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.

Q: Paragraph: Costs of theMRIdian on-table adaptive radiotherapy in comparison to conventional radiotherapy are not discussed. Given that it is new and more personalized than current treatment options it's likely to be correspondingly more expensive. Certainly, more frequent MRIs would be very costly. The release provides exact information about increased survival rates in the cohorts of individuals treated with the adaptive versus the convention radiotherapy techniques. "The cohort receiving a higher dose demonstrated a near doubling of median overall survival (Kaplan-Meier estimated median overall survival of 27.8 months compared to 14.8 months)." The news release provides specific results regarding experiences of both groups with regard to toxicity from radiotherapy. We appreciate that the headline of this release starts with the words "early data" because this report deals with preliminary and retrospective research. It was not a clinical trial. Instead, results are based on retrospectively comparing treatment of two groups of patients at four institutions. Respective comparisons can't account for a host of factors that might influence results. At the end of the news release readers are told that on the basis of these promising results a clinical trial is being planned. With five-year survival rates of 1 to 14%, it would be hard to engage in disease mongering about pancreatic cancer. This research was sponsored by ViewRay, the company that developed the MRIdian system, and the release does a good job calling attention to this. However, according to the published study, at least one of the co-authors received honoraria from ViewRay Medical Systems. Since this was not included in the release we're rating this criteria Not Satisfactory. This study was all about comparing alternatives, so it scores Satisfactory on that criterion. It would have helped readers if alternatives would have been described more in laymen's terms. The news release notes that the next step is a prospective clinical trial and that tells savvy readers that this treatment strategy has a long road of testing ahead. Still, we think the release could have done a better job clarifying that this therapy is not yet ready for patients, outside of the clinical trial. A study that suggests a doubling of median survival is sure to capture the attention of patients newly diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. These patients and their families are closely aware of the glum statistics for the disease. This is a practical concern that the release should have touched on. This technology is indeed novel and unique to ViewRay, though it is becoming available in more and more cancer treatment centers. No unjustifiable language was identified in the news release. Claim: Early data shows nearly 2x prolonged median survival for inoperable pancreatic cancer

A: This news release reports results of a retrospective study comparing conventional radiotherapy for inoperable pancreatic cancer versus an adaptive radiation therapy that allows clinicians to see the tumor in real time and respond to changes on a daily basis. Targeting the tumor more specifically means higher doses of radiation can be used without increasing damage to surrounding tissues. The study, funded by ViewRay, maker of the MRIdian system, is admittedly preliminary. It is to be followed up by a clinical trial. The release would have been more helpful to readers had it mentioned costs and disclosed a conflict of interest between one of the study authors and the device manufacturer. Surgery is an option only for certain less common types of pancreatic cancer. The five-year survival rates for pancreatic cancers that cannot be treated with surgery are 12% to 14% even for those diagnosed in stage I; the five-year survival rate for cancers detected at stage IV is about 1%, according to the American Cancer Society. ACS reminds readers that five-year survival rates are estimates and that "many people live longer often much longer than 5 years." In that context, a treatment that could extend the lives of the 1.5% of Americans who develop pancreatic cancer is big news.
****
Q: Paragraph: Becerra was discussing the findings of a 147-page report prepared by his office that also found that detainees face long periods of confinement without breaks and language barriers in the 10 detention facilities state authorities inspected in 2017. Becerra said the annual report released Tuesday is the first of 10 that the state Legislature requires of the California Department of Justice, which is tasked with inspecting all federal immigration detention facilities in the state. That law was one of three immigration-related "sanctuary state" bills passed in 2017 that the Trump administration unsuccessfully challenged in court. Inspectors spent one day on scheduled visits at 10 facilities in operation in 2017. ICE contracted with four for-profit prison companies and six county sheriffs to house and care for the inmates. Since then and amid growing protests, sheriffs in Sacramento and Contra Costa counties terminated their contracts with ICE to house federal immigration inmates in the local jails. A third facility near Bakersfield is also facing closure after the city of McFarland told ICE it would not renew its contract when it expires in March. Becerra said many of the problems are caused by inadequate federal oversight. He said a common "challenge" inspectors found at most facilities included confining inmates to their cells for up to 22 hours a day. He noted that most of the detainees are not accused of crimes and are awaiting court decisions on their immigration status. ICE spokeswoman Lori Haley said the private prison companies and county jails that house detainees "must meet rigorous performance standards." "The safety, rights and health of detainees in ICE's care are of paramount concern and all ICE detention facilities are subject to stringent, regular inspections," Haley said. The attorney general's report estimated that 74,000 immigrant detainees have been held in California detention centers over a three-year period ending in 2017 with an average stay of 50 days per inmate. Becerra said the state inspections of federal immigration facilities in California were necessary "because everyone in this country has constitutional rights and everyone at the end of the day child and adult deserve to be treated in a human way." In a separate report , California's state auditor Elaine Howle said cities and counties failed to properly monitor the facilities in their locales. Howle's report also called on ICE to be more transparent in its detention operations. "The state lacks complete information about how much it costs and what conditions the detainees face," Howle's report concluded. "Also unclear are how many detainees are being held throughout California, where they are being held, and for how long." Claim: California officials: Immigration facilities lack oversight.

A: Detainees confined to federal immigration detention facilities located in California have inadequate access to health care, lawyers and family, state Attorney General Xavier Becerra said Tuesday.
****
Q: Paragraph: The story does a good job of explaining how the USPSTF recommendations may affect insurance coverage of mammography screening which is laudable, given the complexity of the issue. However, the story does not tell readers the bottom line: how much would a mammogram cost if it were not covered by insurance? While we found varying estimates, a 2011 paper stated that the overall cost of a mammogram was $266 a considerable sum, and likely out of reach for many women. This was a shortcoming of both the New York Times and Washington Post stories. The story does a good job of articulating the benefits of mammography screening for different age groups. For example, it notes that "For every 10,000 women screened repeatedly over 10 years, four lives are saved in women 40 to 49; eight in women 50 to 59; 21 in women 60 to 69; and 13 in women 70 to 74, the task force found." However, the story does not explain what it means to be "screened repeatedly" does that mean every year, or could it mean every other year? Still, we're very happy to see the story include numbers rather than referring solely to a general increase or decrease in benefits. The story also notes that the recommendations apply only to women with average risk of breast cancer. The story would have been significantly stronger if it had explained what "average risk" means most readers probably don't know. The quote from the Susan G. Komen For the Cure Foundation demonstrates the importance of reinforcing that these guidelines apply to average risk patients they express concern that "a lack of coverage would hit 'high risk and underserved' women hardest" high risk women are not affected by these recommendations. A discussion on risk assessment is absent from most stories covering screening mammography, and has led to much confusion. One issue is that there are a variety of risk assessment models, and their use in particular patient populations is not always well understood by physicians. However, a brief discussion about how risk is assessed would be helpful for patients and others reading these stories. This is really a strong point for the story. The story devotes several paragraphs to explaining and quantifying the potential harms of false positives and overdiagnosis. It then spends an additional two paragraphs trying to place these harms in context. For example, citing a cancer expert's position that the potential harms are significantly outweighed by the potential benefits. The story also made clear that there was an emphasis in the recommendations that women be able to decide for themselves on when to begin screening, and how often to be screened. That's an important point women should know that they have a role to play in weighing risks against potential benefits and ultimately making decisions about their health. The story does not offer a detailed description of the USPSTF review process, but it does make clear that the task force looks only at the scientific evidence, rather than at potential costs or insurance coverage. That's enough for a satisfactory rating in a story like this one. However, the story would have been stronger if it had explicitly stated that the USPSTF bases its recommendations on an evaluation of all the available research literature on mammography and breast cancer screening. No disease mongering here. The story says nothing that isn't backed up by the numbers. The story did a good job of incorporating input from multiple independent sources. The alternatives in a story like this one are the recommendations from other organizations, and the story does a good job of explaining the varying recommendations from the USPSTF and three other groups: the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the American Cancer Society. Well done. The story makes clear that the use of mammograms as breast cancer screening tools is longstanding and well established. The story also discusses insurance coverage issues that would affect availability for many women. The story states, "The recommendations are not immediately expected to affect insurance coverage. In December, Congress passed a bill requiring private insurers to pay for screening mammograms for women 40 and over every one to two years without copays, coinsurance or deductibles, through 2017." The story does a nice job of placing the new recommendations in context, discussing its similarities (and differences) to the USPSTF's 2009 recommendations on mammograms and breast cancer screening and how it fits into a broader, ongoing debate on the subject. The story goes well beyond whatever could be found in a news release on the recommendations. Claim: Panel Reasserts Mammogram Advice That Triggered Breast Cancer Debate

A:
The story provides an excellent overview of new recommendations from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) on when, and how often, women should receive mammograms to screen for breast cancer. The story discusses the long-running debate over mammogram recommendations, as well as the differing advice that various organizations provide on when women at average risk of breast cancer should begin mammogram screening and how often they should have the tests, though the story would have been stronger if it had explained what "average risk" means (something that a competingWashington Post story on the recommendations explains well). The story also offers a good discussion of issues related to what the USPSTF recommendations may mean for insurance coverage of mammograms, though it does not tell readers how expensive mammograms may be without insurance. Breast cancer screening is a big deal. As the CDC notes, "Not counting some kinds of skin cancer, breast cancer in the United States is the most common cancer in women, no matter your race or ethnicity." In 2012 alone, 41,150 women died of the disease. Breast cancer also has a profound impact on the economy, with researchers estimating that it costs the U.S. billions of dollars each year. In other words, it affects the health and well-being of millions of patients and their loved ones, as well as having an adverse impact on the economy. News that relates to the early detection and treatment of breast cancer is clearly news worth covering, particularly when it could inform the decision-making of women and health professionals and have an effect on women's access to screening.
****