OUTCOME OF FOLLICULAR LYMPHOMA PATIENTS IN MAINTENANCE TREATMENT WITH ANTICD20 MONOCLONAL ANTIBODIES IN SARS-COV2 ERA: RESULTS FROM A MULTICENTER, RETROSPECTIVEPROSPECTIVE ITALIAN STUDY

Background: Maintenance in FL patients (pts) improves progression free survival (PFS). SARS-Cov2 pandemic posed unique challenges for immunocompromised pts. Aims: The aim is to evaluate the outcome of FL pts in maintenance with antiCD20-MoAb during SARS-Cov2 pandemic and how suspension of therapy affected lymphoma outcome and the risk of SARS-Cov2 infection and its morbidity and mortality. Methods: This is an observational, multicenter, retrospective and prospective study. Results: A total of 420 from 18 Italian Hematological Centers were included in the analysis. Median age was 62 years old (range 27-91 years), 216 pts (51%) were male. Main clinical characteristics of the population were: histological grade 1-2 vs 3A in 288 (69%) vs 109 (26%), while not valuable in 23 (5%) pts;limited I-II vs advanced III-IV stage in 57 (14%) vs 361 (86%) pts, not reported in 2 cases. FLIPI score was low vs intermediate vs high in 71 (17%) vs 151 (36%) vs 192 (46%) patients, respectively, not valuable in 6 cases. All 420 patients included were in maintenance treatment with antiCD20 MoAb at the time of the onset of SARS-Cov2 pandemic (March 2020): 333 (79%) pts were receiving maintenance after a first line, while 87 (21%) after a second line. 342 (81%) pts were receiving Rituximab, while 75 (18%) Obinutuzumab, 3 patients did not start the planned maintenance because of pandemic spread. Status of disease after induction was complete remission (CR) in 374 (89%), partial response (PR) in 41 (10%), progressive disease (PD) in 1, not evaluated in 4 pts, respectively. At the end of maintenance was CR in 265 (63%), PR in 19 (4%), stable disease (SD) in one and PD in 14 (3%) patients, respectively, maintenance is stiil ongoing in 121 (29%) pts. Because of SARS-Cov2 pandemic from March 2020 consequences on maintenance treatment were: temporary suspension in 122 (29%), definitively interruption in123 (29%), no modification in 175 (42%) of pts, respectively. Median number of maintenance treatment administered at the time of SARS-Cov2 pandemic onset was 2 (range 1-12), median number of courses administered at the time of analysis was 8 (range 0-12), in patients who modified treatment because of pandemic median number of performed courses was 7 (range 0-11) and median number of lost cycles were 2 (range 1-12). Pts were divided into two groups according to type of approach to maintenance during pandemic: pts who interrupted maintenance (temporary or definitively): groups A (245 (58%) pts) vs pts who did not modified maintenance: group B (175 (42%) pts). No differences in clinical characteristics, type of therapy and response were observed between the two groups. 29(7%) relapses were observed: 16 (7%) vs 13 (7%) in group A vs B, respectively. 70 (17%) pts experienced SARS-Cov2 positivity: 47 (19%) vs 23 (13%) in group A vs B, respectively. 53 (76%) pts had symptomatic COVID syndrome and 43 (61%) were hospitalized, with no differences between the two groups. Anti-SARS-Cov2 vaccine was administered in 349 patients, serology assessment was done in 46% of cases, showing 21 (13%) reactive vs 138 (87%) not reactive pts, with no differences between the two groups. 21 (30%) pts died because of COVID: 9 (19%) vs 12 (52%) in groups A vs B, respectively. Summary/Conclusion: Suspension of maintenance treatment during SARS-Cov2 pandemic did not show a protection in terms of SARS-Cov2 positivity and morbidity. A trend in lower mortality is suggested. No differences in terms of relapse rate were observed, but longer follow up is needed.

Outcome of follicular lymphoma (FL) patients in maintenance with antiCD20 monoclonal antibodies (MoAb) in SARS-Cov2 era

Background: Maintenance in FL patients (pts) improves progression free survival (PFS). SARS-Cov2 pandemic posed unique challenges for immunocompromised pts. Methods: This is an observational, multicenter, retrospective and prospective study. The aim is to evaluate the outcome of FL pts in maintenance with antiCD20-MoAb during SARS-Cov2 pandemic and how suspension of therapy affected lymphoma outcome and the risk of SARS-Cov2 infection and its morbidity and mortality. Results: 420 pts from 18 Italian Centers were included. Median age was 62 years old (range 27-91), 216 pts (51%) were male. Main clinical characteristics were: histological grade 1-2 vs 3A vs not valuable in 288 (69%) vs 109 (26%) vs 23 (5%), respectively;advanced stage in 361 (86%), high FLIPI score in 192 (46%) pts. All 420 pts were in antiCD20-MoAb maintenance at the time of SARS-Cov2 pandemic onset (March 2020): 333 (79%) were receiving maintenance after a first line, while 87 (21%) after a second line. 342 (81%) pts were receiving Rituximab, while 75 (18%) Obinutuzumab, 3 pts did not start the planned maintenance. Status of disease after induction was complete remission (CR) in 374 (89%), partial response (PR) in 41 (10%), progressive disease (PD) in 1, not evaluated in 4 patients, respectively. At the end of maintenance was CR in 265 (63%), PR in 19 (4%), stable disease (SD) in one and PD in 14 (3%) pts, maintenance is ongoing in 121 (29%) pts. Because of SARS-Cov2 pandemic maintenance treatment was temporary suspended in 122 (29%), definitively interrupted in123 (29%), not changed in 175 (42%). Median number of maintenance treatment administered at March 2020 was 2 (range 1-12), in pts who modified treatment median number of performed vs lost courses was 7 (range 0-11) vs 2 (range 1-12). Patients were divided into two groups according to the approach to maintenance during pandemic: pts who interrupted maintenance (temporary or definitively): groups A (245 (58%) cases) vs pts who did not modified maintenance: group B (175 (42%)). No differences in clinical characteristics, type of therapy and response were observed between the two groups. 29(7%) relapses were observed: 16 (7%) vs 13 (7%) in group A vs B. 70 (17%) pts experienced SARS-Cov2 positivity: 47 (19%) vs 23 (13%) in group A vs B. 53 (76%) pts had symptomatic COVID and 43 (61%) were hospitalized, with no differences between the two groups. Anti-SARS-Cov2 vaccine was administered in 349 patients, serology assessment was done in 46% of cases, showing 21 (13%) reactive vs 138 (87%) not reactive patients, with no differences between the two groups. 21 (30%) pts died because of COVID: 9 (19%) vs 12 (52%) in groups A vs B. Conclusions: Suspension of maintenance during SARS-Cov2 pandemic did not show a protection in terms of SARS-Cov2 positivity and morbidity. A trend in lower mortality is suggested. No differences in terms of relapse rate were observed, but longer follow up is needed.

The use of ibrutinib in Italian CLL patients treated in a real-world setting (EVIDENCE): A preliminary report

Ibrutinib is the only once-daily Bruton's tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitor with significant survival benefit vs. chemo- and/or immunotherapy in multiple phase 3 studies of patients (pts) with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). It has profoundly changed the treatment landscape of CLL with the longest follow-up. However, seven years (yrs) after ibrutinib was approved in Italy by regulatory agencies for CLL treatment, available data on the patterns of care of such pts in the setting of clinical practice is limited. Herein we present the first interim analysis (IA) of EVIdeNCE (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03720561), a multicenter, observational clinical study designed to describe the current management of pts receiving ibrutinib in a real-world setting in Italy in terms of retention rate: the study's primary end point. Methods EVIDENCE 312 treatment-naïve (TN) 38% and relapsed/refractory (R/R) 62% pts with CLL according to the iwCLL diagnosis criteria observed at 39 Italian hematological institutions in the period between November 2018 and October 2019. Inclusion criteria were treatment with ibrutinib according to the European Summary of Product Characteristics as per routine clinical practice started within the previous 3 months. The purpose of this IA is to provide demographics and disease characteristics at baseline and a preliminary evaluation of ibrutinib retention rate after one year of follow-up, along with its safety profile. The median age of pts at the time of ibrutinib initiation was 71.0 yrs (range 41.0-89.0), with 60% ≥70 yrs, 63.2% male, and 90% with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance 0-1. Baseline Rai stage 0-I, II, and III-IV accounted for 18.3, 29.7, and 52.1% pts, respectively. Patients in stage IV were observed in 40% of the R/R and 27% in the TN subgroup. Considering 120 pts with known mutational status, del(17p) and/or TP53 mutation were present in 50.0% of pts (TN =52.1%, R/R = 48.6%), while IGHV was unmutated in 35.0% (TN =33.3% and R/R = 36.15) and mutated in 15.0% (TN =14.6%, R/R = 15.3%). At baseline, 62.9% of pts had comorbidities and 30.6% presented with a history of cardiovascular diseases (CVDs). A CIRS score ≥6 was observed in 28.5% of pts. The median time from CLL diagnosis to the start of ibrutinib was 5.1 yrs (TN 1.75 yrs vs. R/R 7.27 yrs). At least 1 treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE) of any grade was experienced by 70.7% of pts. Frequencies were as follows: infections (30.8%;COVID-19 infections 3.2%), arthralgia (10.8%), neutropenia (9.3%), fatigue (8.4%), diarrhea (7.7%), atrial fibrillation (7.4%;grade 3-4, 4.2%), fever (7.1%), rash (6.4%), anemia (6.1%), and hypertension (4.2%). Mild bleeding TEAEs were reported in 16.1% of pts with no major bleeding event. TEAEs were more frequent in the elderly (≥65 yrs) while no significant differences in the rate of TEAEs were recorded in TN and R/R pts (69.7 vs. 71.4%, respectively). Serious TEAEs were reported in 21.9% of pts. Overall in intention to treat (ITT), 32 deaths (10%) were observed (TN =8, R/R = 24). The most common causes of death were infections (3.5%) and progressive disease (PD) (1.9%). Permanent discontinuation was observed in 56 (18%) of the pts (TN =17.2%, R/R = 18.7%) and it mostly occurred within the first 6 months. The main causes of discontinuation were toxicity (6.1%), PD (3.8%), and death (3.5%). Temporary interruptions (≤3 months without therapy and/or dose modifications) during the whole observation period occurred in 30.3% (TN =35.3%, R/R = 27.2%) and 37.7% (TN =37.5%, R/R = 37.8%) of pts, respectively, mainly determined by toxicity and clinical judgment. Finally, in this first IA after 17.3 months (range 1.1-27.0) median follow-up, the ibrutinib retention rate (calculated as the ratio between the number of patients who retained ibrutinib treatment over the total number of patients at risk) at 1-year was 81.9% [95% confidence interval (CI), 77.2-86.1%] with no difference between TN 83.2% (95% CI, 75.2-89.4%) and R/R 81.2% pts (95% CI, 74.9-86.4%). EVIDENCE is the first realw rld study of ibrutinib use in CLL clinical practice in Italy. Ibrutinib retention rate at one-year suggests a better knowledge and expertise of hematologists in the management of ibrutinib-related toxicities that may result in an improved long-term outcome of pts with CLL.

The Use of Ibrutinib in Italian CLL Patients Treated in a Real-World Setting (EVIDENCE): A Preliminary Report

Introduction Ibrutinib is the only once-daily Bruton's tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitor with significant survival benefit vs chemo- and /or immunotherapy in multiple phase 3 studies of patients (pts) with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). It has profoundly changed the treatment landscape of CLL with the longest follow-up. However, seven years (yrs) after ibrutinib was approved in Italy by regulatory agencies for CLL treatment, available data on the patterns of care of such pts in the setting of clinical practice is limited. Herein we present the first interim analysis (IA) of EVIdeNCE (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03720561), a multicenter, observational clinical study designed to describe the current management of pts receiving ibrutinib in real-world setting in Italy in terms of retention rate: the study's primary end point. Methods EVIDENCE 312 treatment-naïve (TN) 38% and relapsed/refractory (R/R) 62% pts with CLL according to the iwCLL diagnosis criteria observed at 39 Italian hematological institutions in the period between November 2018 and October 2019. Inclusion criteria were treatment with ibrutinib according to the European Summary of Product Characteristics as per routine clinical practice started within the previous 3 months. The purpose of this IA is to provide demographics and disease characteristics at baseline and a preliminary evaluation of ibrutinib retention rate after one year of follow-up, along with its safety profile. Results The median age of pts at the time of ibrutinib initiation was 71.0 yrs (range 41.0-89.0), with 60% ≥70 yrs, 63.2% male, and 90% with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance 0-1. Baseline Rai stage 0-I, II, and III-IV accounted for 18.3%, 29.7% and 52.1% pts, respectively. Patients in stage IV were observed in 40% of the R/R and 27% in TN subgroup. Considering 120 pts with known mutational status, del(17p) and/or TP53 mutation were present in 50.0% of pts (TN=52.1%, R/R=48.6%), while IGHV was unmutated in 35.0% (TN=33.3% and R/R=36.15) and mutated in 15.0% (TN=14.6%, R/R=15.3%). At baseline, 62.9% of pts had comorbidities and 30.6% presented with a history of cardiovascular diseases (CVDs). A CIRS score ≥6 was observed in 28.5% of pts. The median time from CLL diagnosis to the start of ibrutinib was 5.1 yrs (TN 1.75 yrs vs R/R 7.27 yrs). At least 1 treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE) of any grade was experienced by 70.7% of pts. Frequencies were as follows: infections (30.8%;COVID-19 infections 3.2%), arthralgia (10.8%), neutropenia (9.3%), fatigue (8.4%), diarrhea (7.7%), atrial fibrillation (7.4%;grade 3-4, 4.2%), fever (7.1%), rash (6.4%), anemia (6.1%) and hypertension (4.2%). Mild bleeding TEAEs were reported in 16.1% of pts with no major bleeding event. TEAEs were more frequent in the elderly (≥65 yrs) while no significant differences in the rate of TEAEs were recorded in TN and R/R pts (69.7% vs 71.4%, respectively). Serious TEAEs were reported in 21.9% of pts. Overall in intention to treat (ITT), 32 deaths (10%) were observed (TN=8, R/R=24). The most common causes of death were infections (3.5%) and progressive disease (PD) (1.9%). Permanent discontinuation was observed in 56 (18%) of the pts (TN=17.2%, R/R=18.7%) and it mostly occurred within the first 6 months. Main causes of discontinuation were toxicity (6.1%), PD (3.8%) or death (3.5%). Temporary interruptions (≤ 3 months without therapy and/or dose modifications) during the whole observation period occurred in 30.3% (TN=35.3%, R/R=27.2%) and 37.7% (TN=37.5%, R/R=37.8%) of pts, respectively, mainly determined by toxicity and clinical judgment. Finally, in this first IA after 17.3 months (range 1.1 - 27.0) median follow-up, the ibrutinib retention rate (calculated as the ratio between the number of patients who retained ibrutinib treatment over the total number of patients at risk) at 1-year was 81.9% [95% confidence interval (CI), 77.2% - 86.1%] with no difference between TN 83.2% (95% CI, 75.2% - 89.4%) and R/R 81.2% pts (95% CI, 74.9% - 86.4%). Conclusions EVIDENCE is the irst real-world study of ibrutinib use in CLL clinical practice in Italy. Ibrutinib retention rate at one-year suggests a better knowledge and expertise of hematologists in the management of ibrutinib-related toxicities that may result in an improved long-term outcome of pts with CLL. Disclosures: Molica: Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria;Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria;Astrazeneca: Honoraria. Scarfo: Astra Zeneca: Honoraria;Abbvie: Honoraria;Janssen: Honoraria, Other: Travel grants. Murru: Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel and accommodation;Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria. Sportoletti: AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria;Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria;AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria. Frigeri: Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau;Abbvie: Speakers Bureau;Janssen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau;Amgen: Speakers Bureau. Sanna: Janssen: Consultancy;Abbvie: Consultancy;Astra Zeneca: Consultancy. Coscia: Janssen: Honoraria, Other, Research Funding;AbbVie: Honoraria, Other;AstraZeneca: Honoraria;Gilead: Honoraria. Reda: Abbvie: Consultancy;Astra Zeneca: Consultancy;Beigene: Consultancy;Janssen: Consultancy. Tafuri: Novartis: Research Funding;Roche: Research Funding;Celgene: Research Funding. Grugnetti: Janssen: Current Employment. Magarotto: Janssen: Current Employment. Mauro: Tskeda: Consultancy, Honoraria;Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria;Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau;Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau;Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria;Astra Zeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau.

Efficacy and Safety of Front-Line Venetoclax and Rituximab (VenR) for the Treatment of Young Patients with Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia and an Unfavorable Biologic Profile. Preliminary Results of the Gimema Study ‘Veritas‘

Fixed-duration treatment with venetoclax (Ven), a highly selective Bcl-2 inhibitor combined with an anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody, showed high efficacy inducing high rates of deep responses with undetectable minimal residual disease (uMRD) in patients with previously treated and untreated chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). The efficacy and safety of the Ven and rituximab (VenR) combination have been investigated in a multicenter, prospective study of the GIMEMA group that included young patients with previously untreated CLL (LLC 1518, VERITAS, NCT03455517). The primary endpoint of this study was the CR rate assessed according to the iwCLL criteria. Inclusion criteria were: treatment requirement per iwCLL criteria, age ≤65 years, cumulative Illness rating scale score ≤6, creatinine clearance ≥30 mL/min, and an unfavorable biologic profile with IGHV unmutated and or TP53 disruption. Treatment consisted of the Ven dose ramp-up (from 20 to 400 mg daily, during 5-weeks) followed by Ven 400 mg daily, combined with R for six 28-day courses (375 mg/m2, course 1;500 mg/m2, courses 2-6). Patients continued with Ven single agent, 400 mg daily, until month 13. Tumor lysis syndrome (TLS) prophylaxis measures included hydration, allopurinol, or rasburicase. All patients received Pneumocystis Jirovecii prophylaxis. G-CSF was given in patients with recurrent and severe granulocytopenia. Adverse events (AEs) were graded according to the CTCAE criteria v.5, TLS events were classified according to Howard's criteria. Response was assessed at months 7 and 15 and included clinical examination, PB evaluation, BM aspirate, BM biopsy, and CT scan. MRD was checked centrally in the PB and BM by a 6/4-color flow-cytometry assay with a sensitivity of at least 10-4 according to the internationally standardized European Research Initiative on CLL. Quantitative MRD results assessed by flow-cytometry were categorized as uMRD (uMRD4;<10-4), intermediate MRD, or high MRD (≥10-2). MRD was further evaluated by allele-specific oligonucleotide PCR with a sensitivity up to 10-5 in the PB and BM of patients who showed uMRD4 by flow-cytometry. During the follow-up, MRD was monitored every 6 months. Between October 2018 and May 2020, 77 patients with CLL were included in this study. Two patients were off study before the start of treatment (withdrawal of consent, 1;Covid-19 infection, 1) and were not included in the analysis. The median age was 53.5 years (range 38-65). Binet stage B/C was present in 84% of patients, increased beta-2 microglobulin in 41%. Seventy-one (96%) of patients were IGHV unmutated, while 3 (4%) were IGHV mutated and showed TP53 mutation (Table 1). At the data cutoff of June 30, 2020, 65 (87%) patients completed the ramp-up phase. The planned 400 mg dose of Ven was reached within 5 weeks in 78.5% of patients. Response was assessed in 34 patients at the end of the VenR combination therapy. A response was achieved by 32 (94%) patients. Responses included 20 (59%) CRs, 1 CRi (3%) and 11 (32%) PRs due to residual enlarged nodes (median maximum size, 1.9 cm). Treatment failure due to toxicity was recorded in 2 (6%) patients. Overall, a response with uMRD4 by flow-cytometry in the PB was observed in 26 (76.5%) cases, and in the PB and BM, in 17 (50.0%). The rates of patients with CR and uMRD4 by flow-cytometry in the PB, and both in the PB and BM, were 44%, and 35%, respectively (Table 2). No detectable disease by PCR, both in the PB and BM, was observed in 4 (12%) patients. With a median follow-up of 4.5 months from the start of therapy, no patient has progressed or died. Fifty-three percent of patients were hospitalized during the first seven days of the Ven ramp-up phase. A transient laboratory TLS was observed in 3 patients. Treatment was discontinued after the first dose of Ven in 1 patient with evidence of laboratory TLS associated with severe neurologic toxicity due to the concomitant administration of fentanyl. Selected grade ≥3 AEs included neutropenia in 10 patients (ramp-up phase, 5) and neutropenic fever in 4. Gra e ≥3 infection was recorded in 3 patients and was the reason for treatment discontinuation in 1 who developed COVID-19 pneumonia. In conclusion, the preliminary results of this study demonstrate the high efficacy of the front-line VenR combination, which resulted in a high proportion of CRs and responses with uMRD4 in young patients with CLL and an unfavorable biologic profile. [Formula presented] Disclosures: Mauro: Astrazeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees;Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees;Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau;Jannsen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau;Octopharma: Consultancy. Reda: Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees;Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees;Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Trentin: Abbvie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau;Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau;Shire: Honoraria;Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees;Octapharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Coscia: Shire: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees;Gilead: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees;Karyopharm Therapeutics: Research Funding;Abbvie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau;Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Sportoletti: Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau;Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Laurenti: Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees;AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau;Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau;Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Gaidano: Astrazeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees;Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau;Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau;Sunesys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Marasca: Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau;Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau;Shire: Honoraria;Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Murru: Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau;Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau;Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Rigolin: Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau;Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau;Abbvie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Scarfo: Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau;Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau;AstraZeneca: Honoraria;Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Marchetti: Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisor committees;Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees;Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees;Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees;Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees;Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Levato: Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau;Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees;Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau;Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Galieni: Celgene: Honoraria;Takeda: Honoraria;AbbVie: Honoraria;Janssen: Honoraria. Liberati: Verastem: Research Funding;Onconova: Research Funding;Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding;Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding;Abbvie: Honoraria, Research Funding;Pfizer: Research Funding;Karyopharm: Research Funding;Morphosys: Research Funding;Novartis: Research Funding;GSK: Research Funding;Incyte: Honoraria;Oncopeptides: Research Funding;Takeda: Research Funding. Molica: Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees;Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau;Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees;Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Visentin: Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau;Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, SpeakersBureau;Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Vitale: Janssen: Honoraria. Del Giudice: Janssen: Other: grant for meeting participation;Tolero: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees;Roche: Other: grant for meeting partecipation;AstraZeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Cuneo: Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau;Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau;Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau;Astra Zeneca: Honoraria;Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Foà: Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau;Incyte: Speakers Bureau;Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau;Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees;Novartis: Speakers Bureau;Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.