In this task, you are given a passage which has a question and the context. You have to generate an answer to the question based on the information present in the context.

Example Input: Context: Psychostimulants are often used in close temporal proximity to nicotine and have been reported to enhance acutely nicotine's desirability in humans.", 'To investigate the acute associations between amphetamine and nicotine, we examined the potentiative interactions between clinically relevant, low doses of these drugs on locomotor activity, and dopamine overflow in the rat.', 'Locomotor activity was measured by telemetry in the home cage environment, and dopamine overflow was evaluated in striatal slice preparations from female Holtzman rats.', 'When administered simultaneously, nicotine and amphetamine produced a predominantly additive effect on locomotor behavior. However amphetamine, when given 2-4 h before nicotine, strongly potentiated nicotine-induced locomotor activity. Correspondingly, nicotine given 1-4 h before amphetamine robustly enhanced amphetamine-stimulated locomotor activity even when the effects of the nicotine pretreatment dissipated. Acute nicotine pretreatment similarly potentiated the effects of dopamine transporter ligands, cocaine, nomifensine, and methamphetamine but not a direct dopamine receptor agonist. Consistent with the behavioral studies, in vivo nicotine pretreatment exaggerated amphetamine-induced dopamine efflux from rat striatal slices. Likewise, in vivo pretreatment of rats with amphetamine potentiated nicotine-induced dopamine efflux from striatal slices. Direct pretreatment of striatal tissue by nicotine also potentiated subsequent amphetamine-stimulated dopamine overflow, further suggesting that the nicotine-amphetamine interaction occurs at the level of the dopamine terminal.\Question: Do nicotine and amphetamine acutely cross-potentiate their behavioral and neurochemical responses in female Holtzman rats?
Example Output: Overall, the present data demonstrate that acute interactions of nicotine and other psychomotor stimulants produce potentiative effects and that these transient interactions may play a role in the frequent co-use and abuse of nicotine and other stimulants.

Example Input: Context: Characteristic clinical heterogeneity and mostly slow-growing behavior of gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms (GEP-NENs) cause problems in finding appropriate treatments. Thus, current therapy options are not satisfactory. PKI-587 is a highly potent novel dual inhibitor of PI3K and mTORC1/C2.', 'We assessed the effects of PKI-587 in different GEP-NEN tumor models, including poorly differentiated cell line LCC-18, compared with the established mTORC1 inhibitor everolimus.', 'We treated the cell lines BON, QGP1, KRJ-I and LCC-18 with increasing concentrations of the inhibitor PKI-587, and compared with everolimus and DMSO. We assessed the impact of treatments on viability (WST-1 assay), on apoptotic processes (Caspase 3/7 assay, JC-1) and on cell cycle regulation (flow cytometry). We determined alterations of signaling mediators by phosphor-specific western blot analysis and conducted multiplexed gene expression analysis (nCounter® technology).', 'In all cell lines, PKI-587 dose-dependently inhibited proliferation whereas everolimus was less effective. Treatment with PKI-587 led to cell cycle arrest, induction of apoptosis and successfully suppressed activity of direct mTORC1 target 4E-BP1, a crucial factor for tumor genesis only partially inhibited by everolimus. Gene expression analyses revealed relevant changes of RAS, MAPK, STAT and PI3K pathway genes after treatment. Treatment dependent and cell line characteristic effects on AKT/RB/E2F signaling regarding cell cycle control and apoptosis are extensively discussed in this article.\Question: Is inhibition of mTORs Catalytic Site by PKI-587 a Promising Therapeutic Option for Gastroenteropancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumor Disease?
Example Output: PI3K/mTOR dual targeting is a promising new therapeutic approach in neuroendocrine tumor disease that should be evaluated in further clinical trials.

Example Input: Context: Conflicting evidence has been reported on the association of prostate-specific antigen velocity (PSAV) with Gleason score in prostate needle biopsy specimens. The Gleason score is an important prognostic indicator for men with prostate cancer, and, in modern practice, it frequently affects treatment decisions. To our knowledge, the relationship between preoperative PSAV and Gleason score in the radical prostatectomy specimen has not been formally demonstrated.', 'A total of 1049 men treated with radical prostatectomy had data on PSAV and Gleason score. Statistical analysis was performed to examine the relationship between the preoperative PSAV and the prostatectomy Gleason score and other adverse tumor features.', 'The median preoperative PSAV was 0.84, 0.97, and 1.39 ng/mL/y in men with a Gleason score of 6, 7, and 8-10, respectively (P = .05). A PSAV greater than 2 ng/mL/y was significantly associated with a prostatectomy Gleason score of 7 or greater on univariate and multivariate analysis. In addition, the preoperative PSAV was significantly lower in men with organ-confined disease (0.82 vs 1.17 ng/mL/y, respectively, P = .002).\Question: Is pSA velocity associated with gleason score in radical prostatectomy specimen : marker for prostate cancer aggressiveness?
Example Output:
Our results have further validated PSAV as a marker for prostate cancer aggressiveness. The preoperative PSAV was a significant independent predictor of the Gleason score and non-organ-confined disease in the radical prostatectomy specimen. Thus, PSAV could be useful in treatment decision-making and in assessing the likelihood of long-term cancer control in men with prostate cancer.