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.

Ex Input:
Context: Most hepatocellular carcinomas (HCCs) are associated with cirrhosis. Portal hypertension (PHT) and esophageal variceal bleeding (EVB) can limit the patient's treatment options. Surgical therapy in such patients is challenging. We performed devascularization plus liver resection or radiofrequency ablation (RFA) to treat HCC patients with concomitant EVB resulting from PHT secondary to cirrhosis. Such combined operations have never been reported for the management of HCC patients with variceal esophageal bleeding.", 'To evaluate two different treatment regimens for patients with HCC and EVB.', 'We evaluated 35 BCLC stage 0/A patients with HCC and EVB who underwent either devascularization plus liver resection (Group A) or devascularization plus RFA (Group B). We reviewed the safety and outcomes of the two groups and assessed risk factors for patient survival and tumor recurrence.', 'Significant factors for overall survival were surgical approach and Child-Pugh classification. Child-Pugh classification was the only independent risk factor for overall postoperative survival [hazard ratio (HR) 8.320, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 1.739-39.799, P = 0.008]. Age was the only independent risk factor for tumor recurrence (HR 4.025, 95 % CI 1.343-12.062, P = 0.013).\Question: Is radiofrequency ablation plus devascularization the preferred treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma with esophageal varices?

Ex Output:
RFA plus devascularization is the preferred treatment of HCC with EVB. RFA plus devascularization should be considered in Child-Pugh class A patients below 50 years of age.


Ex Input:
Context: Glioblastomas treated with bevacizumab may develop low-signal apparent diffusion coefficient (low-ADC) lesions, which may reflect increased tumor cellularity or atypical necrosis. The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between low-ADC lesions and overall survival (OS). We hypothesized that growing low-ADC lesions would be associated with shorter OS.', 'We retrospectively identified 52 patients treated with bevacizumab for the first (n = 42, 81%) or later recurrence of primary glioblastoma, who had low-ADC lesions and 2 post-bevacizumab scans ≤90 days apart. Low-ADC lesion volumes were measured, and normalized 5th percentile histogram low-ADC values were recorded. Using OS as the primary endpoint, semiparametric Cox models were fitted to ascertain univariate and multivariate hazard ratios (HRs) with significance at P = .05.', 'Median OS was 9.1 months (95% CI = 7.2-14.3). At the second post-bevacizumab scan, the volume of the low-ADC lesion (median: 12.94 cm(3)) was inversely associated with OS, with larger volumes predicting shorter OS (HR = 1.014 [95% CI = 1.003-1.025], P = .009). The percent change in low-ADC volume (median: 6.8%) trended toward increased risk of death with growing volumes (P = .08). Normalized 5th percentile low-ADC value and its percent change were not associated with OS (P > .51). Also correlated with shorter OS were the pre-bevacizumab nonenhancing volume (P = .025), the first post-bevacizumab enhancing volume (P = .040), and the second post-bevacizumab enhancing volume (P = .004).\Question: Do large-volume low apparent diffusion coefficient lesions predict poor survival in bevacizumab-treated glioblastoma patients?

Ex Output:
The volume of low-ADC lesions at the second post-bevacizumab scan predicted shorter OS. This suggests that low-ADC lesions may be considered important imaging markers and included in treatment decision algorithms.


Ex Input:
Context: Plants achieve remarkable plasticity in shoot system architecture by regulating the activity of secondary shoot meristems, laid down in the axil of each leaf. Axillary meristem activity, and hence shoot branching, is regulated by a network of interacting hormonal signals that move through the plant. Among these, auxin, moving down the plant in the main stem, indirectly inhibits axillary bud outgrowth, and an as yet undefined hormone, the synthesis of which in Arabidopsis requires MAX1, MAX3, and MAX4, moves up the plant and also inhibits shoot branching. Since the axillary buds of max4 mutants are resistant to the inhibitory effects of apically supplied auxin, auxin and the MAX-dependent hormone must interact to inhibit branching.', 'Here we show that the resistance of max mutant buds to apically supplied auxin is largely independent of the known, AXR1-mediated, auxin signal transduction pathway. Instead, it is caused by increased capacity for auxin transport in max primary stems, which show increased expression of PIN auxin efflux facilitators. The max phenotype is dependent on PIN1 activity, but it is independent of flavonoids, which are known regulators of PIN-dependent auxin transport.\Question: Does the Arabidopsis MAX pathway control shoot branching by regulating auxin transport?

Ex Output:

The MAX-dependent hormone is a novel regulator of auxin transport. Modulation of auxin transport in the stem is sufficient to regulate bud outgrowth, independent of AXR1-mediated auxin signaling. We therefore propose an additional mechanism for long-range signaling by auxin in which bud growth is regulated by competition between auxin sources for auxin transport capacity in the primary stem.