Reviewer’s report
Title: 
Uterine angioleiomyoma with disseminated intravascular coagulation: a
case report
Version: 
1 
Date: 
10 Feb 2023
Reviewer's report:
Here, the authors have described a case of a patient with a uterine
angioleiomyoma and disseminated intravascular coagulation. They conclude that
the uterine angioleiomyoma was the cause of coagulation abnormality in the
patient. In addition to the pathological examination, the authors performed
genetic testing of the tumor, identifying CCND2 and AR amplifications. This
case report is well-structured and easy to follow. However, there are some
concerns I would like the authors to address.
Major comments
1. Currently, the authors have not provided many details on the gene panel test
and its results in the manuscript except listing the genes that the test covered in
the Supplementary Table 1. Instead of reporting the copy numbers of the two
observed amplifications in the text, it would be helpful to see the results as a
figure, including the log R ratio and B allele frequency plots for the
amplifications. 
2. The authors state in the Discussion-section that none of the previously known
genetic abnormalities identified in uterine leiomyomas were detected in this case
(line 164), concluding that the genetic background of leiomyoma may differ
from that of angioleiomyoma. However, the authors have not presented any
evidence in the manuscript which would support this statement. The gene panel
used in this study included only MED12, but not the other genes previously
identified to harbor abnormalities in uterine leiomyomas, such as COL4A6, FH
or HMGA2. Please revise.
3. Ethics approval and consent to participate
When reporting a study that involved human participants (such as a case report),
authors should include a statement that confirms that the study was approved (or
granted exemption) by the appropriate institutional and/or national research
ethics committee and certify that the study was performed in accordance with
the ethical standards as laid down in the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki or
comparable ethical standards.
Minor comments
Please make sure that the name of CCND2 gene is written correctly throughout
the manuscript. 
Abstract
Line 37: CCDN2 and AR gene amplification was detected > CCND2 and AR
gene amplifications were detected 
Keywords: CND2 > CCND2 
Background
Line 48: Consider referring to the original source of the information (Weiss SW,
Goldblum JR, editors. Enzinger and Weiss's Soft Tissue Tumors. 4th ed. St.
Louis, MO: The CV Mosby Co.; 2001. Benign tumors of smooth muscle; pp.
699-700)
Line 52: a case of uterine angioleiomyoma that > a case of a patient with a
uterine angioleiomyoma who
Case presentation
Line 67: Repeat blood tests > Repeated blood tests 
Lines 68-69: Make sure that the abbreviations are explained the first time they
are used in the text. 
Line 79: Please provide a detailed measurement of the pelvic mass: 23 cm x ?
cm or 23 cm x ? cm x ? cm
Lines 86-90 and 98: Use the abbreviations only, no need to explain them here
anymore. 
Line 108: improved (Fig. 2) > improved. Figure 2
Line 117: Please provide also the IHC images of CD10, HMB-45 and MIB-1
stainings.
Discussion
Line 139: Do the authors mean 'in these case reports' instead of 'in this case
report'? 
Lines 161-163: Italicize the gene names to separate them from protein names.
Consent to publish
The authors can now update that they have a written consent to publish from the
patient.
Figures
Figure 1A-B. Consider adding scale bars to the figures.
Declaration of competing interests
Please complete a declaration of competing
interests, considering the following questions:
1
. 
Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, fees, funding, or
salary from an organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially
from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?
2
. 
Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation that may in any way
gain or lose financially from the publication of this manuscript, either now
or in the future?
3
. 
Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents relating to the
content of the manuscript?
4
. 
Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an
organization that holds or has applied for patents relating to the content of
the manuscript?
5
. 
Do you have any other financial competing interests?
6
. 
Do you have any non-financial competing interests in relation to this
paper?
If you can answer no to all of the above, write 'I declare that I have no competing
interests' below. If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Reviewer Publication Consent.
 I agree for my report to be made available
under an Open Access Creative Commons CC-BY License (
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
) if this manuscript is accepted for
publication. Any comments that I do not wish to be included in the published
report have been included as confidential comments to the editor, which will not
be published.
If you are not happy for us to publish this report, please contact the
editorial office before completing the review.
If you wish, you can include your
name in your published report. Please note you must decide whether to include
your name at the start of the process and confirm this decision whenever
prompted. If you change your decision later, we will not be able to publish your
name.
I agree to the terms of the CC-BY 4.0 license; please 
do not
 publish my name
with my report. (default)
Is the study design appropriate to answer the research question (including the use
of appropriate controls), and are the conclusions supported by the evidence
presented?
No
Are the methods sufficiently described to allow the study to be repeated?
No
Is the use of statistics and treatment of uncertainties appropriate?
Yes
Is the presentation of the work clear?
Yes
Are the images in this manuscript (including electrophoretic gels and blots) free
from apparent manipulation?
Yes
Web of Science Reviewer Recognition
. Springer Nature can send verification
of this review directly to a Web of Science researcher profile (a subsidiary of
Clarivate Analytics). If you would like to take advantage of this service, please
click on the “Yes” option below. Your name, email address, title of the reviewed
manuscript, name of the journal, and date of your review submission (the
“Review Data”) will then be transmitted to Web of Science after the final
decision on the manuscript has been made. If you have already registered with
Web of Science for a 
Web of Science researcher profile (this service was
previously known as “Publons”), they will notify you of the receipt of this
review and update your profile as per your settings and their policy. If you are
not registered with Web of Science, you will receive an email from them asking
you to register in order for them to be able to recognize your review on your new
profile page. Web of Science may use the Review Data to generate derivative
metadata for the benefit of Web of Science and you as a reviewer, carefully
considering the sensitivity of such information. For example, Web of Science
may verify your record as a reviewer by updating your profile published on its
webservice if you have registered for such service or help editors to identify
candidate reviewers. Please find the details of processing in Web of Science’s
privacy policy 
https://clarivate.com/privacy-center/notices-policies/privacy-
policy/
No