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.
--------
Question: Paragraph: "The story includes the cost of this test $1,625 and mentions that insurance companies currently don’t cover the cost of the new genetic test for breast cancer. The test manufacturer CEO’s speculation that insurance companies will eventually cover the test because it’s easy to perform and ""any doctor can order the test"" is an inappropriate rationale for any screening, especially when such screening may place a woman at risk for unnecessary surgery or other treatments. It is not clear how this test improves on these current practice as there was no evidence presented about it. The story appropriately expresses caution when presenting the value of this new test to predict a woman’s lifetime risk of developing cancer. There is a wide range of experts interviewed, all of whom express concern about the current available evidence for the predictive value of this test. Most experts advise against women taking this test, and the American Cancer Society does not promote the test. The story provides appropriate caveats for women who are considering this test. Namely, a lower than average score might suggest a woman could forgo screening. Women with a higher than average risk score could experience unnecessary anxiety and possibly choose treatments they do not need (such as prophylactic mastectomy). The story does not provide any evidence about the test itself (despite alluding to it). The story does mention that this test has not been validated in an external review, so any evidence would be from company-sponsored studies. Additionally, peer-reviewed studies need to be done to determine the best course of prevention if a woman chooses to take the test and discovers she is at higher risk of developing breast cancer. Because the story raised appropriate questions about the quality of the evidence, we give this a satisfactory score. The story lists the annual incidence of new breast cancers and mortality rate. The story is tempered in reporting about a new genetic test which may or may not be another option for women looking to assess their risk. The story mentions that knowing individual risk may inform a woman’s decision whether to increase surveillance and/or take chemoprevention medication, such as tamoxifen. Several leading breast cancer researchers, a member of the American Cancer Society and a spokesperson for the FDA are interviewed for this story. These interviewees do not have a vested interest in this test–unlike Decode’s chief executive, who is also interviewed, mainly promoting his company’s product. Researchers help educate the reader about a new test may have many more cons than pros. The story does note, via a patient advocate, that some women may still go ahead with the test if they feel it may help guide them in future breast cancer prevention efforts. The story mentions current prevention guidelines for women who are considered at higher than average risk of developing breast cancer. This includes additional surveillance with MRI and mammography, chemoprevention and adopting a healthier lifestyle, namely reducing alcohol consumption and lowering body fat. However, the evidence of survival benefit for lifestyle and screening is fairly limited. Most of recent decrease in breast cancer  mortality is attributed to advances in treatment not necessarily screening. Currently, breast cancer risk for women who do not carry the BRAC1/2 genes is determined via population-based calculators such as the Gail Risk Model. This tool provides an estimated 5-year risk and is only validated for Caucasian women, so a well-validated, individualized predictive test would, in theory, be useful for some women. The test discussed in this story has not been studied long enough, nor have results of company studies been subjected to an external review. The focus of the story is a new, widely available genetic test. The story says that any doctor can order this test to assess a woman’s risk of developing of developing one of the more common forms of breast cancer. The story notes that the FDA does not regulate this or similar types of predictive genetic tests, and there are questions about the validity of tests that have not been subjected to external review. The story notes that there are other genetic tests, but this is one of the first for breast cancer for women who do not carry the BRCA1/2 gene. The story does not mention that there are several other risk calculators to estimate a women’s risk. The story does not rely on the Decode Genetics press release. There is independent reporting and a balanced review of this new genetic test." Claim: Firm says test judges risk for common breast cancers

Answer: "The focus of the story is a newly available genetic test to assess a woman’s risk of developing of developing one of the more common forms of breast cancer. The story does not provide any evidence about the test itself (despite alluding to it). The story does mention that this test has not been validated in an external review, so any evidence would be from company-sponsored studies. The story notes that the FDA does not regulate this or similar types of predictive genetic tests, and there is concern about the validity of such tests that have not been subjected to external review. The test manufacturer CEO’s speculation that insurance companies will eventually cover the test because it’s easy to perform and ""any doctor can order the test"" is an inappropriate rationale for any screening, especially when such screening may place a woman at risk for unnecessary surgery or other treatments. The story mentions current prevention guidelines for women who are considered higher than average risk of developing breast cancer. This includes additional surveillance with MRI and mammography, chemoprevention and adopting a healthier lifestyle, namely reducing alcohol consumption and lowering body fat. However,the evidence of survival benefit for lifestyle and screening is fairly limited. Most of recent decrease in breast cancer mortality is attributed to advances in treatment not necessarily screening. Currently, breast cancer risk for women who do not carry the BRAC1/2 genes is determined via population-based calculators such as the Gail Risk Model. This tool provides an estimated 5-year risk and is only validated for Caucasian women, so a well-validated, individualized predictive test would, in theory, be useful for some women. It is not clear how the new genetic test improves on this current practice, as there was no evidence presented. Researchers and clinicians interviewed help educate the reader about a new test may have many more cons than pros. The story does note, via a patient advocate, that some women may still go ahead with the test if they feel it may help guide them in future breast cancer prevention efforts."


Question: Paragraph: Pfizer shares were up nearly 4 percent on positive findings for the oral treatment, called palbociclib, one of the company’s most important experimental drugs that some analysts believe could eventually claim annual sales of more than $5 billion, if approved. The trial tested the pill in post-menopausal patients with locally advanced or newly diagnosed breast cancer that had spread to other parts of the body. “We are delighted with the final data,” Pfizer said in a release, adding the company will discuss the successful data on progression-free survival with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration “to determine next steps” for palbociclib. A secondary goal of the study is to determine whether palbociclib can prolong overall survival. But Pfizer spokeswoman Sally Beatty said the company does not yet have such data, because it takes longer periods to follow patients and gauge survival trends. Although Pfizer is conducting two larger late-stage trials of palbociclib, ISI Group analyst Mark Schoenebaum noted the company has previously said it might discuss with the FDA the potential to seek approval of the medicine based upon mid-stage trial data, if the data warranted. Palbociclib, which blocks enzymes known as cyclin-dependent kinases (CDKs) 4 and 6, was taken in combination with a standard treatment called letrozole among women who were estrogen receptor positive - meaning tumors grow in response to estrogen - and HER2-negative, meaning that the HER2 protein is not causing the cancer. Such patients make up about 60 percent of advanced breast cancer cases. Letrozole is the chemical name of Femara, a Novartis AG drug that belongs to a class of treatments called aromatase inhibitors that block production of estrogen. Pfizer on Monday did not present detailed data from the trial results, saying they would be presented at a scientific meeting in San Diego in April. The success of the trial, called Paloma-1, follows highly favorable interim data that Pfizer unveiled in December 2012. At that point in the study, those taking both palbociclib and letrozole went an average of 26.1 months before tumors worsened. That compared with 7.5 months for those taking letrozole, but not palbociclib. The 18.6-month difference was considered statistically significant. Side effects from palbociclib were similar to those previously reported, Pfizer said on Monday. The earlier interim results had shown that patients taking the drug combination experienced anemia, fatigue and neutropenia - a decline in white blood cells called neutrophils that can put patients at higher risk of infection. Palbociclib was designated a “breakthrough” drug by the FDA last April based on initial data from the trial. The FDA grants “breakthrough” status to drugs that may offer substantial improvement over existing treatments for serious or life-threatening diseases. The status helps to speed up the approval process. Pfizer has started two late-stage trials of the drug - Paloma-2 and Paloma-3 - in patients with advanced breast cancer. Paloma-2 will test the same drug combination, palbociclib and letrozole, as an initial treatment for breast cancer. Paloma-3 will evaluate palbociclib in combination with another hormone therapy, fulvestrant, in women whose cancer has progressed after hormonal therapy. The drug, sold under the brand name Faslodex by AstraZeneca Plc, is called an estrogen receptor antagonist. Companies trying to develop treatments similar to palbociclib include Novartis and Eli Lilly & Co. Breast cancer killed more than 508,000 women worldwide in 2011, according to the World Health Organization. Pfizer shares were up 3.7 percent at $31.53 on Monday morning on the New York Stock Exchange. Claim: Pfizer breast cancer drug succeeds in mid-stage trial.

Answer: Pfizer Inc’s experimental breast cancer drug significantly delayed progression of symptoms in a mid-stage trial, meeting the study’s primary goal and keeping Pfizer in the forefront of a race for a new standard of care for the disease.


Question: Paragraph: China, where the outbreak started, showed a marked reduction in pollution after the government imposed travel bans and quarantines, and the data from Italy, which was hit hard several weeks later, suggested a similar pattern. The European Space Agency (ESA) said it had observed a particularly marked decline in emissions of nitrogen dioxide, a noxious gas emitted by power plants, cars and factories, over the Po Valley region in northern Italy. “Although there could be slight variations in the data due to cloud cover and changing weather, we are very confident that the reduction in emissions that we can see coincides with the lockdown in Italy causing less traffic and industrial activities,” Claus Zehner, who manages the agency’s Copernicus Sentinel-5P satellite mission, said in a statement. ESA published an animation https://www.esa.int showing how NO2 emissions fluctuated across Europe from Jan. 1-March 11, using a 10-day moving average, clearly showing pollution levels dropping over northern Italy. Italy has been hardest hit by the outbreak in Europe, with more than 15,100 confirmed cases and more than 1,000 dead, and the government has imposed the most severe controls placed on a Western nation since World War Two. Researchers studying the impact of emissions from industry and transport on climate change and human health are scrambling to understand the possible implications of the pandemic as economies slow, flights are disrupted and quarantines imposed. In China, Finland’s Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air says CO2 emissions fell by a quarter, or an estimated 200 million tonnes in the four weeks to March 1 - about half the amount Britain emits in a year. Satellite data also showed a sharp fall in Chinese emissions of NO2, starting in Wuhan and then spreading over other cities, including the capital, noticeable over a fortnight in mid-February. The World Health Organization (WHO) said on Friday that Europe had now become the epicenter of the pandemic, which has claimed 5,000 lives worldwide. Claim: Air pollution clears in northern Italy after coronavirus lockdown, satellite shows.

Answer:
Air pollution over northern Italy fell after the government introduced a nationwide lockdown to combat coronavirus, satellite imagery showed on Friday, in a new example of the pandemic’s potential impact on emissions.