Q-omics provides the consensus-scored CFP profile across patient tissues and cancer cell-line models. CFP expression is associated with patient survival in 28 of 34 cancer types, with the highest sampling consensus in HNSC. Among the 18 cancer types available for tumor–normal comparison, CFP is differentially expressed in 13, with the highest sampling consensus in BLCA. Additionally, CFP protein abundance shows 26,745 significant protein co-abundance associations, with the highest sampling consensus in LSCC. Together, these results highlight HNSC, BLCA, and LSCC as cancer lineages where CFP 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 CFP — synthetic lethality, tumor antigen, and pembrolizumab response.
This table summarizes CFP survival associations across molecular data types. CFP RNA expression shows survival associations in the most cancer types (28), followed by mutation status (8) and mass-spec protein abundance (8). The rightmost column indicates the cancer type with the highest sampling consensus for each molecular layer.
This table ranks reproducible CFP RNA expression–survival associations across cancer types. High CFP expression shows unfavorable associations in ACC and LGG, but favorable associations in HNSC, SKCM, PAAD and LIHC. 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 CFP RNA expression.
This table summarizes CFP tumor–normal expression differences by data type. RNA shows broader differences across cancer types, with a lineage consensus of 13, while mass-spec protein shows differences in 10. The strongest signals are observed in KIRC for RNA and CCRCC for protein.
This table ranks reproducible tumor–normal expression differences for CFP. A negative fold-change indicates higher expression in normal tissue than in tumor tissue. CFP shows lower tumor expression in BLCA, LIHC, LUAD, COAD and KICH and higher tumor expression in KIRC. The BLCA box plot shows higher CFP RNA expression in normal versus tumor tissue (log2 FC = −1.555, t-test p < 0.001).
This table shows molecular features associated with CFP in patient tissues and cancer cell lines. In patient samples, CFP shows the broadest associations at the RNA and protein expression levels, with LSCC recurring as the lineage with the largest associated feature set. In cancer cell lines, CFP 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 OVARY and BLOOD_Leukemia.
