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.

Ex Input:
Paragraph: "The story covers cost in the very last two lines. Adequate quantification of benefits seen in the study. Story says ""few eye-related complications"" were reported in the Lucentis group, but didn’t say what few means or what they were. We don’t think that’s quite adequate. Adequate job explaining how the study was done and what it means. No disease mongering in the story. One quote from the head of the National Eye Institute. But he didn’t really evaluate evidence – only talked about hope. Meantime, no mention that Genentech funded  the trial (a strength of the NYT story was its discussion of the ""pay for play"" aspect of the research) – and no mention that Dr. Bressler disclosed financial ties to Genentech. From the Times: Some doctors criticized the organizers of the trial for testing Lucentis rather than another Genentech drug, Avastin, which works in the same way as Lucentis. Although it is a cancer drug, Avastin is often used off-label for eye diseases because it is far cheaper than Lucentis, costing only $20 to $100 a dose, compared with $2,000 for Lucentis. Avastin is undercutting sales of Lucentis, which totaled $1.1 billion in the United States last year. Organizers of the trial conceded that a major reason Lucentis was chosen was that Genentech, which is now owned by Roche, agreed to provide the drug free of charge and to contribute $9 million in additional financing — but only if Lucentis were used. “Obviously you can’t underplay $9 million,” said Dr. Ferris of the eye institute, which is part of the part of the National Institutes of Health. But he said there were other factors as well, like a belief that Lucentis might have been the better drug. Dr. Philip J. Rosenfeld, a professor of ophthalmology at the University of Miami, said the decision was “clearly a case of pay to play” since Genentech’s money dictated the choice of drugs. At least the story mentioned the uncertainty about whether Lucentis is any better  than the cheaper Avastin, and mentioned an upcoming trial comparing the two in age-related macular degeneration. The story explains that Lucentis was approved 4 years ago for another cause. Story explains the drug is already approved for another use, and it also – at the very end – mentions that an older and much cheaper drug is also effective. It’s clear the story did not rely on a news release." Claim: Drug Reverses Diabetes-Related Vision Loss

Ex Output:
The key difference between this and the NYT story was that WebMD didn’t reflect on the question of why Genentech didn’t test its cheaper Avastin against the much more expensive Lucentis. The important issue of corporate sponsorship of a clinical trial was overlooked. You want to talk about comparative effectiveness research? This would have been a good place for it.


Ex Input:
Paragraph: Cancer patients increasingly are having their care guided by gene tumor boards, a new version of the hospital panels that traditionally decided whether surgery, radiation or chemotherapy would be best. These experts study the patient’s cancer genes and match treatments to mutations that seem to drive the disease. “We dissect the patient’s tumor with what I call the molecular microscope,” said Dr. Razelle Kurzrock, who started a board at the University of California, San Diego, where Cairnes is treated. It’s the kind of care many experts say we should aim for — precision medicine, the right drug for the right person at the right time, guided by genes. There are success stories, but also some failures and many questions: Will gene-guided care improve survival? Does it save money or cost more? What kind of gene testing is best, and who should get it? “I think every patient needs it,” especially if cancer is advanced, said Kurzrock, who consults for some gene-medicine companies. “Most people don’t agree with me — yet. In five years, it may be malpractice not to do genomics.” Few people get precision medicine today, said Dr. Eric Topol, head of the Scripps Translational Science Institute. “The only thing that’s gone mainstream are the words.” HOW IT WORKS NOW If you have a cancer that might be susceptible to a gene-targeting drug, you may be tested for mutations in that gene, such as HER2 for breast cancer. Some breast or prostate cancer patients also might get a multi-gene test to gauge how aggressive treatment should be. Then most patients get usual guideline-based treatments. If there’s no clear choice, or if the disease has spread or comes back, doctors may suggest tumor profiling — comprehensive tests to see what mutations dominate. That’s traditionally been done from a tissue sample, but newer tests that detect tumor DNA in blood — liquid biopsies — are making profiling more common. The tests cost about $6,000 and many insurers consider them experimental and won’t pay. Gene tumor boards analyze what the results suggest about treatment. They focus on oddball cases like a breast cancer mutation in a colon cancer patient, or cancers that have widely spread and are genetically complex. The only options may be experimental drugs or “off-label” treatments — medicines approved for different situations. But as tumor profiling grows, it’s revealing how genetically diverse many tumors are, and that oddball cases are not so rare, said Dr. John Marshall. He heads the virtual tumor board at Georgetown Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center that also serves cancer centers in Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Michigan and Tennessee. “There is a little bit of faith” that testing will show the right treatment, but it’s not a sure thing, said Dr. Lee Schwartzberg, who heads one participating center, the West Cancer Center in Memphis. Dr. Len Lichtenfeld, the American Cancer Society’s deputy chief medical officer, is optimistic yet wary. Drugs that target BRAF mutations work well for skin cancers called melanomas, but less well for lung or colon cancers. “Just because a mutation occurs it doesn’t mean that drug is going to work in that cancer,” he said. LUCKY CASES When it does, results can be dramatic. Cairnes’ cancer was between her stomach and esophagus, and had spread to her liver, lungs and lymph nodes. Tissue testing found 10 abnormal genes, but on the liquid biopsy only EGFR popped out as a good target. Two drugs aim at that gene but aren’t approved for her type of cancer. A tumor board advised trying both — Erbitux and Tarceva, the drug her husband also had taken. Within two weeks, she quit using pain medicines. After two months, her liver tumor had shrunk roughly by half. There are signs that cancer may remain, but it is under control. She feels well enough to travel and to take care of her granddaughter. “I’m very, very grateful to have a targeted therapy,” Cairnes said. “I cannot expect a better outcome than what we’re seeing right now,” said her doctor, Shumei Kato. WHAT STUDIES SHOW But is gene-guided treatment better than usual care? French doctors did the first big test, with disappointing results. About 200 patients with advanced cancer were given whatever their doctors thought best or off-label drugs based on tumor profiling. Survival was similar — about two months. Another French study, reported in June, was slightly more encouraging on survival but exposed another problem: No drugs exist for many gene flaws. Tests found treatable mutations in half of the 2,000 participants and only 143 got what a tumor board suggested. Some doctors worry that tumor boards’ recommending off-label treatments diverts patients from research that would benefit all cancer patients. For example, the American Society of Clinical Oncology’s TAPUR study tests off-label drugs and shares results with their makers and federal regulators. LETTING PATIENTS CHOOSE Ann Meffert, who lives on a dairy farm in Waunakee, Wisconsin, endured multiple standard treatments that didn’t defeat her bile duct cancer. “She was going to be referred to hospice; there was not much we could do,” said Dr. Nataliya Uboha, who took the case to a tumor board at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. The panel gave several options, including off-label treatment, and Meffert chose a study that matches patients to gene-targeting therapies and started on an experimental one last October. “Two weeks in, I started feeling better,” she said, and when she saw test results, “I couldn’t believe the difference.” Many lung spots disappeared and the liver tumor shrank 75 percent. She is not cured, though, and doctors are thinking about next steps. And that could involve a fresh look at her tumor genes. ___ Marilynn Marchione can be followed at @MMarchioneAP __ This Associated Press series was produced in partnership with the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s Department of Science Education. The AP is solely responsible for all content. Claim: Ultra-personal therapy: Gene tumor boards guide cancer care.

Ex Output:
Doctors were just guessing a decade ago when they gave Alison Cairnes’ husband a new drug they hoped would shrink his lung tumors. Now she takes it, but the choice was no guesswork. Sophisticated gene tests suggested it would fight her gastric cancer, and they were right.


Ex Input:
Paragraph: According to the website of the             American Stroke Association (ASA) this eRumor is true. The American Stroke Association is a division of the American Heart             Association. In an article published in February of 2003, the ASA says that a             60-second test can help determine whether someone may be             experiencing a stroke. The three question test has been used by             health care professionals as an initial way of determining whether             someone may be experiencing a stroke. But a research project by North Carolina-Chapel Hill School of             Medicine in Chapel Hill, N.C. looked into the question of whether             non-medical professionals could administer the short test and             correctly identify the symptoms of a possible stroke. The conclusions was yes, that bystanders could be helpful in             determining whether a person is experiencing a stroke. One of the reasons they looked into it was to see whether bystanders             could be helpful to a 9-1-1 dispatcher in helping narrow down what             is happening to a potential patient. The three questions given to the suspected stroke sufferers were: Can you raise your arms and keep them up?Can you smile?Can you repeat a simple sentence? The study found that when non-medical volunteers were asked by a             telephone dispatcher to administer the test, they correctly             identified the symptoms 96 percent of the time…especially the             raising of the arms and the speaking of a simple sentence. They were less effective in evaluating whether there was facial             weakness in a smile, probably because of not knowing what the             person’s normal smile looked like. Doctors caution that this does not mean that citizens should             try to diagnose stroke symptoms themselves.This study focused on citizens who were being given instruction over             the telephone by emergency dispatchers. Any sign of weakness in the face, slurred speech, or weakness or             numbness in the limbs should be evaluated by medical professionals             immediately. If stroke victims are given proper help within 3 hours of the             stroke, the ability to recover is greatly increased. CLICK             HERE for more information posted on the the American Stroke Association   website. updated 02/02/10    Comments Claim:   The eRumor says that the             American Stroke Associations suggests a simple three question test             to give to someone who may be experiencing the symptoms of a stroke.     

Ex Output:

Test to determine a whether a stroke is happening.