Encrypted login | home

Program Information

First Application of the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) to Determine Optimal Prostate Treatment Plans

no image available
A Brito Delgado

A Brito Delgado1*, K Rasmussen2 , K Kauweloa3 , T Medrano Pesqueira4 , D Cohen5 , T Eng6 , A Gutierrez7 , (1) Cancer Therapy & Research Center UT Health San Antonio, San Antonio, Texas, (2) University of Texas HSC SA, San Antonio, TX, (3) UT MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, (4) Hospital Oncologico del Estado de Sonora [Oncologic Hospital of the State , Hermosillo, Sonora, (5) Cancer Therapy & Research Center UT Health San Antonio, San Antonio, Texas, (6) Cancer Therapy & Research Center UT Health San Antonio, San Antonio, Texas, (7) Miami Cancer Institute, Miami, FL


SU-I-GPD-T-223 (Sunday, July 30, 2017) 3:00 PM - 6:00 PM Room: Exhibit Hall

Purpose: When analyzing treatment plan quality, one faces a multiple criteria decision making process. The analytical hierarchy process (AHP) is a useful technique to quantify criteria as well as preference to that criteria. AHP considers how each criteria and alternatives contribute to the main solution while providing a logical framework to determine the benefits of each alternative. The purpose of this study is to apply the AHP to determine plan quality preferences such that an optimal prostate treatment plan can be determined.

Methods: Two radiation oncology physicians (respondents #3 and #4), two residents (#5 and #7) and three dosimetrists (#1, #2 and #6) were surveyed to evaluate their criteria preferences for two intact prostate plans using surveys. Each survey consisted of pairwise comparisons of criteria and sub-criteria affecting dosimetric plan quality, and comparisons of two plan alternatives per criterion and sub-criterion using the AHP scale. Criteria used to evaluate were dosimetric tolerances based on QUANTEC. The best plan was determined based on each respondent’s individual preferences.

Results: Criteria preference rankings showed one radiation oncologist and one resident ranked the PTV to be most important by 43% and 45%, respectively. All the respondents ranked the penile bulb as the least important by 5% on average [2%-10%]. The resulting rankings show plan alternative B is preferred by at least 51% for all but one of the respondents (one physician) based on their stated preferences through pairwise comparisons.

Conclusion: Different professions have different plan quality preferences, presumably due to the dosimetrists knowledge of how the treatment plan software operates to achieve specific clinical goals as opposed to the radiation oncologists. AHP proves to be a helpful tool to quantify treatment plan quality preferences and determine the best plan alternative for intact prostate cases.

Funding Support, Disclosures, and Conflict of Interest: Amy Brito Delgado acknowledges the National Council of Science and Technology of Mexico (CONACYT) for her doctoral fellowship (Fellow No. 216750).

Contact Email: