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: Employees of Novartis Pharma K.K. (NPKK) transferred some data from research centers to a Tokyo hospital when that data should have been sent directly without first passing through Novartis hands, according to a report by Japanese broadcaster NHK that was picked up by the Wall Street Journal. “NPKK is currently investigating the allegations,” Novartis said in a statement. The data was from a not yet fully enrolled 55-patient trial testing the Novartis cancer drug Tasigna, the company said. “Novartis Pharma K.K. is aware of the media report regarding a small investigator-initiated clinical study ... conducted to assess side effects in patients with chronic myelocytic leukemia,” Novartis said in a statement. “NPKK has conducted employee trainings on proper protocol related to investigator-initiated clinical studies and believes that any involvement of our medical representatives in investigator-initiated clinical studies is inappropriate.”  The University of Tokyo Hospital said it was re-examining test results it had received but had uncovered no evidence that Novartis employees had manipulated any of the data during the transfers, according to the Wall Street Journal report. Claim: Novartis employees may have violated trial protocol in Japan.

Ex Output:
Swiss drugmaker Novartis said on Friday it was looking into a report that employees of is Japanese unit may have violated clinical trial protocol by handling data from a small independent study of one of its cancer drugs.


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: "The drug has only been tested in a phase I trial and a discussion of cost is not applicable at this time. The story indicates that 55% of patients (or 18 out of 33) with advanced basel cell carcinoma responded to the treatment. Only one person with medulloblastoma was enrolled in the study and the story adequately describes this case. One point we wish the story had addressed:  what is meant by ""response?"" Typically it’s a standard percentage shrinkage on an imaging study. What did it really mean in this case? The story states that the drug is associated with “few significant side effects,” however, the specifics of these side effects are not provided. Six patients in the advanced basel cell carcinoma study experienced 8 grade 3 adverse events, including fatigue, hyponatremia, muscle spasms, and atrial fibrillation. One patient withdrew from the study citing adverse effects. The writer makes it clear that this is a small, experimental study that enrolled only 33 patients with advanced basel cell carcinoma and 1 patient with medullablastoma. This story does not engage in disease-mongering. It clearly states that medullablastoma and advanced basel cell carcinoma are rare forms of cancer, a percentage of which involve the pathway targeted by the new drug. This story provided comments from co-authors of the two studies, as well as the author of the accompanying editorial. This story briefly mentions chemotherapy, surgery and radiation as treatment options for cancer. The story makes it clear that this drug is still in the experimental phase and the FDA has not yet approved it. This is story makes it clear this is a novel drug in the early phase of testing. There does not appear to be a press release associated with this story." Claim: Roche Drug Shrinks Tumors in Study

Ex Output:

This story presents the early findings of a new drug shown to reduce tumor size in two rare cancers: advanced basel cell carcinoma and medulloblastoma. While the drug showed good response rates, the story reminds the reader that this is a new drug in the early stages of testing and its true efficacy is currently unknown. More information regarding what “response” really meant in this case, and more about the potential harms would have strengthened the piece.