Q-omics provides the consensus-scored CD68 profile across patient tissues and cancer cell-line models. CD68 expression is associated with patient survival in 22 of 34 cancer types, with the highest sampling consensus in UVM. Among the 18 cancer types available for tumor–normal comparison, CD68 is differentially expressed in 10, with the highest sampling consensus in KIRC. Additionally, CD68 RNA expression shows 14,887 significant gene co-expression associations, with the highest sampling consensus in SARC. Together, these results highlight UVM, KIRC, and SARC as cancer lineages where CD68 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 CD68 — synthetic lethality, tumor antigen, and pembrolizumab response.
This table summarizes CD68 survival associations across molecular data types. CD68 RNA expression shows survival associations in the most cancer types (22), followed by mutation status (4) and mass-spec protein abundance (3). The rightmost column indicates the cancer type with the highest sampling consensus for each molecular layer.
This table ranks reproducible CD68 RNA expression–survival associations across cancer types. High CD68 expression shows unfavorable associations in UVM, KIRC, GBM and LGG, but favorable associations in CESC and SKCM. The UVM Kaplan–Meier curve shows clear separation, with the high-expression group declining faster, consistent with the unfavorable association (log-rank p = .001). Together, the overview and detailed table identify UVM as the clearest survival context for CD68 RNA expression.
This table summarizes CD68 tumor–normal expression differences by data type. RNA shows broader differences across cancer types, with a lineage consensus of 10, while mass-spec protein shows differences in 3. The strongest signals are observed in KIRC for RNA and LUAD for protein.
This table ranks reproducible tumor–normal expression differences for CD68. A negative fold-change indicates higher expression in normal tissue than in tumor tissue. CD68 shows lower tumor expression in LUAD and LUSC and higher tumor expression in KIRC, HNSC, KIRP and STAD. The KIRC box plot shows higher CD68 RNA expression in tumor versus normal tissue (log2 FC = +1.967, t-test p < 0.001).
This table shows molecular features associated with CD68 in patient tissues and cancer cell lines. In patient samples, CD68 shows the broadest associations at the RNA and protein expression levels, with SARC recurring as the lineage with the largest associated feature set. In cancer cell lines, CD68 RNA and mutation anchors are most strongly linked to RNA-expression features, especially in SKIN, while CRISPR and shRNA rows add functional-dependency signals in BLOOD_Leukemia and LARGE_INTESTINE.
