Q-omics provides the consensus-scored CCDC154 profile across patient tissues and cancer cell-line models. CCDC154 expression is associated with patient survival in 21 of 34 cancer types, with the highest sampling consensus in KIRC. Among the 18 cancer types available for tumor–normal comparison, CCDC154 is differentially expressed in 11, with the highest sampling consensus in LIHC. Additionally, CCDC154 RNA expression shows 16,590 significant gene co-expression associations, with the highest sampling consensus in UVM. Together, these results highlight KIRC, LIHC, and UVM as cancer lineages where CCDC154 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 CCDC154 — synthetic lethality, tumor antigen, and pembrolizumab response.
This table summarizes CCDC154 survival associations across molecular data types. CCDC154 RNA expression shows survival associations in the most cancer types (21), followed by mutation status (5). The rightmost column indicates the cancer type with the highest sampling consensus for each molecular layer.
This table ranks reproducible CCDC154 RNA expression–survival associations across cancer types. High CCDC154 expression shows unfavorable associations in KIRC and COAD, but favorable associations in HNSC, PAAD, THYM and LUAD. The KIRC Kaplan–Meier curve shows clear separation, with the high-expression group declining faster, consistent with the unfavorable association (log-rank p < 0.001). Together, the overview and detailed table identify KIRC as the clearest survival context for CCDC154 RNA expression.
This table summarizes CCDC154 tumor–normal expression differences by data type. RNA shows broader differences across cancer types, with a lineage consensus of 11. The strongest signals are observed in LIHC for RNA.
This table ranks reproducible tumor–normal expression differences for CCDC154. A negative fold-change indicates higher expression in normal tissue than in tumor tissue. CCDC154 shows higher tumor expression in LIHC, COAD, KIRC, BRCA, HNSC and CHOL. The LIHC box plot shows higher CCDC154 RNA expression in tumor versus normal tissue (log2 FC = +0.577, t-test p < 0.001).
This table shows molecular features associated with CCDC154 in patient tissues and cancer cell lines. In patient samples, CCDC154 shows the broadest associations at the RNA and protein expression levels, with UVM recurring as the lineage with the largest associated feature set. In cancer cell lines, CCDC154 RNA and mutation anchors are most strongly linked to RNA-expression features, especially in BLOOD_Leukemia, while CRISPR and shRNA rows add functional-dependency signals in LARGE_INTESTINE and BREAST.
