Q-omics provides the consensus-scored FGFR4 profile across patient tissues and cancer cell-line models. FGFR4 expression is associated with patient survival in 25 of 34 cancer types, with the highest sampling consensus in UVM. Among the 18 cancer types available for tumor–normal comparison, FGFR4 is differentially expressed in 15, with the highest sampling consensus in HNSC. Additionally, FGFR4 RNA expression shows 16,557 significant gene co-expression associations, with the highest sampling consensus in TGCT. Together, these results highlight UVM, HNSC, and TGCT as cancer lineages where FGFR4 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 FGFR4 — synthetic lethality, tumor antigen, and pembrolizumab response.
This table summarizes FGFR4 survival associations across molecular data types. FGFR4 RNA expression shows survival associations in the most cancer types (25), followed by mutation status (6) and mass-spec protein abundance (1). The rightmost column indicates the cancer type with the highest sampling consensus for each molecular layer.
This table ranks reproducible FGFR4 RNA expression–survival associations across cancer types. High FGFR4 expression shows unfavorable associations in UVM, LIHC, THCA, MESO and BLCA, but favorable associations in UCS. The UVM 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 UVM as the clearest survival context for FGFR4 RNA expression.
This table summarizes FGFR4 tumor–normal expression differences by data type. RNA shows broader differences across cancer types, with a lineage consensus of 15, while mass-spec protein shows differences in 2. The strongest signals are observed in HNSC for RNA and LUAD for protein.
This table ranks reproducible tumor–normal expression differences for FGFR4. A negative fold-change indicates higher expression in normal tissue than in tumor tissue. FGFR4 shows lower tumor expression in LUSC, LUAD and KICH and higher tumor expression in HNSC, STAD and COAD. The HNSC box plot shows higher FGFR4 RNA expression in tumor versus normal tissue (log2 FC = +1.285, t-test p < 0.001).
This table shows molecular features associated with FGFR4 in patient tissues and cancer cell lines. In patient samples, FGFR4 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, FGFR4 RNA and mutation anchors are most strongly linked to RNA-expression features, especially in URINARY_TRACT, while CRISPR and shRNA rows add functional-dependency signals in BONE and SOFT_TISSUE.
