# Chemotherapy Regimen Optimization Using a Two-Archive Multi-Objective Squirrel Search Algorithm
## 4 Experimental Setup and Results Analysis
### Results and Analysis
#### 4.4.2 Aggressive Chemotherapy Regimen  
In this subsection, we compare aggressive chemotherapy regimens, specifically selecting those with the smallest remaining tumor cell counts for comparison. Table 6 presents the indicators obtained during the treatment process for each algorithm's regimen, while Figure 9 depicts the trends in tumor cell and bone marrow cell counts over the treatment period.  
The results in Table 6 indicate that the chemotherapy regimen obtained by the TA-MOSSA employs a high drug dosage, resulting in the maximum reduction in tumor cells, with only 4.30% of tumor cells remaining. This underscores a prioritization of minimizing the remaining tumor cell count as the optimization objective, despite leading to the highest level of bone marrow cell damage \(\left(7.689\times 10^{10}\right)\). Moreover, this aggressive regimen does not violate the constraints expressed in Equation (6), with the minimum bone marrow cell count during chemotherapy being \(1.007\times 10^{8}\). This indicates effective tumor reduction while keeping damage to normal cell tissues within acceptable limits.  
Among the other chemotherapy regimens, the regimen produced by the TwoArch2 algorithm exhibits a performance similar to that of the TA-MOSSA regimen across various performance indicators, with a residual tumor cell proportion of 4.69%. However, the remaining tumor cells after treatment in the remaining chemotherapy regimens are relatively higher compared to the aforementioned regimens. Although these regimens result in lower cumulative bone marrow cell damage, they demonstrate less superiority as aggressive regimens compared to the regimen generated by the TA-MOSSA.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Performance Metrics** & **TA-MOSSA** & **NSGA-II** & **MOPSO** & **TwoArch2** & **C-TAEA-II** & **MOSSA** \\ \hline Remained tumor cells (\(\times 10^{10}\)) & 4.304 & 5.437 & 5.911 & 4.694 & 5.489 & 6.176 \\ Proportion of remained tumor cells & 4.30\% & 5.44\% & 5.91\% & 4.69\% & 5.49\% & 6.18\% \\ Cumulative damaged bone marrow cells (\(\times 10^{10}\)) & 7.689 & 6.898 & 6.956 & 7.151 & 6.273 & 6.476 \\ Minimum counts of bone marrow cells (\(\times 10^{8}\)) & 1.007 & 1.753 & 1.529 & 1.232 & 1.824 & 1.966 \\ Average counts of bone marrow cells (\(\times 10^{10}\)) & 2.777 & 3.522 & 3.467 & 3.281 & 4.105 & 3.918 \\ Average dose concentration of cisplatin (mg/mL) & 4.904 & 4.643 & 4.307 & 4.238 & 4.815 & 4.544 \\ Average dose concentration of docetaxel (mg/mL) & 5.668 & 4.485 & 4.883 & 5.419 & 3.810 & 4.014 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 6: Performance metrics of aggressive chemotherapy treatment.  
Figure 9: Tumor cell and bone marrow cell population dynamics during aggressive chemotherapy treatment.  
Additionally, Figure 9 highlights that, following the initial medication administration, the tumor cell count in patients treated with the chemotherapy regimen corresponding to TA-MOSSA remains consistently lower compared to other regimens.