Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
In this case, Dr. Sklaroffs report concluded: “[H]ad [Sanders] been provided episodic follow-up gastroscopic evaluations, the lesion would have been detected at an earlier moment in its natural history ... when it would have been amenable to surgical cure.” The district court noted that it is unclear whether by stating that “the lesion would have been detected” (emphasis added), Dr. Sklaroff was suggesting that the 2003 mass did not itself become cancerous. But even assuming, as the Estate urges, that the mass detected in 2003 later became cancerous, Dr. Sklaroffs assertion that the lesion “would have been amenable to surgical cure” does not establish the probability of a better outcome nor take that probability out of the realm of conjecture. See Estate of Gibson, 91 So.3d at 625  (citation omitted); Hubbard, 954 So.2d at 964;
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that testimony taken as a whole must establish reasonable medical certainty that the negligence caused the injuries at issue
B. holding that while a foundation for an inference of negligence under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur may be based on the testimony of an expert witness the experts testimony must establish that the occurrence indicates the probability of negligence
C. holding in the medical malpractice context that a plaintiff must prove that the alleged negligence more likely than not caused the victims death
D. holding expert testimony provided no evidence as to causation since testimony was not based upon reasonable medical probability
E. holding that expert medical testimony was not necessary to establish negligence where surgeon left a needle in the patients body but stating that proof of proximate cause requires some expert testimony in medical malpractice cases
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.