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
Example solution: 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.

Problem: Paragraph: Vasiliki Kostoula, a Greek breast cancer patient, is framed through a breast x-ray after a radiological medical examination in an Athens hospital October 29, 2008. REUTERS/Yannis Behrakis The study shows the benefits of genetic tests that give women with a family history of cancer the chance to take steps to increase their chances of survival, they said. "This is the first study to prove women survive longer with these preventive surgeries and shows the importance of genetic testing when there is a family history of early breast or ovarian cancer," Dr. Virginia Kaklamani of Northwestern University in Chicago wrote in a commentary about the study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association. Women with mutations in the BRCA1 or BRCA2 genes have a 56 to 84 percent higher risk of developing breast cancer during their lifetimes. Those with the BRCA1 mutation also have a 36 to 63 percent higher risk of ovarian cancer and those with the BRCA2 mutation have a 10 to 27 percent higher risk of ovarian cancer. Because of this, many women make the difficult choice to have their breasts or ovaries and fallopian tubes surgically removed to reduce their risk. Dr. Susan M. Domchek of the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine in Philadelphia and colleagues studied the effectiveness of these procedures in 2,482 women with BRCA mutations, including 247 women who had risk-reducing surgery to remove their breasts and 993 who had risk-reducing surgery to remove their ovaries. No woman who had a mastectomy developed breast cancer during the three years of follow-up testing. Seven percent of women who decided against a mastectomy were diagnosed with breast cancer in the same period. "Our results confirm that risk-reducing mastectomy is associated with a significant reduction in breast cancer risk," Domchek and colleagues wrote. Women with BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations who had their ovaries and fallopian tubes removed had similar results. About 10 to 20 percent of breast and ovarian cancers are due to BRCA1 or BRCA2 genes. "Most of these women will die of ovarian cancer, so you can save 20 percent of them with the prophylactic surgery," Kaklamani said. "And you can save the majority of women who would have died of their breast cancer," she added. She said primary care physicians, gynecologists and women "need to be more aware that these tests exist." Dr. Sandhya Pruthi, a breast cancer expert at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, who counsels women with BRCA mutations, said the study adds more evidence that the surgery can help save lives, but the choice is never easy. "It's not cookie-cutter medicine," Pruthi, who was not involved in the study, said in a telephone interview. She said women need to come to terms with the psychological issues involved in having their breasts removed, and younger women who have their ovaries removed must contend with early menopause symptoms. "It's not a decision made on a single visit," she said. According to the American Cancer Society and the International Agency for Research on Cancer, 1.3 million new breast cancer cases are diagnosed around the world every year and it kills 465,000 women annually, making it the leading global cancer killer of women. Claim: Surgery prevents breast cancers in high-risk women.
Solution: Women with mutations in the well-known BRCA1 or BRCA2 genes who have their breasts and ovaries removed are much more likely to survive than women who do not get preventive surgery, U.S. researchers said on Tuesday.