corRECTreatment: A web-based decision support tool for rectal cancer treatment that uses the analytic hierarchy process and decision tree

A. Suner; G. Karakülah; O. Dicle; S. Sökmen; C.C. Çelikoğlu

doi:10.4338/ACI-2014-10-RA-0087

Applied Clinical Informatics, Table of Contents

Appl Clin Inform 2015; 06(01): 56-74
DOI: 10.4338/ACI-2014-10-RA-0087

Research Article

Schattauer GmbH

corRECTreatment: A web-based decision support tool for rectal cancer treatment that uses the analytic hierarchy process and decision tree

Authors

A. Suner^*

¹Ege University, School of Medicine, Department of Biostatistics and Medical Informatics, Bornova-Izmir, 35040, Turkey
G. Karakülah^*

²Neurobiology-Neurodegeneration and Repair Laboratory, National Eye Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, 20892, USA

³Dokuz Eylül University, Health Sciences Institute, Department of Medical Informatics, Inciraltı-Izmir, 35340, Turkey
O. Dicle

³Dokuz Eylül University, Health Sciences Institute, Department of Medical Informatics, Inciraltı-Izmir, 35340, Turkey

⁴Dokuz Eylül University, School of Medicine, Department of Radiology, Inciraltı-Izmir, 35340, Turkey
S. Sökmen

⁵FACS, FASCRS, FASPSM Member from Dokuz Eylül University, School of Medicine, Department of General Surgery, Colorectal and Pelvic Surgery Unit, Inciraltı-Izmir, 35340, Turkey
C.C. Çelikoğlu

⁶Dokuz Eylül University, Faculty of Science, Department of Statistics, Buca-Izmir, 35160, Turkey

Abstract

Summary

Background: The selection of appropriate rectal cancer treatment is a complex multi-criteria decision making process, in which clinical decision support systems might be used to assist and enrich physicians’ decision making.

Objective: The objective of the study was to develop a web-based clinical decision support tool for physicians in the selection of potentially beneficial treatment options for patients with rectal cancer.

Methods: The updated decision model contained 8 and 10 criteria in the first and second steps respectively. The decision support model, developed in our previous study by combining the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) method which determines the priority of criteria and decision tree that formed using these priorities, was updated and applied to 388 patients data collected retrospectively. Later, a web-based decision support tool named corRECTreatment was developed. The compatibility of the treatment recommendations by the expert opinion and the decision support tool was examined for its consistency. Two surgeons were requested to recommend a treatment and an overall survival value for the treatment among 20 different cases that we selected and turned into a scenario among the most common and rare treatment options in the patient data set.

Results: In the AHP analyses of the criteria, it was found that the matrices, generated for both decision steps, were consistent (consistency ratio<0.1). Depending on the decisions of experts, the consistency value for the most frequent cases was found to be 80% for the first decision step and 100% for the second decision step. Similarly, for rare cases consistency was 50% for the first decision step and 80% for the second decision step.

Conclusions: The decision model and corRECTreatment, developed by applying these on real patient data, are expected to provide potential users with decision support in rectal cancer treatment processes and facilitate them in making projections about treatment options.

Citation: Suner A, Karakülah G, Dicle O, Sökmen S, Çelikoglu CC. corRECTreatment: A web-based decision support tool for rectal cancer treatment that uses the analytic hierarchy process and decision tree. Appl Clin Inf 2015; 6: 56–74

http://dx.doi.org/10.4338/ACI-2014-10-RA-0087

Keywords

Clinical decision support - analytic hierarchy process - decision tree - rectal cancer

Full Text

References

References
1 Siegel R, Ma J, Zou Z, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2014. CA Cancer J Clin 2014; 64: 9-29.
2 Hassan C, Hunink MG, Laghi A, Pickhardt PJ, Zullo A, Kim DH, Iafrate F, Di Giulio E. Value-of-information analysis to guide future research in colorectal cancer screening. Radiology 2009; 253: 745-752.
3 Walsh JME, Terdiman JP. Colorectal cancer screening: scientific review. JAMA 2003; 289: 1288-1296.
4 Howlader N, Noone A, Krapcho M, Neyman N, Aminou R, Waldron W, Altekruse SF, Kosary CL, Ruhl J, Tatalovich Z, Cho H, Mariotto A, Eisner MP, Lewis DR, Chen HS, Feuer EJ, Cronin KA, Edwards BK. (eds). SEER Cancer Statistics Review. 1975–2008. National Cancer Institute Bethesda, MD. 2011.
5 Ferlay J, Shin HR, Bray F, Forman D, Mathers C, Parkin DM. Estimates of worldwide burden of cancer in 2008: GLOBOCAN 2008. Int J Cancer 2010; 127: 2893-2917.
6 Abreu MH, Matos E, Pocas FC, Rosa R, Jorge P. Rectal cancer epidemiology. Rectal Cancer –A Multidisciplinary Approach to Management. InTech;. 2011 p. 3.
7 Popa F, Bratucu M, Radu P. Present and future tense in operable rectal cancer. Chirurgia (Bucur) 2010; 106 (01) 11-16.
8 Wu JS, Fazio VW. Management of rectal cancer. J Gastrointest Surg 2004; 8 (02) 139-149.
9 Porter GA, Soskolne CL, Yakimets WW, Newman SC. Surgeon-related factors and outcome in rectal cancer. Ann Surg 1998; 227 (02) 157-167.
10 Bosset J-F, Collette L, Calais G, Mineur L, Maingon P, Radosevic-Jelic L, Daban A, Bardet E, Beny A, Ollier JC. EORTC Radiotherapy Group Trial 22921. Chemotherapy with preoperative radiotherapy in rectal cancer. N Engl J Med 2006; 355 (11) 1114-1123.
11 Taflampas P, Christodoulakis M, de Bree E, Melissas J, Tsiftsis DDA. Preoperative decision making for rectal cancer. Am J Surg 2010; 200 (03) 426-432.
12 Stocchi L, Nelson H, Sargent DJ, O’Connell MJ, Tepper JE, Krook JE, Beart Jr R. North Central Cancer Treatment Group. Impact of surgical and pathologic variables in rectal cancer: a United States community and cooperative group report. J Clin Oncol 2001; 19 (18) 3895-3902.
13 Chang GJ, Kaiser AM, Mills S, Rafferty JF, Buie WD. Practice parameters for the management of colon cancer. Dis Colon Rectum 2012; 55 (08) 831-843.
14 Saaty TL. How to make a decision: The analytic hierarchy process. Eur J Oper Res 1990; 48 (01) 9-26.
15 Pecchia L, Bath PA, Pendleton N, Bracale M. Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) for examining healthcare professionals’ assessments of risk factors. The relative importance of risk factors for falls in community-dwelling older people. Methods Inf Med 2011; 50 (05) 435-444.
16 Dolan JG, Frisina S. Randomized controlled trial of a patient decision aid for colorectal cancer screening. Med Decis Making 2002; 22 (02) 125-139.
17 Dolan JG. Patient priorities in colorectal cancer screening decisions. Health Expect 2005; 8 (04) 334-344.
18 Dolan JG. Shared decision-making-transferring research into practice: the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). Patient Educ Couns 2008; 73 (03) 418-425.
19 Dolan JG, Boohaker E, Allison J, Imperiale TF. Can Streamlined Multicriteria Decision Analysis Be Used to Implement Shared Decision Making for Colorectal Cancer Screening?. Med Decis Making 2013; 34 (06) 746-755.
20 Katsumura Y, Yasunaga H, Imamura T, Ohe K, Oyama H. Relationship between risk information on total colonoscopy and patient preferences for colorectal cancer screening options: analysis using the analytic hierarchy process. BMC Health Serv Res 2008; 8: 106.
21 Tilson L, Sharp L, Usher C, Walsh C, Whyte S, O’Ceilleachair A, Stuart C, Mehigan B, John Kennedy M, Tappenden P, Chilcott J, Staines A, Comber H, Barry M. Cost of care for colorectal cancer in Ireland: a health care payer perspective. Eur J Health Econ 2012; 13 (04) 511-524.
22 Karuna ST, Thirlby R, Biehl T, Veenstra D. Cost-effectiveness of laparoscopy versus laparotomy for initial surgical evaluation and treatment of potentially resectable hepatic colorectal metastases: a decision analysis. J Surg Oncol 2008; 97 (05) 396-403.
23 Annemans L, Lencioni R, Warie H, Bartolozzi C, Ciceri M, Müller U. Health economic evaluation of ferucarbotran-enhanced MRI in the diagnosis of liver metastases in colorectal cancer patients. Int J Colorectal Dis 2008; 23 (01) 77-83.
24 Abbott DE, Cantor SB, Hu C-Y, Aloia TA, You YN, Nguyen S, Chang GJ. Optimizing clinical and economic outcomes of surgical therapy for patients with colorectal cancer and synchronous liver metastases. J Am Coll Surg 2012; 215 (02) 262-270.
25 Pichereau S, Le Louarn A, Lecomte T, Blasco H, Le Guellec C, Bourgoin H. Cost-effectiveness of UGT1A1*28 genotyping in preventing severe neutropenia following FOLFIRI therapy in colorectal cancer. J Pharm Pharm Sci 2010; 13 (04) 615-625.
26 Delcò F, Sonnenberg A. Limitations of the faecal occult blood test in screening for colorectal cancer. Ital J Gastroenterol Hepatol 1999; 31 (02) 119-126.
27 Liu C, Pan C, Shen J, Wang H, Yong L. MALDI-TOF MS combined with magnetic beads for detecting serum protein biomarkers and establishment of boosting decision tree model for diagnosis of colorectal cancer. Int J Med Sci 2011; 8 (01) 39-47.
28 Lee S-M, Kang J-O, Suh Y-M. Comparison of hospital charge prediction models for colorectal cancer patients: neural network vs. decision tree models. J Korean Med Sci 2004; 19 (05) 677-681.
29 Minsky BD, Coia L, Haller D, Hoffman J, John M, Landry J, Pisansky TM, Willett C, Mahon I, Owen J, Hanks G. Treatment systems guidelines for primary rectal cancer from the 1996 Patterns of Care Study. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1998; 41 (01) 21-27.
30 Vasen HF, van Duijvendijk P, Buskens E, Bülow C, Björk J, Järvinen HJ, Bülow S. Decision analysis in the surgical treatment of patients with familial adenomatous polyposis: a Dutch-Scandinavian collaborative study including 659 patients. Gut 2001; 49 (02) 231-235.
31 Suner A, Çelikoğlu CC, Dicle O, Sökmen S. Sequential decision tree using the analytic hierarchy process for decision support in rectal cancer. Artif Intell Med 2012; 56 (01) 59-68.
32 Liberatore M, Nydick R. The analytic hierarchy process in medical and health care decision making: A literature review. Eur J Oper Res 2008; 189: 194-207.
33 Dolan JG. Involving patients in decisions regarding preventive health interventions using the analytic hierarchy process. Health Expect 2000; 3 (01) 37-45.
34 Hsieh A-R, Hsiao C-L, Chang S-W, Wang H-M, Fann CSJ. On the use of multifactor dimensionality reduction (MDR) and classification and regression tree (CART) to identify haplotype-haplotype interactions in genetic studies. Genomics 2011; 97 (02) 77-85.
35 Srivastava A, Sharma KL, Srivastava N, Misra S, Mittal B. Significant role of estrogen and progesterone receptor sequence variants in gallbladder cancer predisposition: a multi-analytical strategy. PLoS One 2012; 7 (07) e40162.
36 Pecchia L, Melillo P, Bracale M. Remote health monitoring of heart failure with data mining via CART method on HRV features. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 2011; 58 (03) 800-804.
37 Melillo P, De Luca N, Bracale M, Pecchia L. Classification tree for risk assessment in patients suffering from congestive heart failure via long-term heart rate variability. IEEE J Biomed Heal informatics 2013; 17 (03) 727-733.
38 Meng X-H, Huang Y-X, Rao D-P, Zhang Q, Liu Q. Comparison of three data mining models for predicting diabetes or prediabetes by risk factors. Kaohsiung J Med Sci 2013; 29 (02) 93-99.