Q-omics provides the consensus-scored CXCR4 profile across patient tissues and cancer cell-line models. CXCR4 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, CXCR4 is differentially expressed in 11, with the highest sampling consensus in KIRC. Additionally, CXCR4 RNA expression shows 18,430 significant protein co-abundance associations, with the highest sampling consensus in LSCC. Together, these results highlight HNSC, KIRC, and LSCC as cancer lineages where CXCR4 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 CXCR4 — synthetic lethality, tumor antigen, and pembrolizumab response.
This table summarizes CXCR4 survival associations across molecular data types. CXCR4 RNA expression shows survival associations in the most cancer types (26), followed by mutation status (6) and mass-spec protein abundance (4). The rightmost column indicates the cancer type with the highest sampling consensus for each molecular layer.
This table ranks reproducible CXCR4 RNA expression–survival associations across cancer types. High CXCR4 expression shows unfavorable associations in UVM, LGG and KIRP, but favorable associations in HNSC, LUAD and OV. 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 CXCR4 RNA expression.
This table summarizes CXCR4 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 6. The strongest signals are observed in KIRC for RNA and CCRCC for protein.
This table ranks reproducible tumor–normal expression differences for CXCR4. A negative fold-change indicates higher expression in normal tissue than in tumor tissue. CXCR4 shows lower tumor expression in LUSC and higher tumor expression in KIRC, STAD, BRCA, HNSC and KIRP. The KIRC box plot shows higher CXCR4 RNA expression in tumor versus normal tissue (log2 FC = +3.248, t-test p < 0.001).
This table shows molecular features associated with CXCR4 in patient tissues and cancer cell lines. In patient samples, CXCR4 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, CXCR4 RNA and mutation anchors are most strongly linked to RNA-expression features, especially in KIDNEY, while CRISPR and shRNA rows add functional-dependency signals in LUNG_NSCLC_LUAD and BLOOD_Leukemia.
