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.

Example input: Paragraph: "Although the story didn't cite the cost of appendectomy emergency or urgent surgery and we wish it had, we nonetheless will give it a satisfactory score because it at least cited what the editorial writer wrote, ""A secondary benefit is the savings to the hospital generated by minimizing staff and anesthesiologist presence late in the evening and during the wee hours of the morning."" As with our harms score above, although the story didn't give absolute numbers, in this case we think it was sufficient for it to report that ""The scientists found no significant difference among the groups in the patients' condition 30 days after surgery or in the length of their operation or hospital stay."" Although the story didn't give absolute numbers, in this case we think it was sufficient for it to report that ""The scientists found no significant difference among the groups in the patients' condition 30 days after surgery or in the length of their operation or hospital stay."" Despite running less than 300 words, this story did an adequate job in explaining the quality of the evidence, including pointing out limitations. No disease-mongering here. The story meets the bare minimum requirement for this criterion in that it at least cited what an editorial stated. The focus of the story was on a study comparing emergency appendectomy with surgery done up to 12 hours later or beyond. This is the whole focus of the story and one we applaud when it begins: ""Appendectomy is the most common emergency surgery in the world, but it doesn't have to be."" There were no claims made about the novelty of this research, and we may have wished for a bit more context on this. Nonetheless, the potential for guiding future care decisions was made clear. Not applicable. Given that the story only pulled excerpts from the journal article and the accompanying editorial, and didn't include any fresh quotes from interviews, we can't be sure of the extent to which it may have been influenced by a news release.". Claim: Some appendicitis cases may not require 'emergency' surgery
Example output: We really don't understand why only a handful of mainstream news organizations reported this story. (At least in what we found.) The most common emergency surgery in the world. Rushing to emergency surgery may not carry any benefit. Waiting a few hours may be safer and less expensive. Why is that not a story? We applaud USA Today for finding time and space and clearly it didn't need to free up much space to do a good job telling the story. The story explains that as many as 300,0 appendectomies are done each year in the US. That figure alone explains why this is an important study to report.
Example explanation: The output is an analysis of the claim while considering the paragraph as a reference. The output highlights the key features presented in the paragraph and explains the claim accordingly.
Q: Paragraph: This story doesn't discuss how much the vaccines cost. Therefore, readers can't compare the affordability of these vaccines to existing treatment options. The story says that four of the six patients had no cancer recurrence after 25 months in the first study, and in the second study, eight of the 13 patients remained tumor free after 23 months. But the studies cited are both phase I clinical trials designed to address safety, not efficacy. Any claims regarding the latter, especially given the limited number of subjects, would be highly speculative. Therefore, the headline is misleading. As noted in the final sentence of the article: "The next step will be to test these personalized vaccines in larger clinical trials to see if they are better than existing treatments, if they improve survival, and what their long-term side effects could be." We give the story credit for making an important point that waiting for the vaccine to be made might be detrimental to patients with advanced cancer. It says, "As the vaccine therapies are designed and generated specifically for each individual there is a lag time from enrollment to commencement of treatmentapproximately fourmonthswhich may be too long from some patients with advanced cancer." The story also notes that "Both vaccines were deemed safe" but it doesn't discuss any side effects that may have shown up in the trials. What happened to the five patients who were not tumor free at 25 months? The story does mention that more research is needed to identify potential harms. The story mentions the types of studies that were conducted and the size of the trials. Both of these factors impact the claims that can be made from the research. And that's important because the claims made seem out-sized compared to the very preliminary nature of the research. Phase I clinical trials are used to look at safety and side effects, not to make conclusions about the future success of personalized medicine. To its credit, the article includes a very important quote from one of the study authors that clarifies that no conclusions should be drawn from these preliminary studies: "It is still unknown whether these vaccines will extend the survival of cancer patients, or whether they are more effective than other recently developed immunotherapies. Additional clinical trials will be required to determine the utility of these individualised neoepitope vaccines." There is no evidence of disease mongering in this story. The story incorporates insights from a few independent sources. This gives readers additional information about how the findings should be interpreted. However, no information is provided about potential conflicts of interest. The story doesn't mention any other treatment options for melanoma by name but states that additional research is needed to determine the effectiveness of these vaccines in comparison to existing options. The story could have been improved by including information about the prevalence of cancer recurrence among cancer patients using existing treatment options such as surgery and chemotherapy. One of the trials described was conducted in people who had had surgery and no other treatment options. It would have been helpful to include the length of time to tumor recurrence in people who had not received any other interventions. Although not explicitly stated, most readers will understand that the vaccines are not currently available and have to undergo a lot more testing before they are available if ever. The article discusses what is and isn't new about the researchin this section: "Cancer vaccines that are personalized to the patientdesigned tohelp the immune system identify tumors as foreign bodies and destroy themhave been considered as a potential treatment for a number of years. But working out the unique mutations of each person's cancer, a time-consuming and complicated process, must first be identified before a vaccine can be developed for them." The story includes independent sources and does not appear to be reliant on a news release. Claim: CANCER BREAKTHROUGH: PERSONALIZED MELANOMA VACCINES 'SAFE AND EFFECTIVE' IN FIRST HUMAN CLINICAL TRIALS
A:
Ungrounded speculation or reasonable caution? Both are present in this Newsweek story on two very early trials of immunotherapy drugs being developed to protect against melanoma. While the headline calls the research "a cancer breakthrough," quotes from researchers bring some much-need focus on the studies' limitations. These are after all phase 1 safety trials with just six volunteers in one and 13 in the other. Far too small a group to make any claims about successful results. The article does tell readers what questions remain about the vaccines (such as do they extend life and how effective are they compared with other treatments), and the type of research studies that are needed to answer these questions. However, noticeably absent from the story is a discussion about the exorbitant price tag associated with immunotherapy. We're seeing a lot of health news and PR releases devoted to immunotherapy trials so we've put together some tips for covering news on cancer immunotherapy drugs. Results from small, preliminary studies like these involving six and 13 volunteers should be viewed cautiously. Information about the effectiveness of a treatment is of limited consequence if patients cannot afford the treatment. There needs to be a discussion of cost so patients can determine whether such treatment is even possible for them.