IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jomega/v82y2019icp83-101.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A multi-criteria ranking algorithm (MCRA) for determining breast cancer therapy

Author

Listed:
  • Hasan, Mostafa
  • Büyüktahtakın, İ. Esra
  • Elamin, Elshami

Abstract

Breast cancer is the leading cause of cancer deaths among women. The selection of an effective, patient-specific treatment plan for breast cancer has been a challenge for physicians because the decision process involves a vast number of treatment alternatives as well as treatment decision criteria, such as the stage of the cancer (e.g., in situ, invasive, metastasis), tumor characteristics, biomarker-related risks, and patient-related risks. Furthermore, every patient's case is unique, requiring a patient-specific treatment plan, while there is no standard procedure even for a particular stage of the breast cancer. In this paper, we first determine a comprehensive set of criteria for selecting the best breast cancer therapy by interviewing medical oncologists and reviewing the literature. We then present two analytical hierarchy process (AHP) models for quantifying the weights of criteria for breast cancer treatment in two sequential steps: primary and secondary treatment therapy. Using the weights of criteria from the AHP model, we propose a new multi-criteria ranking algorithm (MCRA), which evaluates a large variety of patient scenarios and provides the best patient-tailored breast cancer treatment alternatives based on the input of nine medical oncologists. We then validate the predictions of the multi-criteria ranking algorithm by comparing treatment ranks of the algorithm with ranks of five different oncologists, and show that algorithm rankings match or are statistically significantly correlated with the overall expert ranking in most cases. Our multi-criteria ranking algorithm could be used as an accessible decision-support tool to aid oncologists and educate patients for determining appropriate and effective treatment alternatives for breast cancer. Our approach is also general in the sense that it could be adapted to solve other complex decision-making problems in medicine, healthcare, as well as other service and manufacturing industries.

Suggested Citation

  • Hasan, Mostafa & Büyüktahtakın, İ. Esra & Elamin, Elshami, 2019. "A multi-criteria ranking algorithm (MCRA) for determining breast cancer therapy," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 83-101.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jomega:v:82:y:2019:i:c:p:83-101
    DOI: 10.1016/j.omega.2017.12.005
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305048317300026
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.omega.2017.12.005?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Saaty, Thomas L., 2003. "Decision-making with the AHP: Why is the principal eigenvector necessary," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 145(1), pages 85-91, February.
    2. Wang, Fan & Zhang, Shengfan & Henderson, Louise M., 2018. "Adaptive decision-making of breast cancer mammography screening: A heuristic-based regression model," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 70-84.
    3. Liberatore, Matthew J. & Nydick, Robert L., 2008. "The analytic hierarchy process in medical and health care decision making: A literature review," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 189(1), pages 194-207, August.
    4. James G. Dolan & Bernard J. Isselhardt & Joseph D. Cappuccio, 1989. "The Analytic Hierarchy Process in Medical Decision Making," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 9(1), pages 40-50, February.
    5. James G. Dolan, 1989. "Medical Decision Making Using the Analytic Hierarchy Process," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 9(1), pages 51-56, February.
    6. Meløn, Mønica García & Aragonés Beltran, Pablo & Carmen González Cruz, M., 2008. "An AHP-based evaluation procedure for Innovative Educational Projects: A face-to-face vs. computer-mediated case study," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 36(5), pages 754-765, October.
    7. Leung, L. C. & Cao, D., 2000. "On consistency and ranking of alternatives in fuzzy AHP," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 124(1), pages 102-113, July.
    8. Marinakis, Vangelis & Doukas, Haris & Xidonas, Panos & Zopounidis, Constantin, 2017. "Multicriteria decision support in local energy planning: An evaluation of alternative scenarios for the Sustainable Energy Action Plan," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 1-16.
    9. Dimitris Bertsimas & Allison O’Hair & Stephen Relyea & John Silberholz, 2016. "An Analytics Approach to Designing Combination Chemotherapy Regimens for Cancer," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(5), pages 1511-1531, May.
    10. Mulliner, Emma & Malys, Naglis & Maliene, Vida, 2016. "Comparative analysis of MCDM methods for the assessment of sustainable housing affordability," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 59(PB), pages 146-156.
    11. Jharkharia, Sanjay & Shankar, Ravi, 2007. "Selection of logistics service provider: An analytic network process (ANP) approach," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 35(3), pages 274-289, June.
    12. Ludovic-Alexandre Vidal & Evren Sahin & Nicolas Martelli & Malik Berhoune & Brigitte Bonan, 2010. "Applying AHP to select drugs to be produced by anticipation in a chemotherapy compounding unit," Post-Print hal-01260122, HAL.
    13. Stewart, Theodor J. & French, Simon & Rios, Jesus, 2013. "Integrating multicriteria decision analysis and scenario planning—Review and extension," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 41(4), pages 679-688.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Ru, Zice & Liu, Jiapeng & Kadziński, Miłosz & Liao, Xiuwu, 2022. "Bayesian ordinal regression for multiple criteria choice and ranking," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 299(2), pages 600-620.
    2. Guo, Mengzhuo & Zhang, Qingpeng & Liao, Xiuwu & Chen, Frank Youhua & Zeng, Daniel Dajun, 2021. "A hybrid machine learning framework for analyzing human decision-making through learning preferences," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 101(C).
    3. Wu, Qun & Liu, Xinwang & Zhou, Ligang & Qin, Jindong & Rezaei, Jafar, 2024. "An analytical framework for the best–worst method," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 123(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. James Dolan, 2010. "Multi-Criteria Clinical Decision Support," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 3(4), pages 229-248, December.
    2. Pu Ji & Hong-yu Zhang & Jian-qiang Wang, 2017. "Fuzzy decision-making framework for treatment selection based on the combined QUALIFLEX–TODIM method," International Journal of Systems Science, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 48(14), pages 3072-3086, October.
    3. Wenshuai Wu & Gang Kou, 2016. "A group consensus model for evaluating real estate investment alternatives," Financial Innovation, Springer;Southwestern University of Finance and Economics, vol. 2(1), pages 1-10, December.
    4. Yuangao Chen & Shuo Wang & Jianrong Yao & Yixiao Li & Shuiqing Yang, 2018. "Socially responsible supplier selection and sustainable supply chain development: A combined approach of total interpretive structural modeling and fuzzy analytic network process," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 27(8), pages 1708-1719, December.
    5. Matthew Liberatore & Robert Nydick & Constantine Daskalakis & Elisabeth Kunkel & James Cocroft & Ronald Myers, 2009. "Helping Men Decide About Scheduling a Prostate Cancer Screening Exam," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 39(3), pages 209-217, June.
    6. Chen, Shih-Hsin & Lin, Wei-Ting, 2018. "Analyzing determinants for promoting emerging technology through intermediaries by using a DANP-based MCDA framework," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 94-110.
    7. Dias, Luis C. & Antunes, Carlos Henggeler & Dantas, Guilherme & de Castro, Nivalde & Zamboni, Lucca, 2018. "A multi-criteria approach to sort and rank policies based on Delphi qualitative assessments and ELECTRE TRI: The case of smart grids in Brazil," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 100-111.
    8. Vladimír Bureš & Daniela Ponce & Pavel Čech & Karel Mls, 2019. "The effect of trial repetition and problem size on the consistency of decision making," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(5), pages 1-14, May.
    9. Johanna Vásquez & Sergio Botero, 2020. "Hybrid Methodology to Improve Health Status Utility Values Derivation Using EQ-5D-5L and Advanced Multi-Criteria Techniques," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(4), pages 1-18, February.
    10. Kirytopoulos, Konstantinos & Voulgaridou, Dimitra & Platis, Agapios & Leopoulos, Vrassidas, 2011. "An effective Markov based approach for calculating the Limit Matrix in the analytic network process," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 214(1), pages 85-90, October.
    11. Singpurwalla, Norah & Forman, Ernest & Zalkind, David, 1999. "Promoting shared health care decision making using the analytic hierarchy process," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 33(4), pages 277-299, December.
    12. Nikola Kadoić & Diana Šimić & Jasna Mesarić & Nina Begičević Ređep, 2021. "Measuring Quality of Public Hospitals in Croatia Using a Multi-Criteria Approach," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(19), pages 1-28, September.
    13. Kaynar, Nur & Karsu, Özlem, 2018. "Equitable decision making approaches over allocations of multiple benefits to multiple entities," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 85-98.
    14. Liberatore, Matthew J. & Nydick, Robert L., 2008. "The analytic hierarchy process in medical and health care decision making: A literature review," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 189(1), pages 194-207, August.
    15. Dede, Georgia & Kamalakis, Thomas & Sphicopoulos, Thomas, 2016. "Theoretical estimation of the probability of weight rank reversal in pairwise comparisons," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 252(2), pages 587-600.
    16. Govindan, Kannan & Kadziński, Miłosz & Ehling, Ronja & Miebs, Grzegorz, 2019. "Selection of a sustainable third-party reverse logistics provider based on the robustness analysis of an outranking graph kernel conducted with ELECTRE I and SMAA," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 1-15.
    17. Oliva, Gabriele & Scala, Antonio & Setola, Roberto & Dell’Olmo, Paolo, 2019. "Opinion-based optimal group formation," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 164-176.
    18. Fang, Lei, 2022. "Measuring and decomposing group performance under centralized management," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 297(3), pages 1006-1013.
    19. Nermin Kişi, 2019. "A Strategic Approach to Sustainable Tourism Development Using the A’WOT Hybrid Method: A Case Study of Zonguldak, Turkey," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-19, February.
    20. Seyed Rakhshan & Ali Kamyad & Sohrab Effati, 2015. "Ranking decision-making units by using combination of analytical hierarchical process method and Tchebycheff model in data envelopment analysis," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 226(1), pages 505-525, March.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:jomega:v:82:y:2019:i:c:p:83-101. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/375/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.