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.
--------
Question: The 78-year-old TV personality tells People magazine he’s responding very well to chemotherapy and the doctors have told him “they hadn’t seen this kind of positive results in their memory.” Trebek says some of the tumors have shrunk by more than 50%. Trebek announced his diagnosis in March, but said he intended to keep working. He said he planned to beat the disease’s low survival rate with the love and support of family and friends and with prayers from viewers. The American Cancer Society estimates 3% of patients with stage 4 pancreatic cancer are alive 5 years after being diagnosed. Trebek says he still has several more rounds of treatment to hopefully get into full remission.

Answer: Alex Trebek shares ‘mind-boggling’ pancreatic cancer update.


Question: Kudos! This story reported on the costs of the drug Lucentis as well as the less expensive Avastin. The story provided quantitative information about the possible impact on vision. But we wish there information about any measurement of  the patients’ perspective on whether they are functioning better after receiving this treatment versus standard treatment While the story did include the common side effect of the drug in the study, there were other potentially important complications that were not mentioned. The story mentioned that the results reported on were from a phase III clinical trial; it included information about the number of affected eyes included in the study, and the impact on vision. The story did not engage in overt disease mongering. Several experts in the field were quoted in this story. In presenting the outcome of the study, the story mentioned in passing treatments currently used for treating diabetic macular edema. The story also mentioned the existence of another drug, Avastin, which was reported as working the same way as the study medication. (A more accurate description comparing Avastin and Lucentis is that they contain the nearly identical active ingredient but the production methods are a little different.) It would have been nice to mention that there is an on-going trial comparing the effectiveness of these two medications for the treatment of macular degeneration (not the condition which was the disease in the study reported on.) The story was crystal clear that the drug reported on, Lucentis, is available as it is FDA approved for another condition; the story also mentioned that it is not yet FDA approved for treatment of diabetic macular edema. The story was very clear that this was a new use for a medication that is already on the market. The story provided some insight that the company underwriting the costs of this study had a very similar but less expensive drug which was FDA approved for other use. It would have been useful to include a little more information comparing the two medications. It might also have been nice to include some information about how the drug studied works as compared to laser treatment, the current standard. Does not appear to rely on a press release.

Answer: A Genentech Eye Treatment Is Found to Help Prevent Vision Loss in Diabetics


Question: The story included an estimate for the cost of an angioplasty. Although mentioning that it may take many office visits to get medical therapy right, the story should have included an estimated cost for this as well. The story reported on the percent of individuals in the two treatment groups who reported relief of chest pain and that by 3 years, there was no difference between the groups. The story mentioned that one of the harms of this report might be that patients may now be given medication without adequate testing to show that angioplasty can be safely delayed. While the story mentioned that currently 1/3 of people receiving an angioplasty may not need it, it failed to mention the harms of angioplasty. Although the story did not adequately describe the type of study the information came from, it did indicate the number of individuals studied and provided results in terms of absolute benefit. It also indicated that individuals in the study were stable and that this contrasts with those who are having a heart attack or experiencing worsening of symptoms. The story also mentioned where the study had been published so that an interested reader could follow-up on the story if they were interested. The story did not engage in overt disease mongering. The story included quotes from 5 clinicians, one of whom was identified as one of the study co-authors. Ideally, the story would have clearly identified whether or not the remaining 4 clinicians were involved in the study. The story provided readers with the results of the study indicating that enhanced relief of chest pain from coronary heart disease was only temporarily better in people who received angioplasty than in those who received optimal medical therapy. There is no doubt in the story about how widespread both angioplasty and angina medications are in use. The story captured the novelty of a new study’s observation that the size of the benefit of angioplasty was surprisingly not as large as was thought and that even that was transient. It gave appropriate context on the use of both angioplasty and medications for angina. The story does not rely exclusively on a press release.

Answer:
Drugs as good as stents for many heart patients