Search

PDF file - 151K, Supplementary Figure 1 Different EML4-ALK variants elicit similar proliferation rates Supplementary Figure 2 ALK phosphorylation levels after inhibitor treatment Supplementary Figure 3 Schematic representation of EML4-ALK variants 1, 2, 3a and 3b Supplementary Figure 4 TAE684 induced ALK protein degradation Supplementary Figure 5 Protein stability of EML4-ALK variants Supplementary Figure 6 HSP90 inhibitor sensitivity of EML4-ALK variants 2 and 3a Supplementary Figure 7 Bortezomib sensitivity of EML4-ALK variants

PDF file - 82K

PDF file - 2MB

PDF file - 96K

CCR Translation for This Article from Differential Protein Stability and ALK Inhibitor Sensitivity of EML4-ALK Fusion Variants

Purpose:EML4–ALK fusions define a subset of lung cancers that can be effectively treated with anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) inhibitors. Unfortunately, the duration of response is heterogeneous and acquired resistance limits their ultimate efficacy. Thus, a better understanding of resistance mechanisms will help to enhance tumor control in EML4–ALK-positive tumors.Experimental Design: By applying orthogonal functional mutagenesis screening approaches, we screened for mutations inducing resistance to the aminopyridine PF02341066 (crizotinib) and/or the diaminopyrimidine TAE684.Results: Here, we show that the resistance mutation, L1196M, as well as other crizotinib resistance mutations (F1174L and G1269S), are highly sensitive to the structurally unrelated ALK inhibitor TAE684. In addition, we identified two novel EML4–ALK resistance mutations (L1198P and D1203N), which unlike previously reported mutations, induced resistance to both ALK inhibitors. An independent resistance screen in ALK-mutant neuroblastoma cells yielded the same L1198P resistance mutation but defined two additional mutations conferring resistance to TAE684 but not to PF02341066.Conclusions: Our results show that different ALK resistance mutations as well as different ALK inhibitors impact the therapeutic efficacy in the setting of EML4–ALK fusions and ALK mutations. Clin Cancer Res; 17(23); 7394–401. ©2011 AACR.

Purpose:ALK rearrangement–positive lung cancers can be effectively treated with ALK inhibitors. However, the magnitude and duration of response is heterogeneous. In addition, acquired resistance limits the efficacy of ALK inhibitors, with most upfront resistance mechanisms being unknown.Experimental Design: By making use of the Ba/F3 cell line model, we analyzed the cytotoxic efficacy of ALK kinase inhibitors as a function of different EML4-ALK fusion variants v1, v2, v3a, and v3b as well as of three artificially designed EML4-ALK deletion constructs and the ALK fusion genes KIF5b-ALK and NPM1-ALK. In addition, the intracellular localization, the sensitivity to HSP90 inhibition and the protein stability of ALK fusion proteins were studied.Results: Different ALK fusion genes and EML4-ALK variants exhibited differential sensitivity to the structurally diverse ALK kinase inhibitors crizotinib and TAE684. In addition, differential sensitivity correlated with differences in protein stability in EML4-ALK–expressing cells. Furthermore, the sensitivity to HSP90 inhibition also varied depending on the ALK fusion partner but differed from ALK inhibitor sensitivity patterns. Finally, combining inhibitors of ALK and HSP90 resulted in synergistic cytotoxicity.Conclusions: Our results might explain some of the heterogeneous responses of ALK-positive tumors to ALK kinase inhibition observed in the clinic. Thus, targeted therapy of ALK-positive lung cancer should take into account the precise ALK genotype. Furthermore, combining ALK and HSP90 inhibitors might enhance tumor shrinkage in EML4-ALK–driven tumors. Clin Cancer Res; 18(17); 4682–90. ©2012 AACR.

Background Burkitt lymphoma (BL) and diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) are aggressive B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphomas (B-NHL) with a generally favorable prognosis after immunochemotherapy. The outcome of BL is superior to DLBCL. In 2016, a distinct group of lymphomas displaying characteristics of both BL and DLBCL (high grade B-cell lymphoma, HGBL) was introduced into the WHO classification. Histopathological discrimination of BL, DLBCL, and HGBL may be challenging. Data on the frequency of histopathological difficulties resulting in revision of the final diagnosis of BL/DLBCL/HGBL and its impact on the prognosis are limited. Methods We assessed histopathological features and clinical outcomes of 66 patients with suspected diagnosis of BL at the reporting institution between 2010 and 2020. Results The median age was 51 years (range 19-82) and final histopathological diagnosis revealed BL (n = 40), DLBCL (n = 12), or HGBL (n = 14). Patients with DLBCL and HGBL were either treated with DLBCL-directed (83.3% and 35.7%) or BL-directed (16.7% and 64.3%) protocols. Patients in whom diagnosis was revised from DLBCL to BL after initiation of DLBCL-directed treatment had a significantly inferior progression-free survival (PFS) than patients initially diagnosed with BL (p = 0.045), thus resembling rather the prognosis of DLBCL/HGBL. There was no difference between patients with DLBCL and HGBL, respectively, regarding PFS and OS (p = 0.38 and p = 0.27). Conclusion These results suggest that timely and precise histopathological diagnosis as well as reference histopathological review of the underlying lymphoma is critical to determine up-front treatment strategies. Consequently, selection of more aggressive treatment protocols in case of difficulties with discrimination between DLBCL/HGBL/BL may be a reasonable approach.

Background: Primary central nervous system lymphoma (PCNSL) is a rare type of aggressive lymphoma of the central nervous system. Treatment strategies improved significantly over the past decades differ regionally but mainly consist of rituximab and high-dosed methotrexate (MTX)-based therapies. Methods: We assessed clinical outcomes of 100 patients with newly diagnosed PCNSL between 2010-2020 at the University Hospital of Cologne, Germany. Results: Patients were 23-88 years of age and either treated with MTX-based regimens (PRIMAIN, MARTA, MATRix), individual regimens, or best supportive care, respectively. Overall response rates were generally high (66,7-83,8%), but different organ toxicities required dose adjustments in most groups. Two-year overall survival rates were 57,9% (PRIMAIN), 63,6% (MARTA), 65,4% (MATRix), and 37,5% (Other), respectively. Out of 9 patients suffering from relapse >12 months from primary diagnosis, 7 patients (77,8%) received methotrexate-based salvage therapy with 2-year overall survival of 4/6 patients (66,7%). Conclusion: Although a relevant proportion of patients are not eligible for clinical trials due to age, performance status, or comorbidities, these results prove feasibility of different MTX-based treatment strategies in clinical routine. Even elderly patients displayed surprisingly favorable outcomes. However, with compromising organ toxicities, reduction of intensity should be part of strategies in future clinical trials.

Chimeric Antigen Receptor (CAR) T cell therapy has resulted in remarkable clinical outcomes in the context of acute and chronic lymphoblastic leukemia, but remains unsuccessful in the treatment of solid tumors. One reason for this failure is thought to be T cell dysfunction or exhaustion promoted by suppressive soluble factors within the tumor microenvironment (TME). High extracellular levels of the immunosuppressive factor adenosine (Ado) are generated in the TME via breakdown of ATP by ecto-enzymes CD39 and CD73 expressed on tumor-infiltrating immune cells. Binding of extracellular Ado to its receptor A2a on T cells results in inhibition of proliferation and effector function. Interestingly, CD39 has recently been described as a surrogate marker of exhaustion on human CAR-T cells and non-engineered T cells. Therefore, we hypothesized that CD39 expression on exhausted CAR-T cells promotes dysfunction through generation of extracellular adenosine. Using an in vitro model of T cell exhaustion, whereby human T cells express a CAR that tonically signals in an antigen-independent manner (HA CAR), we demonstrate that exhausted HA CAR T cells actively hydrolyze extracellular ATP via their elevated expression of CD39 and CD73. Moreover, exhausted CD39+ CAR T cells upregulate several genes associated with a Treg phenotype at the mRNA and protein levels, suggesting that this cell population might be suppressive. To assess whether CD39+/CD73+ CAR T cells exhibit suppressive functions, we co-cultured them with non-exhausted CD19-CAR T cells. Indeed, proliferation and secretion of IL-2 by CD19 CAR T cells were diminished when they were co-cultured with exhausted CD39+ CAR T cells, and that this suppression is dependent on the A2a receptor. Using this knowledge, we used gene-editing and overexpression approaches to engineer CAR-T cells with resistance to suppressive adenosine signaling. In contrast to genetic deletion of CD39 or CD73, which did not alleviate CAR T cell dysfunction, genetic deletion of adenosine receptor A2aR in exhausted CAR T cells resulted in phenotypic changes and a modest improvement in tumor-specific killing. Further, ectopic overexpression of adenosine deaminase (ADA) in CAR T cells led to decreased exhaustion marker expression and significantly enhanced effector function. These data indicate that ADA overexpression is an innovative approach to increase the functionality of CAR T cells through avoidance of suppressive adenosine signaling, and provides proof-of-concept that metabolic engineering of CAR-T cells can pave the way for responses in patients with solid tumors. Citation Format: Dorota Klysz, Meena Malipatlolla, Katherine Freitas, Malek Bashti, Louai Labanieh, Peng Xu, Cecilia Ramello, Amaury Lerust, Hyatt Balke Want, Kaithlen Zen Pacheco, Evan W. Weber, Shabnum Patel, Steven Feldman, Elena Sotillo, Crystal L. Mackall. Metabolic engineering of CAR-T cells overcomes suppressive adenosine signaling and enhances functionality [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2022; 2022 Apr 8-13. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2022;82(12_Suppl):Abstract nr 1362.

Background: The genetic hallmark of BL is MYC gene rearrangement. However, due to histopathological, immunohistochemical and cytogenetic similarities, differentiation from Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma (DLBCL) remains challenging in some cases. Although being suspected to negatively influence outcomes, detection of high expression of BCL2 and MYC (double expressor) as well as rearrangements of MYC and BCL2 and/or BCL6 (double/triple hit) did not lead to confirmation of different therapeutic approaches in DLBCL yet. The recent update of the World Health Organization (WHO) classification of lymphoid neoplasms has thus established a category termed High-Grade B-Cell Lymphoma (HGBL), defined by a distinct morphology and/or presence of double/triple hit status. While BL displays favorable outcomes in clinical routine upon treatment with intensive immunochemotherapeutic regimens, clear evidence regarding the optimal therapeutic approach for HGBL remains limited and the diagnostic discrimination of BL and HGBL can be challenging, too. Moreover, data on the frequency of revisions of the diagnosis of BL to DLBCL or HGBL and its impact on treatment and outcome are sparse. Methods: All consecutive patients managed with histopathological suspected diagnosis of BL upon preliminary assessment at the reporting institution between December 2010 and July 2020 were identified. Final diagnosis of the respective aggressive B-Cell lymphoma was grouped according to the most recent WHO classification and divided into four subgroups: a) BL, b) revision from DLBCL to BL, c) DLBCL, d) HGBL. General patient characteristics as well as response to treatment in Computed Tomography (CT) or Positron Emission Tomography (PET) (evaluation by individual investigator), information regarding survival supported by the register of deaths in North-Rhine Westphalia and the date of last follow-up were collected from individual patient files. Results: Overall, we identified n=66 patients with suspected diagnosis of BL within the preliminary assessment. Final histopathological results confirmed n=31 patients as BL (Group A), while n=23 patients were described as showing features of both BL and DLBCL (Uncertain & Grey-zone, Group D). Additionally, in n=12 patients the final diagnosis was revised either from DLBCL to BL (n=9, Group B) or B-ALL/BL to DLBCL (n=3, Group C). Regarding the reference histopathological reviews (RHR) and the latest version of the WHO classification of lymphoid neoplasms, all patients from Group C and Group D were finally classified as either DLBCL (n=12) or HGBL (n=14). In total, n=13 patients had revision of the final diagnosis, either upon receipt of RHR (n=8) or repeated biopsy upon progressive disease (PD) (n=5). When comparing patients with revised diagnosis due to PD or RHR, a median of six (range 4-8) and two (range 1-2) cycles of systemic therapy were applied prior to revision, respectively. Regarding outcomes, 2/5 patients (40%) with revised diagnosis upon PD and 7/8 patients (87,5%) with revised diagnosis upon RHR were alive at the time of last follow-up (median follow-up 15,07 months), respectively (Fig 1). Patients suffering from BL (Group A) displayed a significantly increased progression-free survival (PFS) compared to all other groups (p=0.034). In contrast, patients whose diagnosis was revised from DLBCL to BL after initiation of treatment with DLBCL protocols had an inferior PFS than patients initially diagnosed with BL (p=0.045) that was comparable to patients with the final diagnosis of DLBCL or HGBL. Two-year overall survival was generally favorable in all groups, ranging from almost 60% (HGBL) to 86,2% (BL) without showing statistically significant differences (p=0.2). Conclusion In conclusion, timely and precise histopathological diagnostic procedures seem to play a critical role for optimizing treatment strategies of BL, HGBL and high-risk DLBCL upfront. Since administration of BL treatment protocols seems feasible in clinical routine and may result in favorable results not only in BL but as well in HGBL, these results might encourage its upfront usage in doubtful situations regarding histopathological results. However, with only a small number of patients being evaluable in the present analysis, controlled clinical trials are necessary to confirm these trends. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Heger: Novartis: Research Funding; Gilead: Other: Travel funding. Gödel: Gilead: Other: Personal fees / travel support; Novartis: Other: Travel support. Balke-Want: Novartis: Research Funding. Simon: Gilead: Other: Travel support. Bröckelmann: BMS: Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; MSD: Research Funding; BeiGene: Research Funding. Von Tresckow: Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Other: Congress and travel support; AbbVie: Other: Congress and travel support; BMS-Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Congress and travel support; Kite-Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; MSD: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Congress and travel support, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Congress and travel support, Research Funding; Pentixafarm: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other, Research Funding.

Summary Kinase inhibitors represent the backbone of targeted cancer therapy, yet only a limited number of oncogenic drivers are directly druggable. By interrogating the activity of 1,505 kinase inhibitors, we found that BRD4-NUT-rearranged NUT midline carcinoma (NMC) cells are specifically killed by CDK9 inhibition (CDK9i) and depend on CDK9 and Cyclin-T1 expression. We show that CDK9i leads to robust induction of apoptosis and of markers of DNA damage response in NMC cells. While both CDK9i and bromodomain inhibition over time result in reduced Myc protein expression, only bromodomain inhibition induces cell differentiation and a p21-induced cell-cycle arrest in these cells. Finally, RNA-seq and ChIP-based analyses reveal a BRD4-NUT-specific CDK9i-induced perturbation of transcriptional elongation. Thus, our data provide a mechanistic basis for the genotype-dependent vulnerability of NMC cells to CDK9i that may be of relevance for the development of targeted therapies for NMC patients., Graphical Abstract, Highlights • Screening 1,505 compounds against 78 cancer cell lines reveals distinct vulnerabilities • NUT midline carcinoma cells are specifically sensitive to CDK9 inhibition (CDK9i) • CDK9i perturbs MYC signaling, represses MCL1, and induces apoptosis in NMC cells • CDK9 may represent a promising therapeutic target in NUT midline carcinoma, By screening 1,505 compounds against 78 cancer cell lines, Brägelmann et al. identify a specific sensitivity of BRD4-NUT-rearranged NUT midline carcinoma (NMC) cells to CDK9 inhibition. CDK9 inhibition affects transcriptional elongation, de-regulates MYC signaling, and induces apoptosis by suppressing anti-apoptotic MCL1. CDK9 may thus be a promising target in NMC.

Tumor heterogeneity encompasses both the malignant cells and their microenvironment. While heterogeneity between individual patients is well-known to affect the efficacy of anti-cancer drugs, most personalized treatment approaches do not account for intratumor heterogeneity. We addressed this issue by studying the heterogeneity of lymph node-derived B cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (B-NHL) by single cell RNA-sequencing (scRNA-seq) and transcriptome-informed flow cytometry. We identified transcriptionally distinct malignant subclones and compared their drug response and genomic profiles. Malignant subclones of the same patient responded strikingly different to anti-cancer drugs ex vivo, which recapitulated subclone-specific drug sensitivity during in vivo treatment. Tumor infiltrating T cells represented the majority of non-malignant cells, whose gene expression signatures were similar across all donors, whereas the frequencies of T cell subsets varied significantly between the donors. Our data provide new insights into the heterogeneity of B-NHL and highlight the relevance of intratumor heterogeneity for personalized cancer therapies.

Tumour heterogeneity encompasses both the malignant cells and their microenvironment. While heterogeneity between individual patients is known to affect the efficacy of cancer therapy, most personalized treatment approaches do not account for intratumour heterogeneity. We addressed this issue by studying the heterogeneity of nodal B-cell lymphomas by single-cell RNA-sequencing and transcriptome-informed flow cytometry. We identified transcriptionally distinct malignant subpopulations and compared their drug-response and genomic profiles. Malignant subpopulations from the same patient responded strikingly differently to anti-cancer drugs ex vivo, which recapitulated subpopulation-specific drug sensitivity during in vivo treatment. Infiltrating T cells represented the majority of non-malignant cells, whose gene-expression signatures were similar across all donors, whereas the frequencies of T-cell subsets varied significantly between the donors. Our data provide insights into the heterogeneity of nodal B-cell lymphomas and highlight the relevance of intratumour heterogeneity for personalized cancer therapy.

Purpose: ALK rearrangement–positive lung cancers can be effectively treated with ALK inhibitors. However, the magnitude and duration of response is heterogeneous. In addition, acquired resistance limits the efficacy of ALK inhibitors, with most upfront resistance mechanisms being unknown. Experimental Design: By making use of the Ba/F3 cell line model, we analyzed the cytotoxic efficacy of ALK kinase inhibitors as a function of different EML4-ALK fusion variants v1, v2, v3a, and v3b as well as of three artificially designed EML4-ALK deletion constructs and the ALK fusion genes KIF5b-ALK and NPM1-ALK. In addition, the intracellular localization, the sensitivity to HSP90 inhibition and the protein stability of ALK fusion proteins were studied. Results: Different ALK fusion genes and EML4-ALK variants exhibited differential sensitivity to the structurally diverse ALK kinase inhibitors crizotinib and TAE684. In addition, differential sensitivity correlated with differences in protein stability in EML4-ALK–expressing cells. Furthermore, the sensitivity to HSP90 inhibition also varied depending on the ALK fusion partner but differed from ALK inhibitor sensitivity patterns. Finally, combining inhibitors of ALK and HSP90 resulted in synergistic cytotoxicity. Conclusions: Our results might explain some of the heterogeneous responses of ALK-positive tumors to ALK kinase inhibition observed in the clinic. Thus, targeted therapy of ALK-positive lung cancer should take into account the precise ALK genotype. Furthermore, combining ALK and HSP90 inhibitors might enhance tumor shrinkage in EML4-ALK–driven tumors. Clin Cancer Res; 18(17); 4682–90. ©2012 AACR.

Purpose: EML4–ALK fusions define a subset of lung cancers that can be effectively treated with anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) inhibitors. Unfortunately, the duration of response is heterogeneous and acquired resistance limits their ultimate efficacy. Thus, a better understanding of resistance mechanisms will help to enhance tumor control in EML4–ALK-positive tumors. Experimental Design: By applying orthogonal functional mutagenesis screening approaches, we screened for mutations inducing resistance to the aminopyridine PF02341066 (crizotinib) and/or the diaminopyrimidine TAE684. Results: Here, we show that the resistance mutation, L1196M, as well as other crizotinib resistance mutations (F1174L and G1269S), are highly sensitive to the structurally unrelated ALK inhibitor TAE684. In addition, we identified two novel EML4–ALK resistance mutations (L1198P and D1203N), which unlike previously reported mutations, induced resistance to both ALK inhibitors. An independent resistance screen in ALK-mutant neuroblastoma cells yielded the same L1198P resistance mutation but defined two additional mutations conferring resistance to TAE684 but not to PF02341066. Conclusions: Our results show that different ALK resistance mutations as well as different ALK inhibitors impact the therapeutic efficacy in the setting of EML4–ALK fusions and ALK mutations. Clin Cancer Res; 17(23); 7394–401. ©2011 AACR.

Introduction: Anti-CD 19 directed CAR-T cell therapy has shown very promising effects in treatment of diffuse-large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). However, a substantial fraction of patients does not respond to treatment or relapses after approximately three to six months [Schuster, NEJM, 2017; Neelapu, NEJM, 2017]. Resistance mechanisms against anti-CD19 directed CAR-T cell therapy have so far only been described in B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (B-ALL) and involve mutations, splice variants or even loss of CD19 [Sotillo, Cancer Discovery, 2015]. To further elucidate mechanisms of acquired resistance in DLBCL, we obtained matched pair tumor samples from four patients before and after treatment with CTL019 treated within the phase II JULIET trial. Methods: We performed whole exome sequencing in one patient (#UKK2) employing one matched normal sample that has been sequenced at a coverage of 130x and one pre-treatment as well as two post-treatment samples that were all sequenced at a coverage of 160x. Whole exome sequencing data were used to reconstruct clonal evolution of DLBCL after treatment with CTL019 as has been described previously [Herling, Nature Communications, 2018]. Furthermore, we obtained biopsies at relapse or disease progression including matched normal samples from three more patients. Whole exome sequencing from the three missing patients as well as 3´RNA sequencing from all four patients' samples are ongoing and results will be updated for presentation at the meeting. Results: The first analyzed patient, #UKK2, is a 67 year old male patient, who had chemotherapy refractory disease after treatment with R-CHOP, R-DHAP and Pixantrone. He showed predominantly pelvic lesions including infiltration of the iliopsoas muscle. The patient achieved a complete response at month 3 (Figure 1A) after CTL019 transfusion. At month 5 he developed new cutaneous lesions on his left thigh (Figure 1B, posttreatment sample 1) as well as new muscle infiltrations on his right quadriceps femoris muscle (posttreatment sample 2) and rectus abdominis muscle. Pathological examination confirmed relapse of CD19 positive DLBCL in both posttreatment samples. Whole exome sequencing from a biopsy obtained before study entry and the above mentioned posttreament biopsies showed clonal evolution of a single missense mutation in PTPRA (N297D). PTPRA encodes for the receptor protein-tyrosine phosphatase alpha, a receptor phosphatase involved in activation of c-Src via dephosphorylation of an inhibitory tyrosine at position 530 (Y530) [Mustelin, Science Signaling, 2002 and Gut, International Journal of Oncology, 2017]. On the other hand, c-Src is an onco-protein known to cause an invasive phenotype and metastasis in different tumor entities [Ishizawar, Cancer Cell, 2004]. All other mutations observed were either already clonal before CTL019 treatment or gained clonality in only one posttreatment biopsy (Figure 1C). Conclusion: To our knowledge, this is the first report identifying clonal evolution during CD19 redirected CAR-T cell therapy in r/r DLBCL involving PTPRA. We hypothesize that this PTPRA mutation contributes to an invasive phenotype and extranodal lymphoma growth pattern allowing the lymphoma to escape from the pattern allowing the lymphoma to escape from the CAR-T cell attack. Genomic workup of patients with pre- and posttreatment biopsies and functional investigation of this hypothesis is ongoing and will be presented. Disclosures Balke-Want: Novartis: Honoraria. Borchmann:Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria.

Background Quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) is an analytical method that has been used to investigate the in vivo kinetics of chimeric receptor antigen (CAR) transgene following the infusion of tisagenlecleucel. B cell aplasia, likely an "on-target toxicity" of tisagenlecleucel, has been considered a measure of functional persistence. (Maude SL et al. Blood 2015;125(26):4017-4023) Although the CAR transgene can be detected in peripheral blood of tisagenlecleucel treated patients, it is unclear whether CAR transgene detection by qPCR could be reliably used to inform treatment decision in an individual patient. Methods Transgene levels in blood measured by qPCR from pivotal phase II studies in relapsed/refractory (r/r) pediatric and young adult acute lymphoblastic leukemia (B-ALL) patients (pts) (ELIANA [NCT02435849, N=75]; ENSIGN [NCT02228096, N=29]) and adult diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL) pts (JULIET [NCT02445248, N=93]) were used to investigate the relationship between transgene persistence and clinical response. Results To determine whether CAR qPCR measurements are associated with or predictive of response, CAR transgene levels and timing of peak levels were examined. In both ALL and DLBCL pts, there were detectable CAR transgene levels by qPCR in both responders and non-responders. The geometric mean maximal expansion (geo mean Cmax) was similar between responding and non-responding adult DLBCL pts, while 1.7 fold differences were observed in pediatric ALL pts (geo mean Cmax in copies/µg: responders, 32700, n=79; non-responders, 19500, n=10; Table 1). For both DLBCL and ALL pts, high inter-individual variability in transgene levels was noted. Similarly, higher CAR-T cell expansion from flow cytometry data pooled from responding pediatric ALL and chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) pts were observed relative to non-responding pts (Mueller KT et al. Blood 2017;130(21):2317-2325), while the levels in DLBCL pts were comparatively lower in blood, likely due to partitioning of functional CAR-T cells to the target sites including lymph nodes. The median time to maximal transgene level ranged from 9-10 days in DLBCL responders and non-responders and pediatric ALL responders, while non-responding pediatric ALL pts showed delayed expansion with median Tmax of 20 days. The median time corresponding to last quantifiable transgene level (Tlast), an indicator of persistence, was higher in responding pts compared to non-responding pts, indicating a trend for longer persistence in both DLBCL and ALL pts with continued response (Table 1). Similarly, the half-life estimated from the terminal slope of the cellular kinetic profile, an additional indicator of persistence, was higher in responding pts relative to non-responding pts for both DLBCL and ALL (Table 1). Despite this general trend, in some cases, transgene levels were not detectable at later time points in pts with continued response. The swimmer plot for representative responder ALL (Figure 1a) and DLBCL pts (Figure 1b) with responses and transgene levels demonstrate that although the majority of responding pts show persistent transgene levels, some pts maintained a favorable clinical response despite a decline in transgene levels to below the level of quantification of 50 copies/µg. Conclusion In both ALL and DLBCL, CAR transgene is initially detected at high levels with high variability in both responders and non-responders. While the majority of responding pts tend to have persistent transgene levels, some pts maintain favorable clinical responses despite a lack of quantifiable transgene. These results indicate that qPCR testing for CAR transgene in blood of tisagenlecleucel treated pts should not be used for making treatment decisions for individual pts. In addition, the qPCR measurements in peripheral blood do not reflect on the trafficking of CAR positive cells to sites outside peripheral blood. The assessment by flow cytometry remains an important assay to distinguish high expression in responding vs non-responding pts in ALL and CLL, and further evaluation of target tissue is needed in DLBCL to understand the utility of CAR expression as a means to distinguish responder and non-responders. Also, further data are needed to improve our understanding of how CAR transgene levels relate to disease burden and duration of response and whether this information is clinically useful. Disclosures Awasthi: Exelixis: Equity Ownership; Celgene: Equity Ownership; Novartis Institutes for Biomedical Research: Employment. Mueller:Novartis Institutes for Biomedical Research: Employment; Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation: Equity Ownership, Other: Patent pending. Tam:Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BeiGene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Rives:Amgen: Consultancy, Other: advisory board ; Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation: Consultancy, Other: Symposia, advisory boards ; Jazz Pharma: Consultancy, Other: Symposia, advisory boards ; Shire: Consultancy, Other: Symposia, advisory boards . McGuirk:Bellicum Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Fresenius Biotech: Research Funding; Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation: Honoraria, Other: speaker, Research Funding; Astellas Pharma: Research Funding; Gamida Cell: Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Honoraria, Other: travel accommodations, expenses, speaker ; Pluristem Ltd: Research Funding. Pulsipher:Adaptive Biotech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria; CSL Behring: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Jaeger:Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Mundipharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda-Millenium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda-Millenium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AOP Orphan: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bioverativ: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Infinity: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GSK: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; MSD: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Baruchel:Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Shire: Research Funding; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, accommodations or expenses; Amgen: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy; Servier: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy. Myers:Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Balke-Want:Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation: Honoraria. Schuster:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Dava Oncology: Consultancy, Honoraria; Nordic Nanovector: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genentech: Honoraria, Research Funding. Stefanski:Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Bishop:Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation: Speakers Bureau; Juneau Therapeutics: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; United Healthcare: Employment. Waldron:Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Anak:Novartis Pharma AG: Employment. Chakraborty:Novartis Institutes for Biomedical Research: Employment. Bleickardt:Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation: Employment. Wong:Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Bubuteishvili Pacaud:Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Waller:Kalytera: Consultancy; Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celldex: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Other: Travel Expenses, EHA, Research Funding; Cambium Medical Technologies: Consultancy, Equity Ownership. Maude:Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

The cytosolic Ser/Thr kinase TBK1 was discovered to be an essential element in the mediation of signals that lead to tumor migration and progression. These findings meet the need for the identification of novel tool compounds and potential therapeutics to gain deeper insights into TBK1 related signaling and its relevance in tumor progression. Herein, we undertake the activity-based screening for unique inhibitors of TBK1 and their subsequent optimization. Initial screening approaches identified a selection of TBK1 inhibitors that were optimized using methods of medicinal chemistry. Variations of the structural characteristics of a representative 2,4,6-substituted pyrimidine scaffold resulted in improved potency. Prospective use as tool compounds or basic contributions to drug design approaches are anticipated for our improved small molecules.

Introduction: Several targeted agents have been introduced for CLL, including the CD20-antibody obinutuzumab (GA101, G) and the Bcl-2 antagonist venetoclax (ABT-199, A). Both agents show exciting efficacy which comes at the cost of an increased risk of TLS and IRRs and mandate several safety precautions especially during the first treatment cycles and in patients (pts) with a higher tumor load and/or renal insufficiency. Based on the theoretical "sequential triple-T" concept [Hallek M., Blood 2013; 122(23): 3723-34] of a tailored and targeted treatment aiming for total eradication of minimal residual disease (MRD), the GCLLSG designed the CLL2-BAG trial combining G and A in an induction and maintenance treatment. To reduce the risk of TLS and IRRs, G and A were started sequentially during the induction phase and patients with high tumor burden received bendamustine (B) as a debulking step before the induction treatment. Methods: This prospective, open-label, multicenter phase-II trial investigates the safety and efficacy of a sequential treatment with B, G and A in an all-comer population of physically fit and unfit, treatment-naïve and relapsed/refractory CLL pts requiring treatment, irrespective of high-risk genetics. Pts with an absolute lymphocyte count (ALC) ≥ 25.000/µl and/or lymph nodes (LN) ≥ 5cm received 2 cycles of B as debulking treatment (70mg/m² d1&2 q28 days). In the induction G was administered 3 times in cycle 1 (days 1/2, 8 & 15) and every 4 weeks in cycles 2-6. Daily intake of A started in cycle 2 with a slow dose ramp-up over 5 weeks and several safety precautions including blood sampling, hydration, allopurinol and rasburicase (depending on patient's TLS risk category). In the maintenance phase, A was continued and G administered every 3 months until achievement of a MRD-negative complete response or for up to 24 months. The primary endpoint was the overall response rate (ORR) at the end of induction therapy; secondary endpoints include safety parameters, MRD evaluations and survival parameters. Results: Between May 2015 and January 2016, 66 pts were enrolled, among them 35 with treatment naïve and 31 with relapsed/refractory CLL (median number of prior therapies: 2, range: 1-8). Median age was 59 (28-77) years and the median CIRS score was 2 (0-14). 12 of 48 pts (25%) had an impaired renal function at baseline with a creatinine clearance of 30-70ml/min. 11 of 62 pts (18%) had a del(17p) and 48 of 64 (75%) had an unmutated IGHV status. 47 (71%) pts received B debulking and 19 (29%) pts immediately started with G due to a low tumor burden (6), contraindications for B [known hypersensitivity or refractoriness] (4) and/or physicians decision (13). Median ALC was 52.3 (0.6-423.5) at baseline and 0.9 (0.2-102.0) after first induction cycle. Risk categories for TLS at baseline were: low (LR: ALC 10cm): 17 (27%), 3 missing. After debulking and/or 1st cycle with G risk categories were re-assessed in 19 pts and were LR in 13 (68%) and IR in 6 (32%) pts. As of July 20th2016, 76 serious adverse events (SAEs) were reported in 36 of the 66 pts, among them 64 (84%) related to study drug. 57 SAEs (75%) were CTC°3-4 and 3 deaths (septicaemias in heavily pretreated pts). So far 13 (17%) SAEs occurred during B debulking, 62 (82%) in the induction and 1 (1%) in the maintenance phase. Most common SAEs were infections (26 in 15 pts; among them 12 CTC°3-5) and hematological disorders (18 in 11 pts; 10 CTC°3-4); especially pneumonias (8 in 3 pts), sepsis (3 in 3 pts; all CTC°5) and neutropenias with/without fever (5 and 7 each; in 7 pts). Six serious IRRs occurred in 6 pts (4 CTC°3-4), 5 occurred during the first infusion of G; 3 of the affected pts had not received prior B. Five SAEs were laboratory TLS, which all resolved quickly; 1 occurred during the debulking with B and 4 during the induction therapy (1 in induction cycle 1 with G, 2 in cycle 3 and 1 in cycle 4 with G and A), all in pts without prior B debulking. Conclusion: The administration of B as a debulking step, followed by G helps to effectively reduce the patient's tumor load providing the ability to prevent serious IRRs and TLS. With this concept and the established safety precautions no clinical TLS occurred so far. Aside from 3 septicaemias with fatal outcome in heavily pretreated pts, the toxicity profile of this regimen is acceptable. Disclosures Cramer: Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche: Honoraria, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Research Funding; Gilead: Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding; Astellas: Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses; Mundipharma: Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses. von Tresckow:Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria, Other: Travel grants, Research Funding; Celgene: Other: Travel grants; Hoffmann-LaRoche: Other: Travel grants, Research Funding. Bahlo:Roche: Honoraria, Other: Travel grants. Engelke:Hoffmann-LaRoche: Other: Travel grants. Langerbeins:Hoffmann-LaRoche: Honoraria, Other: Travel grants, Research Funding; Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria, Other: Travel grants, Research Funding; Mundipharma: Honoraria, Other: Travel grants, Research Funding. Fink:Mundipharma: Other: Travel grants; Celgene: Other: Travel grants, Research Funding; AbbVie: Other: Travel grants; Hoffmann-LaRoche: Other: Travel grants. Al-Sawaf:Gilead: Other: Travel grants. Fischer von Weikersthal:Roche: Consultancy, Other: Travel Grant; Novartis: Consultancy; Pfizer: Honoraria. Fischer:Hoffmann-LaRoche: Other: Travel grants. Wendtner:AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; F. Hoffmann-LaRoche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy, Other: travel support, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Mundipharma: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Stilgenbauer:Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel grants , Research Funding; Mundipharma: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel grants , Research Funding; Hoffmann-La Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel grants , Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel grants, Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel grants , Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel grants , Research Funding; Genzyme: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel grants , Research Funding; GSK: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel grants , Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel grants , Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel grants , Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel grants , Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel grants , Research Funding; Boehringer Ingelheim: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel grants , Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel grants, Research Funding. Eichhorst:GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Mundipharma: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; AbbVie: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Hallek:F. Hoffmann-LaRoche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Mundipharma: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau.

Small cell lung cancer (SCLC) accounts for about 15% of all lung cancers. The prognosis of SCLC patients is devastating and no biologically targeted therapeutics are active in this tumor type. To develop a framework for development of specific SCLC-targeted drugs we conducted a combined genomic and pharmacological vulnerability screen in SCLC cell lines. We show that SCLC cell lines capture the genomic landscape of primary SCLC tumors and provide genetic predictors for activity of clinically relevant inhibitors by screening 267 compounds across 44 of these cell lines. We show Aurora kinase inhibitors are effective in SCLC cell lines bearing MYC amplification, which occur in 3–7% of SCLC patients. In MYC -amplified SCLC cells Aurora kinase inhibition associates with G2/M-arrest, inactivation of PI3-kinase (PI3K) signaling, and induction of apoptosis. Aurora dependency in SCLC primarily involved Aurora B, required its kinase activity, and was independent of depletion of cytoplasmic levels of MYC. Our study suggests that a fraction of SCLC patients may benefit from therapeutic inhibition of Aurora B. Thus, thorough chemical and genomic exploration of SCLC cell lines may provide starting points for further development of rational targeted therapeutic intervention in this deadly tumor type.

Lung cancer remains one of the leading causes of cancer-related death in developed countries. Although lung adenocarcinomas with EGFR mutations or EML4-ALK fusions respond to treatment by epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) and anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) inhibition, respectively, squamous cell lung cancer currently lacks therapeutically exploitable genetic alterations. We conducted a systematic search in a set of 232 lung cancer specimens for genetic alterations that were therapeutically amenable and then performed high-resolution gene copy number analyses. We identified frequent and focal fibroblast growth factor receptor 1 (FGFR1) amplification in squamous cell lung cancer (n = 155), but not in other lung cancer subtypes, and, by fluorescence in situ hybridization, confirmed the presence of FGFR1 amplifications in an independent cohort of squamous cell lung cancer samples (22% of cases). Using cell-based screening with the FGFR inhibitor PD173074 in a large (n = 83) panel of lung cancer cell lines, we demonstrated that this compound inhibited growth and induced apoptosis specifically in those lung cancer cells carrying amplified FGFR1. We validated the FGFR1 dependence of FGFR1-amplified cell lines by FGFR1 knockdown and by ectopic expression of an FGFR1-resistant allele (FGFR1(V561M)), which rescued FGFR1-amplified cells from PD173074-mediated cytotoxicity. Finally, we showed that inhibition of FGFR1 with a small molecule led to significant tumor shrinkage in vivo. Thus, focal FGFR1 amplification is common in squamous cell lung cancer and associated with tumor growth and survival, suggesting that FGFR inhibitors may be a viable therapeutic option in this cohort of patients.

Background CD19 redirected chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy has proven efficacy in relapsed or chemotherapy-refractory (r/r) aggressive B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (B-NHL). However, targeting a single B-cell antigen leads to selective pressure with potential antigen-escape and subsequent relapse. A tandem CAR targeting CD20 and CD19 (pLTG1497) has been developed to overcome this limitation. Preclinical evaluation showed improved anti-lymphoma activity. Thus, we initiated a first-in-human, phase I clinical study of autologous pLTG1497-transduced CAR T-cells (MB-CART2019.1) in r/r B-NHL patients. Aims In this phase I prospective multi-center trial (NCT03870945) we aimed to evaluate the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of MB-CART2019.1 in adult patients with CD20 and CD19 positive r/r B-NHL as determined by dose limiting toxicities (DLTs). Methods This was a 6+3 trial design with two predefined dose levels (DL1 1x106 and DL2 2.5x106 CAR T-cells/kg body weight, respectively). Secondary endpoints included adverse events (AEs) and best overall response rate (ORR). Pharmacodynamic assessments included maximum concentration (Cmax) of CAR T-cells, time to peak expansion (tmax), AUC (d0 to d28), and persistence. MB-CART2019.1 was produced by lentiviral transduction of autologous fresh leukapheresis in the closed automated CliniMACS Prodigy® System (Miltenyi Biotec, Bergisch Gladbach, Germany). Re-infusion (Day 0) of fresh MB-CART2019.1 was scheduled 14 days after leukapheresis. Fludarabine/cyclophosphamide lymphodepleting chemotherapy was administered from day -5 to -3. Results A total of 12 patients, 6 per dose level have been enrolled and treated between February and December 2019, 5 female and 7 male patients. Median age was 72 y (range 20, 78 y), with 10 patients >65 y and 8 >70 y. Histologies included aggressive B-NHL (11) and mantle cell lymphoma (1). Five (5) patients had refractory disease at study entry and IPI was ≥3 in 7 patients. Median time from leukapheresis to re-infusion was 14 d (range 13, 14 d). No DLT and no cytokine release syndrome (CRS) or neurotoxicity grade ≥3 were observed. One patient in dose level 1 experienced a grade 5 AE, which was due to disease progression. CRS grade 1 occurred in 3/6 patients on DL1 and DL2 each, and CRS grade 2 in 2 patients on DL2. Tocilizumab was given in 1 patient. Neurotoxicity grade 1 occurred in 1 patient on DL2. The above described CRS and neurotoxicity resolved completely. Mean Cmax of MB-CART2019.1 was 348.3 cells/µl (range 3.9, 830.4 cells/µl) on DL1 and 692 cells/µl (range 5.3, 3147.8 cells/µl) on DL2. Mean tmax was 15.8 d (range 9, 21 d) on DL1 and 11.5 d (range 9, 14 d) on DL2. Mean AUC was 3155 d*cells/µl (DL1) and 4339 d*cells/µl (DL2). Persistence of MB-CART2019.1 was observed in 12/12 patients until data cut-off. Altogether 9/12 patients (ORR 75%) responded to MB-CART2019.1 with 5/12 CRs. In DL1 3/6 patients responded (ORR 50%) and in DL2 6/6 patients (ORR 100%). The 3 patients without response to MB-CART2019.1 had a mean AUC0-28 of 870 d*cells/µl, whereas mean AUC0-28 in 9 responders was 4843 d*cells/µl reflecting the correlation between the pharmacodynamic parameters and the clinical response. Responses are ongoing in 5/9 patients, with a maximum duration of response of 330 days at data cut-off. Summary/Conclusions In this first-in-human dose finding study of MB-CART2019.1 no DLT and no severe (grade ≥3) CRS or neurotoxicity were observed. Feasibility and safety were very good in this cohort of elderly r/r B-NHL patients. The sustained expansion of tandem CAR T-cells was accompanied by efficacy: all patients (6/6) treated on DL2 responded and all 5 patients with CR (5/5) are in ongoing remission by the time of this report. Based on the promising risk-to-benefit ratio observed in our study, evaluation of MB-CART2019.1 at a dose of 2.5x106/kg body weight in clinical phase II and phase III trials for patients with relapsed aggressive B-NHL is underway. Disclosures Borchmann: Miltenyi Biotec B.V. & Co. KG: Honoraria. Balke-Want:Miltenyi Biotec B.V. & Co. KG: Honoraria. Ayuk:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Kite/Gilead: Honoraria; Therakos/Mallinckrodt: Honoraria, Research Funding; Neovii: Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria. Holtkamp:Miltenyi Biomedicine GmbH: Current Employment. Preussner:Miltenyi Biomedicine GmbH: Ended employment in the past 24 months. Zadoyan:Miltenyi Biomedicine GmbH: Current Employment. Hanssens:Miltenyi Biomedicine GmbH: Current Employment. Kaiser:Miltenyi Biotec B.V. & Co. KG: Current Employment. Jurk:Miltenyi Biotec B.V. & Co. KG: Current Employment. Bürger:Miltenyi Biotec B.V. & Co. KG: Current Employment. Schneider:Lentigen Technology Inc., A Miltenyi Company: Current Employment, Patents & Royalties. Dropulic:Lentigen Technology Inc., A Miltenyi Company: Current Employment. Overstijns:Miltenyi Biomedicine GmbH: Current Employment, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Miltenyi Biotec B.V. & Co. KG: Current Employment, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Scheid:Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding. Holtick:Miltenyi Biotec B.V. & Co. KG: Honoraria. Miltenyi:Miltenyi Biomedicine GmbH: Current Employment, Current equity holder in private company, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Patents & Royalties; Lentigen Technology Inc., A Miltenyi Company: Current Employment, Current equity holder in private company, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Patents & Royalties; Miltenyi Biotec B.V. & Co. KG: Current Employment, Current equity holder in private company, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Patents & Royalties.