Given the task definition, example input & output, solve the new input case.
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: 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
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.
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.

New input case for you: Paragraph: A study conducted by the University of California, Irvine, also found that the drug combination was much less toxic than chemotherapy. "I think we are on track to develop a medical means to prevent colon cancer," in people at high risk of developing the disease, said Dr. Frank Meyskens, director of the university's cancer center. He said earlier efforts to develop a preventive treatment were thwarted by the fact that available therapies caused too much toxicity. Meyskens lead a study in which 375 patients with at least one previous colorectal polyp, also known as adenomas, were treated with either a combination of one-time cancer drug DFMO (difluoromethylornithine) and sulindac, a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID), or placebo. The results, presented at a meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research in San Diego, were so encouraging that the study was stopped early. After three years, the overall risk of recurrent adenoma was 12.3 percent in treated patients, compared with 41.1 percent for patients in the placebo group, or a 70 percent risk reduction. For patients with more than one previous polyp, 0.7 percent of treated patients had a recurrence, compared with 13.2 percent of placebo patients a 95 percent reduction. The researchers said an analysis of side effects and toxicity found no difference between the treatment and placebo groups. There also was no difference in side effects requiring overnight hospitalization, gastrointestinal side effects or cardiovascular side effects between the two groups. DFMO is the basis of the drug eflornithine, which was initially developed as a cancer medication, but is now used to treat African sleeping sickness. A cream formulation of eflornithine is marketed as a hair removal agent under the brand name Vaniqa. Sulindac is sold by Merck & Co Ltd under the brand name Clinoril as a treatment for arthritis and other inflammatory conditions. Meyskens said larger trials will be needed to assess the risk of cardiovascular and other adverse side effects, as well as to determine whether the incidence of actual colorectal cancer can be reduced in either patients with low stage prior colorectal cancers or in very high risk individuals. Chronic use of other NSAIDs, such as Merck's Vioxx, has been linked to an increased risk of heart attack and stroke. Sulindac is associated with liver toxicity. A separate large study presented at the conference showed that Pfizer Inc's Cox-2 inhibitor Celebrex, or celecoxib, significantly reduced the risk of colon polyps during a trial that was cut short after too many patients developed cardiovascular problems. "For patients without major cardiovascular risk factors, celecoxib at low doses protects against high-risk lesions that can lead to colon cancer," said Dr. Monica Bertagnolli, associate professor of surgery at the Brigham and Women's Hospital, and the lead researcher on the Celebrex study. Meyskens said the combination therapy was likely to eventually be used in people at high risk of colon cancer, including those discovered to have advanced adenomas, as well as patients diagnosed with low-stage colon cancer who have had their disease cured. "About 30 to 35 percent of those patients will develop another colon cancer," he said. According to the American Cancer Society, colon cancer will kill 52,000 people this year in the United States alone. Claim: Drug combination reduces colon cancer risk.
Output:
Combining a low dose of a targeted cancer-fighter with an anti-inflammatory drug reduces the risk of recurring colorectal polyps, an early sign of colon cancer, by as much as 95 percent, researchers said on Monday.