An Assessment of Chemotherapy Drugs with Incomplete Information using the Analytic Hierarchy Process and Choquet Integral

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 School of Industrial Engineering, Iran University of Science and Technology

2 School of Industrial Engineering, Iran University of Science and Technology (IUST)

Abstract

Background and Objectives: Obviously, cancer is one of the most prevalent deadly health problems that have seriously impacted societies. Although experts have been able to treat many patients, choosing the right therapeutic strategy and right medication for patients is still a challenge. Chemotherapy is one of the most common therapeutic strategies for cancer, which could be combined with radiotherapy or surgery. Since various chemotherapy drugs are available, depending on different criteria, oncologists may prescribe one chemotherapy medication or another.
Methods: Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) as one of the most effective decision-making methods, is applied in this paper. AHP relies on pairwise comparison matrix (PCM) that offers preferential relationships between alternatives. However, due to inaccurate and uncertain information, the revised geometric mean method (RGM) is applied in PCM. Also, considering the importance of interactions between criteria in the investigated issue, Choquet integral was employed for ranking alternatives.
Findings: Antimetabolites with weight 0.473868421 is the most preferred alternative. Plant alkaloids with weight 0.232740616, Alkylating agents with weight 0.17723893 and Anti-Tumor Antibiotics with weight 0.11819451, are alternative priorities for a chemotherapy drug, respectively.
Conclusion: In this paper, 10 questionnaires have been completed by oncologists in the hospital. According to the received results, Antimetabolites are the most preferred alternative among other chemotherapy drugs.

Keywords

References

  1. Benítez J, Delgado-Galván X, Gutiérrez-Pérez JA, Izquierdo J. Balancing consistency and expert judgment in AHP. Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 2011; 54:1785–1790.
  2. Bottero M, Ferretti V, Greco J, Roy B, On the Choquet multiple criteria preference aggregation model: Theoretical and practical insights from a real-world application. European Journal of Operational Research. 2018; 271:120–140.
  3. Choquet G. Theory of capacities. Annales de l'Institut Fourier, 1953; 54:131–295.
  4. Dempster AP, Upper and lower probabilities induced by a multi-valued mapping, Ann. Math. Statist. 1967; 38:325–339
  5. Demirel N, Demirel T, Deveci M, Vardar G, Location selection for underground natural gas storage using Choquet integral, Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering. 2017; 45:368-379.
  6. Fitzmaurice C, Allen C, Barber RM, Barregard L, Bhutta ZA, Brenner H, Global Burden of Disease Cancer Collaboration. Global, Regional, and National Cancer Incidence, Mortality, Years of Life Lost, Years Lived With Disability, and Disability-Adjusted Life-years for 32 Cancer Groups, 1990 to 2015. A Systematic Analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study. JAMA Oncol 2017; 3(4):524-548.
  7. Ghatreh Samani MR, Hosseini-Motlagh SM, Ghannadpour SF.A multilateral perspective towards blood network design in an uncertain environment: methodology and implementation. Computers & Industrial Engineering. 2018; online.
  8. Ghatreh Samani MR, Hosseini-Motlagh SM. An enhanced procedure for managing the blood supply chain under disruptions and uncertainties. Annals of Operations Research. 2018; online.
  9. Goh M, Zhong S, De Souza R .Operational framework for healthcare supplier selection under a fuzzy multi-criteria environment. The 23rd International Symposium on Logistics (ISL 2018), Bali, Indonesia, July 2018
  10. Grabisch M, The application of fuzzy integrals in multi-criteria decision making. European Journal of Operational Research. 1996; 89:445–456.
  11. Harker PT. Incomplete pairwise comparisons in the analytic hierarchy process. Mathematical Modelling. 1987; 9(11):837–848.
  12. Huang Sh, Su X, Hu Y, Mahadevan S, Deng Y. A new decision-making method by incomplete preferences based on evidence distance. Knowledge-Based Systems. 2014; 56:264–272.
  13. Hu Y, Tsai J. Backpropagation multi-layer perceptron for incomplete pairwise comparison matrices in the analytic hierarchy process. Applied Mathematics and Computation. 2006; 180:53–62.
  14. Ishizaka A, Labib  A. Review of the main developments in the analytic hierarchy process. Expert Systems with Applications. 2011; 38(11):14336–14345.
  15. Karanik M, Wanderer L, Gomez-Ruiz  JA,  Pelaez  JI. Reconstruction methods for AHP pairwise matrices: How reliable are they? Applied Mathematics and Computation. 2016; 279:103–124.
  16. Koksalims G, Hancerliogullari KO, Cetinguc B, Durucu M, Calicir F. Medical decision making: Selection of the appropriate surgical mode for undescended testicle treatment. Journal of multi-criteria decision analysis. 2018; online.
  17. Lee W. Evaluating and ranking energy performance of office buildings using fuzzy measure and fuzzy integral. Energy Conversion and Management. 2010; 51:197–203.
  18. Liou J, Chuang Y, Tzeng G.A fuzzy integral-based model for supplier evaluation and improvement. Information Sciences. 2014; 266:199–217
  19. Liu Y, Yang Y, Liu Y, Tzeng GH. Improving Sustainable Mobile Health Care Promotion: A Novel Hybrid MCDM Method. Sustainability 2018; online.
  20. Malekpoor H, Mishra N, Kumar S. A novel TOPSIS–CBR goal programming approach to sustainable healthcare treatment. Annals of Operations Research. 2018; online.
  21. Matsuura H, Fett-Neto AG. Plant Alkaloids: Main Features, Toxicity, and Mechanisms of Action. Springer: Plant Toxins, 2015; 243-261.
  22. Modave F, Grabisch M, Preference representation by the Choquet integral: the commensurability hypothesis. Proc. 7th Int.  Conf. on Information Processing and Management of Uncertainty in Knowledge-Based Systems (IPMU’98).  Paris, France, 164-171.
  23. Nazari S, Fallah M, Kazemipoor H, Salehipour A. A Fuzzy Inference- Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process-Based Clinical Decision Support System for Diagnosis of Heart Diseases. Expert Systems With Applications; 2018; 95:261-271.
  24. Pacheco A, Krohling A. Aggregation of neural classifiers using Choquet integral with respect to a fuzzy measure. Neuro-computing, 2018; 292:151–16.
  25. Perçin S. A combined fuzzy multi-criteria decision-making approach for evaluating hospital website quality.  Journal of multi-criteria decision analysis. 2018; online.
  26. Salimi S, Karimian N, Sheikhan Z, Alavi H. Investigation screening of breast cancer and related factors in women who refer to Ardabil health centers about cancer. Ardabil medical scientific university.2008; 10(9):310-318. [Persian].
  27. Saaty TL. The analytic hierarchy process: Planning, priority setting, resource allocation. New York: McGraw; 1980.
  28. Sahin T, Ocak S, Top M. Analytic hierarchy process for hospital site selection.  Health Policy and Technology. 2019; online.
  29. Shafer G. A mathematical theory of evidence: New Jersey: Princeton University Press; 1976.
  30. Shekarian E, Abdul-Rashid SH. Olugu EU. An Integrated Fuzzy VIKOR Method for Performance Management in Healthcare. Organizational Productivity and Performance Measurements Using Predictive Modeling and Analytics; New York: IGI Global. 2017; 40-61.
  31. Singh A, Prasher A. Measuring healthcare service quality from patients’ perspective: using Fuzzy AHP application. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence. 2018; online.
  32. Sugeno M. Theory of Fuzzy Integrals and Its Applications Tokyo. Ph.D. thesis, Institute of Technology. Tokyo, 1974.
  33. Tsoucalas  G, Karamanou  M, Laios  K, Androutsos G, Rhazes'(864-925) views on cancer and the introduction of chemotherapy. Journal of B.U.ON. 2018; online.
  34. Tzeng G, Huang J. Multiple Attribute Decision Making Methods and applications. New York: CRC Press.
  35. Tan CH, Jiang ZH, Chen X. An extended TODIM method for hesitant fuzzy interactive multi-criteria decision making based on generalized Choquet integral. Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems, 2015; 29:293–305.
  36. Uden V. Estimating missing data in pairwise comparison matrices. In Texts in Operational and Systems Research in the Face to Challenge the XXI Century. Methods and Techniques in Information Analysis and Decision Making, Academic Printing House. Warsaw, 2002.
  37. Utkin L, A new ranking procedure by incomplete pairwise comparisons using preference subsets, Intelligent Data Analysis, 2009; 13:229–241
  38. Vyas G, JHA K, Patel D. Development of Green Building Rating System Using AHP and Fuzzy Integrals: A Case of India, Journal of Architectural Engineering. 2018; online.
  39. Xia M, Chen J. Data Envelopment Analysis Based on Choquet Integral, International journal of an intelligent system, 2017; online.
  40. Zhang H. Group decision making based on incomplete multiplicative and fuzzy preference relations. Applied Soft Computing. 2016; 48, 735–744.

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics