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: There was no discussion of costs. Over and over again more than 70& of >1,500 stories we've reviewed fail to adequately discuss costs. This has to change. The story provided a clear description of the potential benefit seen in the group of men with intermediate risk prostate cancer who were treatment with male hormone therapy in addition to radiation therapy alone. The harms associated with male hormone therapy were listed. The story did a stellar job presenting information about the outcomes of chance of dying and chance of dying of prostate cancer in 10 years differed for men treated with either radiation therapy alone or in conjunction with male hormone therapy depending on whether their prostate cancer was low, intermediate, or high risk at diagnosis. The story did not specifically mention that the study it was reported on was a randomized trial. And the information provided by the lead author indicating that the chance men with low risk prostate cancer had of surviving alone was almost 99% chance should have been that they an almost 99% chance of not dying of prostate cancer. Because the study did not include an active surveillance control group, it cannot be concluded that even radiation alone was beneficial to men with low-risk prostate cancer. This story did not engage in overt disease mongering. The story included quotes from the lead author of the study reported on along with quotes from the expert in the field who wrote an editorial about the study which accompanied its publication. There was some discussion about how current radiation therapy differs from that received by the men in the study reported on. However there was no mention of some of the other forms of radiation therapy that are often used for men with low-risk prostate cancer such as brachytherapy. There was no discussion of alternative approaches to prostate cancer such as surgery or delay of invasive treatment called active surveillance. The story explained about the treatment used in the study reported on as well as how radiation therapy has changed since the men in the study were treated. The story was clear that the treatments in the study, with some modification, are currently available. Does not appear to rely solely on a news release. Claim: For Some Prostate Cancer Patients, Combo Treatment Improves Survival
Output:
This story details the outcomes of a recent study examining whether the addition of male hormone therapy to radiation therapy improves outcomes for men with prostate cancer, and that the risk level of the man's prostate cancer determines whether short term male hormone therapy is of benefit. The clear discussion of the study results should better enable readers to understand that not all prostate cancers are the same and that the approach to treatment should take into account the risk characteristic of the individual's cancer. It is important for men to understand that prostate cancer is not a monolith and that various therapies benefit specific groups of patients. It is not a one size fits all prospect. The lack of benefit of combined therapy for low-risk patients should be placed in the context that any treatment for low risk patients may be unnecessary.