Interpreting tryptase levels and avoiding common pitfalls in screening for clonal mast cell disease
Abstract
Abstract Introduction: Clonal mast cell diseases (cMCD) are driven by clonal expansion of aberrant mast cells (MC), primarily due to the gain-of-function KIT D816V mutation. Systemic mastocytosis (SM), the most common subtype of cMCD, harbors KIT D816V in approximately 95% of adult cases. SM diagnosis is defined by 1 major criterion from the World Health Organization (WHO 2023) and International Consensus Classification (ICC 2022), the presence of noncutaneous tissue MC aggregates, and 4 minor criteria including basal serum tryptase (BST) >20 ng/mL. Emerging evidence supports that SM can occur with BST levels below 20 ng/mL. Therefore, recent guidance from the American College of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology recommends that BST >8 ng/mL should be considered suggestive of cMCD or hereditary alpha tryptasemia (HaT). BST levels below 20 ng/mL have been identified as a source of diagnostic SM/cMCD confusion. “Tryptase-gating,” using BST >20 ng/mL as a threshold for further SM/cMCD evaluation, may delay diagnosis. Here, we aim to evaluate the diagnostic utility and reliability of BST levels in predicting cMCD. Methods: PROSPECTOR (NCT04811365) was a multicenter, prospective, screening study that evaluated the prevalence of KIT D816V mutation in peripheral blood (PB) by central laboratory testing using droplet digital PCR (limit of detection ≤0.03%) in 381 patients with anaphylaxis. Post hoc, local follow-up assessments to evaluate for the presence of cMCD were conducted in a subset of 27 patients with elevated BST (>11.4 ng/mL) in the absence of HaT. Univariate logistic regression was performed to evaluate BST as the sole predictor of cMCD. A multivariable exploratory model included age, sex, and BST as predictors of cMCD risk. Results: In PROSPECTOR, 8% (29/381) patients had documented cMCD: 15 patients were positive for KIT D816V in central PB testing and 14 patients were KIT D816V-negative, with BST >11.4 ng/mL in the absence of HaT and subsequently diagnosed following bone marrow biopsy. Of the 15 KIT D816V-positive patients, 80% (12/15) had BST <20 ng/mL (median: 14.2 ng/mL [min, max: 7.2, 19.9]); 1 patient had HaT (BST=11.9 ng/mL). An exploratory analysis suggested comparable proportions of KIT D816V positivity across BST strata, though sample sizes are small. Local assessment in 27 patients with elevated BST (>11.4 ng/mL) without HaT led to cMCD diagnosis in 22 patients; 77% (17/22) had BST <20 ng/mL. Among these, 64% (14/22) were negative for KIT D816V by central PB testing, and 79% (11/14) had BST between 11.4 ng/mL and 20 ng/mL. In the remaining 5/27 patients without confirmed cMCD, BST levels were all <20 ng/mL. Exploratory, multivariable analyses comparing the clonal population (confirmed cMCD diagnosis and no HaT [n=28]) with the control population (unconfirmed cMCD diagnosis due to absence of bone marrow biopsy on follow-up [n=5]) showed no evidence of an association between cMCD and age, sex, or BST level, although the analysis was underpowered due to small sample size. A univariate analysis focused on BST alone revealed no significant association with cMCD (odds ratio: 0.978; 95% confidence interval: 0.868–1.102). Descriptive statistics showed similar median BST levels across groups (median: 14.9 ng/mL [min, max: 7.2, 200] vs 16.1 ng/mL [min, max: 12.0, 19.9] in the cMCD and unconfirmed cMCD cohorts, respectively), noting 1 extreme BST outlier (200 ng/mL) in the cMCD group. Conclusions: Overall, tryptase should be obtained when looking for cMCD. In this limited study 79% of patients (23/29, 12/15 from central PB testing and 11/14 from local follow-up assessment) with confirmed cMCD (including SM) in PROSPECTOR had BST <20 ng/mL, suggesting that restricting screening for cMCD to cases with BST >20 ng/mL may lead to delayed diagnosis. BST of >11.4 ng/mL in the absence of HaT should be considered for evaluation of cMCD.
Article Details
Authors (8)
Mariana Castells
1Department of Medicine, Division of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, United States
Matthew Giannetti
2Division of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, United States
Cem Akin
7University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, United States
Joseph Jurcic
1Columbia University Irving Medical Center, Division of Hematology/Oncology, New York, United States
Aaron Zakharyan
5Blueprint Medicines, a Sanofi Company, Cambridge, United States
Ray Coghlan
5Blueprint Medicines, a Sanofi Company, Cambridge, United States
Karin Hartmann
6Division of Allergy, Department of Dermatology, University Hospital Basel and University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland
Vito Sabato
5Department of Immunology, Allergology and Rheumatology, University of Antwerp, and Antwerp University Hospital, Antwerp, Belgium