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: The trial results on patients with a gene anomaly known as NTRK fusion, which occurs in less than 1 percent across a range of tumor types, were presented at the annual congress of the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) in Munich on Sunday. Germany's Bayer and U.S. partner Loxo, in turn, released data for their rival compound larotrectinib, which slightly improved on previous high-efficacy readings in an enlarged trial. Traditionally, oncologists have made treatment decisions based on where in the body a tumor started, increasingly helped by the growing knowledge of cancer's complex genetic drivers. Under the tumor-agnostic approach, also known as pan-tumor, drugmakers skip the organ-of-origin perspective and regroup patients based only on signature genetic mutations, but success in real life will depend on the fast spread of comprehensive gene-sequencing tools for tissue samples. Individually, the mutations are so rare that cancer units are seen as unlikely to run dedicated tests for each. Roche's Foundation Medicine supplies the comprehensive kits, competing with Thermo Fisher Scientific and Caris Life Sciences. "It's one of the reasons we acquired Foundation Medicine, to make this comprehensive genomic profiling routine and upfront in the course of the disease," said Daniel O'Day, the head of Roche's Pharmaceuticals division. Loxo's larotrectinib pill, co-developed with Bayer, was last year shown to shrink tumors in 75 percent of patients with the NTRK fusion gene anomaly, occurring in the lung, pancreas, or more than a dozen other organs. On Sunday, the response rate to larotrectinib within an enlarged group of 122 trial participants - up from 55 initially and now spanning 24 tumor types - was shown to be 81 percent. Roche said the readings from the two NTRK fusion trials were not comparable because they are made up of different patient types. Loxo's study, for instance, included some cancers in children, while Roche plans to investigate those separately. The Roche compound is designed to tackle several oncogenic mutations and last month, it unveiled data here on entrectinib pushing back tumors in 77 percent of lung cancer patients with a mutation called ROS1. Merck & Co's Keytruda in May last year became the first drug to win approval for pan-tumor use, though that remains a relatively small market for the mega-selling drug. Bayer and Loxo are testing a second pan-tumor drug, LOXO-195. Roche Pharmaceutical's O'Day welcomed a wider field. "Both things have to happen: You need genomic profiling and you need enough targeted medicines to encourage physicians to make that diagnosis upfront very complete. This is the world we're entering," he said. Though response rates could encourage a race for more such drugs, the need for suitable gene mutations or fusions will be a tall order, said oncologist Ulrik Lassen of Copenhagen's Rigshospitalet, who co-authored the larotrectinib study. "You need to screen a lot of patients to find the needle in the haystack and the method is complicated, costly and time-consuming. When we get better at using these technologies, we can find more oncogenic fusions and companies will be smart enough to find the agents that target them." Roche acquired entrectinib as part of its takeover deal with U.S. cancer drug specialist Ignyta Inc for $1.7 billion, agreed in December last year. Immuno-oncology remains another major business area for Roche, which also released positive results on using its Tecentriq drug in a group of breast cancer patients with a particularly poor prognosis. Claim: Roche takes on Loxo, Bayer in gene-defined cancer class.
[A]: Roche's entrectinib cancer pill was shown to shrink tumors in 57 percent of patients within a group that can only be identified via genetic profiling, as the Swiss drugmaker challenges an alliance of Bayer and Loxo Oncology in a new targeted treatment area.

[Q]: Paragraph: Given that this is an illegal substance banned by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency, cost as a therapeutic would be difficult to ascertain. We liked that the story took pains to explain that approval of this drug faces many hurdles. This is a tough one. While the story tells us what percentage of patients benefited from treatment, it does not, in fact, quantify the extent of those benefitswhich is precisely what this category is designed to assess. However, the story does do a goodand thoroughjob of describing the benefits in qualitative terms. That said, if the story had only chosen one or two examples of changes in the standardized measures of depression or anxiety, this would have received an enthusiastic "Satisfactory" rating. One strong word of caution though: The story cites one source as saying that psilocybin may one day be used to treat a wide range of mental health issues ranging from drug addiction to obsessive-compulsive disorder. The story offers no evidence to support these claims, which were made by a source associated with an organization that exists specifically to promote research on hallucinogens. Substantial claims require substantial evidence. The story would have been much stronger if it had eliminated the unsubstantiated remarks from the source particularly since they had no bearing on the subject of the story. The story addresses this issue thoroughly. Well done. The story does a good job of both describing the design of the studies and explaining why the study design is relevant. For example, the story notes: "But both [studies] were considered to be double-blind placebo trials the gold-standard of medical research in which subjects are left to guess whether they have gotten the active study drug or an inactive lookalike." This is the sort of thing we like to see. However, we did want to note that in the NYU study, researchers did state in the limitations section that there was "limited blinding" how did that possibly affect the outcomes? No disease mongering here. However, the story should have been more cautious about claims of benefit for conditions ranging far beyond the scope of the research at hand, which focused on mental health problems among people with advanced cancer. The story clearly states who funded the studies, and what that organization's long-term goals are. Further, the story clearly identified individuals quoted in the story who have ties to the studies or the funding organization. Lastly, the story incorporates input from an independent expert. However, the story would have been stronger if there had been a skeptical take on the research, which sawin some other coverage, such as this New York Times piece. The story does not address other treatment options for anxiety or depression, such as talk therapy or other pharmaceutical interventions. The story does a good job here. For example, the story notes: "[F]inding drugs like psilocybin effective is by no means the final hurdle to their widespread availability. None are currently in production, and no for-profit pharmaceutical company would likely invest millions of dollars to bring to market a pill intended effectively for one-time use." Well done. This is a close call. The story does do a good job of placing the work in context in regard to overall research involving hallucinogens. That's enough to earn it a "Satisfactory" rating. However, the story doesn't mention any of the work done in the past 10 years on the use of psilocybin specifically to address anxiety in cancer patients, such as this 2007 study, this one from 2011, or this one from 2013. Are the results from the two new studies consistent with these earlier findings? Do they differ in a meaningful way? That would be good to know. The story does not appear to rely on a news release. Claim: Ingredient in magic mushrooms is shown to ease anxiety and depression in cancer patients in one dose
[A]: The story focuses on two recent studies that find a single application of the hallucinogen psilocybin is effective at providing meaningful relief to cancer patients suffering from severe depression or anxiety. The studies were published in the Journal of Psychopharmacology, and can be found here and here. In some ways, the story is thorough, addressing potential side effects and conflicts of interest very well. The story discusses the potential benefits in depth, which is good, but fails to quantify those benefits which is problematic. The story also does a good job of placing the work in context, highlighting the increasing profile of research into the use of hallucinogens as therapeutic tools for mental health problems. However, the story would have been even stronger if it had discussed the existing literature on the use of psilocybin to address anxiety in cancer patients. We also reviewed twonews releases related to the research: Depression and other mental health struggles are common and significant among people with cancer, especially terminal cancer. This makes it especially important for reporters to write responsibly about studies like those discussed in this story. You want to give readers enough information to help them make informed decisions. You don't want to raise false hopes, or sensationalize the work. Overall, this story does a nice job of handling a delicate subject well.

[Q]: Paragraph: "In his effort to pass a health care overhaul, President Barack Obama has enlisted help from a close ally his wife, Michelle. On Sept. 18, 2009, the first lady gave a speech about the importance of health care reform to women, and cited several reasons she thinks the current system is gender-biased. This line caught our attention: ""Women are affected because, as we heard, in many states, insurance companies can still discriminate because of gender,"" she said. ""And this is still shocking to me. These are the kind of facts that still wake me up at night. ... In some states, it is still legal to deny a woman coverage because she's been the victim of domestic violence."" Health reform bills under consideration by Congress would prohibit insurance companies from denying coverage based on pre-exisiting conditions, an issue we've already explored ; we've also examined how pregnancy can sometimes be a basis to deny coverage, and how pre-exisiting conditions already lead to health care rationing by private health insurers. But we'd never heard domestic abuse could count as a pre-existing condition, so we decided to look into the claim. The issue first came to light in 1994, when a Pennsylvania woman was denied health, life and mortgage disability insurance because of domestic violence, according to the Women's Law Project. That group, along with the Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence, began advocating for legislation to expressly prohibit the practice. Since then, most states, including Pennsylvania, have adopted laws prohibiting the practice. But, as Mrs. Obama said in her speech, denying coverage due to a history of domestic abuse is still legal in some states. Those states are Idaho, Mississippi, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota and Wyoming, and the District of Columbia, according to the National Women's Law Center. The claim has become a popular talking point for groups supporting health care reform such as the Service Employees International Union. (It's been discussed so much recently that Arkansas, which had no prohibition, this year passed a law prohibiting discrimination against domestic violence victims.) A Huffington Post story about the laws last week prompted several states and insurance companies to say that the laws have been changed or that the companies don't treat domestic violence as a pre-existing condition. The North Carolina situation is a matter of some disagreement. Although the Women's Law Center says the practice is still allowed, state officials say they interpret the laws to mean it is not. Mississippi Insurance Commissioner Mike Chaney told the Jackson Free Press that he wanted to explore whether insurance companies were taking advantage of the law: ""I've got to get some of my lawyers to do some research on this, but we have only six mandated (conditions that must be covered) in our state statues, and we have 25 or more optional coverages, but domestic abuse doesn't seem to be one of them. ... The whole situation is bad. Let's say a woman works with a company that had Blue Cross/Blue Shield, and she gets beat up in her house and Blue Cross says 'we're not covering you because getting beat up is your pre-existing condition.' That's terrible."" Meanwhile, Wyoming Department of Insurance staff attorney James Mitchell told the Huffington Post that state law does not expressly prohibit insurers from using domestic abuse as grounds to deny coverage, though he'd found no cases of the practice in his state. Mitchell's response raises an important point: Just because it's legal in some states for insurance companies to cite domestic violence as a pre-existing condition, it doesn't mean that insurance companies are actually taking advantage of the loophole. Back in the 1990s there was evidence that the practice was widespread. In 1994, a House Judiciary Committee panel conducted an informal survey and found that eight of the 16 largest insurers in the country used domestic violence as a factor in deciding coverage. And a year later, the Insurance Commission of Pennsylvania reported that a formal survey showed that 24 percent of accident, health and life insurers took domestic violence into account when deciding whether to issue and renew insurance policies. But that data is more than 10 years old, so we asked Lisa Codispoti, senior counsel for the National Women's Law Center, if insurance companies are still denying health care coverage based on domestic violence history. Examples are hard to come by, she said, because people who get coverage through an employer don't usually face exclusions about pre-existing condititions. Only people who apply for individual coverage would, she said. ""It's such a small number of people who apply for individual insurance,"" she said. ""And it's not like insurance companies have to tell you why you're being denied coverage."" Indeed, underwriting standards are private, said Nancy Durborow, health projects coordinator for the Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence, making it difficult for groups such as hers to find out how widespread the practice still is. ""This is very secretive stuff,"" she said. A spokesman for the association representing insurance companies told us he's not aware of any insurers that deny women coverage based on history of domestic abuse. And the group supports a proposal by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners that would fully prohibit the practice. ""No one should be denied coverage because they are victims of domestic abuse,"" said Robert Zirkelbach, a spokesman for America's Health Insurance Plans. We find that the first lady is correct that ""in some states, it is still legal to deny a woman coverage because she's been the victim of domestic violence."" Putting aside the disputed North Carolina law, there still are several other states including Mississippi and Wyoming that have no specific laws prohibiting the practice. It's important to note that we couldn't find this was happening on a widespread basis or even just a little bit." Claim: In some states, it is still legal to deny a woman coverage because she's been the victim of domestic violence.
[A]:
Michelle Obama claims that domestic violence counts as a pre-exisiting condition in some states