In this task, you are given an abstract of article. Your task is to generate label "True" if abstract is structured, otherwise generate "False". A structured abstract is composed of a topic sentence (or key sentence), relevant supporting sentences, and a closing (or transition) sentence. This structure is key to keeping your abstract focused on the main idea and creating a clear and concise image.
Example: RanBP type proteins have been reported to increase the catalytic efficiency of the RanGAP-mediated GTPase reaction on Ran. Since the structure of the Ran-RanBP1-RanGAP complex showed RanBP1 to be located away from the active site, we reinvestigated the reaction using fluorescence spectroscopy under pre-steady-state conditions. We can show that RanBP1 indeed does not influence the rate-limiting step of the reaction, which is the cleavage of GTP and/or the release of product P(i). It does, however, influence the dynamics of the Ran-RanGAP interaction, its most dramatic effect being the 20-fold stimulation of the already very fast association reaction such that it is under diffusion control (4.5 x 10(8) M(-1) s(-1)). Having established a valuable kinetic system for the interaction analysis, we also found, in contrast to previous findings, that the highly conserved acidic C-terminal end of RanGAP is not required for the switch-off reaction. Rather, genetic experiments in Saccharomyces cerevisiae demonstrate a profound effect of the acidic tail on microtubule organization during mitosis. We propose that the acidic tail of RanGAP is required for a process during mitosis.
Example solution: False
Example explanation: Output is appropriate for the given abstract because it is not structured.

Problem: BACKGROUND Panobinostat is a histone deacetylase inhibitor with antineoplastic and antiangiogenic effects in glioma that may work synergistically with bevacizumab. We conducted a multicenter phase II trial of panobinostat combined with bevacizumab in patients with recurrent high-grade glioma (HGG).   
 METHODS Patients with recurrent HGG were treated with oral panobinostat 30 mg 3 times per week, every other week, in combination with bevacizumab 10 mg/kg every other week. The primary endpoint was a 6-month progression-fee survival (PFS6) rate for participants with recurrent glioblastoma (GBM). Patients with recurrent anaplastic glioma (AG) were evaluated as an exploratory arm of the study.   
 RESULTS At interim analysis, the GBM arm did not meet criteria for continued accrual, and the GBM arm was closed. A total of 24 patients with GBM were accrued prior to closure. The PFS6 rate was 30.4% (95%, CI 12.4%-50.7%), median PFS was 5 months (range, 3-9 months), and median overall survival (OS) was 9 months (range, 6-19 months). Accrual in the AG arm continued to completion, and a total of 15 patients were enrolled. The PFS6 rate was 46.7% (range, 21%-73%), median PFS was 7 months (range, 2-10 months), and median OS was 17 months (range, 5 months-27 months).   
 CONCLUSIONS This phase II study of panobinostat and bevacizumab in participants with recurrent GBM did not meet criteria for continued accrual, and the GBM cohort of the study was closed. Although it was reasonably well tolerated, the addition of panobinostat to bevacizumab did not significantly improve PFS6 compared with historical controls of bevacizumab monotherapy in either cohort.

Solution: True