Generate an explanation for the given claim using the provided supporting material from the paragraph. Please consider the following points while generating an output. 1) The claim will always have supporting proof in the paragraph, and the paragraph will have a clear point of view supporting the claim. 2) There can be instances where direct correlation to the claim is not available. Make use of the sentences in the paragraph to provide a corresponding output supporting the claim. 3) The explanation should be at least one and at most twelve sentences long.

Input: Consider Input: Paragraph: Costs of the MRIdian on-table adaptive radiotherapy in comparison to conventional radiotherapy are not discussed. Given that it is new and more personalized than current treatment options it’s likely to be correspondingly more expensive. Certainly, more frequent MRIs would be very costly. The release provides exact information about increased survival rates in the cohorts of individuals treated with the adaptive versus the convention radiotherapy techniques. “The cohort receiving a higher dose demonstrated a near doubling of median overall survival (Kaplan-Meier estimated median overall survival of 27.8 months compared to 14.8 months).” The news release provides specific results regarding experiences of both groups with regard to toxicity from radiotherapy. We appreciate that the headline of this release starts with the words “early data” because this report deals with preliminary and retrospective research. It was not a clinical trial. Instead, results are based on retrospectively comparing treatment of two groups of patients at four institutions. Respective comparisons can’t account for a host of factors that might influence results. At the end of the news  release readers are told that on the basis of these promising results a clinical trial is being planned. With five-year survival rates of 1 to 14%, it would be hard to engage in disease mongering about pancreatic cancer. This research was sponsored by ViewRay, the company that developed the MRIdian system, and the release does a good job calling attention to this. However, according to the published study, at least one of the co-authors received honoraria from ViewRay Medical Systems. Since this was not included in the release we’re rating this criteria Not Satisfactory. This study was all about comparing alternatives, so it scores Satisfactory on that criterion. It would have helped readers if alternatives would have been described more in laymen’s terms. The news release notes that the next step is a prospective clinical trial and that tells savvy readers that this treatment strategy has a long road of testing ahead. Still, we think the release could have done a better job clarifying that this therapy is not yet ready for patients, outside of the clinical trial. A study that suggests a doubling of median survival is sure to capture the attention of patients newly diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. These patients and their families are closely aware of the glum statistics for the disease. This is a practical concern that the release should have touched on. This technology is indeed novel and unique to ViewRay, though it is becoming available in more and more cancer treatment centers. No unjustifiable language was identified in the news release. Claim: Early data shows nearly 2x prolonged median survival for inoperable pancreatic cancer

Output: This news release reports results of a retrospective study comparing conventional radiotherapy for inoperable pancreatic cancer versus an adaptive radiation therapy that allows clinicians to see the tumor in real time and respond to changes on a daily basis. Targeting the tumor more specifically means higher doses of radiation can be used without increasing damage to surrounding tissues. The study, funded by ViewRay, maker of the MRIdian system, is admittedly preliminary. It is to be followed up by a clinical trial. The release would have been more helpful to readers had it mentioned costs and disclosed a conflict of interest between one of the study authors and the device manufacturer. Surgery is an option only for certain less common types of pancreatic cancer. The five-year survival rates for pancreatic cancers that cannot be treated with surgery are 12% to 14% even for those diagnosed in stage I; the five-year survival rate for cancers detected at stage IV is about 1%, according to the American Cancer Society. ACS reminds readers that five-year survival rates are estimates and that “many people live longer – often much longer – than 5 years.” In that context, a treatment that could extend the lives of the 1.5% of Americans who develop pancreatic cancer is big news.


Input: Consider Input: Paragraph: The story devotes its second paragraph to cost, including how that cost may differ depending on whether patients have insurance. Well done. This is a really close one. The story does a lot of things well here. It notes that, in one trial, there was no difference in the benefits between Xofluza and existing flu treatment drug oseltamivir (better known as Tamiflu). However, it does not actually quantify the benefits associated with Xofluza. Instead, the story states that it “may alleviate some symptoms and shorten the time patients feel sick.” We approve of the cautious language used throughout the story, but we like to see quantified benefits in instances where the information is available. In this case, an article published in the New England Journal of Medicine in September reported that Xofluza reduced the “time to alleviation of symptoms” by a mean of 25-38 hours, compared to placebo (the difference depended on the age group of the patient). Ergo, a not satisfactory rating here. The story addresses this issue head on, earning it a solid satisfactory rating from us. One point that would have made it even stronger would have been to note that the company selling Xofluza warns that pregnant women and nursing mothers may want to avoid the drug, as it is not known whether the drug may harm the fetus or if it would pass into breastmilk for nursing mothers. The story does a good job of describing the supporting evidence clearly and concisely. No disease mongering here. In fact, the story provides good context on the risks posed by influenza. The story incorporates input from two sources at the FDA, but the information appears to stem from an FDA statement. Information from pharmaceutical companies is clearly marked, but we really look for news stories to incorporate input from independent sources — beyond what may be available in a news release. The story addresses the similarities (and differences) to other drugs that address flu symptoms, particularly oseltamivir (Tamiflu). The story notes that Xofluza has received FDA approval. As noted above, the drugs similarities and differences to existing pharmaceutical treatment options was laid out clearly. The news peg here was FDA’s approval of the drug, which is also made clear. The work goes well beyond what you would find in any news release. We particularly applaud the story’s discussion of viruses developing resistance to antiviral drugs. Claim: F.D.A. Approves New Drug for Flu

Output: This story is one of two we are reviewing that focuses on FDA’s approval of a drug designed to speed patient recovery from flu symptoms (the second story is from ABC News). The drug is baloxavir marboxil, marketed under the trade name Xofluza. This New York Times story hits most of the points that we want to see in a story about a new drug. The criteria that we use at HealthNewsReview.org to review health-related news stories were not developed in a vacuum. Rather, these are the criteria we feel are essential to allow patients and health care providers to make informed decisions about diagnosis and treatment options. While we do ding it on a couple things, the story does not exaggerate the findings, and provides people with the fundamental details they need to be informed patients. We were especially pleased that this story did not perpetuate misinformation that’s developed around this drug — that is, that it could help reduce transmission of the virus. To date, there is no evidence to show that as a benefit.


Input: Consider Input: Paragraph: "Amid a surge in murderous gun violence in Milwaukee, the Republican-controlled Wisconsin Senate voted to repeal a state law that requires a two-day wait for handgun purchases. Just before the April 21, 2015, vote, the author of the bill, state Sen. Van Wanggaard, made this waiting-period claim: ""There’s no statistical evidence that it reduces violence whatsoever,"" the Racine Republican declared. With the repeal bill moving to the GOP-controlled Assembly, and likely headed for GOP Gov. Scott Walker, let’s see if Wanggaard is right. The law The District of Columbia and 10 states, including Wisconsin, Minnesota, Illinois and Iowa, have laws that require a waiting period for purchases of at least some types of guns, according to the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. Wisconsin’s law, in place since 1976, applies only to handguns and only to purchases from firearms dealers. It prohibits a handgun buyer from taking possession of the weapon until 48 hours after a background check is started -- even if the check comes back clean within a matter of hours or minutes. The City of Milwaukee, the Wisconsin Coalition Against Domestic Violence and the Wisconsin Medical Society are among groups that oppose scrapping the law. Some say the cooling-off period can help prevent crimes of passion, such as domestic violence. Under the repeal bill from Wanggaard, who is a retired Racine police traffic investigator, a buyer could take possession of a handgun as soon as the seller completes the background check. Groups backing the repeal include the National Rifle Association, the Milwaukee Police Association union and the Wisconsin Wildlife Federation. Some say the wait following a successful background check is an ""unnecessary time tax on both the purchaser and the dealer,"" and that a person who needs a gun for protection can be put at risk. Walker has indicated he supports the repeal. Asked about such a measure in February 2015, he told the NRA: ""I think we want to be a leader in this area as well."" Studies Here are highlights from some key studies about the effects of waiting-period laws: A study done by one researcher from Georgetown University and one from Duke University that was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association in 2000 examined the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, a 1994 federal law that established a nationwide waiting period and background check for handgun sales. (The waiting period provision was later removed.) The study concluded that the law’s waiting period was associated with reductions in the firearm suicide rate for people age 55 and older, but not associated with reductions in homicide rates or overall suicide rates. Other research has found that people who buy handguns are at a higher risk of committing suicide during the first week after the purchase. For example, an article published in 2000 by members of the Firearm Injury Center at the Medical College of Wisconsin said a Wisconsin study found a ""sharp increase"" in the risk of suicide within one week of a gun purchase. But a 2003 report by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that reviewed studies on the effects of waiting periods on violence found that some studies indicated a decrease in violent outcomes associated with the delay, while others indicated an increase. And a 2012 study by one researcher from the University of Cincinnati and another from Arizona State University found no statistical effects from waiting periods on gun crimes. In a nutshell, except for suicide, the studies show Wanggaard’s claim about waiting periods and violence is largely correct. Experts Daniel Webster, director of the Johns Hopkins University Center for Gun Policy and Research, told us there is research linking more thorough background checks -- which take longer than an instant FBI check -- with reduced homicide rates. The more thorough checks are more likely to turn up reasons why a person cannot legally purchase a gun. But Webster said he is not aware of research that shows waiting periods reduce violence. Similarly, Harvard’s David Hemenway said he was aware only of research that links lower suicide rates with wait periods. Many studies link lower levels of lethal violence with strong gun control laws in general, but not with particular laws such as a waiting period, he said. Our rating Wanggaard said, ""There’s no statistical evidence that"" a waiting period for handgun purchases ""reduces violence whatsoever."" There is research to indicate that handgun waiting periods are linked with lower suicide rates. But we did not find evidence that waiting periods coincide with less violence being committed by one person against another. If such evidence emerges, we may revisit this item. As it stands, Wanggaard’s statement is accurate but needs clarification -- our definition of ." Claim: "There's no statistical evidence that"" a waiting period for handgun purchases ""reduces violence whatsoever."


Output: "Wanggaard said, ""There’s no statistical evidence that"" a waiting period for handgun purchases ""reduces violence whatsoever."" There is research to indicate that handgun waiting periods are linked with lower suicide rates. But we did not find evidence that waiting periods coincide with less violence being committed by one person against another. If such evidence emerges, we may revisit this item. As it stands, Wanggaard’s statement is accurate but needs clarification."