Omalizumab Therapy for Mast Cell-Mediator Symptoms in Patients with ISM, CM, MMAS, and MCAS.

BACKGROUND: Patients with mast cell diseases may suffer from various distressing symptoms, which can be insufficiently controlled with available therapies, severely affecting their quality of life. There is a need for new and safe treatment options for these patients. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to evaluate safety and efficacy of omalizumab administration in patients with a symptomatic mast cell disorder. METHODS: We included 55 patients with a mast cell disorder associated with debilitating symptoms who received omalizumab treatment between January 2015 and December 2017, after a multidisciplinary team meeting at the French National Reference Center for Mastocytosis. RESULTS: A complete response was achieved for 1 patient (1.8%), a major response for 30 patients (54.5%), and a partial response for 12 patients (21.8%), resulting in an overall best response rate of 78.2% (43 of 55 patients). The response was persistent at least 3 months in 33 of 43 responding patients (76.7%). At the last follow-up, the final overall response rate was 58.2% (32 of 55 patients). Median time to first response was 2 months and median time to best response was 6 months. Omalizumab was dramatically effective on all superficial and general vasomotor symptoms and on most gastrointestinal or urinary symptoms, and partially effective on most neuropsychiatric symptoms. Safety profile was acceptable, except for one severe adverse event (edema of the larynx and dyspnea after the first injection of omalizumab). Side effects were reported in 16 patients (29%), mainly of low to mild intensity, yet causing interruption of treatment in 5 patients (9%). CONCLUSION: Omalizumab seems to be a useful therapeutic option to control mast cell-mediator symptoms and displays a favorable safety profile.

Targeted Treatment Options in Mastocytosis.

Mastocytosis refers to a heterogeneous group of disorders resulting from the clonal proliferation of abnormal mast cells and their accumulation in the skin (cutaneous mastocytosis when only in the skin, CM) or in various organs (systemic mastocytosis, SM). This leads to a wide variety of clinical manifestations resulting from excessive mediator release in CM and benign forms of SM (indolent SM, ISM) and from tissue mast cell infiltration causing multiorgan dysfunction and failure in more aggressive subtypes (aggressive SM, ASM, or mast cell leukemia). In addition, SM may be associated with hematological neoplasms (AHN). While treatment of ISM primarily aims at symptom management with anti-mediator therapies, cytoreductive and targeted therapies are needed to control the expansion of neoplastic mast cells in advanced forms of SM, in order to improve overall survival. Mast cell accumulation results from a gain-of-function mutation (mostly the D816V mutation) within the KIT tyrosine kinase domain expressed by mast cells and additional genetic and epigenetic mutations may further determine the features of the disease (ASM and AHN). Consequently, tyrosine kinase inhibitors and targeted therapies directed against the oncogenic signaling machinery downstream of KIT are attractive therapeutic approaches. A better understanding of the relative contribution of these genetic and epigenetic events to the molecular pathogenesis of mastocytosis is of particular interest for the development of targeted therapies and therefore to better choose patient subgroups that would best benefit from a given therapeutic strategy.

Tumour targeting and radiation dose of radioimmunotherapy with (90)Y-rituximab in CD20+ B-cell lymphoma as predicted by (89)Zr-rituximab immuno-PET: impact of preloading with unlabelled rituximab.

PURPOSE: To compare using immuno-PET/CT the distribution of (89)Zr-labelled rituximab without and with a preload of unlabelled rituximab to assess the impact of preloading with unlabelled rituximab on tumour targeting and radiation dose of subsequent radioimmunotherapy with (90)Y-labelled rituximab in CD20+ B-cell lymphoma. METHODS: Five patients with CD20+ B-cell lymphoma and progressive disease were prospectively enrolled. All patients underwent three study phases: initial dosimetric phase with baseline (89)Zr-rituximab PET/CT imaging without a cold preload, followed 3 weeks later by a second dosimetric phase with administration of a standard preload (250 mg/m(2)) of unlabelled rituximab followed by injection of (89)Zr-rituximab, and a therapeutic phase 1 week later with administration of unlabelled rituximab followed by (90)Y-rituximab. PET/CT imaging and tracer uptake by organs and lesions were assessed. RESULTS: With a cold rituximab preload, the calculated whole-body dose of (90)Y-rituximab was similar (mean 0.87 mSv/MBq, range 0.82-0.99 mSv/MBq) in all patients. Without a preload, an increase in whole-body dose of 59% and 87% was noted in two patients with preserved circulating CD20+ B cells. This increase in radiation dose was primarily due to a 12.4-fold to 15-fold higher dose to the spleen without a preload. No significant change in whole-body dose was noted in the three other patients with B-cell depletion. Without a preload, consistently higher tumour uptake was noticed in patients with B-cell depletion. CONCLUSION: Administration of the standard preload of unlabelled rituximab impairs radioconjugate tumour targeting in the majority of patients eligible for radioimmunotherapy, that is patients previously treated with rituximab-containing therapeutic regimens. This common practice may need to be reconsidered and further evaluated as the rationale for this high preload has its origin in the "prerituximab era". Clinical Trial Application: CTA 2011-005474-38 TRIAL REGISTRY: EudraCT.