funding. Maddocks:Teva: Honoraria; AstraZeneca: Honoraria; Pharmacyclics/Janssen: Honoraria; Novartis: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding. Advani:Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals: Other: Consultancy/Advisory Role; Cell Medica: Other: Consultancy/Advisory Role; Janssen Pharmaceutical: Other: Institutional Research Support; Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Other: Institutional Research Support; Merck: Other: Institutional Research Support; Kyowa: Other: Consulting/Advisory Role; Celgene: Other: Institutional Research Support; Roche/Genentech: Other: Consultancy/Advisory Role, Institutional Research Support; Takeda: Other: Consultancy/Advisory Role; Gilead/Kite: Other: Consultancy/Advisory Role; Autolus: Other: Consultancy/Advisory Role; AstraZeneca: Other: Consultancy/Advisory Role; Seattle Genetics: Other: Consultancy/Advisory role, Institutional Research Support; Bristol Myers Squibb: Other: Consultancy/Advisory role and Institutional Research Support; Forty Seven, Inc: Other: Institutional Research Support; Pharmacyclics: Other: Institutional Research Support; Agensys: Other: Institutional Research Support; Kura: Other: Institutional Research Support; Infinity: Other: Institutional Research Support; Millenium: Other: Institutional Research Support. Barta:Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck, Takeda, Celgene, Seattle Genetics, Bayer: Research Funding. Vose:Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Research Funding; Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp.: Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Abbvie: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria; Epizyme: Honoraria; Kite Pharma: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Incyte Corp.: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Acerta Pharma: Research Funding; Legend Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria. Cohen:Takeda: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: 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; Janssen: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BioInvent: Consultancy; Novartis: 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; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Celgene: 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. Karmali:AstraZeneca: Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Speakers Bureau. Mehta:Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Kite: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Merck: Research Funding; Spectrum: Consultancy; Epizyme: Research Funding; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy; Carevive: Other: Patient engagement; Medpage: Other: Medical website. Olszewski:Spectrum Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding. Hill: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; 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; 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; 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; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Type of Medium: Online Resource

ISSN: 0006-4971 , 1528-0020

URL: Article

DOI: 10.1182/blood-2018-99-111530

Language: English

Publisher: American Society of Hematology

Publication Date: 2018

detail.hit.zdb_id: 1468538-3

detail.hit.zdb_id: 80069-7