zhongwei/gh-k-dense-ai-claude-scientific-writer-claude-scientific-writer
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

Initial commit

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
Zhongwei Li
2025-11-30 08:30:18 +08:00
commit 74bee324ab
335 changed files with 147377 additions and 0 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

521
skills/clinical-decision-support/references/treatment_recommendations.md Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,521 @@
# Treatment Recommendations Guide
## Overview
Evidence-based treatment recommendations provide clinicians with systematic guidance for therapeutic decision-making. This guide covers the development, grading, and presentation of clinical recommendations in pharmaceutical and healthcare settings.
## Evidence Grading Systems
### GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation)
**Quality of Evidence Levels**
**High Quality (⊕⊕⊕⊕)**
- Further research very unlikely to change confidence in estimate
- Criteria: Well-designed RCTs with consistent results, no serious limitations
- Example: Multiple large RCTs showing similar treatment effects
**Moderate Quality (⊕⊕⊕○)**
- Further research likely to have important impact on confidence
- Criteria: RCTs with limitations OR very strong evidence from observational studies
- Example: Single RCT or multiple RCTs with some inconsistency
**Low Quality (⊕⊕○○)**
- Further research very likely to have important impact on confidence
- Criteria: Observational studies OR RCTs with serious limitations
- Example: Case-control studies, cohort studies with confounding
**Very Low Quality (⊕○○○)**
- Estimate of effect very uncertain
- Criteria: Case series, expert opinion, or very serious limitations
- Example: Mechanistic reasoning, unsystematic clinical observations
**Strength of Recommendation**
**Strong Recommendation (Grade 1)**
- Benefits clearly outweigh risks and burdens (or vice versa)
- Wording: "We recommend..."
- Implications: Most patients should receive recommended course
- Symbol: ↑↑ (strong for) or ↓↓ (strong against)
**Conditional/Weak Recommendation (Grade 2)**
- Trade-offs exist; benefits and risks closely balanced
- Wording: "We suggest..."
- Implications: Different choices for different patients; shared decision-making
- Symbol: ↑ (weak for) or ↓ (weak against)
**GRADE Notation Examples**
- **1A**: Strong recommendation, high-quality evidence
- **1B**: Strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence
- **2A**: Weak recommendation, high-quality evidence
- **2B**: Weak recommendation, moderate-quality evidence
- **2C**: Weak recommendation, low- or very low-quality evidence
### Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (CEBM) Levels
**Level 1: Systematic Review/Meta-Analysis**
- 1a: SR of RCTs
- 1b: Individual RCT with narrow confidence interval
- 1c: All-or-none studies (all patients died before treatment, some survive after)
**Level 2: Cohort Studies**
- 2a: SR of cohort studies
- 2b: Individual cohort study (including low-quality RCT)
- 2c: Outcomes research, ecological studies
**Level 3: Case-Control Studies**
- 3a: SR of case-control studies
- 3b: Individual case-control study
**Level 4: Case Series**
- Case series, poor-quality cohort, or case-control studies
**Level 5: Expert Opinion**
- Mechanism-based reasoning, expert opinion without critical appraisal
**Grades of Recommendation**
- **Grade A**: Consistent level 1 studies
- **Grade B**: Consistent level 2 or 3 studies, or extrapolations from level 1
- **Grade C**: Level 4 studies or extrapolations from level 2 or 3
- **Grade D**: Level 5 evidence or inconsistent/inconclusive studies
## Treatment Sequencing and Line-of-Therapy
### First-Line Therapy
**Selection Criteria**
- **Standard of Care**: Guideline-recommended based on phase 3 trials
- **Patient Factors**: Performance status, comorbidities, organ function
- **Disease Factors**: Stage, molecular profile, aggressiveness
- **Goals**: Cure (adjuvant/neoadjuvant), prolonged remission, symptom control
**First-Line Options Documentation**
```
First-Line Treatment Options:
Option 1: Regimen A (NCCN Category 1, ESMO I-A)
- Evidence: Phase 3 RCT (n=1000), median PFS 12 months vs 8 months (HR 0.6, p<0.001)
- Population: PD-L1 ≥50%, EGFR/ALK negative
- Toxicity Profile: Immune-related AEs (15% grade 3-4)
- Recommendation Strength: 1A (strong, high-quality evidence)
Option 2: Regimen B (NCCN Category 1, ESMO I-A)
- Evidence: Phase 3 RCT (n=800), median PFS 10 months vs 8 months (HR 0.7, p=0.003)
- Population: All patients, no biomarker selection
- Toxicity Profile: Hematologic toxicity (25% grade 3-4)
- Recommendation Strength: 1A (strong, high-quality evidence)
```
### Second-Line and Beyond
**Second-Line Selection**
- **Prior Response**: Duration of response to first-line
- **Progression Pattern**: Oligoprogression vs widespread progression
- **Residual Toxicity**: Recovery from first-line toxicities
- **Biomarker Evolution**: Acquired resistance mechanisms
- **Clinical Trial Availability**: Novel agents in development
**Treatment History Documentation**
```
Prior Therapies:
1. First-Line: Pembrolizumab (12 cycles)
- Best Response: Partial response (-45% tumor burden)
- PFS: 14 months
- Discontinuation Reason: Progressive disease
- Residual Toxicity: Grade 1 hypothyroidism (on levothyroxine)
2. Second-Line: Docetaxel + ramucirumab (6 cycles)
- Best Response: Stable disease
- PFS: 5 months
- Discontinuation Reason: Progressive disease
- Residual Toxicity: Grade 2 peripheral neuropathy
Current Consideration: Third-Line Options
- Clinical trial vs platinum-based chemotherapy
```
### Maintenance Therapy
**Indications**
- Consolidation after response to induction therapy
- Prevention of progression without continuous cytotoxic treatment
- Bridging to definitive therapy (e.g., transplant)
**Evidence Requirements**
- PFS benefit demonstrated in randomized trials
- Tolerable long-term toxicity profile
- Quality of life preserved or improved
## Biomarker-Guided Therapy Selection
### Companion Diagnostics
**FDA-Approved Biomarker-Drug Pairs**
**Required Testing (Treatment-Specific)**
- **ALK rearrangement → Alectinib, Brigatinib, Lorlatinib** (NSCLC)
- **EGFR exon 19 del/L858R → Osimertinib** (NSCLC)
- **BRAF V600E → Dabrafenib + Trametinib** (Melanoma, NSCLC, CRC)
- **HER2 amplification/3+ → Trastuzumab, Pertuzumab** (Breast, Gastric)
- **PD-L1 ≥50% → Pembrolizumab monotherapy** (NSCLC first-line)
**Complementary Diagnostics (Informative but not Required)**
- **PD-L1 1-49%**: Combination immunotherapy preferred
- **TMB-high**: May predict immunotherapy benefit (investigational)
- **MSI-H/dMMR**: Pembrolizumab approved across tumor types
### Biomarker Testing Algorithms
**NSCLC Biomarker Panel**
```
Reflex Testing at Diagnosis:
✓ EGFR mutations (exons 18, 19, 20, 21)
✓ ALK rearrangement (IHC or FISH)
✓ ROS1 rearrangement (FISH or NGS)
✓ BRAF V600E mutation
✓ PD-L1 IHC (22C3 or SP263)
✓ Consider: Comprehensive NGS panel
If EGFR+ on Osimertinib progression:
✓ Liquid biopsy for T790M (if first/second-gen TKI)
✓ Tissue biopsy for resistance mechanisms
✓ MET amplification, HER2 amplification, SCLC transformation
```
**Breast Cancer Biomarker Algorithm**
```
Initial Diagnosis:
✓ ER/PR IHC
✓ HER2 IHC and FISH (if 2+)
✓ Ki-67 proliferation index
If Metastatic ER+/HER2-:
✓ ESR1 mutations (liquid biopsy after progression on AI)
✓ PIK3CA mutations (for alpelisib eligibility)
✓ BRCA1/2 germline testing (for PARP inhibitor eligibility)
✓ PD-L1 testing (if considering immunotherapy combinations)
```
### Actionable Alterations
**Tier I: FDA-Approved Targeted Therapy**
- Strong evidence from prospective trials
- Guideline-recommended
- Examples: EGFR exon 19 deletion, HER2 amplification, ALK fusion
**Tier II: Clinical Trial or Off-Label Use**
- Emerging evidence, clinical trial preferred
- Examples: NTRK fusion (larotrectinib), RET fusion (selpercatinib)
**Tier III: Biological Plausibility**
- Preclinical evidence only
- Clinical trial enrollment strongly recommended
- Examples: Novel kinase fusions, rare resistance mutations
## Combination Therapy Protocols
### Rationale for Combinations
**Mechanisms**
- **Non-Overlapping Toxicity**: Maximize dose intensity of each agent
- **Synergistic Activity**: Enhanced efficacy beyond additive effects
- **Complementary Mechanisms**: Target multiple pathways simultaneously
- **Prevent Resistance**: Decrease selection pressure for resistant clones
**Combination Design Principles**
- **Sequential**: Induction then consolidation (different regimens)
- **Concurrent**: Administered together for synergy
- **Alternating**: Rotate regimens to minimize resistance
- **Intermittent**: Pulse dosing vs continuous exposure
### Drug Interaction Assessment
**Pharmacokinetic Interactions**
- **CYP450 Induction/Inhibition**: Check for drug-drug interactions
- **Transporter Interactions**: P-gp, BCRP, OATP substrates/inhibitors
- **Protein Binding**: Highly protein-bound drugs (warfarin caution)
- **Renal/Hepatic Clearance**: Avoid multiple renally cleared agents
**Pharmacodynamic Interactions**
- **Additive Toxicity**: Avoid overlapping adverse events (e.g., QTc prolongation)
- **Antagonism**: Ensure mechanisms are complementary, not opposing
- **Dose Modifications**: Pre-defined dose reduction schedules for combinations
### Combination Documentation
```
Combination Regimen: Drug A + Drug B
Rationale:
- Phase 3 RCT demonstrated PFS benefit (16 vs 11 months, HR 0.62, p<0.001)
- Complementary mechanisms: Drug A (VEGF inhibitor) + Drug B (immune checkpoint inhibitor)
- Non-overlapping toxicity profiles
Dosing:
- Drug A: 10 mg/kg IV every 3 weeks
- Drug B: 1200 mg IV every 3 weeks
- Continue until progression or unacceptable toxicity
Key Toxicities:
- Hypertension (Drug A): 30% grade 3-4, manage with antihypertensives
- Immune-related AEs (Drug B): 15% grade 3-4, corticosteroid management
- No significant pharmacokinetic interactions observed
Monitoring:
- Blood pressure: Daily for first month, then weekly
- Thyroid function: Every 6 weeks
- Liver enzymes: Before each cycle
- Imaging: Every 6 weeks (RECIST v1.1)
```
## Monitoring and Follow-up Schedules
### On-Treatment Monitoring
**Laboratory Monitoring**
```
Test Baseline Cycle 1 Cycle 2+ Rationale
CBC with differential ✓ Weekly Day 1 Myelosuppression risk
Comprehensive panel ✓ Day 1 Day 1 Electrolytes, renal, hepatic
Thyroid function ✓ - Q6 weeks Immunotherapy
Lipase/amylase ✓ - As needed Pancreatitis risk
Troponin/BNP ✓* - As needed Cardiotoxicity risk
(*if cardiotoxic agent)
```
**Imaging Assessment**
```
Modality Baseline Follow-up Criteria
CT chest/abd/pelvis ✓ Every 6-9 weeks RECIST v1.1
Brain MRI ✓* Every 12 weeks If CNS metastases
Bone scan ✓** Every 12-24 weeks If bone metastases
PET/CT ✓*** Response assessment Lymphoma (Lugano criteria)
(*if CNS mets, **if bone mets, ***if PET-avid tumor)
```
**Clinical Assessment**
```
Assessment Frequency Notes
ECOG performance status Every visit Decline may warrant dose modification
Vital signs Every visit Blood pressure for anti-VEGF agents
Weight Every visit Cachexia, fluid retention
Symptom assessment Every visit PRO-CTCAE questionnaire
Physical exam Every visit Target lesions, new symptoms
```
### Dose Modification Guidelines
**Hematologic Toxicity**
```
ANC and Platelet Counts Action
ANC ≥1.5 AND platelets ≥100k Treat at full dose
ANC 1.0-1.5 OR platelets 75-100k Delay 1 week, recheck
ANC 0.5-1.0 OR platelets 50-75k Delay treatment, G-CSF support, reduce dose 20%
ANC <0.5 OR platelets <50k Hold treatment, G-CSF, transfusion PRN, reduce 40%
Febrile Neutropenia Hold treatment, hospitalize, antibiotics, G-CSF
Reduce dose 20-40% on recovery, consider prophylactic G-CSF
```
**Non-Hematologic Toxicity**
```
Adverse Event Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4
Diarrhea Continue Continue with Hold until ≤G1, Hold, hospitalize
loperamide reduce 20% Consider discontinuation
Rash Continue Continue with Hold until ≤G1, Discontinue
topical Rx reduce 20%
Hepatotoxicity Continue Repeat in 1 wk, Hold until ≤G1, Discontinue permanently
hold if worsening reduce 20-40%
Pneumonitis Continue Hold, consider Hold, corticosteroids, Discontinue, high-dose
corticosteroids discontinue if no improvement steroids
```
### Post-Treatment Surveillance
**Disease Monitoring**
```
Time After Treatment Imaging Frequency Labs Clinical
Year 1 Every 3 months Every 3 months Every 3 months
Year 2 Every 3-4 months Every 3-4 months Every 3-4 months
Years 3-5 Every 6 months Every 6 months Every 6 months
Year 5+ Annually Annually Annually
Earlier imaging if symptoms suggest recurrence
```
**Survivorship Care**
```
Surveillance Frequency Duration
Disease monitoring Per schedule above Lifelong or until recurrence
Late toxicity screening Annually Lifelong
- Cardiac function Every 1-2 years If anthracycline/trastuzumab
- Pulmonary function As clinically indicated If bleomycin/radiation
- Neuropathy Symptom-based Peripheral neuropathy history
- Secondary malignancy Age-appropriate screening Lifelong (increased risk)
Genetic counseling One time If hereditary cancer syndrome
Psychosocial support As needed Depression, anxiety, PTSD screening
```
## Special Populations
### Elderly Patients (≥65-70 years)
**Considerations**
- **Reduced organ function**: Adjust for renal/hepatic impairment
- **Polypharmacy**: Drug-drug interaction risk
- **Frailty**: Geriatric assessment (G8, VES-13, CARG score)
- **Goals of care**: Quality of life vs survival, functional independence
**Modifications**
- Dose reductions: 20-25% reduction for frail patients
- Longer intervals: Every 4 weeks instead of every 3 weeks
- Less aggressive regimens: Single-agent vs combination therapy
- Supportive care: Increased monitoring, G-CSF prophylaxis
### Renal Impairment
**Dose Adjustments by eGFR**
```
eGFR (mL/min/1.73m²) Category Action
≥90 Normal Standard dosing
60-89 Mild Standard dosing (most agents)
30-59 Moderate Dose reduce renally cleared drugs 25-50%
15-29 Severe Dose reduce 50-75%, avoid nephrotoxic agents
<15 (dialysis) ESRD Avoid most agents, case-by-case decisions
```
**Renally Cleared Agents Requiring Adjustment**
- Carboplatin (Calvert formula: AUC × [GFR + 25])
- Methotrexate (reduce dose 50-75% if CrCl <60)
- Capecitabine (reduce dose 25-50% if CrCl 30-50)
### Hepatic Impairment
**Dose Adjustments by Bili and AST/ALT**
```
Category Bilirubin AST/ALT Action
Normal ≤ULN ≤ULN Standard dosing
Mild (Child A) 1-1.5× ULN Any Reduce dose 25% for hepatically metabolized
Moderate (Child B) 1.5-3× ULN Any Reduce dose 50%, consider alternative
Severe (Child C) >3× ULN Any Avoid most agents, case-by-case
```
**Hepatically Metabolized Agents Requiring Adjustment**
- Docetaxel (reduce 25-50% if bilirubin elevated)
- Irinotecan (reduce 50% if bilirubin 1.5-3× ULN)
- Tyrosine kinase inhibitors (most metabolized by CYP3A4, reduce by 50%)
### Pregnancy and Fertility
**Contraception Requirements**
- Effective contraception required during treatment and 6-12 months after
- Two methods recommended for highly teratogenic agents
- Male patients: Contraception if partner of childbearing potential
**Fertility Preservation**
- Oocyte/embryo cryopreservation (females, before gonadotoxic therapy)
- Sperm banking (males, before alkylating agents, platinum)
- GnRH agonists (ovarian suppression, controversial efficacy)
- Referral to reproductive endocrinology before treatment
**Pregnancy Management**
- Avoid chemotherapy in first trimester (organogenesis)
- Selective agents safe in second/third trimester (case-by-case)
- Multidisciplinary team: oncology, maternal-fetal medicine, neonatology
## Clinical Trial Considerations
### When to Recommend Clinical Trials
**Ideal Scenarios**
- No standard therapy available (rare diseases, refractory settings)
- Multiple equivalent standard options (patient preference for novel agent)
- Standard therapy failed (second-line and beyond)
- High-risk disease (adjuvant trials for improved outcomes)
**Trial Selection Criteria**
- **Phase**: Phase 1 (dose-finding, safety), Phase 2 (efficacy signal), Phase 3 (comparative effectiveness)
- **Eligibility**: Match patient to inclusion/exclusion criteria
- **Mechanism**: Novel vs established mechanism, biological rationale
- **Sponsor**: Academic vs industry, trial design quality
- **Logistics**: Distance to trial site, visit frequency, out-of-pocket costs
### Shared Decision-Making
**Informing Patients**
- Natural history without treatment
- Standard treatment options with evidence, benefits, risks
- Clinical trial options (if available)
- Goals of care alignment
- Patient values and preferences
**Decision Aids**
- Visual representations of benefit (icon arrays)
- Number needed to treat calculations
- Quality of life trade-offs
- Decisional conflict scales
## Documentation Standards
### Treatment Plan Documentation
```
TREATMENT PLAN
Diagnosis: [Disease, stage, molecular profile]
Goals of Therapy:
☐ Curative intent
☐ Prolonged disease control
☑ Palliation and quality of life
Recommended Regimen: [Name] (NCCN Category 1, GRADE 1A)
Evidence Basis:
- Primary study: [Citation], Phase 3 RCT, n=XXX
- Primary endpoint: PFS 12 months vs 8 months (HR 0.6, 95% CI 0.45-0.80, p<0.001)
- Secondary endpoints: OS 24 vs 20 months (HR 0.75, p=0.02), ORR 60% vs 40%
- Safety: Grade 3-4 AEs 35%, discontinuation rate 12%
Dosing Schedule:
- Drug A: XX mg IV day 1
- Drug B: XX mg PO days 1-21
- Cycle length: 21 days
- Planned cycles: Until progression or unacceptable toxicity
Premedications:
- Dexamethasone 8 mg IV (anti-emetic)
- Ondansetron 16 mg IV (anti-emetic)
- Diphenhydramine 25 mg IV (hypersensitivity prophylaxis)
Monitoring Plan: [See schedule above]
Dose Modification Plan: [See guidelines above]
Alternative Options Discussed:
- Option 2: [Alternative regimen], GRADE 1B
- Clinical trial: [Trial name/number], Phase 2, novel agent
- Best supportive care
Patient Decision: Proceed with recommended regimen
Informed Consent: Obtained for chemotherapy, risks/benefits discussed
Date: [Date]
Provider: [Name, credentials]
```
## Quality Metrics
### Treatment Recommendation Quality Indicators
- Evidence grading provided for all recommendations
- Multiple options presented when equivalent evidence exists
- Toxicity profiles clearly described
- Monitoring plans specified
- Dose modification guidelines included
- Special populations addressed (elderly, renal/hepatic impairment)
- Clinical trial options mentioned when appropriate
- Shared decision-making documented
- Goals of care aligned with treatment intensity