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.
One example: 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
Solution is here: 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.
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.

Now, solve this: Paragraph: Mentions cost for one year of Herceptin as $40,000-$50,000. Mentions quantitative benefit of 9 weeks of Herceptin vs. no Herceptin with certain chemotherapy. Also, while no women in the Herceptin group had cardiac failure at 3 years, the follow-up period may not be long-enough to determine the effects of chemotherapy and Herceptin on the heart. Mentions potential harms of Herceptin on the heart, especially when given after certain chemotherapy. The story does not mention that there were side effects with certain chemotherapy drugs and doses needed to be decreased during the course of the trial. One aspect of this trial focused on randomization of women with Her2/neu overexpression to 9 weeks of Herceptin or no Herceptin immediately following breast cancer surgery. The drug was given in conjunction with certain types of chemotherapy, but before radiation and chemotherapy regimens known to damage the heart. The journalist states the Herceptin was given "prior to chemotherapy", which is not completely accurate. There is an adequate mention of the study design and discussion of disease-free survival at 3 years follow-up. Good job putting the results into context of other trials, and into context of how this may or may not change providers' practice. The story could have better stated the limitations of analysis for such a small subgroup 116 in each arm. Appropriately discusses the percentage of women who are eligible for Herceptin due to overexpression of HER2/neu. The story would have been helped by some context for the risk these women face. As Herceptin is used earlier and earlier these women have less to gain because they have less risk to begin with. Relative risk reductions may be very high but the absolute is not as big. Sources in addition to study authors are cited. No mention that this trial was funded in part by pharmaceutical companies. Some study investigators also receive research funding drug companies. Other doctors cited express caution about the early results of Herceptin studies, so there is some balance to the piece. The women in this trial had undergone breast cancer surgery and those with ER+ tumors were taking Tamoxifen. This is not explicitly mentioned, only that treatment took place following surgery. Still OK. Herceptin is only FDA approved to treat advanced breast cancer, but is used in clinical trials in early-stage breast cancer. This is not mentioned in the story. Novel use of Herceptin for short-term treatment prior to anthracycline chemotherapy. No evidence that this story relies on a press release. Claim: Short stint of Herceptin holds promise for breast cancer
Solution:
This story discusses the results of a recent study involving women with high-risk early breast cancer (node positive or >2cm, age younger than 66 there were 25 year olds on the trial). One aspect of this trial focused on the short-term use of Herceptin with chemotherapy. Women with overexpression of the HER2/neu gene, as measured by the CISH immunohistochemistry, were randomly assigned 9 weeks of Herceptin or no Herceptin immediately following breast cancer surgery and in conjunction with certain types of chemotherapy. This regimen of treatment differed from other trials in which Herceptin was given for 12 months following chemotherapy. In this study, the drug was given in conjunction with certain types of chemotherapy, but before radiation and chemotherapy regimens known to damage the heart. The journalist states the Herceptin was given "prior to chemotherapy," which is not completely accurate. Herceptin is only FDA approved to treat advanced breast cancer, but it is used in clinical trials in early-stage breast cancer. However, this is not mentioned in the story. There is adequate discussion of the study design and reporting of disease-free survival at 3 years follow-up. There was little discussion in the piece of the side effects of chemotherapy as reported in the trial, but the addition of Herceptin was the main focus of the story. While the journalist provides quantitative benefit of 9 weeks of Herceptin vs. no Herceptin, and notes no cardiac failure in the Herceptin group, the follow-up period of 3 years may not be long-enough to determine the effects of chemotherapy and Herceptin on the heart. Overall, the journalist did a good job describing the randomization, as well as putting the results into context of other trials, and into context of how this may or may not change providers' practice. The story could have better stated the limitations of analysis for such a small subgroup (116 in each arm). The small sample randomized to Herceptin certainly warrants more study, and although the relative benefits were large, these women still had fairly good recurrence free survival 80% w/o and 90% with so although it looks like that will translate to overall survival. The question for women with overexpression of the HER/neu gene is: How much do you want to do to avoid recurrence? Sources in addition to the study investigators are cited, which provides some balance to the piece, however, there is no mention that the trial was funded in part by pharmaceutical companies. Some study investigators also receive research funding from drug companies.