7 of 31

Summary of BCMA Bispecific Antibodies

	Teclistamab (n=165)	Linvoseltamab (n=167)	ABBV-383 (n=118)	Elranatamab (n=123)	Alnuctamab (n=68)
Route	SC	IV	IV	SC	SC
Dose and schedule	1.5mg/kg/QW	Q1W x 16w W≥16: Q2W	Q3W	76mg/Q1W C≥7: Q2W if PR	Q1W x 8 w Q2W C3-C7 C≥7 Q4W
Median prior LoT	5 (2-14)	6 (2-17)	5 (1-15)	5 (2-12)	4 (3-11)
Triple refractory	77.6%	90%	61%	96%	63%
CRS, G≥3	72.1%, 0.6%	47.9%, 0.6%	54%, 3%	57.7%, 0%	53%, 0%
Neurotoxicity, G≥3	3%, 0	4%, 0	NR, 6 pts	4, 3.4	2 pts, 3%
Infections, G≥3	76.4%, 44.8%	NR	32%, 17%	66.7%, 35%	34%, 9%
ORR (%)	63%	75% 200-800 mg	60%/81%* *at ≥40 mg	61%	53%
≥CR (%)	39.4%	16%	20%/30%*	27.6%	23%
Median PFS (m) (95% CI)	11.3 m (8.8-17.1)	Not reported	Not reported	NE (10.4-NE)	Not reported
Median DoR (m) (95% CI)	18.4 m (14.9-NE)	Not reached	Not reported	NE (12.0-NE)	Not reported
MRD – (10^-5)	26.7%	4/10	Not reported	90.9% (n=22)	16/20
FDA APPROVED	X			X

Moreau P et al. NEJM 2022; Bahlis N et al. ASH 2022; Wong S et al. ASH 2022; Voorhees PM et al. ASH 2022 ;

Presented by: Saad Z. Usmani, MD MBA FACP, @szusmani

8 of 31

Summary of non-BCMA Bispecific Antibodies

Chari A et al. NEJM 2023; Carlo-Stella et al. ASH 2022; Trudel S et al. ASH 2021.

	Talquetamab (n=288)		Forimtamig (n=57 )	Cevostamab (n=157)
Target	GPRC5d-CD3		2+1 GPRC5d-CD3	FcRH5-CD3
Route	SC (n=143)	SC (N=145)	SC	IV
Dose and schedule	0.4 mg/kg QW	0.8mg/kg Q2W	1200-7200 mcg/kg Q2W	Q3W
Median prior LoT	5 (2-13)	5 (2-17)	4 (2-14)	6 (2-18)
Triple refractory	74.1%	69%	71.9%	85%
CRS, G≥3	79%, 2.1%	72.4%, 0.7%	78.9%, 1.8%	81%, 1.2%
Neurotoxicity, G≥3	13.9%, 1.6%	10%, 1.8%	12.3%, .6%	14.3%, 0.6%
Infections, G≥3	57.3%, 16.8%-	50.3%, 11.7%	45.6%, 26.4%	45%, ND
ORR (%)	74.1%	73.1%	63.6%	56.7% 132-198mg
≥CR (%)	33.6%	32.4%	25.5%	8.4%
Median PFS (m) (95% CI)	7.5 (5.7-9.4)	11.9 (8.4-NE)	NR	NR
Median DoR (m) (95% CI)	9.3 (6.6-12.7)	13.0 (10.6-NE)	12.5 (1.2-12.5)	11.5 (6-18.4)
MRD – (10^-5)	NR	NR	10/14	7/10
FDA APPROVED	X	X

Presented by: Saad Z. Usmani, MD MBA FACP, @szusmani

9 of 31

Summary of Bispecific Antibodies - Infections

	Teclistamab n=165	Elranatamab n=123	Alnuctamab n=68 (sc)	ABBV-838 n=118	Talquetamab n=288 [0.4-0.8mg/kg]*	Cevostamab n=161	Forimtamig n=57 (SC)
Median FUP (months, m)	14.1 m	10.4 m	4.1 m	4.3 – 8.0m	14.9 – 8.6 m	8.8 m	8.0m
Overall, n (%)	126 (76.4)	82 (66.7)	23 (34)	38 (32)	57.3%-50.3%	45%	26 (45.6)
Grade 3-4, n (%)	74 (44.8)	43 (35)	6 (9)	20 (17)	16.8%-11.7%	ND	15 (26.4)
Bacterial	ND	ND	ND	ND		ND	ND
Fungal	ND	ND	ND	ND		ND	ND
Viral	ND	ND	ND	ND		ND	ND
Opportunistic infections PJP CMV	6 patients NR (*1 patients with Adenoviral pneumonia)	6 (4.9) 10 (8.1)	ND ND	ND ND	5(3.5%)–4(2.8%) ND 3 patients	ND	ND
COVID infections, n (%) Overall Grade 3-4	29 (17.6) 20 (12.1)	31 (25.2) 14 (11.4)	ND ND	ND ND	13(9.1) – 16(11) 0.7% - 2.1%	ND	12 (24.6) 2 (3.6)
Infectious death, n (%)	16/27	NR	ND	4 pts	NR	ND	ND

Moreau P et al. NEJM 2022; Lesokhin A et al. ASH 2022. ; Wong S et al. ASH 2022; Voorhees PM et al. ASH 2022; Chari A et al. NEJM 2023; Carlo-Stella et al. ASH 2022; Trudel S et al. ASH 2021

Presented by: Saad Z. Usmani, MD MBA FACP, @szusmani

10 of 31

Teclistamab: Long-term Follow-up from MajesTEC-1

van de Donk NWCJ et al. ASCO 2023; Usmani SZ et al ASCO 2023.

165 pts, median f/u 2 years

Median prior LOT, 5
ORR, 63.0%
≥ CR, 45.5%
81% of MRD evaluable pts were MRD undetectable at Day 100
ORR for pts with ≤ 3 vs > 3 prior LOT, 74.4% vs 59%

Presented by: Saad Z. Usmani, MD MBA FACP, @szusmani

11 of 31

Mechanisms of resistance to BsAbs

Adapted from: van de Donk N, Themeli M, Usmani SZ. Blood Cancer Discov 2021;2:302–18

T-cell characteristics

T-cell frequency
T-cell fitness

MM microenvironment-related factors

BM stromal cells
Immune suppressor cells

BsAb characteristics

Affinity for target
Dose
Immunogenicity
Dual targeting

Tumor-related features

Antigen loss or diminished antigen expression
Soluble BCMA (for BCMA BsAbs)
Tumor load

High-risk cytogenetic features
Extramedullary disease
Inhibitory receptors and ligands, �which suppress T-cell function

IMiD/CelMOD,

Check point

inhibitors

CD38 antibody: Elimination of Tregs

BCMA, B-cell maturation antigen; BM, bone marrow; BsAb, bispecific antibody; IMiD, immunomodulatory drug; MMC, multiple myeloma cell; Tregs, regulatory T-cells

Presented by: Saad Z. Usmani, MD MBA FACP, @szusmani

12 of 31

TRIMM-2: Talquetamab and daratumumab

CR, complete response; CRS, cytokine release syndrome; dara, daratumumab; ICANS, immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome; mAb, monoclonal antibody; ORR, overall response rate; PL, prior lines of treatment; PR, partial response; QW/Q2W, weekly/every 2 weeks; SC, subcutaneous; sCR, stringent CR; SD, stable disease; Tal, talquetamab; VGPR, very good partial response

van de Donk N et al. EHA 2022;abstract S183 (oral presentation)

Presented by: Saad Z. Usmani, MD MBA FACP, @szusmani

^aIncluding a PI and an IMiD. ^b1–3 step-up doses given within 1 week before a full dose.

^cGlucocorticoid, antihistamine, and antipyretic.

Parameter	Evaluable	patients^a
Parameter	Tal 400 μg/kg QW + dara (n=14)	Tal 800 μg/kg Q2W + dara (n=37)
Follow-up, median (range)	6.7 months (1.9–19.6)	4.2 months (0.2–12.3)
ORR^b, n (%)	10 (71.4)	31 (83.8)
CR/sCR	4 (28.6)	11 (29.7)
VGPR	4 (28.6)	13 (35.1)
PR	2 (14.3)	7 (18.9)
SD	4 (28.6)	4 (10.8)
PD	0	2 (5.4)
Time to first confirmed response, median (range)	1.0 month (0.9–2.4)	1.0 month (0.9–6.5)

^aResponse-evaluable patients had received ≥1 study treatment and had ≥1 postbaseline response evaluation by the investigator. ^bPR or better in response-evaluable patients; includes unconfirmed responses.

Median age, years: 400 µg/Kg 68 (50-77); 800 µg/Kg 62 (44-81)
Median PL: 6; 5
High-risk cytogenetics: 1 (10.0%); 5 (19.2%)
Triple-class refractory: 8 (57.1%); 28 (63.6%)
Anti-CD38 mAb refractory: 11 (78.6%); 33 (75.0%)

Median follow-up 5.1 months
CRS all grades: 10 (71.4%); 34 (77.3%); Grade 3/4 0; 0
ICANS: 2 patients, both grade 1 and resolved within 1 day
Dysgeusia, all grades: 10 (71.4%), grade 3/4 NA; 26 (59.1%), grade 3/4 NA. Dry mouth, all grades: 10 (71.4%), grade 3/4

0; 18 (40.9%), grade 3/4 0

31 patients (53.4%) had infections (grade ≥3: 17.2%)
Skin- and/or nail-related AEs: 81.0 % (47/58) patients

13 of 31

Phase 1b RedirecTT-1: Teclistamab + Talquetamab

Cohen YC et al. ASCO 2023. Abstract 8002.

Mateos M-V et al. EHA 2023. Abstract S190.

Presented by: Saad Z. Usmani, MD MBA FACP, @szusmani

14 of 31

RedirecTT-1: Conclusions

Cohen YC et al. ASCO 2023. Abstract 8002.

Mateos M-V et al. EHA 2023. Abstract S190.

Presented by: Saad Z. Usmani, MD MBA FACP, @szusmani

15 of 31

Pros/Cons of Bispecifics

Presented by: Saad Z. Usmani, MD MBA FACP, @szusmani

Off the shelf
Low grade cytokine release syndrome (CRS)
Low incidence of neurotoxicity (NT)
Ability to combine with other mechanisms of actions

Pros:

Not every patient is responding to BsAbs.
Continuous therapy model associated with infection risk

Hypogammaglobulinemia requiring IVIg administration
VZV/PJP Prophylaxis

Logistic challenges for community at large during first cycle of monitoring and managing CRS/NT

Cons:

16 of 31

Hot off the press…April 30, 2024.

Presented by: Saad Z. Usmani, MD MBA FACP, @szusmani

17 of 31

BCMA-Targeted CAR T-Cell Therapies Indicated for MM

BCMA, B-cell maturation antigen; CAR, chimeric antigen receptor; MM, multiple myeloma; R/R, relapsed/refractory.

BCMA-Targeted Therapy	Indications
Idecabtagene vicleucel	Adults with R/R multiple myeloma after > 2 prior lines of therapy, including an immunomodulatory agent, a proteasome inhibitor, and an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody (April 4, 2024) Adults with R/R multiple myeloma after ≥4 prior lines of therapy, including an immunomodulatory agent, a proteasome inhibitor, and an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody
Ciltacabtagene autoleucel	Adults with relapsed and lenalidomide-refractory multiple myeloma after > 1 prior line of therapy, including a proteasome inhibitor and an immunomodulatory agent (April 5, 2024) Adults with R/R multiple myeloma after ≥4 prior lines of therapy, including an immunomodulatory agent, a proteasome inhibitor, and an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody

Presented by: Saad Z. Usmani, MD MBA FACP, @szusmani

18 of 31

KarMMa-3: Randomized Trial Ide-Cel vs SOC

Rodriguez-Otero P, et al. N Engl J Med. 2023;388(11):1002-1014.

14.8 months

9.7 months

Ide-cel

SOC

1.0

0.7

0.5

0.3

0.2

0.0

0.1

0.4

0.6

0.8

0.9

Probability of PFS

Months since randomization

254	206	178	149	110	62	40	22	14	4	2	0
132	75	42	32	25	13	10	7	6	2	1	0

Ode-cel

Standard regimen

No. at risk

0.73

0.40

0.55

0.30

Ide-cel

Standard of care

SOC regimens (n = 132):

43 Dara-Pd

30 Kd

30 Elo-Pd

22 Ixa-Rd

7 Dara-Vd

**93% were refractory to dara

	Ide-cel (n = 225)	SOC (n = 126)
Median lines of therapy	3	3
Extramedullary disease	24%	24%
HR cytogenetics	42%	46%
Triple-class refractory	65%	67%
Penta-refractory	6%	4%

Median dose of ide-cel:

445 x 10⁶ CAR+ T cells

Duration of Response

Progression-Free Survival

(Intent-to-treat population)

	Ide-cel	Standard regimen
Median PFS, months (95% CI)	13.3 (11.8−16.1)	4.4 (3.4−5.9)
HR (95% CI)	0.49 (0.38−0.65)
P value	<0.001

Presented by: Saad Z. Usmani, MD MBA FACP, @szusmani

19 of 31

CARTITUDE-4: Phase 3 Cilta-Cel vs SOC (DPd or VPd)

San-Miguel J, et al. N Engl J Med. 2023;389(4):335-347

Median follow-up 15.9 months	Cilta-cel (n = 208)	SOC (n = 211)
Median lines of therapy	2 (1–3)	2 (1–3)
Extramedullary disease	21%	17%
HR cytogenetics	59%	63%
Triple-class refractory	25.5%	26.1%
Penta-exposed	6.7%	4.7%
ORR	ITT: 84.6% As-tx: 99.4%	67.3%
MRD-neg (10^-5)	ITT: 61% As-tx: 72%	16%
12-month DOR	84.7	63.0%

Cilta-cel was associated with superior PFS in the ITT population; patients in cilta-cel arm received DVd or VPd bridging, but had higher number of early progressions vs SOC

100

Percentage of patients surviving without disease progression

Months

Wk 8

Cilta-cel group

Standard-care group

No. at risk

Cilta-cel group

Standard-care group

208

211

166

116

9�1

146

172

133

177

176

HR* 0.40 (0.29–0.55); P < 0.0001

PFS: ITT Population

*unweighted

Presented by: Saad Z. Usmani, MD MBA FACP, @szusmani

20 of 31

Why Use CART Early?

Derman B, et al. Blood Adv. 2023;7(19):5703-5712. Song Y, et al. ASH. 2023;Abstract 1009. Mateos M-V, et al. J Clin Oncol. 2024;42(suppl 36):Abstract 439572.

Anti-CD38 mAb increasingly being used in frontline, and anti-CD38 mAb + R as maintenance
At first relapse, patients may have anti-CD38 mAb and IMiD resistance
What are the options?

Belantamab mafodotin + Vd in 2L+ had median PFS of 36.6 months

0.0

1.0

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.8

PFS (probability)

Time since randomization (months)

BVd

DVd

43%

69%

18 months

Median �13.4 months

Median �36.6 months

PFS	BVd �(n = 243)	DVd �(n = 251)	HR �(95% CI)	P-value
Events, n (%)	91 (37)	158 (63)
mPFS (95% CI), mo	36.6�(28.4-NR)	13.4�(11.1-17.5)	0.41 �(0.31-0.53)	< 0.00001

Presented by: Saad Z. Usmani, MD MBA FACP, @szusmani

21 of 31

Why Use CART Early?

Derman B, et al. Blood Adv. 2023;7(19):5703-5712. Song Y, et al. ASH. 2023;Abstract 1009.

CARTITUDE-4 PFS

Appropriate for second-line CAR T	Later CAR T may be appropriate
Triple-class refractory disease at first relapse	No anti-CD38 mAb resistance (anti-CD38 mAb)
Value extended treatment-free period	Value weekly visits > hospitalization
Place premium on efficacy > toxicity	Place premium on lower toxicity

Presented by: Saad Z. Usmani, MD MBA FACP, @szusmani

22 of 31

Cytopenias After BCMA-Targeting CAR T

Logue J, et al, Blood Adv. 2022;6(24):6109-6119. Thibaud S, et al. Blood. 2022;140(Suppl1):614-616.

Occur in almost all patients who received ide-cel (91%) and cilta-cel (100%)
Median time to recovery, ≥ 3 months
Commonly results in infections

Presented by: Saad Z. Usmani, MD MBA FACP, @szusmani

23 of 31

Comparison of infectious complications with BCMA-directed therapies – the MSKCC Experience

Presented by: Saad Z. Usmani, MD MBA FACP, @szusmani

Nath K et al. Blood Cancer J 2024;14(1):88.

Estimated cumulative incidence of grade ≥3 infections over time

24 of 31

Secondary (Hematologic) Cancers Post-CAR T-Cell Therapy

Rodriguez-Otero P, et al. New Engl J Med. 2023; 388(11):1002-1014. Lin Y, et al. J Clin Oncol. 2023;41(16):Poster 8009. San-Miguel J, et al. New Engl J Med. 2023;389(4):335-347.

Trial	Secondary hematologic malignancy incidence
Ide-cel (KarMMa-3) vs SOC	2% vs 0% [all MDS/AML]
Cilta-cel (CARTITUDE-1)	10% [Mostly AML/MDS, 1 B-cell lymphoma]
Cilta-cel (CARTITUDE-4) vs SOC	3% vs 0% [2% AML/MDS, 1% TCL]

Use of fludarabine/cyclophosphamide + risk of insertional mutagenesis raises specter of second hematologic cancers

Retrospective analyses	Details
FDA	33 cases of T-cell lymphoma among ~30K cases
Ghilardi G,et al. Nat Med. 2024;30(4):984-989	Case of TCL after CD19 CAR T; clone identified before CAR T infusion
Harrison S, et al. Blood. 2023;142(Suppl1):6939	TCL after cilta-cel; possibly driven by clone present before CAR T
Elsallab M, et al. Blood. 2024;143(20):2099-2105	FAERS database; Myeloid leukemias and T-cell lymphomas reported [estimated 0.1% incidence]

AML, acute myeloid leukemia; MDS, myelodysplastic syndrome, TCL, T-cell lymphoma

Presented by: Saad Z. Usmani, MD MBA FACP, @szusmani

25 of 31

Secondary (Hematologic) Cancers Post-CAR T-Cell Therapy

Black Box Warning:

Secondary hematological malignancies, including MDS, AML, T-cell malignancies

Longer follow-up from randomized trials of CAR T versus SOC should help to clarify the excess risk of secondary blood cancers

Many factors make it hard to conclude if there are associations between CAR T therapy and secondary cancers

Most patients received melphalan and lenalidomide in the past and there is a latency to developing secondary cancers from these drugs
Unclear if CAR transgene is present in T-cell lymphomas
Unclear if clones were present before CAR T-cell therapy
Unclear denominator in these analyses

IS THERE A LINK?

Presented by: Saad Z. Usmani, MD MBA FACP, @szusmani

26 of 31

Real World Ide-Cel

SOC, standard of care

Hansen DK, et al. J Clin Oncol. 2023;41(11):2087-2097.

10% underwent apharesis but never received their product

(KarMMA, 9%; KarMMA-3: 7.5%)

Leukapheresis for planned SOC ide-cel CAR T therapy

(N = 196)

Did not proceed to CAR T infusion (n = 17)

Manufacturing failure (n = 5)
Progression/death (n = 12)

Pending ide-cel CAR T therapy infusion (n = 20)

Ide-cel infusion (n = 159)

SOC ide-cel (n = 158)
Expanded access program (n = 1)

Patients who are not infused were not included in initial outcomes analyses, which may inflate

PFS, OS, etc

27 of 31

Real World Ide-Cel

Compared to KarMMA:

ORR similar
PFS similar
OS worse (12.5 vs 19.4 months)

Hansen DK, et al. J Clin Oncol. 2023;41(11):2087-2097.

Day 30 (n = 159)

Day 90(n = 149)

Best ORR(n = 159)

100

Percent

CR or sCR: 30%

ORR: �78%

CR or sCR: 38%

CR or sCR: 42%

ORR:�84%

ORR: �72%

CR or sCR, MRD+

VGPR

CR or sCR, MRD-

CR or sCR, MRD unknown

0.75

0.50

0.25

1.00

PFS (probability)

Months

No. at risk

All

159

115

All

Median PFS, 8.5 months

95% CI, 6.5 to NR

0.75

0.50

0.25

1.00

OS (probability)

Months

No. at risk

All

159

138

All

Median OS, 12.5 months

95% CI, 11.3 to NR

Best Overall Tumor Responses

PFS From Ide-Cel Infusion

OS From Ide-Cel Infusion

28 of 31

Real-World Cilta-Cel

Hansen DK, et al. J Clin Oncol. 2023;41(suppl16):8012.

Real-world pts, retrospective	N = 139
Median age, years	64 (30–79)
ECOG PS 0 or 1	89%
High-risk Disease Features Extramedullary disease High-risk cytogenetics Plasma cell leukemia Prior BCMA therapy ISS-3/R-ISS 3	31% 41% 7% 12% 22%
Penta-refractory disease	34%
Bridging Therapy	80%
Out of specification	22%
Grade >3 CRS and ICANS	5% / 6%
Delayed neurotoxicity Parkinsonism Bell’s/CN palsy	12% 1% 6%

*57% ineligible for CARTITUDE-1*

High-risk cytogenetics associated with inferior ORR, PFS, OS

Best ORR

ITT Best ORR

CR or sCR: 56%

ORR: �89%

CR or sCR: 53%

ORR: �84%

CR or sCR, MRD+

VGPR

CR or sCR, MRD-

CR or sCR, MRD unknown

Real-World PFS

Real-World OS

0.75

0.50

0.25

1.00

0.00

PFS (probability)

Months

All

12-month PFS estimate: 67%

95% CI: 55-80%

No. at risk

All

159

141

119

0.75

0.50

0.25

1.00

0.00

OS (probability)

Months

All

12-month OS estimate: 79%

95% CI: 72-87%

No. at risk

All

153

145

123

29 of 31

Factors Associated With Outcomes in BCMA-Directed �CAR T-Cell Therapy

Criterion	Ide-Cel		Cilta-Cel			Source(s)
Criterion	Association with response	Association with PFS/OS	Association with response		Association with PFS/OS	Source(s)
Higher ISS stage	Negative	Negative	Negative	Negative		Rodriguez-Otero, et al. Hemasphere. 2022; Rodriguez-Otero, et al. NEJM. 2023; Munshi, et al. NEJM. 2021; Martin, et al. JCO. 2022.
High-risk cytogenetics	Negative	Negative	Negative	Negative		Gagelmann, et al. Haematologica. 2023; Gagelmann, et al. JCO. 2024; Munshi, et al. NEJM. 2021; Martin, et al. JCO. 2022, Hashmi, et al. Haematologica. 2023; Hansen, et al. ASCO. 2023
Extramedullary disease	Negative	Negative	Negative	Negative		Ibid
Plasma cell leukemia	Negative	Negative	Negative	Negative		Ibid
High/rapidly increasing disease burden	Negative?	Negative?	Negative?	Negative?		Rodriguez-Otero, et al. Hemasphere. 2022; Rodriguez-Otero, et al. NEJM. 2023; Martin, et al. JCO. 2022
Prior BCMA-directed therapy - Antibody-drug conjugate - Bispecific antibody - CAR T-cell therapy (same product) - CAR T-cell therapy (diff product)	Negative Negative Negative None	Negative Negative Negative None	Negative Negative Negative Unknown	Negative Negative Negative Unknown		Cohen, et al. Blood. 2022; Ferreri, et al. BCJ. 2023; Hashmi, et al. Haematologica. 2023; Munshi, et al. NEJM. 2021; Martin, et al. JCO. 2022
Patient-Related Factors
ECOG Performance Status ≥ 2	Negative	Negative	Negative	Negative		Hansen, et al. JCO. 2023
Ferritin > upper limit of normal	Negative	Negative	Negative	Negative		Hashmi, et al. Haematological. 2023; Gagelmann, et al. JCO. 2024;

30 of 31

Conclusions

The myeloma treatment landscape is now undergoing a paradigm shift with novel immunotherapies extending our patient’s lives.
BCMA-/GPRC5D-directed therapies are available for TCR/penta-refractory disease.
Early use of CART makes sense, especially for anti-CD38/IMiD exposed or refractory pts.
Access (and equity) will be a key, issue with CAR T but improving.

BCMA BsAb appears to be an effective off the shelf option!
Logistics will differ for academic versus community settings.

Figuring out how to combine/sequence bispecific antibodies safely and effectively is the next hurdle.

Presented by: Saad Z. Usmani, MD MBA FACP, @szusmani

31 of 31

MSKCC Myeloma Team – It Takes a Village!

Physicians:

Parastoo Dahi (ABMT)
Sergio Giralt (Deputy Chair, DHM)
Alexander Lesokhin
Hani Hassoun
Malin Hultcrantz
Neha Korde (Clinical Director)
Heather Landau (ABMT)
Kylee Maclachlan
Sham Mailankody (Research Director)
Francesco Maura
Dhwani Patel
Sridevi Rajeeve
Michael Scordo (ABMT)
Gunjan Shah (ABMT)
Urvi Shah
Carlyn Tan
Saad Z. Usmani (Chief)

APPs:

Isabel Concepcion
Katie Jones
Justina Kiernan (BER)
Lori Lang (WES)
Katelyn Kelly-Johnson (CMK)
Jennifer Rielly
Ashley Steinberger
Jenna Wenzel

CTNs:

Marcela Algave, RN
Kelly Barnett, RN
Jenna Blaslov, RN
Julia Caple, RN
Tara Sood, RN
Ling Tran, RN

OPNs:

Kelly Aliaga
Grismer Canales
Carolanne Carini (BER)
Kathleen Considine (WES)
Alexa Cracolici (MON)
Kellie Donovan
Mackenzie Galvin
Anna Howard
Kyla Lafond
Michelle O’Hare (CMK)
Pattie Scherer (BER)

PharmDs:

Alice Wang
Issam Hamadeh

Clinical Research Team:

Miranda Burge
Leah Gilbert
Bianca Gonzalez
Laura Guttentag (CRM, Myeloma)
Selena Hamid
Roger Huang
Meredith Hyland
Mosammed Kabir
Emily Lei
Guljar Nahar
Alexis Nwakwo
Garrett Preusz
Anna Przemielewska
Raisa Rahman
Colin Rueda
Jeannen Santos
Tala Shekarkhand
Felicia Slaton
Clare Sullivan
Kristina Vinzon-Baltazar

OCs:

Fariha Ali
Xavier Ayala
Elhaji Ba
Ruth Bien-aime
Odali Espinal
Eric Frazer
Daniel Maldonado
Krystal Soto

Service Manager/Admins:

Malika Langaine
Chelsea Brooklyn
Shaneeza Imran
Gladys Acosta