Given a paragraph, generate a claim that is supported by the given paragraph. 1) The claim must contain information from within the paragraph. 2) A sentence within the paragraph can be used as a claim. 3) The claim should not have contradictions within the paragraph. 4) The claim should be at most one sentence long.

[Q]: Clearly, the costs involved in cancer treatment already are high. By removing a layer of treatment from an estimated 40,000 patients, those costs would have to drop, but it is unclear from the story by how much. Also, it would have been worth mentioning whether this is likely to affect how insurance companies handle lymph node removals. The story did a good job providing some numbers on benefits, but we wish it had provided more and explained some things a bit more. It says, for example, “In 27 percent of the women who had additional nodes removed, those nodes were cancerous.” How many women had additional nodes removed and, of those, how many had cancerous nodes? A figure like 27% means 1 out of every 4 women had nodes that were, indeed, cancerous, which seems to conflict with other statements in the story about chemotherapy and radiation wiping out the cancer. The story discusses several harms from lymph node removal, and shows that the difference in survival for women who had nodes removed and those who did not was not significant. “Indeed, women in the study who had the nodes taken out were far more likely (70 percent versus 25 percent) to have complications like infections, abnormal sensations and fluid collecting in the armpit. They were also more likely to have lymphedema.” This is where the story really outperformed some of the competition covering the same news. It placed the study into the broader context of a movement in cancer care away from surgeries that don’t provide a clear benefit, and it also explained the study design and the limitations of the study in several ways. “The study, at 115 medical centers, included 891 patients. Their median age was in the mid-50s, and they were followed for a median of 6.3 years. … One potential weakness in the study is that there was not complete follow-up information on 166 women, about equal numbers from each group. The researchers said that did not affect the results. A statistician who was not part of the study said the missing information should have been discussed further, but probably did not have an important impact. It is not known whether the findings also apply to women who do not have radiation and chemotherapy, or to those who have only part of the breast irradiated. Nor is it known whether the findings could be applied to other types of cancer.” It was too bad that it did not mention limitations in terms of lack of enrollment. The targeted enrollment was 1900. There also was an imbalance in the randomization that should have been mentioned. The story is careful to explain to readers that the research findings only apply to a subset of women with breast cancer. “Now, researchers report that for women who meet certain criteria — about 20 percent of patients, or 40,000 women a year in the United States — taking out cancerous nodes has no advantage. It does not change the treatment plan, improve survival or make the cancer less likely to recur. And it can cause complications like infection and lymphedema, a chronic swelling in the arm that ranges from mild to disabling.” The Q&A that ran with the story provided more detail about the different types of cancers and cancer patients, noting, for example, “First of all, 20 percent (the estimate of the study’s lead author, Dr. Armando E. Giuliano) refers to 20 percent of all the newly diagnosed cases of invasive breast cancer each year. This does not include noninvasive breast cancer, or DCIS, ductal carcinoma in situ. The total is about 207,000, so 20 percent is roughly 40,000 women. That is about how many women would match those in the study, in terms of tumor status, affected lymph nodes and course of treatment.”  The story also says, “The results mean that women like those in the study will still have to have at least one lymph node removed, to look for cancer and decide whether they will need more treatment. But taking out just one or a few nodes should be enough.” Good quotes including from Dr. Monica Morrow, chief of the breast service at Sloan-Kettering and an author of the study, but also a few fromindependent experts toward the end. Dr. Grant W. Carlson, a professor of surgery at the Winship Cancer Institute at Emory University, and the author of an editorial accompanying the study, provides some soul-searching context by saying that, in taking out so many lymph nodes, “I have a feeling we’ve been doing a lot of harm.” Dr. Elisa R. Port, the chief of breast surgery at Mount Sinai Medical Center in Manhattan, said, “It’s definitely practice-changing.” And Dr. Alison Estabrook, the chief of the comprehensive breast center at St. Luke’s-Roosevelt hospital in New York said, “In the past, surgeons thought our role was to get out all the cancer. … Now he’s saying we don’t really have to do that.” The story does a great job explaining the history of this form of treatment and how it has evolved over time. “But doctors have continued to think that even microscopic disease in the lymph nodes should be cut out to improve the odds of survival. And until recently, they counted cancerous lymph nodes to gauge the severity of the disease and choose chemotherapy. But now the number is not so often used to determine drug treatment, doctors say. What matters more is whether the disease has reached any nodes at all. If any are positive, the disease could become deadly. Chemotherapy is recommended, and the drugs are the same, no matter how many nodes are involved.” The story goes on to do something that stories like this rarely do, it compares compares the harms from different forms of treatment, saying “After armpit surgery, 20 percent to 30 percent of women develop lymphedema, Dr. Port said, and radiation may increase the rate to 40 percent to 50 percent. Physical therapy can help, but there is no cure.” The story makes it clear that removing all under-arm lymph nodes is the standard of care for women with breast cancer and that feelings about that standard are entrenched. The story establishes that a change in treatment protocol away from removing all the lymph nodes under the arms of women with breast cancer would be novel. There is some nuance, here, though that could be missed by a casual reader. Women who have one to two positive lymph nodes would avoid having additional lymph node surgery. The overall tone of the story may make it appear to some readers that women get to avoid lymph node surgery altogether, but they don’t. The story goes well beyond any news release.
[A]: Lymph Node Study Shakes Pillar of Breast Cancer Care


[Q]: There was no discussion of costs. Costs would include treating the double digit rates of incontinence and erectile dysfunction in these younger men who do have surgery. The surgery may help them live longer, but many, especially since younger at time of surgery, live decades with these potential harms and folllowup costs of the surgical choice. This should get at least a line in such stories. While describing some of the differences observed in general terms without quantification, the story provided absolute percentage of men dying from prostate cancer in the two study groups. The story then went on to explain that the difference was in the men who were less 65 years of age at the time of diagnosis. The story would have been better if it had more clearly explained this important caveat about the benefit seen. The potential harms associated with various approaches to treating prostate cancer as well as the increased risk of prostate cancer progression and death seen in the cohort of men who followed the watchful waiting approach were discussed. The story did a laudable job of providing information about the study reported on including the fact that the results most recently published basically expand the timeframe of followup on these men which have previously been published. It provided insight about the number of men involved in the study, how their prostate cancer was detected and that the men had been randomly assigned to their treatment group. The story did not engage in overt disease mongering. Two clinicians who were not involved in the study provided quotes which were used in the story. The story included a list of the commonly available treatment options for early stage prostate cancer. But we must give an unsatisfactory score because the story included a factually incorrect statement indicating that watchful waiting is synonymous with active surveillance. It is not. The story went on to misinform readers by indicating “watchful waiting is often recommended when a man is not expected to die of the cancer” by failing to complete the thought by explaining that the reason they are not expected to die of the cancer is because their advanced age makes it unlikely that the cancer will have sufficient time to progress to lethality OR because they have other diseases from which they are likely to succumb before there is time for the prostate cancer to be deadly. An important caveat about how the prostate cancer in the study differed from the way in which prostate cancer is most commonly detected today in the US was explained. The story provided a reasonable view of the novelty of the treatment options detailed in the study along with the critically important caveat that the majority of the men in the study had their prostate cancer first detected at a later state than is seen with the current screening practices in the US. The story did not rely on a news release.
[A]: Aggressive Treatment May Be Beneficial for Early Prostate Cancer


[Q]: "Wisconsin’s response to the coronavirus outbreak is under a microscope as cases surge and Republicans and Democrats continue to clash over what -- if anything -- to do about the increase. Tensions boiled over July 30, 2020 after Democratic Gov. Tony Evers issued a statewide face mask mandate, despite opposition from Republicans who contend the move amounts to government overreach. In the days before that, though, the state Senate’s Democratic Committee turned its frustration toward Republican lawmakers. ""While neighboring states like Minnesota, Illinois and Michigan have already implemented safety precautions like requiring individuals to wear masks, similar pleas in Wisconsin have fallen on deaf ears of Republican legislators,"" stated a July 24 news release. Lawmakers in those states have passed more COVID-19-related bills than Wisconsin’s Republican-controlled Legislature since the pandemic began. But some precautions, like a mask mandate, came from executive orders and not legislation. How does the committee’s claim stack up? Eric LaGesse, executive director of the Senate’s Democratic committee, did not respond to PolitiFact Wisconsin’s request for evidence to back up their claim. But the claim is pretty straightforward, and there has been a lot of news coverage of the state’s response to the pandemic. Here’s a recap: In March, Evers and Health Services Secretary Andrea Palm issued a series of orders to curb large gatherings as COVID-19 began to emerge in Wisconsin. Those actions culminated in a stay-at-home order on March 24, 2020, which shut down the state to help contain the virus’ spread. In April, lawmakers passed a coronavirus relief package that allowed the state to tap into extra federal Medicaid dollars and suspended a one-week waiting period for collecting unemployment benefits, among other provisions. However, the state lost $25 million in federal funding for unemployment because Republican leaders waited too long to schedule a floor session on the relief package. Evers’ administration extended the stay-at-home order on April 16 and four days later unveiled the Badger Bounce Back plan, which provided a phased approach for reopening based on testing and other public health criteria. In May, acting on a lawsuit from state GOP leaders, the state Supreme Court struck down much of the order and allowed the state to reopen without any protocols in place. After that, not much happened at the state level until the mask mandate despite a recent surge in infections and multiple daily increases of over 1,000 cases. Lawmakers have introduced 10 bills related to the pandemic in recent months, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported. The relief package we mentioned earlier is the only one that’s passed. The Democratic committee argued neighboring states -- specifically Illinois, Minnesota and Michigan -- have implemented more safety precautions for their residents. According to a database maintained by the National Conference of State Legislatures, Minnesota enacted 25 pieces of legislation related to COVID-19 through July 23 after lawmakers introduced over 200 measures. Illinois has passed 18, and Michigan approved 19. The bills touch on a wide range of issues, from COVID-19 testing to election procedures. The differences between Wisconsin and its neighbors can’t be blamed on partisan gridlock, either. While Democrats control Illinois’ state government, Minnesota’s legislature is split between both parties with a Democrat in the governor’s office. Michigan, like Wisconsin, has a Democratic governor and a Republican-controlled legislature. It’s worth noting, though, that some of the precautions in other states came about through executive orders by their governors, not action by the legislature. Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzer, for example, issued an order on June 26 requiring residents to wear face coverings -- over a month before Evers enacted a mask mandate in Wisconsin. Governors in other states also enacted stay-at-home orders similar to what Evers implemented. Wisconsin’s state Senate Democratic Committee claimed Republican lawmakers have failed to act while ""neighboring states like Minnesota, Illinois and Michigan have already implemented safety precautions like requiring individuals to wear masks."" It’s clear that Wisconsin lawmakers are behind the curve on COVID-19 compared to neighboring legislatures. Legislative bodies in Minnesota, Illinois and Michigan have introduced and passed more bills since the pandemic began. But they didn’t act alone, and safety precautions like mask mandates were ordered by their governors. That leaves us with a statement that’s accurate but needs clarification or additional information."
[A]:
"Say Wisconsin Republican lawmakers have done nothing ""while neighboring states like Minnesota, Illinois and Michigan have already implemented safety precautions like requiring individuals to wear masks."