Instructions: 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.
Input: Paragraph: Good job on this, stating "The cost of the surgery and Hipec, including hospitalization, ranges from $20,000 to more than $100,000, doctors said. While Medicare and insurers generally pay for the operation, the heated treatment may not be covered. But doctors added it may be if it is described merely as chemotherapy." The story explained: "One randomized trial done more than a decade ago involving 105 patients in the Netherlands did show a striking benefit. The median survival of those getting surgery and Hipec, plus intravenous chemotherapy, was 22.3 months, almost double the 12.6 months for those getting only the intravenous chemotherapy" That being said, the story also included the proviso that newer drugs are now available that have been shown to increase survival. The story explains that one study showed that "8 percent who got the surgery and Hipec died from the treatment itself." And it stated: Includes one expert statement: ""We're practicing this technique that has almost no basis in science." No disease mongering. Many different voices with different perspectives were heard in the story. Various comparisons were made on both sides of the debate. A proponent of the new method said: ""there are no long-term survivors with systemic chemotherapy zero." But the story also said:"critics say that new drugs have come to market that allow patients with metastatic colorectal cancer to live two years with intravenous chemotherapy alone" The story states that "an increasing number of the nation's leading medical centers has been offering the costly and controversial therapy to patients with the more common colorectal or ovarian cancers" and names some of them. The growing use of the approach was clear in the story. And the fact that one randomized trial was done fully a decade ago. The story benefited from independent reporting. Claim: Hot Chemotherapy Bath: Patients See Hope, Critics Hold Doubts
Output:
This story opens readers' eyes to a debate that flared up before attendees of a recent meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology but a debate that most of us wouldn't know about. The sidebar story, "Some Stealth Marketing by a 'Hot Chemo' Company," was an important addition. This is an important piece of enterprise journalism. The "chemo bath" approach has been around for many years, but the use of heated solutions is relatively new and has limited data to support it use. Despite the limited evidence, the approach is gaining in acceptance. Anyone who's heard about is smarter after reading this piece.