Neutrophil-to-lymphocyte Ratio (NLR) as an Index of Response to Treatment in Patients with Hepatocellular Carcinoma after Receiving Trans-arterial Chemoembolization (TACE) =========================================================================================================================================================================== * Neda Shayegan * Niloofar Ayoobi * Esmaeil Mohammadi * Hajir Saberi * Faeze Salahshour * Forough Alborzi * Nahid Sadighi * Mohammad Taher ## Abstract **Background** Trans-arterial chemoembolization (TACE) is commonly used for patients with large, un-resectable tumors or bridge therapy in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) prior to liver transplantation. We evaluated the response to TACE treatment in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma according to modified RECIST criteria and determined the prognostic value of neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR). **Methods** Patients with definitive diagnosis of HCC referred for TACE were studied. The response rate to TACE treatment was assessed based on dynamic MRI 28-days after treatment according to modified RECIST. The NLR value was calculated and its prognostic value was evaluated to predict the response to treatment. **Results** Forty patients with HCC who underwent TACE were included in the study. The response to TACE treatment in included patients was: complete response (CR) in 6 patients (15%), partial response (PR) in 16 patients (40%) and stable disease (SD) in 18 patients (45%). No progressive disease (PD) was found. Responders (CR+PR) were 22 (55%) cases. The mean NLR after treatment in the non-responder group was significantly higher than the responder group (4.2 vs 2.4, P-value=0.026). NLR values greater than 2.6 after treatment had a sensitivity of 70.6% and a specificity of 77.3% in the diagnosis of non-responders with an Area Under the Curve of 0.73 [95% confidence interval 0.58–0.89], P-value=0.011). **Conclusion** Compared to responders, higher levels of NLR after treatment were observed in the non-responder group. NLR level more than 2.6 after treatment is believed to be able to discriminate non-responders as a moderate prognostication tool. Keywords * hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) * trans-arterial chemoembolization (TACE) * neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) * liver transplantation * prognostics ## Introduction Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is among the most lethal and prevalent cancers of human body [1, 2]. Recent efforts show that the mortality rate of HCC has substantially increased in the last decades [3, 4]. Despite improvements in the treatment strategies and technology, its prognosis has remained poor as only few patients are successful candidates for radical approaches (e.g., transplantation surgery) and liver dysfunctionality [5]. Trans-arterial chemoembolization (TACE) is largely used for HCCs in their early stages. Thus, tumors of un-resectable large size tumors, or multifocal tumors without invasion of portal vein can be managed with TACE [6, 7]. Also, it is widely recommended for ‘bridge’ therapy for patients in transplantation list. Although it has improved the survival of patients, individual cases undergoing TACE represent variable prognoses [8-10]. The latter claim is believed to be relatable to notion that patients with moderate and severe conditions are greatly different based on their tumor size, markers, liver function, and general conditions. Many factors have been implemented to assess the survival and prognosis of patients under treatment with TACE, such as those related to the tumor (e.g., vascularity, portal invasion, etc.) or patient’s condition (Child-Pugh classification) [11-15].. Many scoring systems have been created for this purpose, namely ‘Assessment for Retreatment with TACE (ART)’ and ‘Alpha-fetoprotein, BCLC, Child-Pugh, and Response (ABCR)’ systems. None of the introduced systems were found to be good assessor of TACE efficacy [15-19]. In patients with HCC, inflammatory cytokines induce systemic immune response [20]. Neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) has been reported to be a prognostication tool in many disorders such as ovarian cancer, colorectal cancer, HCC, and pancreatitis [21-24]. Prior effort acknowledged that higher NLR is associated with worse clinical and survival outcomes in patients undergoing TACE [25-27]. On the other hand, recent guidelines for definition of amount of response to chemical treatments have suggested utilization of the modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (mRECIST) index [28]. The latter uses the density and regressing of tumor from imaging modalities. Hence, we evaluated the mRECIST and response to TACE in patients with HCC and tried to predict it with NLR. ## Methods and material This is a retrospective cross-sectional study on HCC patients that undergone TACE therapy in Imam Khomeini Hospital Complex’s Liver Transplantation unit during 2019 and 2020. Radiologic features of the tumor were assessed from a dynamic MRI of liver one week before TACE and another one 28 days after the procedure. For some patients TACE was performed in two sessions. Measures are reported for the last session for such cases. Response to treatment was evaluated by a single expert radiologist based on mRECIST criteria. Based on the mRECIST criteria [28], complete response (CR) was referred to when no intratumoral arterial contrast enhancement in all the lesions was present. Similarly, Partial response (PR) was defined as when more than 30% reduction in sum of diameters of viable lesions from arterial phase enhancement was detectable. Sum of these two were regarded as ‘responders’ group. On the other hand, Progressive disease (PD) was classified as if more than 20% increase in sum of diameters of viable lesions from arterial phase enhancement was observable. Lastly, patients not being divisible in any of these three were considered having a stable disease (SD). Combination of these two also were called ‘non-responders’ group. Complete or partial response were regarded as ‘responders’ group and anyone else as ‘non-responder’ group. Demographic information, clinical and drug history, and laboratory reports were also collected. Neutrophil and lymphocyte counts were extracted from complete blood count with differential (CBC diff) and NLR was calculated accordingly. This study has been approved by Tehran University of Medical Sciences ethics committee (IR.TUMS.IKHC.REC.1397.245). Qualitative variables were reported with their count and percentage. Normal distribution of quantitative values was evaluated with histograms and Shapiro-Wilk normality test. Mean and standard deviation (StD) were used for summarizing variables with normal distribution. In non-normal distribution of measures, median and inter-quartile range (IQR) was utilized. Independent samples and paired samples Student t-tests, analysis of variance (ANOVA), and Chi-square test (χ2) were performed accordingly for aim of comparison. Mean difference (MD) and standard error (SE) are used for reporting paired-samples analysis. Receiver Operator Characteristic (ROC) curve analysis and the Area Under the Curve (AUC; with 95% confidence interval (CI)) were employed for prognostication and sensitivity analysis. AUCs higher than 0.7 were regarded as good prognostic and discriminating tool. In the next step, for statistically significant ROC curves and coordinates, we used a productive function [sensitivity × specificity][29] to search for the highest yielding number and its respective NLR as the best cut-off point. Alpha level of <0.05 was interpreted significant. Statistical analyses were performed using R statistical package v4.0.3 [R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria] and SPSS v24 [IBM SPSS Statistics, Armonk, NY]. ## Results In total, forty HCC were included into study. Mean (StD) age of participants was 62.3 (9.8) and 28 (70.0%) were male (Table 2). Eleven (27.5%) patients received TACE twice. Median (IQR) of tumor size was 39.5 (29.7) millimeters with positive skewness before TACE. Most patients were bicytopenic or pancytopenic before TACE based on laboratory results. White blood cells (WBCs) changes before and after TACE were all insignificant (Table 3). Mean NLR was 2.3 (1.0) before TACE and 3.2 (2.6) after TACE, representing a significant decreasing pattern (MD [SE] = -0.9 [0.4], P-value = 0.036). View this table: [Table 1](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/05/17/2023.05.16.23290061/T1) Table 1 View this table: [Table 2](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/05/17/2023.05.16.23290061/T2) Table 2 Considering mRECIST criteria, 6 patients revealed a CR, 16 patients PR, SD in 18 patients, and no one showed to have PD. As a result, 22 (55%) of patients were responders. Mean age of non-responder patients (68.7 [9.3]) was significantly higher than responders (57.0 [6.5], P-value < 0.001). Lymphocyte counts were significantly different between responders and non-responders after TACE; i.e., in non-responders group it was 878.8 (448.2) which was lower than responders (1269.3 [442.2], P-value = 0.010) group. In contrast, neutrophil counts of non-responders (2720.6 [457.1]) was higher than their counterparts (2396.1 [470.2], P-value = 0.037). Post-TACE NLR calculation revealed an almost ×2 difference, with 4.2 (2.9) for non-responders and 2.4 (2.0) for responders (P-value = 0.026). Such variations were not observed in pre-TACE and other measurements (Table 4). ROC curve analysis revealed that NLR calculation before TACE procedure has no discriminating and prognosis ability (AUC = 0.38 [95% CI 0.20 – 0.57], P-value = 0.221) opposed to post-TACE calculation (AUC = 0.73 [95% CI 0.58 – 0.89], P-value = 0.011). The mentioned opinion indicates that higher NLR measurements after TACE are related to non-response based on mRECIST categories. Post-hoc analysis of significant ROC curve discloses a cut-off of 2.6 with 70.6% sensitivity and 77.3% specificity. ## Discussion The main finding of current study is that NLR calculation 28-days after TACE is a moderate prognosticator of poor response to treatment and a NLR value of 2.6 is the optimal value for dichotomization of good-poor outcomes with 70.6% sensitivity and 77.3% specificity. No other cell count showed such discriminatory power. Pre-TACE analysis of NLR also was not useful. HCC rate has been increasing in recent years as populations are ageing and chronic disorders of liver are getting more prevalent and communities are transitioning from communicable diseases toward non-communicable disorders [30-32]. Furthermore, advancement of technology and diagnostic tools have led to diagnosis of cancers in earlier stages. Although the latter has corresponded to early detection of hepatic masses, there are still remarkable portion of tumors that present with encasement and invasion of portal vein and other structures [23]. Total resection of tumor is not feasible in these group of cases and application of adjuvants to reduce the tumor size and invasion amount are considered before surgical intervention. TACE, radiofrequency ablation (RFA), and microwave ablation (MWA) are newly introduced to achieve aforesaid goal [33]. New technologies have improved the quality of care of cancer patients in recent decades [34, 35]. TACE is one of the commonest commodities to treat patients with large un-resectable HCC tumors. Also this method is widely used for bridge therapy of HCC in transplant candidates. Although, it does not completely eradicate tumor and the rate of recurrence is high. As a results, adjuvant therapy with other modalities is primarily taken [36]. In a large systematic review and meta-analysis on 12372 patient it has been revealed a 52.5% successful rate of treatment for TACE. Additionally, mean survival duration of patients was 19.4 months and five-year survival of 32.4%, represent its effectiveness [37]. Is our sample of cases, it is observed that in total 55% of patients have benefited (responded) from TACE, a proportion similar to previous studies. Many prognostication models and tools have been designed to assess the response to treatment among TACE receiving patients. The mRECIST criteria is a valid set that comprehensively investigates the amount of necrosis in tumor by dynamic magnetic images [28]. In a study on 245 patients receiving TACE treatment, it was identified that survival rate is much worse in non-responders (SD + PD) [38]. In a similar effort, it was claimed that mRECIST scores are correlated with survival [39]. We found the NLR is correlated with mRECIST categories and can be used as an adjunct to it. Other studies have reported controversial findings. One survey has mentioned that pre-TACE NLR is associated with treatment response while in our sample this was not detectable [40, 41]. Furthermore, many studies have shown the association of NLR and prognosis of patients [27, 42]. Increased lymphocytes is an antitumoral response to malignant cells. But, higher neutrophil count, and subsequently increased NLR, is a proxy of suppressed immune system which permits angiogenesis and invasion of tumoral cells [43-45]. In a study on NLR’s dynamic change after TACE, it was shown that NLR had increasing trend for the first three months and then significantly decrease to lower values [46]. All together, the controversial findings might be related to the timing of taken samples and a dynamic assessment of NLR can be more informative [46, 47]. ## Limitations Being limited to one center’s patients and referral nature of our center may have influenced our results and homogeneity of sample. Moreover, short follow-up and cross-sectional assessment of only one NLR calculation were among other limitations of this work. Low sample size was also a major drawback and withheld us from performing complementary analysis and modeling to adjust for confounders and evaluate interactions. ## Conclusion In conclusion, TACE has become a fundamental part of HCC treatment nowadays. Efforts should be made in clinical and scientific societies to understand the tumoral behavior and associated factors to invasive approaches in priori to reduce undesired outcomes and selection of best-responding patients during pre-operative sessions. Combination of neutrophil and lymphocyte count can be an adjunct to mRECIST in post-TACE procedure. Baseline NLR and follow-up crude count of blood cells have not shown promising results. Although NLR can be used in selected cases, its trend and serial measurement are more informative. Larger studies with follow-up data and adjustment for confounding contributors may have more accurate results with predictive features. ## Data Availability All the material and data used in this manuscript can be provided through official request to the corresponding author. ## Declaration of interest Authors disclose no competing interest ## Ethics statement This study has been approved by Tehran University of Medical Sciences ethics committee (IR.TUMS.IKHC.REC.1397.245) and all participants were consented for participation. ## Role of funder This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. ## Authors’ contribution NS performed the study and prepared the manuscript. NA, FS, NS, and HS performed TACE and participants recruitment, interpreted the results, and approved the final manuscript. EM performed statistical analysis, prepared the manuscript, and approved the final version of manuscript. FA interpreted the results and approved the final version of manuscript. MT conceptualized the study, supervised it, approved the final version, and is the corresponding author of this work. ## Availability of data All the material and data used in this manuscript can be provided through official request to the corresponding author. ## Acknowledgement Authors would like to thank the participants and their families as well as all staff and other researchers of this work. ## Appendix Not applicable * Received May 16, 2023. * Revision received May 16, 2023. * Accepted May 17, 2023. * © 2023, Posted by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory This pre-print is available under a Creative Commons License (Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International), CC BY-NC 4.0, as described at [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) ## References 1. 1.Bosetti, C., F. Turati, and C. La Vecchia, Hepatocellular carcinoma epidemiology. Best practice & research Clinical gastroenterology, 2014. 28(5): p. 753–770. 2. 2.Fattahi, N., et al., Hepatocellular carcinoma incidence at national and provincial levels in Iran from 2000 to 2016: A meta-regression analysis. Plos one, 2021. 16(1): p. e0245468. 3. 3.Bertuccio, P., et al., Global trends and predictions in hepatocellular carcinoma mortality. Journal of Hepatology, 2017. 67(2): p. 302–309. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.2147/JHC.S61146&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F05%2F17%2F2023.05.16.23290061.atom) 4. 4.Aminorroaya, A., et al., Burden of non-communicable diseases in Iran: past, present, and future. Journal of Diabetes & Metabolic Disorders, 2020: p. 1–7. 5. 5.Llovet, J.M., C. Brú, and J. Bruix. Prognosis of hepatocellular carcinoma: the BCLC staging classification. in Seminars in liver disease. 1999. © 1999 by Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc. 6. 6.Sergio, A., et al., Transcatheter arterial chemoembolization (TACE) in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC): the role of angiogenesis and invasiveness. American Journal of Gastroenterology, 2008. 103(4): p. 914–921. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1111/j.1572-0241.2007.01712.x&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=18177453&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F05%2F17%2F2023.05.16.23290061.atom) 7. 7.Zhang, X., et al., An investigation of efficacy, safety, and prognostic factors of drug-eluting beadstransarterial chemoembolization operation with CalliSpheres(®) Microspheres in treating Chinese hepatocellular carcinoma patients. J Clin Lab Anal, 2019. 33(8): p. e22975. 8. 8.Ni, J.Y., et al., Conventional transarterial chemoembolization vs microsphere embolization in hepatocellular carcinoma: a meta-analysis. World J Gastroenterol, 2014. 20(45): p. 17206–17. [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=25493037&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F05%2F17%2F2023.05.16.23290061.atom) 9. 9.Li, K.-W., et al., The effect of postoperative TACE on prognosis of HCC: an update. Hepatogastroenterology, 2013. 60(122): p. 248–251. 10. 10.Kruskal, J.B., et al., In vivo and in vitro analysis of the effectiveness of doxorubicin combined with temporary arterial occlusion in liver tumors. Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology, 1993. 4(6): p. 741–747. [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=8280994&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F05%2F17%2F2023.05.16.23290061.atom) 11. 11.Bruix, J. and M. Sherman, Management of hepatocellular carcinoma: an update. Hepatology, 2011. 53(3): p. 1020–1022. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1002/hep.24199&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=21374666&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F05%2F17%2F2023.05.16.23290061.atom) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000288211200032&link_type=ISI) 12. 12.Research, E.O.F., T.O. Cancer, and E.A.F.T.S.O.T. Liver, EASL-EORTC clinical practice guidelines: management of hepatocellular carcinoma. Journal of hepatology, 2012. 56(4): p. 908–943. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.jhep.2011.12.001&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=22424438&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F05%2F17%2F2023.05.16.23290061.atom) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000302272600024&link_type=ISI) 13. 13.Ho, S.-Y., et al., Prognostic role of noninvasive liver reserve markers in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma undergoing transarterial chemoembolization. PloS one, 2017. 12(7): p. e0180408. 14. 14.Hucke, F., et al., How to STATE suitability and START transarterial chemoembolization in patients with intermediate stage hepatocellular carcinoma. Journal of hepatology, 2014. 61(6): p. 1287–1296. 15. 15.Kim, D., et al., Radiological response predicts survival following transarterial chemoembolisation in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. Alimentary pharmacology & therapeutics, 2012. 35(11): p. 1343–1350. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1111/j.1365-2036.2012.05089.x&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=22486716&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F05%2F17%2F2023.05.16.23290061.atom) 16. 16.Sieghart, W., et al., The ART of decision making: retreatment with transarterial chemoembolization in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. Hepatology, 2013. 57(6): p. 2261–2273. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1002/hep.26256&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=23316013&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F05%2F17%2F2023.05.16.23290061.atom) 17. 17.Nam, J.Y., et al., A differential risk assessment and decision model for Transarterial chemoembolization in hepatocellular carcinoma based on hepatic function. BMC cancer, 2020. 20: p. 1–14. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1186/s12885-020-06986-z&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F05%2F17%2F2023.05.16.23290061.atom) 18. 18.Park, Y., et al., Addition of tumor multiplicity improves the prognostic performance of the hepatoma arteriallLJembolization prognostic score. Liver International, 2016. 36(1): p. 100–107. 19. 19.Kadalayil, L., et al., A simple prognostic scoring system for patients receiving transarterial embolisation for hepatocellular cancer. Annals of oncology, 2013. 24(10): p. 2565–2570. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/annonc/mdt247&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=23857958&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F05%2F17%2F2023.05.16.23290061.atom) 20. 20.Mantovani, A., et al., Cancer-related inflammation. nature, 2008. 454(7203): p. 436–444. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1038/nature07205&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=18650914&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F05%2F17%2F2023.05.16.23290061.atom) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000257860300038&link_type=ISI) 21. 21.Walsh, S., et al., NeutrophillLJlymphocyte ratio as a prognostic factor in colorectal cancer. Journal of surgical oncology, 2005. 91(3): p. 181–184. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1002/jso.20329&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=16118772&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F05%2F17%2F2023.05.16.23290061.atom) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000231650200006&link_type=ISI) 22. 22.Cho, H., et al., Pre-treatment neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio is elevated in epithelial ovarian cancer and predicts survival after treatment. Cancer immunology, immunotherapy, 2009. 58(1): p. 15–23. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1007/s00262-008-0516-3&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=18414853&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F05%2F17%2F2023.05.16.23290061.atom) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000260369800002&link_type=ISI) 23. 23.Motomura, T., et al., Neutrophil–lymphocyte ratio reflects hepatocellular carcinoma recurrence after liver transplantation via inflammatory microenvironment. Journal of hepatology, 2013. 58(1): p. 58–64. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.jhep.2012.08.017&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=22925812&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F05%2F17%2F2023.05.16.23290061.atom) 24. 24.Ganji, A., et al., Predictive value of red blood cell distribution width for mortality in patients with acute pancreatitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Med J Islam Repub Iran, 2017. 31: p. 124. 25. 25.Huang, Z.-L., et al., Blood neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio predicts survival in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma undergoing transarterial chemoembolization. Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology, 2011. 22(5): p. 702–709. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.jvir.2010.12.041&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=21514523&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F05%2F17%2F2023.05.16.23290061.atom) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000290358700019&link_type=ISI) 26. 26.Pinato, D.J. and R. Sharma, An inflammation-based prognostic index predicts survival advantage after transarterial chemoembolization in hepatocellular carcinoma. Translational Research, 2012. 160(2): p. 146–152. 27. 27.McNally, M.E., et al., Inflammatory markers are associated with outcome in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma undergoing transarterial chemoembolization. Annals of Surgical Oncology, 2013. 20(3): p. 923–928. 28. 28.Lencioni, R. and J.M. Llovet. Modified RECIST (mRECIST) assessment for hepatocellular carcinoma. in Seminars in liver disease. 2010. © Thieme Medical Publishers. 29. 29.Liu, X., Classification accuracy and cut point selection. Statistics in medicine, 2012. 31(23): p. 2676–2686. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1002/sim.4509&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=22307964&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F05%2F17%2F2023.05.16.23290061.atom) 30. 30.Mohammadi, E., et al., Epidemiologic pattern of cancers in Iran; current knowledge and future perspective. Journal of Diabetes & Metabolic Disorders, 2020: p. 1–5. 31. 31.Azadnajafabad, S., et al., Non-communicable diseases’ risk factors in Iran; a review of the present status and action plans. Journal of Diabetes & Metabolic Disorders, 2021: p. 1–9. 32. 32.Fattahi, N., et al., Geographical, gender and age inequalities in non-communicable diseases both at national and provincial levels in Iran. Journal of Diabetes & Metabolic Disorders, 2021: p. 1–7. 33. 33.Yi, Y., et al., Radiofrequency ablation or microwave ablation combined with transcatheter arterial chemoembolization in treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma by comparing with radiofrequency ablation alone. Chin J Cancer Res, 2014. 26(1): p. 112–8. 34. 34.Keykhaei, M., et al., A global, regional, and national survey on burden and Quality of Care Index (QCI) of hematologic malignancies; global burden of disease systematic analysis 1990–2017. Experimental hematology & oncology, 2021. 10(1): p. 1–15. 35. 35.Mohammadi, E., et al., A global, regional, and national survey on burden and Quality of Care Index (QCI) of brain and other central nervous system cancers; global burden of disease systematic analysis 1990-2017. Plos one, 2021. 16(2): p. e0247120. 36. 36.Tsurusaki, M. and T. Murakami, Surgical and locoregional therapy of HCC: TACE. Liver Cancer, 2015. 4(3): p. 165–175. 37. 37.Lencioni, R., et al., Lipiodol transarterial chemoembolization for hepatocellular carcinoma: a systematic review of efficacy and safety data. Hepatology, 2016. 64(1): p. 106–116. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1002/hep.28453&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=26765068&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F05%2F17%2F2023.05.16.23290061.atom) 38. 38.Riaz, A., et al., Imaging response in the primary index lesion and clinical outcomes following transarterial locoregional therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma. Jama, 2010. 303(11): p. 1062–1069. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1001/jama.2010.262&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=20233824&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F05%2F17%2F2023.05.16.23290061.atom) 39. 39.Gillmore, R., et al., EASL and mRECIST responses are independent prognostic factors for survival in hepatocellular cancer patients treated with transarterial embolization. Journal of hepatology, 2011. 55(6): p. 1309–1316. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.jhep.2011.03.007&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=21703196&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F05%2F17%2F2023.05.16.23290061.atom) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000297576500024&link_type=ISI) 40. 40.Min, G.T., et al., The pretreatment neutrophillLJlymphocyte ratio may predict prognosis of patients with liver cancer: a systematic review and metalLJanalysis. Clinical transplantation, 2018. 32(1): p. e13151. 41. 41.Cruz, J.C., et al., Neutrophil/Lymphocyte ratio predicts increased risk of immediate progressive disease following chemoembolization of hepatocellular carcinoma. Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology, 2019. 30(12): p. 1887–1892. 42. 42.Qi, X., et al., Neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio for the prognostic assessment of hepatocellular carcinoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. Oncotarget, 2016. 7(29): p. 45283. 43. 43.Kuang, D.-M., et al., Peritumoral neutrophils link inflammatory response to disease progression by fostering angiogenesis in hepatocellular carcinoma. Journal of hepatology, 2011. 54(5): p. 948–955. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.jhep.2010.08.041&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=21145847&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F05%2F17%2F2023.05.16.23290061.atom) 44. 44.Allavena, P., et al., The inflammatory micro-environment in tumor progression: the role of tumor-associated macrophages. Critical reviews in oncology/hematology, 2008. 66(1): p. 1–9. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.critrevonc.2007.07.004&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=17913510&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F05%2F17%2F2023.05.16.23290061.atom) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000254693100001&link_type=ISI) 45. 45.Unitt, E., et al., Tumour lymphocytic infiltrate and recurrence of hepatocellular carcinoma following liver transplantation. Journal of hepatology, 2006. 45(2): p. 246–253. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.jhep.2005.12.027&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=16580084&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F05%2F17%2F2023.05.16.23290061.atom) 46. 46.Wang, H., et al., Dynamic changes in the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio predict the prognosis of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma undergoing transarterial chemoembolization. Cancer Management and Research, 2020. 12: p. 3433. 47. 47.Hong, Y.M., et al., Changes in the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio predict the prognosis of patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma treated with sorafenib. European journal of gastroenterology & hepatology, 2019. 31(10): p. 1250–1255.