Return to Home Incidence > Table

Incidence Rates Table

Data Options

Incidence Rate Report by State

All Races (includes Hispanic), Both Sexes, Melanoma of the Skin, All Ages
Sorted by Rate
State
sort sort alphabetically by nameascending
Annual Incidence Rate
over rate period
(95% Confidence Interval)

sort sort by ratedescending
Average Annual Count
over rate period
sort sort by countdescending
Rate Period
Recent Trend
Recent 5-Year Trend in Incidence Rates
(95% Confidence Interval)
sort sort by trenddescending
US (SEER+NPCR) 1,10 19.8 (19.7, 20.0) 68,097 § 2012 stable stable trend 0.1 (-0.9, 1.1)
District of Columbia 2,10 7.1 (5.1, 9.5) 46 2012 stable stable trend -0.5 (-8.1, 7.7)
Texas 2,10 12.1 (11.7, 12.5) 2,990 2012 falling falling trend -3.7 (-5.6, -1.8)
Alaska 2 13.7 (10.8, 17.0) 91 2012 * *
Arizona 2,10 14.5 (13.6, 15.4) 1,060 2012 stable stable trend 0.2 (-14.0, 16.7)
New Mexico 3,8 15.7 (14.1, 17.5) 365 2012 stable stable trend -6.3 (-17.2, 6.1)
Virginia 2,10 16.0 (15.1, 16.8) 1,396 2012 falling falling trend -5.3 (-8.7, -1.8)
Michigan 4,10 16.6 # (15.9, 17.4) 1,869 2012 falling falling trend -4.7 (-8.5, -0.7)
New York 2,10 16.9 (16.4, 17.5) 3,717 2012 stable stable trend -0.0 (-5.0, 5.2)
Mississippi 2,10 17.0 (15.6, 18.5) 550 2012 stable stable trend 0.8 (-4.6, 6.5)
Louisiana 3 17.1 (15.9, 18.3) 818 2012 * *
Indiana 2,10 17.1 (16.1, 18.1) 1,198 2012 stable stable trend -1.8 (-8.1, 5.0)
Nebraska 2,10 17.6 (15.7, 19.5) 355 2012 stable stable trend -0.2 (-4.8, 4.7)
Oklahoma 2,10 17.7 (16.4, 19.1) 728 2012 stable stable trend 0.7 (-7.0, 9.1)
Missouri 2,10 18.2 (17.2, 19.3) 1,242 2012 stable stable trend 0.1 (-4.4, 4.9)
Illinois 2,10 18.5 (17.8, 19.3) 2,544 2012 stable stable trend 1.0 (-1.4, 3.5)
Hawaii 3,8 18.7 (16.6, 21.0) 300 2012 stable stable trend -1.0 (-4.7, 2.9)
Ohio 2,10 19.0 (18.2, 19.8) 2,456 2012 stable stable trend -1.3 (-4.2, 1.7)
Massachusetts 2,10 19.3 (18.3, 20.3) 1,461 2012 stable stable trend -3.3 (-8.9, 2.5)
Tennessee 2,10 19.6 (18.5, 20.6) 1,395 2012 stable stable trend -1.1 (-10.1, 8.9)
Connecticut 3,8 19.6 (18.2, 21.0) 836 2012 falling falling trend -3.6 (-6.3, -0.8)
Arkansas 2,10 19.9 (18.4, 21.5) 659 2012 rising rising trend 8.8 (3.2, 14.8)
West Virginia 2,10 20.5 (18.7, 22.6) 468 2012 stable stable trend 0.4 (-5.2, 6.4)
Florida 2,10 20.6 (20.0, 21.2) 5,166 2012 stable stable trend 2.4 (-4.5, 9.8)
Maryland 2,10 20.6 (19.5, 21.8) 1,315 2012 stable stable trend -0.6 (-3.5, 2.4)
California 3 21.1 (20.6, 21.5) 8,138 2012 * *
Pennsylvania 2,10 21.2 (20.4, 22.0) 3,220 2012 stable stable trend 3.5 (-0.3, 7.5)
New Jersey 3,8 21.5 (20.6, 22.5) 2,162 2012 stable stable trend -1.0 (-3.4, 1.4)
Wyoming 2,10 21.6 (17.9, 25.7) 128 2012 stable stable trend -0.6 (-18.0, 20.6)
Rhode Island 2,10 21.8 (19.2, 24.6) 268 2012 stable stable trend 1.4 (-4.0, 7.2)
North Dakota 2,10 22.0 (18.7, 25.7) 167 2012 stable stable trend 3.6 (-3.2, 10.9)
South Carolina 2,10 22.1 (20.8, 23.4) 1,184 2012 stable stable trend -2.6 (-8.1, 3.2)
Alabama 2,10 22.1 (20.8, 23.4) 1,198 2012 stable stable trend 0.2 (-4.0, 4.7)
Colorado 2,10 22.2 (21.0, 23.6) 1,180 2012 stable stable trend 0.3 (-2.5, 3.2)
Wisconsin 2,10 22.5 (21.3, 23.7) 1,451 2012 stable stable trend 4.4 (-1.2, 10.3)
South Dakota 2,10 22.6 (19.5, 26.1) 205 2012 rising rising trend 11.7 (5.2, 18.7)
North Carolina 2,10 23.1 (22.2, 24.0) 2,450 2012 stable stable trend -0.5 (-5.4, 4.6)
Maine 2,10 23.5 (21.2, 26.1) 409 2012 stable stable trend 1.8 (-2.6, 6.3)
Kansas 2,10 23.6 (21.9, 25.4) 726 2012 * *
Iowa 3,8 24.1 (22.4, 25.8) 840 2012 rising rising trend 3.3 (2.9, 3.7)
New Hampshire 2,10 24.8 (22.3, 27.5) 388 2012 stable stable trend -2.0 (-7.4, 3.7)
Oregon 2,10 24.8 (23.4, 26.4) 1,110 2012 stable stable trend -2.2 (-8.7, 4.8)
Washington 4,10 25.0 (23.9, 26.2) 1,868 2012 stable stable trend -0.2 (-2.7, 2.4)
Kentucky 3 25.3 (23.9, 26.8) 1,239 2012 * *
Georgia 3 26.3 (25.3, 27.4) 2,598 2012 * *
Montana 2,10 26.3 (23.3, 29.6) 303 2012 rising rising trend 6.6 (0.6, 13.1)
Idaho 2,10 26.9 (24.4, 29.5) 455 2012 stable stable trend 4.9 (-2.1, 12.3)
Minnesota 2,10 28.3 (26.9, 29.7) 1,672 2012 * *
Vermont 2,10 29.4 (25.5, 33.7) 224 2012 stable stable trend 0.6 (-8.7, 10.9)
Delaware 2,10 29.7 (26.5, 33.2) 325 2012 stable stable trend 4.2 (-2.1, 11.0)
Utah 3,8 34.6 (32.3, 37.1) 828 2012 rising rising trend 2.8 (1.4, 4.3)
Nevada 2
¶¶
¶¶
2012 * *
Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 07/27/2015 9:27 pm.
Data for the United States does not include data from Nevada.
State Cancer Registries may provide more current or more local data.
† Incidence rates (cases per 100,000 population per year) are age-adjusted to the 2000 US standard population (19 age groups: <1, 1-4, 5-9, ... , 80-84, 85+). Rates are for invasive cancer only (except for bladder cancer which is invasive and in situ) or unless otherwise specified. Rates calculated using SEER*Stat. Population counts for denominators are based on Census populations as modified by NCI. The 1969-2013 US Population Data File is used for SEER and NPCR incidence rates.
‡ Incidence data come from different sources. Due to different years of data availability, most of the trends are AAPCs based on APCs but some are APCs calculated in SEER*Stat. Please refer to the source for each area for additional information.
§ The total count for the US (SEER+NPCR) may differ from the summation of the individual states reported in this table. The total uses data from the CDC's National Program of Cancer Registries Cancer Surveillance System (NPCR-CSS) January 2015 data submission for the following states: California, Kentucky, Louisiana, and New Jersey but data for those states when shown individually are sourced from the SEER November 2014 submission.
# Data do not include cases diagnosed in other states for those states in which the data exchange agreement specifically prohibits the release of data to third parties.
¶¶ Data not available for Nevada.
* Data has been suppressed to ensure confidentiality and stability of rate estimates. Counts are suppressed if fewer than 16 cases were reported in a specific area-sex-race category.

1 Source: CDC's National Program of Cancer Registries Cancer Surveillance System (NPCR-CSS) November 2014 data submission and SEER November 2014 submission.
2 Source: State Cancer Registry and the CDC's National Program of Cancer Registries Cancer Surveillance System (NPCR-CSS) November 2014 data submission as published in United States Cancer Statistics 2013.
3 Source: SEER November 2014 submission. State Cancer Registry also receives funding from CDC's National Program of Cancer Registries.
4 State rates include rates from areas funded by SEER.
8 Source: Incidence data provided by the SEER Program. AAPCs are calculated by the Joinpoint Regression Program and are based on APCs. Data are age-adjusted to the 2000 US standard population (19 age groups: <1, 1-4, 5-9, ... , 80-84,85+). Rates are for invasive cancer only (except for bladder cancer which is invasive and in situ) or unless otherwise specified. Population counts for denominators are based on Census populations as modifed by NCI. The 1969-2013 US Population Data File is used with SEER November 2014 data.
10 Source: Incidence data provided by the National Program of Cancer Registries (NPCR). EAPCs calculated by the National Cancer Institute using SEER*Stat. Rates are age-adjusted to the 2000 US standard population (19 age groups: <1, 1-4, 5-9, ... , 80-84,85+). Rates are for invasive cancer only (except for bladder cancer which is invasive and in situ) or unless otherwise specified. Population counts for denominators are based on Census populations as modified by NCI. The 1969-2013 US Population Data File is used with NPCR November 2014 data.

Please note that the data comes from different sources. Due to different years of data availablility, most of the trends are AAPCs based on APCs but some are APCs calculated in SEER*Stat. Please refer to the source for each graph for additional information.

Interpret Rankings provides insight into interpreting cancer incidence statistics. When the population size for a denominator is small, the rates may be unstable. A rate is unstable when a small change in the numerator (e.g., only one or two additional cases) has a dramatic effect on the calculated rate.

Data not available for this combination of geography, cancer site, age, and race/ethnicity.
Suppression is used to avoid misinterpretation when rates are unstable.

Return to Top