Cancer is a disease caused by the uncontrolled division of abnormal cells in a part of the body leading to cell damage or death (Apoptosis). This could result in the death of the host carrier. Most death cases of cancer patients have been linked to the systematic administration of therapeutic agents (chemotherapy) and other conventional methods as the preferred treatment approach for cancer therapy. This treatment mortality is associated with side effects, off-target accumulation, toxicity, and rapid renal and hepatic clearance. In recent times, scientists have researched on targeting tumor sites and enhanced retention of constant drug delivery to tumors to mitigate side effects, and toxicity-related challenges. Water-containing polymers called Hydrogels is a unique discovery by scientist and researchers for highly effective drug delivery systems for cancer therapy. Drugs loaded into these hydrogels remain relatively stable owing to the network-like structure and organic tissue-like consistency of these drug delivery systems. This study is focused on comparing hydrogel-based drug delivery systems with other conventional methods of cancer therapy using the Multicriteria decision-making (MCDM) method called fuzzy Preference Ranking Organization Method for Enrichment Evaluations (PROMETHEE). The comparison is based on certain criteria and assigned weights of importance. The results from this study indicate that hydrogel-based therapy with a net flow of 0.1457 is the most favorable and optimum therapeutic approach for the general treatment of cancer diseases. Followed by surgery with a net flow of 0.1415, and hydron therapy, immunotherapy, and radiation therapy came third, fourth, and fifth with net flows of 0.0489, -0.0858, and -0.1062, respectively. Chemotherapy with a net flow of -0.1441 was the least ranked alternative. This study demonstrates that the approach taken will be beneficial and supportive in providing answers for healthcare decision-makers who are dealing with uncertainty issues and that it can be enhanced with the availability of more alternatives, and criteria, and by assigning weights of importance to the specific conditions of the individual cancer patients.
