Using economic analysis to evaluate the potential of multimodality therapy for elderly patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer

Cost-Effectiveness of a Risk-Tailored Pancreatic Cancer Early Detection Strategy Among Patients With New-Onset Diabetes

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Screening for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) in asymptomatic adults is not recommended, however, patients with new-onset diabetes (NoD) have an 8 times higher risk of PDAC than expected. A novel risk-tailored early detection strategy targeting high-risk NoD patients might improve PDAC prognosis. We sought to evaluate the cost effectiveness of this strategy.

METHODS

We compared PDAC early detection strategies targeting NoD individuals age 50 years and older at various minimal predicted PDAC risk thresholds vs standard of care in a Markov state-transition decision model under the health care sector perspective using a lifetime horizon.

RESULTS

At a willingness to pay (WTP) threshold of $150,000 per quality-adjusted life-year, the early detection strategy targeting patients with a minimum predicted 3-year PDAC risk of 1% was cost effective (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, $116,911). At a WTP threshold of $100,000 per quality-adjusted life-year, the early detection strategy at the 2% risk threshold was cost effective (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, $63,045). The proportion of PDACs detected at local stage, costs of treatment for metastatic PDAC, utilities of local and regional cancers, and sensitivity of screening were the most influential parameters. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis confirmed that at a WTP threshold of $150,000, early detection at the 1.0% risk threshold was favored (30.6%), followed by the 0.5% risk threshold (20.4%) vs standard of care (1.7%). At a WTP threshold of $100,000, early detection at the 1.0% risk threshold was favored (27.3%) followed by the 2.0% risk threshold (22.8%) vs standard of care (2.0%).

CONCLUSIONS

A risk-tailored PDAC early detection strategy targeting NoD patients with a minimum predicted 3-year PDAC risk of 1.0% to 2.0% may be cost effective.

A systematic review of economic evaluation in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma

OBJECTIVES

The economic evaluation (EE) of healthcare interventions has become a necessity. However, high quality needs to be ensured in order to achieve validated results and help making informed decisions. Thus, the objective of the present study was to systematically identify and review published pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma-related EEs and to assess their quality.

METHODS

Systematic literature research was conducted in PubMed and Cochrane to identify published EEs between 2000 and 2015. The quality of each selected EE was assessed by two independent reviewers, using the Drummond's checklist.

RESULTS

Our systematic review was based on 32 EEs and showed a wide variety of methodological approaches, including different perspectives, time horizon, and cost effectiveness analyses. Nearly two-thirds of EEs are full EEs (n = 21), and about one-third of EEs had a Drummond score ≥7, synonymous with 'high quality'. Close to 50% of full EEs had a Drummond score ≥7, whereas all of partial EEs had a Drummond score <7 (n = 11).

CONCLUSIONS

Over the past 15 years, a lot of interest has been evinced over the EE of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) and its direct impact on therapeutic advances in PDAC. To provide a framework for health care decision-making, to facilitate transferability and to lend credibility to health EEs, their quality must be improved. For the last 4 years, a tendency towards a quality improvement of these studies has been observed, probably coupled with a context of rational decision-making in health care, a better and wider spread of recommendations and thus, medical practitioners' full endorsement.

Locally Advanced, Unresectable Pancreatic Cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline

PURPOSE

To provide evidence-based recommendations to oncologists and others for treatment of patients with locally advanced, unresectable pancreatic cancer.

METHODS

American Society of Clinical Oncology convened an Expert Panel of medical oncology, radiation oncology, surgical oncology, gastroenterology, palliative care, and advocacy experts and conducted a systematic review of the literature from January 2002 to June 2015. Outcomes included overall survival, disease-free survival, progression-free survival, and adverse events.

RESULTS

Twenty-six randomized controlled trials met the systematic review criteria.

RECOMMENDATIONS

A multiphase computed tomography scan of the chest, abdomen, and pelvis should be performed. Baseline performance status and comorbidity profile should be evaluated. The goals of care, patient preferences, psychological status, support systems, and symptoms should guide decisions for treatments. A palliative care referral should occur at first visit. Initial systemic chemotherapy (6 months) with a combination regimen is recommended for most patients (for some patients radiation therapy may be offered up front) with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0 or 1 and a favorable comorbidity profile. There is no clear evidence to support one regimen over another. The gemcitabine-based combinations and treatments recommended in the metastatic setting (eg, fluorouracil, leucovorin, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin and gemcitabine plus nanoparticle albumin-bound paclitaxel) have not been evaluated in randomized controlled trials involving locally advanced, unresectable pancreatic cancer. If there is local disease progression after induction chemotherapy, without metastasis, then radiation therapy or stereotactic body radiotherapy may be offered also with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ≤ 2 and an adequate comorbidity profile. If there is stable disease after 6 months of induction chemotherapy but unacceptable toxicities, radiation therapy may be offered as an alternative. Patients with disease progression should be offered treatment per the ASCO Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer Treatment Guideline. Follow-up visits every 3 to 4 months are recommended. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/guidelines/LAPC and www.asco.org/guidelines/MetPC and www.asco.org/guidelineswiki.

Cost-effectiveness of Gemcitabine Plus Modern Radiotherapy in Locally Advanced Pancreatic Cancer

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of gemcitabine plus modern radiotherapy versus gemcitabine alone in the treatment of locally advanced pancreatic cancer in Taiwan.

METHODS

A Markov decision-analytic model was performed to compare the cost-effectiveness of 3 treatment regimens; gemcitabine alone (gem-alone), gemcitabine plus intensity-modulated radiotherapy (gem-IMRT), and gemcitabine plus stereotactic body radiotherapy (gem-SBRT). Patients transitioned between 5 health states: stable disease, local progression, distant metastasis, local and distant metastasis, and death.

FINDINGS

The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for gem-IMRT and gem-SBRT compared with gem-alone were NT$27,120,168 and NT$2,145,683 per quality-adjusted life-year gained, respectively. A willingness to pay threshold of 3 times the per capita gross domestic product was adopted according to the definition of the World Health Organization. The Taiwan per capita gross domestic product in 2015 was NT$673,920 (US$22,464; 1 NT$ = US$0.03333 in Taiwan); thus, a threshold was considered as NT$2,021,760 (US$67,392). The Monte-Carlo simulation found that the probability of cost-effectiveness at a willingness to pay threshold of NT$2,021,760 per quality-adjusted life-year was 0% chance for gem-IMRT and 50% for gem-SBRT.

IMPLICATIONS

This study indicated that gem-IMRT or gem-SBRT in locally advanced pancreatic cancer is not cost-effective at a willingness to pay as defined by World Health Organization guideline in Taiwan.

Cost-effectiveness of diagnostic laparoscopy for assessing resectability in pancreatic and periampullary cancer

Background

Surgical resection is the only curative treatment for pancreatic and periampullary cancer, but many patients undergo unnecessary laparotomy because tumours can be understaged by computerised tomography (CT). A recent Cochrane review found diagnostic laparoscopy can decrease unnecessary laparotomy. We compared the cost-effectiveness of diagnostic laparoscopy prior to laparotomy versus direct laparotomy in patients with pancreatic and periampullary cancer with resectable disease based on CT scanning.

Method

Model based cost-utility analysis estimating mean costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) per patient from the perspective of the UK National Health Service. A decision tree model was constructed using probabilities, outcomes and cost data from published sources. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were undertaken.

Results

When laparotomy following diagnostic laparoscopy occurred in a subsequent admission, diagnostic laparoscopy incurred similar mean costs per patient to direct laparotomy (£7470 versus £7480); diagnostic laparoscopy costs (£995) were offset by avoiding unnecessary laparotomy costs. Diagnostic laparoscopy produced significantly more mean QALYs per patient than direct laparotomy (0.346 versus 0.337). Results were sensitive to the accuracy of diagnostic laparoscopy and the probability that disease was unresectable. Diagnostic laparoscopy had 63 to 66% probability of being cost-effective at a maximum willingness to pay for a QALY of £20 000 to £30 000. When laparotomy was undertaken in the same admission as diagnostic laparoscopy the mean cost per patient of diagnostic laparoscopy increased to £8224.

Conclusions

Diagnostic laparoscopy prior to laparotomy in patients with CT-resectable cancer appears to be cost-effective in pancreatic cancer (but not in periampullary cancer), when laparotomy following diagnostic laparoscopy occurs in a subsequent admission.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12876-015-0270-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Cost-effectiveness of preoperative biliary drainage for obstructive jaundice in pancreatic and periampullary cancer

BACKGROUND

A recent Cochrane Review found that preoperative biliary drainage (PBD) in patients with resectable pancreatic and periampullary cancer undergoing surgery for obstructive jaundice is associated with similar mortality but increased serious morbidity compared with no PBD. Despite this clinical evidence of its lack of effectiveness, PBD is still in use. We considered the economic implications of PBD versus direct surgery for obstructive jaundice in patients with pancreatic and periampullary cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Model-based cost-utility analysis estimating mean costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) per patient from the perspective of the UK National Health Service over a 6-month time horizon. A decision tree model was constructed and populated with probabilities, outcomes, and cost data from published sources. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were undertaken.

RESULTS

PBD was more costly than direct surgery (mean cost per patient £10,775 [$15,616] versus £8221 [$11,914]) and produced fewer QALYs (mean QALYs per patient 0.337 versus 0.343). Not performing PBD would result in cost savings of approximately £2500 ($3623) per patient to the National Health Service. PBD had <10% probability of being cost-effective at a maximum willingness to pay for a QALY of £20,000 ($28,986) to £30,000 ($43,478).

CONCLUSIONS

There are significant cost savings to be gained by avoiding routine PBD in patients with resectable pancreatic and periampullary cancer where PBD is still routinely used in this context; this economic evidence should be used to support the clinical argument for a change in practice.

Treatment of pancreatic cancer: A narrative review of cost-effectiveness studies

Cancer of the pancreas is the second most frequent digestive cancer in the US, accounting for about 44,000 new cases per year. In Europe, it is the sixth most frequent cancer, accounting for 2.8% of cancers in men and 3.2% in women. With a five-year survival of less than 10%, it is the fifth leading cause of cancer-related death. The majority of cases are diagnosed above the age of 65 and in about 60% of cases at an advanced stage, explaining that little improvement has been observed in survival over the past 30 years. Radical surgery offers the only curative treatment of pancreatic cancer. Alternative or combined therapeutic options in particular consist of adjuvant or neoadjuvant chemotherapy, with or without radiotherapy. Palliative treatment for locally advanced disease may benefit patient's health status and quality of life. Limitations in healthcare resources, burden of treatment, and uncertainty of the net clinical benefit of adjuvant therapy, underline the need to identify the cost-effectiveness of different therapeutic approaches, as well as a need to establish patient groups who benefit most from these treatments. The present paper reviews cost-effectiveness studies published on pancreatic cancer treatment.

Characteristics, therapy and outcome in an unselected and prospectively registered cohort of pancreatic cancer patients

PURPOSE

Pancreatic cancer (PC) is associated with a dismal prognosis. Few studies have examined characteristics and outcome in an unselected population-based cohort of PC patients. Therefore, we investigated patient baseline characteristics, therapy choices and survival in a complete cohort of patients with PC.

METHODS

All cases diagnosed with PC between 2007 and 2009 in the Region of Southern Denmark (pop: 1,200,000) were prospectively registered. Patient characteristics including performance status, information about haematology, liver function and therapy were retrieved from patient charts, and used to compare differently treated and untreated groups.

RESULTS

Six-hundred-eighteen cases were registered as PC; 25 of which did not have adenocarcinomas. Patients were divided in 3 clinical groups based on initial therapy; group 1: resection (n=64), group 2: chemotherapy or chemo-radiotherapy (n=191), group 3: no tumour directed therapy (n=324). Median survival (mOS) (95% confidence interval (CI)) in the three groups was 25.7 months (18-30), 8.1 months (7.0-9.5) and 1.1 months (1.0-1.3) respectively. Three percent of patients participated in clinical trials. An evaluation of baseline factors prognostic value suggested that treated patients differed significantly from non-treated patients.

CONCLUSION

This study reports survival in treated groups comparable to results obtained from clinical trials with highly selected patients. However the majority of patients with PC do not receive cancer directed therapy. This group was significantly different in several baseline factors, which could suggest a different biology. Improving the outcome of PC patients calls for research into the large group of untreated patients, as only a minority of patients receive cancer directed therapy.

Costs and trends in pancreatic cancer treatment

BACKGROUND

Pancreatic cancer poses a substantial morbidity and mortality burden in the United States, and predominantly affects older adults. The objective of this study was to estimate the direct medical costs of pancreatic cancer treatment in a population-based cohort of Medicare beneficiaries, and the contribution of different treatment modalities and health care services to the total cost of care and trends in costs over time.

METHODS

In the linked Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare database, pancreatic cancer patients were identified who were aged 66 years or older and who were diagnosed from 2000 to 2007. Total direct medical costs were estimated from Medicare payments overall and within categories of care. Costs attributable to pancreatic cancer were estimated by subtracting the costs of medical care in a matched cohort of cancer-free beneficiaries.

RESULTS

A total of 15,037 patients were identified, of whom 97% were observed from diagnosis until death. Mean total direct medical costs were $65,500. Mean total costs were greater for patients with resectable locoregional disease ($134,700) than for those with unresectable locoregional or distant disease ($65,300 and $49,000, respectively). Hospitalizations and cancer-directed procedures collectively accounted for the largest fraction of health care costs. The total cost of care appeared to increase slightly over the study period (P = .05). The mean costs attributable to pancreatic cancer were $61,700.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite poor prognosis and short survival, the economic burden of pancreatic cancer in the elderly is substantial. Demographic trends, greater use of targeted therapies, and possible implementation of screening strategies are likely to impact treatment patterns and costs in the future.

Long-term outcomes of neoadjuvant chemotherapy before chemoradiation for locally advanced pancreatic cancer

BACKGROUND

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy before chemoradiation therapy (CRT) may improve outcomes for patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer, but optimal management remains controversial, and prior reports have limited follow-up.

METHODS

Seventy consecutive patients with unresectable (n = 46) or borderline resectable (n = 24) locally advanced pancreatic cancer were treated with CRT from 2005 to 2009. Patients typically received 50.4 grays in 28 fractions (91%) with concurrent 5-fluorouracil (84%) or capecitabine (14%). Forty patients received CRT alone, and 30 patients received neoadjuvant chemotherapy before CRT for a median of 4 months, typically gemcitabine (93%). All patients without progression after neoadjuvant chemotherapy were offered CRT.

RESULTS

Median follow-up was 14.2 months (range, 3-57 months). Fifty-three percent of patients in the CRT group versus 83% in the neoadjuvant chemotherapy before CRT group had unresectable tumors at diagnosis; after completion of CRT, 20% of patients in both groups underwent resection. Compared with CRT alone, the neoadjuvant chemotherapy before CRT group demonstrated improved median overall survival (OS; 18.7 vs 12.4 months; P = .02) and progression-free survival (11.4 vs 6.7 months; P = .02). On multivariate analysis, receipt of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.49; 95% CI, 0.28-0.87; P = .02) and surgical resection (adjusted HR, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.17-0.85; P = .02) were associated with increased OS.

CONCLUSIONS

Gemcitabine-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy confers a significant OS advantage by allowing the selection of patients who will derive greatest benefit from CRT. Median survival with this approach was similar to that seen with surgical resection.

Cost-effectiveness of modern radiotherapy techniques in locally advanced pancreatic cancer

BACKGROUND

Radiotherapy may improve the outcome of patients with pancreatic cancer but at an increased cost. In this study, the authors evaluated the cost-effectiveness of modern radiotherapy techniques in the treatment of locally advanced pancreatic cancer.

METHODS

A Markov decision-analytic model was constructed to compare the cost-effectiveness of 4 treatment regimens: gemcitabine alone, gemcitabine plus conventional radiotherapy, gemcitabine plus intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT); and gemcitabine with stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT). Patients transitioned between the following 5 health states: stable disease, local progression, distant failure, local and distant failure, and death. Health utility tolls were assessed for radiotherapy and chemotherapy treatments and for radiation toxicity.

RESULTS

SBRT increased life expectancy by 0.20 quality-adjusted life years (QALY) at an increased cost of $13,700 compared with gemcitabine alone (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER] = $69,500 per QALY). SBRT was more effective and less costly than conventional radiotherapy and IMRT. An analysis that excluded SBRT demonstrated that conventional radiotherapy had an ICER of $126,800 per QALY compared with gemcitabine alone, and IMRT had an ICER of $1,584,100 per QALY compared with conventional radiotherapy. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated that the probability of cost-effectiveness at a willingness to pay of $50,000 per QALY was 78% for gemcitabine alone, 21% for SBRT, 1.4% for conventional radiotherapy, and 0.01% for IMRT. At a willingness to pay of $200,000 per QALY, the probability of cost-effectiveness was 73% for SBRT, 20% for conventional radiotherapy, 7% for gemcitabine alone, and 0.7% for IMRT.

CONCLUSIONS

The current results indicated that IMRT in locally advanced pancreatic cancer exceeds what society considers cost-effective. In contrast, combining gemcitabine with SBRT increased clinical effectiveness beyond that of gemcitabine alone at a cost potentially acceptable by today's standards.

Cost-effectiveness studies in radiation therapy

The field of radiation therapy has made dramatic technical advances over the past 20 years. 3D conformal radiotherapy, intensity-modulated radiation therapy and proton beam therapy have all been developed in an attempt to improve the therapeutic ratio: higher cure rates with lower toxicity. Unfortunately, although the costs of radiation therapy are certainly increasing, it is unclear whether its clinical benefit has also improved. Cost-effectiveness analyses are designed to formally evaluate the cost of a treatment relative to an associated change in quality-adjusted survival. As the cost of oncologic care is increasing, it is critically important to assess the cost-effectiveness of radiation therapy. This article will describe the issues surrounding the delivery and cost of radiation therapy, and it will summarize the work that has been done to evaluate the use of cost-effectiveness in radiation oncology.

Outcomes and tolerability of chemoradiation therapy for pancreatic cancer patients aged 75 years or older

PURPOSE

To review the outcomes and tolerability of full-dose chemoradiation in elderly patients aged 75 years or older with localized pancreatic cancer.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

We retrospectively reviewed patients aged 75 years or older with nonmetastatic pancreatic cancer treated with chemoradiation therapy at two institutions from 2002 to 2007. Patients were analyzed for treatment toxicity, local recurrences, distant metastases, and survival.

RESULTS

A total of 42 patients with a median age of 78 years (range, 75-90 years) who received chemoradiation therapy for pancreatic cancer were identified. Of the patients, 24 had locally advanced disease treated with definitive chemoradiation, and 18 had disease treated with surgery and chemoradiation. Before chemoradiotherapy, the mean Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status was 1.0 +/- 0.8, and the mean 6-month weight loss was 5.3 +/- 3.8 kg. The mean radiation dose delivered was 48.1 +/- 9.2 Gy. All patients received fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy concurrently with radiotherapy. In all, 8 patients (19%) were hospitalized, 7 (17%) had an emergency room visit, 15 (36%) required a radiation treatment break, 3 (7%) required a chemotherapy break, 9 (21%) did not complete therapy, and 22 (49%) had at least one of these adverse events. The most common toxicities were nausea, pain, and failure to thrive. Median overall survival was 8.6 months (95% confidence interval, 7.2-13.1) in patients who received definitive chemoradiation therapy and 20.6 months (95% confidence interval, 9.5-infinity) in patients who underwent resection and chemoradiation therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

In this dataset of very elderly patients with pancreatic cancer and good Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, outcomes after chemoradiotherapy were similar to those among historic controls for patients with locally advanced and resected pancreatic cancer, although many patients experienced substantial treatment-related toxicity.

Model-based simulation to explore the cost-effectiveness of following practice guidelines for triglyceride and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol control among patients with diabetes mellitus and mixed dyslipidemia

BACKGROUND

The National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III guidelines recommend maintaining lipid levels within particular targets to reduce the risk of coronary heart disease (CHD) events.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this simulation study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of following guideline-recommended care compared with current practice or usual care for patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) and mixed dyslipidemia (ie, high low-density lipoprotein cholesterol [LDL-C] and triglyceride [TG] levels).

METHODS

A simulation model using a US health care payer perspective was designed to predict changes in lipid levels (LDL-C, TG, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and total cholesterol) and long-term CHD risk. Data about patients with DM and uncontrolled TG and/or LDL-C were taken from an electronic medical records database to develop the description of current care (eg, statin, fibrate, or no medication) and cholesterol levels. Patients with uncontrolled lipid levels who were not following guideline recommendations were assumed to be receiving combination treatment (ie, coadministration of statin and fibrate) or monotherapy for the uncontrolled lipids under guideline care. Results from a previous study were used to project incremental benefits of combination treatment compared with monotherapy. CHD events were predicted based on risk equations. A 20-year model of direct costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) was created.

RESULTS

Among patients switched to guideline therapy, the model predicted 72% achieved 2 lipid targets and 44% achieved 3 lipid targets in 1 year. Over 20 years, in a modeled sample of 1000 patients, 176 myocardial infarction and angina events would be avoided by following guideline care. Total present value of costs for drug treatment and medical care for CHD events would be $33,626 per patient for guideline treatment versus $25,264 per patient for current care. The discounted QALY gain would be 0.18 per patient for an incremental cost per QALY of $50,315.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this model simulation suggest that for patients with DM and mixed dyslipidemia, following treatment guidelines rather than current practice (including combination therapy rather than monotherapy) would result in more patients achieving lipid targets, fewer CHD events, and more QALYs gained at a reasonable cost (less than $109,000) per QALY.

Health-related quality of life in veterans with prevalent total knee arthroplasty and total hip arthroplasty

OBJECTIVE

To study the HRQOL in veterans with prevalent total knee arthroplasty (TKA) or total hip arthroplasty (THA) and compare them with age- and gender-matched US population and control veteran population without these procedures.

METHODS

A cohort study and cross-sectional survey on veterans obtained demographics and HRQOL with Short-Form 36 for veterans (SF-36V). Veterans were categorized into: primary TKA; primary THA; combination group (>/=1 primary and/or any revision TKA/THA); and control population (no THA/TKA). Multivariable regression compared the physical and mental component summary scores (PCS and MCS scores, respectively) in each group.

RESULTS

Response rate was 58% (40 508/70 334): 531 with TKA, 254 with THA, 461 constituted the combination and 39 262, the control group. Mean PCS scores in veterans with THA, TKA, and combination group were 2 s.d. lower than the US mean (29.5 +/- 0.8; 30.1 +/- 1.1 and 27.1 +/- 0.8). MCS scores were similar to the US mean (47.3 +/- 0.9; 49.1 +/- 1.2 and 45.6 +/- 0.9). Compared with controls, significantly more veterans in TKA, THA or combination groups had multivariable-adjusted PCS /= 0.01) were statistically and clinically lower.

CONCLUSIONS

Profound physical HRQOL deficits exist in veterans with TKA/THA and in combination group compared with age- and gender-matched general US population and with veteran controls. In these groups, these deficits are not attributable to differences in sociodemographics, comorbidity and healthcare access/utilization. Arthroplasty status may be a surrogate for poorer HRQOL and worse outcomes. Future studies are indicated to determine HRQOL deficit causes and interventions to improve HRQOL in patients with arthroplasty.