Q-omics provides the consensus-scored VWF profile across patient tissues and cancer cell-line models. VWF expression is associated with patient survival in 24 of 34 cancer types, with the highest sampling consensus in KIRC. Among the 18 cancer types available for tumor–normal comparison, VWF is differentially expressed in 13, with the highest sampling consensus in KIRC. Additionally, VWF protein abundance shows 24,268 significant protein co-abundance associations, with the highest sampling consensus in LSCC. Together, these results highlight KIRC, and LSCC as cancer lineages where VWF 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 VWF — synthetic lethality, tumor antigen, and pembrolizumab response.
This table summarizes VWF survival associations across molecular data types. VWF RNA expression shows survival associations in the most cancer types (24), followed by mutation status (13) and mass-spec protein abundance (5). The rightmost column indicates the cancer type with the highest sampling consensus for each molecular layer.
This table ranks reproducible VWF RNA expression–survival associations across cancer types. High VWF expression shows unfavorable associations in BLCA, MESO, ACC and LGG, but favorable associations in KIRC and HNSC. The KIRC 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 KIRC as the clearest survival context for VWF RNA expression.
This table summarizes VWF 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 6. The strongest signals are observed in KIRC for RNA and CCRCC for protein.
This table ranks reproducible tumor–normal expression differences for VWF. A negative fold-change indicates higher expression in normal tissue than in tumor tissue. VWF shows lower tumor expression in LUAD, LUSC and BRCA and higher tumor expression in KIRC, LIHC and KICH. The KIRC box plot shows higher VWF RNA expression in tumor versus normal tissue (log2 FC = +3.760, t-test p < 0.001).
This table shows molecular features associated with VWF in patient tissues and cancer cell lines. In patient samples, VWF 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, VWF RNA and mutation anchors are most strongly linked to RNA-expression features, especially in SKIN, while CRISPR and shRNA rows add functional-dependency signals in LARGE_INTESTINE and BONE.
