Q-omics provides the consensus-scored CAMP profile across patient tissues and cancer cell-line models. CAMP expression is associated with patient survival in 24 of 34 cancer types, with the highest sampling consensus in HNSC. Among the 18 cancer types available for tumor–normal comparison, CAMP is differentially expressed in 11, with the highest sampling consensus in LUAD. Additionally, CAMP protein abundance shows 28,614 significant protein co-abundance associations, with the highest sampling consensus in PDAC. Together, these results highlight HNSC, LUAD, and PDAC as cancer lineages where CAMP shows reproducible signals across survival, tumor–normal expression, and patient cross-omics analyses.
Every result is evaluated using two consensus scores. Sampling consensus measures how consistently a finding is reproduced within a cancer lineage across different conditions. Lineage consensus measures how broadly the result is shared across cancer types, distinguishing pan-cancer signals from lineage-specific patterns.
Premium analyses for CAMP — synthetic lethality, tumor antigen, and pembrolizumab response.
This table summarizes CAMP survival associations across molecular data types. CAMP RNA expression shows survival associations in the most cancer types (24), followed by mutation status (3) and mass-spec protein abundance (6). The rightmost column indicates the cancer type with the highest sampling consensus for each molecular layer.
This table ranks reproducible CAMP RNA expression–survival associations across cancer types. High CAMP expression shows unfavorable associations in KIRP and GBM, but favorable associations in HNSC, CESC, ESCA and KIRC. The HNSC Kaplan–Meier curve shows clear separation, with the low-expression group declining faster, consistent with the favorable association (log-rank p < 0.001). Together, the overview and detailed table identify HNSC as the clearest survival context for CAMP RNA expression.
This table summarizes CAMP tumor–normal expression differences by data type. RNA shows broader differences across cancer types, with a lineage consensus of 11, while mass-spec protein shows differences in 5. The strongest signals are observed in LUAD for RNA and HNSC for protein.
This table ranks reproducible tumor–normal expression differences for CAMP. A negative fold-change indicates higher expression in normal tissue than in tumor tissue. CAMP shows lower tumor expression in LUAD, COAD and LUSC and higher tumor expression in BRCA, KIRP and KIRC. The LUAD box plot shows higher CAMP RNA expression in normal versus tumor tissue (log2 FC = −2.537, t-test p < 0.001).
This table shows molecular features associated with CAMP in patient tissues and cancer cell lines. In patient samples, CAMP shows the broadest associations at the RNA and protein expression levels, with PDAC recurring as the lineage with the largest associated feature set. In cancer cell lines, CAMP RNA and mutation anchors are most strongly linked to RNA-expression features, especially in UPPER_AERODIGESTIVE_TRACT, while CRISPR and shRNA rows add functional-dependency signals in STOMACH and BLOOD_Lymphoma.
