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.

[EX 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
[EX 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.

[EX Q]: Paragraph: "Of more than 300 men and women who had the surgery, a third stopped playing sports entirely and 68 who were still active said they didn't play as well as before, researchers reported in the American Journal of Sports Medicine. The anterior cruciate ligament, or ACL, is the ligament inside the knee that helps keep the joint stable. About 150,000 ACL injuries occur each year in the United States. "Less than 50 percent of the study sample had returned to playing sport at their preinjury level or returned to participating in competitive sport when surveyed at 2 to 7 years after ACL reconstruction surgery," wrote Clare Ardern at La Trobe University in Victoria, Australia, who led the study. Ardern and her colleagues followed more than 300 men and women for two to seven years. Participants had either played Australian-rules football, basketball, netball or soccer before their surgeries. At 39 months post-surgery, 208 out of the 314 people who had the operation were still playing a sport, the researchers said. Of those 208, 68 said they played at a lower level than before their injury and 140 said they played about the same as before their injury. The remaining 106 participants either were not playing sports or did not complete the entire study. "Although almost all people returned to playing some form of sport, they did not play continuously for many years after their surgery," Ardern told Reuters Health in an email. She also noted there may be other reasons why people stopped playing sports, such as fear of getting injured again or less confidence in performing. Of the 196 people who played competitive sports before their injury, 91 returned to their competitive sport. "This is a big injury," said Edward McDevitt, a spokesman for the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, who was not part of the study. "Many athletes who choose surgery have a long and difficult road to face. If you're not willing to go through it, then you might be better off just getting a brace." He added that while knee surgery does allow people to return to their sport, they couldn't perform as well as doctors might wish. People who tear the ACL can either opt for physical therapy and surgery or just physical therapy alone. "Some people find that they are able to function well without surgery, provided they have adequate leg strength to support the injured knee," Ardern said. "Other alternatives may be to avoid sports involving direction changes, jumping and landing or activities that make the knee feel unstable, or use knee braces and supports." McDevitt speculates that after surgery, some athletes may not have the same range of motion, preventing them from playing as before. ""I tell my patients, 'I can't make you like before, I'm not God. But I'll do the best I can to restore you back to the way you were,'"" he added. SOURCE: bit.ly/pWId18" Claim: After knee repair, half can't play sports the same.
[EX A]: After knee reconstruction surgery, half of people who played sports both competitively and just for fun don't perform as well as they used to, according to an Australian study.

[EX Q]: Paragraph: In May 2019, readers questioned whether the federal government pays for erectile dysfunction medications such as Viagra, after the following image was circulated on social media: Both the image and the dollar amount it cited were dated as of this writing. The image shows a woman at a 2017 International Women's Day rally, while the $41.6 million figure on her sign was what was spent on Viagra by the Department of Defense in 2014. The image initially made the rounds in relation to a separate controversy in 2017, when U.S. President Donald Trump announced a decision to ban transgender people from serving in the U.S. military, claiming the military "cannot be burdened with the tremendous medical costs and disruption that transgender [people] in the military would entail." At that time, multiple news articles reported the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) was spending far more on erectile dysfunction medication than it would cost to provide medical care to transgender service members. The original sources for all these claims was a February 2015 Military Times article. That Military Times piece presented figures provided by the Defense Health Agency (DHA), a subsidiary of the Department of Defense, which documented that in 2014: We contacted the Department of Defense, which confirmed almost all of these figures were accurate for the year 2014, with some slight corrections: the total number of prescriptions for erectile dysfunction medication was 1,178,423, of which 905,683 were for Viagra; the total spent on Cialis was $22,827,346; and the cost of prescriptions for active duty members was $7.68 million. The DoD also clarified that the number of erectile dysfunction prescriptions given to active-duty members in 2014 was 140,789, not 102,885. According to data posted on the public transparency tool USASpending.gov, the DoD continues to purchase Viagra. Attempts in both 2019 and 2017 to make political points by juxtaposing the controversy du jour with coverage for erectile dysfunction prescriptions for service members and their families don't serve their causes well. For example, the Department of Defense does provide coverage for such prescriptions, but it also covers birth control. In September 2014, the Armed Forces Health Surveillance Center published figures showing that the rate of erectile dysfunction diagnoses among active-component service members had doubled between 2004 and 2013, and that 48% of cases were psychogenic, meaning the erectile dysfunction was linked to mental health issues such as post-traumatic stress disorder and depression. Claim: "The U.S. government ""subsidizes"" medications for erectile dysfunction."
[EX A]:
For context, we asked the DoD for a cost breakdown of how much it spends on birth control, but we did not receive a response by the time of publication. We will update when further information becomes available.