Q-omics provides the consensus-scored CEBPE profile across patient tissues and cancer cell-line models. CEBPE expression is associated with patient survival in 26 of 34 cancer types, with the highest sampling consensus in HNSC. Among the 18 cancer types available for tumor–normal comparison, CEBPE is differentially expressed in 11, with the highest sampling consensus in KIRC. Additionally, CEBPE RNA expression shows 13,176 significant gene co-expression associations, with the highest sampling consensus in TGCT. Together, these results highlight HNSC, KIRC, and TGCT as cancer lineages where CEBPE 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 CEBPE — synthetic lethality, tumor antigen, and pembrolizumab response.
This table summarizes CEBPE survival associations across molecular data types. CEBPE RNA expression shows survival associations in the most cancer types (26), followed by mutation status (7). The rightmost column indicates the cancer type with the highest sampling consensus for each molecular layer.
This table ranks reproducible CEBPE RNA expression–survival associations across cancer types. High CEBPE expression shows unfavorable associations in STAD and UCS, but favorable associations in HNSC, CESC, ESCA and LAML. 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 CEBPE RNA expression.
This table summarizes CEBPE 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 2. The strongest signals are observed in KIRC for RNA and LSCC for protein.
This table ranks reproducible tumor–normal expression differences for CEBPE. A negative fold-change indicates higher expression in normal tissue than in tumor tissue. CEBPE shows lower tumor expression in LUSC and LUAD and higher tumor expression in KIRC, HNSC, THCA and BRCA. The KIRC box plot shows higher CEBPE RNA expression in tumor versus normal tissue (log2 FC = +0.249, t-test p < 0.001).
This table shows molecular features associated with CEBPE in patient tissues and cancer cell lines. In patient samples, CEBPE shows the broadest associations at the RNA and protein expression levels, with TGCT recurring as the lineage with the largest associated feature set. In cancer cell lines, CEBPE RNA and mutation anchors are most strongly linked to RNA-expression features, especially in LUNG_SCLC, while CRISPR and shRNA rows add functional-dependency signals in OESOPHAGUS and LARGE_INTESTINE.
