Interdisciplinary Implementation of a Synoptic Reporting Template for Melanoma Nodal Surveillance Ultrasound.

BACKGROUND: With nodal surveillance increasingly used for sentinel lymph node-positive (SLN+) melanoma following the Second Multicenter Selective Lymphadenectomy Trial (MSLT-II), high-quality nodal ultrasonography (U/S) has become a critical need. Previous work has demonstrated low utilization of MSLT-II U/S criteria to define abnormal lymph nodes requiring intervention or biopsy. To address this gap, an evidence-based synoptic template was designed and implemented in this single-center study. METHODS: Sentinel lymph node-positive patients undergoing nodal surveillance at a tertiary cancer center from July 2017 to June 2023 were identified retrospectively. Ultrasound reporting language was analyzed for MSLT-II criteria reported and clinically actionable recommendations (e.g., normal, abnormal with recommendation for biopsy). Following a multidisciplinary design process, the synoptic template was implemented in January 2023. Postimplementation outcomes were evaluated by using U/S reports and provider surveys. RESULTS: A total of 337 U/S studies were performed on 94 SLN+ patients, with a median of 3 U/S per patient (range 1-12). Among 42 synoptic-eligible U/S performed postimplementation, 32 U/S (76.0%) were reported synoptically. Significant increases were seen in the number of MSLT-II criteria reported (Pre 0.5 ± 0.8 vs. Post 2.5 ± 1.0, p < 0.001), and clinically actionable recommendations for abnormal findings (Pre 64.0% vs. Post 93.0%, p = 0.04). Nearly all surgeon and radiologist survey respondents were "very" or "completely" satisfied with the clinical utility of the synoptic template (90.0%). CONCLUSIONS: Following implementation of a synoptic template, U/S reports were significantly more likely to document MSLT-II criteria and provide an actionable recommendation, increasing usefulness to providers. Efforts to disseminate this synoptic template to other centers are ongoing.

International Center-Level Variation in Utilization of Completion Lymph Node Dissection and Adjuvant Systemic Therapy for Sentinel Lymph Node-Positive Melanoma at Major Referral Centers.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine overall trends and center-level variation in utilization of completion lymph node dissection (CLND) and adjuvant systemic therapy for sentinel lymph node (SLN)-positive melanoma. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Based on recent clinical trials, management options for SLN-positive melanoma now include effective adjuvant systemic therapy and nodal observation instead of CLND. It is unknown how these findings have shaped practice or how these contemporaneous developments have influenced their respective utilization. METHODS: We performed an international cohort study at 21 melanoma referral centers in Australia, Europe, and the United States that treated adults with SLN-positive melanoma and negative distant staging from July 2017 to June 2019. We used generalized linear and multinomial logistic regression models with random intercepts for each center to assess center-level variation in CLND and adjuvant systemic treatment, adjusting for patient and disease-specific characteristics. RESULTS: Among 1109 patients, performance of CLND decreased from 28% to 8% and adjuvant systemic therapy use increased from 29 to 60%. For both CLND and adjuvant systemic treatment, the most influential factors were nodal tumor size, stage, and location of treating center. There was notable variation among treating centers in management of stage IIIA patients and use of CLND with adjuvant systemic therapy versus nodal observation alone for similar risk patients. CONCLUSIONS: There has been an overall decline in CLND and simultaneous adoption of adjuvant systemic therapy for patients with SLN-positive melanoma though wide variation in practice remains. Accounting for differences in patient mix, location of care contributed significantly to the observed variation.

Recurrence Patterns for Regionally Metastatic Melanoma Treated in the Era of Adjuvant Therapy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this systematic review was to examine the timing and patterns of recurrence for patients with regionally metastatic melanoma on the basis of nodal management and receipt of adjuvant therapy. METHODS: We identified randomized controlled trials and non-randomized studies published between 2010 and 2020 that reported timing and/or patterns of recurrence. We evaluated recurrence-free survival (RFS), location of recurrence, and surveillance strategy on the basis of receipt of adjuvant systemic therapy and nodal management with observation versus completion dissection. We compared differences in patterns of recurrence across studies using RevMan. RFS was evaluated graphically using point estimates and confidence intervals. RESULTS: Among the 19 publications, there was wide variation in study populations, imaging surveillance regimens, and format of recurrence reporting. Patterns of disease recurrence did not differ between adjuvant and placebo/observation groups. A total of 11 studies reported RFS at variable time intervals, which ranged in adjuvant therapy groups (38-88% at 1 year, 29-67% at 2 years, 33-58% at 3 years, and 34-53% at 5 years) and placebo/observation groups (47-63% at 1 year, 39-47% at 2 years, 33-68% at 3 years, and 57% at 5 years). Anti-PD-1 immune therapy and BRAF/MEK inhibitor therapy were superior to placebo at year 1. DISCUSSION: We found that adjuvant treatment improved RFS but did not alter the patterns of disease recurrence compared with patients managed without adjuvant systemic treatment. Future studies should separately report sites of disease recurrence on the basis of specific adjuvant systemic treatment and surveillance practices to better advise patients about their patterns and risk of recurrence.

Burden of Care for Patients With In-Transit Melanoma.

INTRODUCTION: Patient burden of cancer care can be significant, especially for cancers like melanoma where patients are living longer, even with advanced disease. The purpose of this study is to compare the burden of treatment of melanoma patients with in-transit metastases (ITM). There are multiple treatment options for ITM, but no standard due to lack of large cohort comparative studies; thus, the anticipated burden of care may influence therapy choice. METHODS: Included patients had in-transit melanoma without distant metastasis and were managed at our institution from July 1, 2015 through December 31, 2020 using a combination of surgery, systemic, intralesional, and radiation therapy. We compared treatment burden, (number of treatments, clinic visits, inpatient hospital days, and distance traveled) and response rates using Kruskal-Wallis and chi-squared tests. Recurrence-free survival and estimated charges were exploratory endpoints. RESULTS: There were 42 patients who met the inclusion criteria. As initial treatment, patients had surgery (n = 20), surgery with adjuvant (n = 6), systemic (n = 9), and intralesional therapy (n = 2). Surgery had the lowest treatment burden (median of 1 treatment, 3 clinic visits, and 0 inpatient days) while surgery with adjuvant systemic therapy had the highest burden (median of 13 treatments, 12 clinic visits, and 0 inpatient days). Systemic, intralesional, and radiation therapy were used more often for recurrent ITM. Travel distance (P = 0.88) and response rates did not statistically differ between the four options for first line therapy (P = 0.99). At a median follow-up time of 8.8 mo, 22 (52%) of the cohort required more than 1 therapy to manage recurrent or progressive disease and 14 (33%) progressed to distant disease. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment of in-transit melanoma is associated with high burden of care and often requires multiple therapies, even with maximally effective first treatment choice. Factors evaluated in this study may be used to set expectations of treatment course for newly diagnosed patients and may aid in patients' decisions on therapy selection.

Incidence and Risk Factors for Incidental Cancer on Melanoma Wide Excisions.

INTRODUCTION: Cancer patients and survivors have a high risk of developing additional malignancies. Patients who undergo melanoma excision often have sun-damaged skin and are predisposed to concurrent and subsequent skin cancers. The unexpected finding of an incidental cancer on melanoma wide excisions can require further surgery and delays adjuvant treatment. We aimed to determine the incidence and risk factors for incidental skin cancers in patients who had surgical excision of melanoma. METHODS: Our single-center retrospective study analyzed all patients diagnosed with primary melanoma at our institution from July 1, 2019 through June 30, 2020. We included patients with localized cutaneous melanoma who underwent surgical excision and had relevant pathology data available. Descriptive statistics and univariate analyses were performed on the demographic, clinical, and pathological data collected. We analyzed differences between the groups with and without incidental cancer to ascertain risk factors using chi-squared tests and Wilcoxon rank sum tests. Dunn's tests with Bonferroni correction were performed for multiple pairwise comparisons. RESULTS: There were 642 patients who met the criteria for inclusion, of whom 13 (2.0%) had incidental cancers identified on a pathologic assessment. Six (46%) had incidental squamous cell carcinoma and seven (54%) had basal cell carcinoma. With regard to management of incidental cancer, three (23%) patients required additional surgery for margin re-excision. Risk factors for incidental cancers in melanoma excision included older age (median 79 versus 62 y, P < 0.001), male sex (P = 0.042), and primary tumor location in the head/neck region relative to trunk (P < 0.01) or extremity (P < 0.01) primary sites. CONCLUSIONS: Although the frequency of incidental findings on melanoma excision is low, certain patients are at a greater risk including older male individuals with head/neck melanomas. These findings can be used to improve preoperative counseling of at-risk patients when melanoma excision is planned.

Real-World Adherence to Nodal Surveillance for Sentinel Lymph Node-Positive Melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Patients with sentinel lymph node-positive (SLN+) melanoma are increasingly undergoing active nodal surveillance over completion lymph node dissection (CLND) since the Second Multicenter Selective Lymphadenectomy Trial (MSLT-II). Adherence to nodal surveillance in real-world practice remains unknown. METHODS: In a retrospective cohort of SLN+ melanoma patients who underwent nodal surveillance at a single institution from July 2017 through April 2021, this study evaluated adherence to nodal surveillance ultrasound (US). Adherence to nodal US was compared with adherence to other surveillance methods based on receipt of adjuvant therapy. Early recurrence data were reported using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Among 109 SLN+ patients, 37 (34%) received US surveillance at recommended intervals. Of the 72 (66%) non-adherent patients, 16 were lost to follow-up, and 33 had planned follow-up at an outside institution without available records. More patients had a minimum of bi-annual clinic visits (83%) and cross-sectional imaging (53%) compared to those who were adherent with nodal US. The patients who received adjuvant therapy (60%) had fewer ultrasounds (p < 0.01) but more exams (p < 0.01) and a trend toward more cross-sectional imaging (p = 0.06). Of the overall cohort, 26 patients (24%) experienced recurrence at a median follow-up period of 15 months. Of these recurrences, 10 were limited to the SLN basin, and all of these isolated nodal recurrences were resectable. CONCLUSIONS: Pragmatic challenges to real-world delivery of nodal surveillance remain after MSLT-II, and adjuvant therapy appears to be associated with a decreased likelihood of US adherence. Understanding US utility alongside cross-sectional imaging will be critical as increasingly more patients undergo nodal surveillance and adjuvant therapy.

Active surveillance of patients who have sentinel node positive melanoma: An international, multi-institution evaluation of adoption and early outcomes after the Multicenter Selective Lymphadenectomy Trial II (MSLT-2).

BACKGROUND: For patients with sentinel lymph node (SLN)-positive cutaneous melanoma, the Second Multicenter Selective Lymphadenectomy trial demonstrated equivalent disease-specific survival (DSS) with active surveillance using nodal ultrasound versus completion lymph node dissection (CLND). Adoption and outcomes of active surveillance in clinical practice and in adjuvant therapy recipients are unknown. METHODS: In a retrospective cohort of SLN-positive adults treated at 21 institutions in Australia, Europe, and the United States from June 2017 to November 2019, the authors evaluated the impact of active surveillance and adjuvant therapy on all-site recurrence-free survival (RFS), isolated nodal RFS, distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS), and DSS using Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox proportional hazard models. RESULTS: Among 6347 SLN biopsies, 1154 (18%) were positive and had initial negative distant staging. In total, 965 patients (84%) received active surveillance, 189 (16%) underwent CLND. Four hundred thirty-nine patients received adjuvant therapy (surveillance, 38%; CLND, 39%), with the majority (83%) receiving anti-PD-1 immunotherapy. After a median follow-up of 11 months, 220 patients developed recurrent disease (surveillance, 19%; CLND, 22%), and 24 died of melanoma (surveillance, 2%; CLND, 4%). Sixty-eight patients had an isolated nodal recurrence (surveillance, 6%; CLND, 4%). In patients who received adjuvant treatment without undergoing prior CLND, all isolated nodal recurrences were resectable. On risk-adjusted multivariable analyses, CLND was associated with improved isolated nodal RFS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.36; 95% CI, 0.15-0.88), but not all-site RFS (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.45-1.02). Adjuvant therapy improved all-site RFS (HR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.47-0.57). DSS and DMFS did not differ by nodal management or adjuvant treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Active surveillance has been adopted for most SLN-positive patients. At initial assessment, real-world outcomes align with randomized trial findings, including in adjuvant therapy recipients. LAY SUMMARY: For patients with melanoma of the skin and microscopic spread to lymph nodes, monitoring with ultrasound is an alternative to surgically removing the remaining lymph nodes. The authors studied adoption and real-world outcomes of ultrasound monitoring in over 1000 patients treated at 21 centers worldwide, finding that most patients now have ultrasounds instead of surgery. Although slightly more patients have cancer return in the lymph nodes with this strategy, typically, it can be removed with delayed surgery. Compared with up-front surgery, ultrasound monitoring results in the same overall risk of melanoma coming back at any location or of dying from melanoma.

Intraoperative Localization Using an Implanted Radar Reflector Facilitates Resection of Non-Palpable Trunk and Extremity Sarcoma.

BACKGROUND: Resecting non-palpable soft tissue tumors presents a unique challenge, particularly with recurrent disease in which surrounding tissue has been surgically manipulated and often irradiated. SAVI SCOUT® is a radar-based localization device that was developed for breast tumor localization and was recently FDA-approved for localization of soft tissue tumors. Application of this technology to soft tissue sarcoma has not been previously reported. METHODS: We assembled a single-institution retrospective case series of patients with trunk and extremity sarcomas resected by five sarcoma surgeons using SAVI SCOUT® from December 2018 to May 2020. Reflectors were placed preoperatively using image-guidance, and the radar detector was used intraoperatively to localize the target lesion. Clinical variables were abstracted from the electronic medical record including treatment history, pathology, and early oncologic outcomes. Using a focused review, we compared margin status and recurrence rates with previously published cohorts. RESULTS: Ten SAVI SCOUT®-localized sarcoma resections were performed. Eight were for locally recurrent disease, of which seven (83%) had prior radiation. The remaining lesions became non-palpable after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. SAVI SCOUT® facilitated resection in all cases with a margin-negative resection rate (77%) comparable to prior cohorts. In this high-risk population with a median follow-up of 14 months, only one patient recurred locally 7.5 months after SAVI SCOUT®-localized resection, requiring re-resection. CONCLUSION: SAVI SCOUT® technology facilitated resection of non-palpable recurrent sarcoma of the trunk and extremities in all ten cases attempted. In a high-risk patient population, the pattern of recurrence has been primarily distant with one instance of local tumor recurrence.

Surveillance of Sentinel Node-Positive Melanoma Patients Who Receive Adjuvant Therapy Without Undergoing Completion Lymph Node Dissection.

INTRODUCTION: Adjuvant therapy trials required completion lymph node dissection (CLND) for sentinel lymph node (SLN)-positive melanoma prior to systemic treatment, but nodal surveillance without CLND is now common. For patients receiving adjuvant therapy without CLND, patterns of recurrence are unknown and the value of regional nodal ultrasound alongside cross-sectional imaging is not well-defined. METHODS: In a retrospective cohort of SLN-positive melanoma patients managed with nodal surveillance from June 2014 to June 2019, we evaluated the association between adjuvant treatment and location of first recurrence (locoregional, nodal, distant, or multisite) using Chi-square tests. We compared methods of recurrence detection and cost by surveillance intensity using Chi-square and Dunn's tests. RESULTS: Among 177 nodal surveillance patients, 66 (37%) received adjuvant therapy. Median follow-up was 24 months, during which 48 patients (27%) recurred. Adjuvant treatment did not alter patterns of initial recurrence (p = 0.76). Adjuvant therapy recipients more often had both nodal ultrasound and cross-sectional imaging surveillance (p < 0.01). Among 13 isolated nodal recurrences, 85% were within the first year and 85% were detected by examination and/or ultrasound. Increasing surveillance intensity was not associated with recurrence detection rates but increased overall cost and cost per detected recurrence. CONCLUSION: Regardless of adjuvant treatment, most nodal recurrences occurred in the first year and were initially detected clinically or by ultrasound. Findings support continued use of examination and nodal basin ultrasound in addition to any planned cross-sectional imaging surveillance.

TARGIT-R (Retrospective): 5-Year Follow-Up Evaluation of Intraoperative Radiation Therapy (IORT) for Breast Cancer Performed in North America.

BACKGROUND: Intraoperative radiation therapy (IORT) has been investigated for patients with low-risk, early-stage breast cancer. The The North American experience was evaluated by TARGIT-R (retrospective) to provide outcomes for patients treated in "real-world" clinical practice with breast IORT. This analysis presents a 5-year follow-up assessment. METHODS: TARGIT-R is a multi-institutional retrospective registry of patients who underwent lumpectomy and IORT between the years 2007 and 2013. The primary outcome of the evaluation was ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR). RESULTS: The evaluation included 667 patients with a median follow-up period of 5.1 years. Primary IORT (IORT at the time of lumpectomy) was performed for 72%, delayed IORT (after lumpectomy) for 3%, intended boost for 8%, and unintended boost (primary IORT followed by whole-breast radiation) for 17% of the patients. At 5 years, IBTR was 6.6% for all the patients, with 8% for the primary IORT cohort and 1.7% for the unintended-boost cohort. No recurrences were identified in the delayed IORT or intended-boost cohorts. Noncompliance with endocrine therapy (ET) was associated with higher IBTR risk (hazard ratio [HR], 3.67). Patients treated with primary IORT who were complaint with ET had a 5-year IBTR rate of 3.9%. CONCLUSION: The local recurrence rates in this series differ slightly from recent results of randomized IORT trials and are notably higher than in previous published studies using whole-breast radiotherapy for similar patients with early-stage breast cancer. Understanding differences in this retrospective series and the prospective trials will be critical to optimizing patient selection and outcomes going forward.

Surgeon decision-making for management of positive sentinel lymph nodes in the post-Multicenter Selective Lymphadenectomy Trial II era: A survey study.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Completion lymph node dissection (CLND) did not improve melanoma-specific survival for patients with sentinel lymph node (SLN)-positive melanoma in the second Multicenter Selective Lymphadenectomy Trial (MSLT-II). We assessed surgeons' awareness of MSLT-II and its impact on CLND recommendations. METHODS: An anonymous online cross-sectional survey of the Society of Surgical Oncology membership evaluated surgeon thresholds in offering CLND using patient scenarios and clinicopathologic characteristics ranking. RESULTS: Of the 2881 e-mails delivered, 146 surgeons (5.1%) completed all seven scenarios. Most (129 of 131, 98%) were aware of MSLT-II and 125 (95%) found it practice-changing. Specifically, 52% (65 of 125) always, 40% usually, 6% rarely, and 3% never offered CLND before MSLT-II. Meanwhile, 4% always, 9% usually, 78% rarely, and 8% never offer CLND now, after MSLT-II (p < .0001). The most important clinicopathologic factors in determining CLND recommendations were extracapsular extension, number of positive SLN, and SLN tumor deposit size, while primary tumor mitotic index and nodal basin location were the least important. Surgical oncology fellowship training, melanoma patient volume, and academic center practice also influenced CLND recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: Most surgeon respondents are aware of MSLT-II, but its application in practice varies according to several clinicopathologic and surgeon factors.

Utility of Taking Additional Margins When Performing Breast-Conserving Surgery with Intraoperative Radiation Therapy for Early Breast Cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Intraoperative radiation therapy (IORT) is an alternative to external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) after lumpectomy, in which radiation is delivered before the final margin analysis. Practices vary regarding excision of close or positive margins pre- and post-IORT. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a retrospective cohort of women with hormone receptor-positive, clinically node-negative breast cancer undergoing lumpectomy with IORT and selective EBRT at our institution from 2011 to 2015, we compared the impact of pre- and post-IORT margin excisions on in-breast tumor recurrence. Additional pre-IORT margins were taken at surgical team discretion. Re-excisions post-IORT were performed for positive/close margins. We describe rate of invasive or in situ malignancy in additional pre-IORT and post-IORT re-excised specimens and compare IBTR using Chi-squared tests. RESULTS: There were 195 cases in 193 women (2 bilateral breast cancer). Pre-IORT, ≥1 additional margin was obtained in 139 (71%). The final margin on the initial lumpectomy was positive in 13 (9%) and ≤2 mm in 72 (52%). Additional pre-IORT margins contained in situ/invasive cancer in 16 (12%). Thirty-one patients (16%) underwent post-IORT re-excision and nine (29%) contained invasive/in situ malignancy. Twenty-three (12%) received EBRT. In 45.6-month mean follow-up, 13 had IBTR (7%) with no difference by additional pre-IORT margin excision (5 vs. 11%, p = 0.150), post-IORT margin re-excision (10 vs. 6%, p = 0.464), or EBRT (0 vs. 8%, p = 0.172). Adjuvant endocrine therapy was associated with lower IBTR (4 vs. 17%, p = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: Taking additional pre-IORT margins and re-excising close/positive margins post-IORT improved margin clearance rates but had an unclear effect on IBTR. Adjuvant endocrine therapy significantly reduced IBTR.

Sidedness of Colorectal Cancer Impacts Risk of Second Primary Gastrointestinal Malignancy.

INTRODUCTION: A history of colorectal cancer (CRC) increases the risk of subsequent gastrointestinal (GI) cancer. Cancers of the right colon, left colon, and rectum differ according to molecular profiles, responses to treatment, and outcomes. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine if CRC location is associated with differential risk for secondary primary GI malignancy. METHODS: A retrospective cohort of adults with CRC was compiled using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database (1973-2015). Standardized incidence ratios (SIRs) for second primary GI malignancies were compared based on location of the index CRC (right colon, left colon, or rectum). RESULTS: The cohort included 281,413 adults with CRC (30.3% right, 35.3% left, 34.3% rectum). With a median 4.9-year follow-up, 12,064 (4.3%) patients developed a second primary GI malignancy (64% CRC, 36% non-CRC). Those with CRC at any location had higher than expected incidences of small intestine, bile duct, and other CRCs, and lower incidences of liver and gallbladder cancer. The SIR for small intestinal cancer was higher after right colon cancer than after left colon or rectal cancer. The esophageal cancer SIR was higher after left colon cancer. Pancreas cancer was higher than expected for right colon cancer, but lower for left colon and rectal cancer. CONCLUSION: The location of CRC leads to differences in the incidence and location of second primary GI malignancies and may be related to similarities in the associated carcinogenesis and molecular pathways or response to treatment. CRC location not only impacts treatment response and outcomes, but should also be considered during subsequent surveillance.

Heller myotomy versus Heller myotomy with Dor fundoplication for achalasia: long-term symptomatic follow-up of a prospective randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Our prior randomized controlled trial of Heller myotomy alone versus Heller plus Dor fundoplication for achalasia from 2000 to 2004 demonstrated comparable postoperative resolution of dysphagia but less gastroesophageal reflux after Heller plus Dor. Patient-reported outcomes are needed to determine whether the findings are sustained long-term. METHODS: We actively engaged participants from the prior randomized cohort, making up to six contact attempts per person using telephone, mail, and electronic messaging. We collected patient-reported measures of dysphagia and gastroesophageal reflux using the Dysphagia Score and the Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease-Health-Related Quality of Life (GERD-HRQL) instrument. Patient-reported re-interventions for dysphagia were verified by obtaining longitudinal medical records. RESULTS: Among living participants, 27/41 (66%) were contacted and all completed the follow-up study at a mean of 11.8 years postoperatively. Median Dysphagia Scores and GERD-HRQL scores were slightly worse for Heller than Heller plus Dor but were not statistically different (6 vs 3, p = 0.08 for dysphagia, 15 vs 13, p = 0.25 for reflux). Five patients in the Heller group and 6 in Heller plus Dor underwent re-intervention for dysphagia with most occurring more than five years postoperatively. One patient in each group underwent redo Heller myotomy and subsequent esophagectomy. Nearly all patients (96%) would undergo operation again. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term patient-reported outcomes after Heller alone and Heller plus Dor for achalasia are comparable, providing support for either procedure.

Surgical Transfer Decision Making: How Regional Resources are Allocated in a Regional Transfer Network.

BACKGROUND: Tertiary care centers often operate above capacity, limiting access to emergency surgical care for patients at nontertiary facilities. For nontraumatic surgical emergencies there are no guidelines to inform patient selection for transfer to another facility. Such decisions may be particularly difficult for gravely ill patients when the benefits of transfer are uncertain. METHODS: To characterize surgeons' decision-making strategies for transfer, a qualitative analysis of semistructured interviews was conducted with 16 general surgeons who refer and accept patients within a regional transfer network. Interviews included case-based vignettes about surgical patients with high comorbidity, multisystem organ failure, and terminal conditions. An inductive coding strategy was used, followed by performance of a higher-level analysis to characterize important themes and trends. RESULTS: Surgeons at outlying hospitals seek transfer when the resources to care for patients' surgical needs or comorbid conditions are unavailable locally. In contrast, surgeons at the tertiary center accept all patients regardless of outcome or resource considerations. Bed availability at the tertiary care center restricts transfer capacity, harming patients who cannot be transferred. Surgeons sometimes transfer dying patients in order to exhaust all treatment options or appease families, but they are conflicted about the value of transfer, which displaces patients from their local communities and limits access to tertiary care for others. CONCLUSION: Decisions to transfer surgical patients are complex and require comprehensive understanding of local capacity and regional resources. Current decision-making strategies fail to optimize patient selection for transfer and can inappropriately allocate scarce tertiary care beds.