Q-omics provides the consensus-scored CUX2 profile across patient tissues and cancer cell-line models. CUX2 expression is associated with patient survival in 23 of 34 cancer types, with the highest sampling consensus in KICH. Among the 18 cancer types available for tumor–normal comparison, CUX2 is differentially expressed in 12, with the highest sampling consensus in THCA. Additionally, CUX2 RNA expression shows 16,077 significant gene co-expression associations, with the highest sampling consensus in TGCT. Together, these results highlight KICH, THCA, and TGCT as cancer lineages where CUX2 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 CUX2 — synthetic lethality, tumor antigen, and pembrolizumab response.
This table summarizes CUX2 survival associations across molecular data types. CUX2 RNA expression shows survival associations in the most cancer types (23), followed by mutation status (5) 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 CUX2 RNA expression–survival associations across cancer types. High CUX2 expression shows unfavorable associations in KICH, ACC and READ, but favorable associations in PAAD, LGG and CESC. The KICH 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 KICH as the clearest survival context for CUX2 RNA expression.
This table summarizes CUX2 tumor–normal expression differences by data type. RNA shows broader differences across cancer types, with a lineage consensus of 12, while mass-spec protein shows differences in 3. The strongest signals are observed in THCA for RNA and CCRCC for protein.
This table ranks reproducible tumor–normal expression differences for CUX2. A negative fold-change indicates higher expression in normal tissue than in tumor tissue. CUX2 shows lower tumor expression in THCA, COAD, STAD, LIHC, BRCA and KICH. The THCA box plot shows higher CUX2 RNA expression in normal versus tumor tissue (log2 FC = −3.720, t-test p < 0.001).
This table shows molecular features associated with CUX2 in patient tissues and cancer cell lines. In patient samples, CUX2 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, CUX2 RNA and mutation anchors are most strongly linked to RNA-expression features, especially in LUNG_NSCLC_LUSC, while CRISPR and shRNA rows add functional-dependency signals in BONE and LARGE_INTESTINE.
