Return to Home Incidence > Table

Incidence Rates Table

Data Options

Incidence Rate Report by State

All Races (includes Hispanic), Female, Breast, All Ages
Sorted by Count
State
sort sort alphabetically by nameascending
Annual Incidence Rate
over rate period
(95% Confidence Interval)

sort sort by ratedescending
Average Annual Count
sort sort by countascending
Rate Period
Recent Trend
Recent AAPC
sort sort by trenddescending
US (SEER+NPCR) 1,10 121.9 (121.4, 122.4) 221,690 § 2011 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.8, 1.0)
California 3 121.6 (120.0, 123.1) 24,591 2011 * *
New York 2,10 129.8 (127.7, 132.0) 15,308 2011 stable stable trend -0.1 (-2.5, 2.3)
Florida 2,10 112.0 (110.1, 113.9) 14,223 2011 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.9, 0.4)
Texas 2,10 106.7 (104.9, 108.6) 13,831 2011 stable stable trend -1.9 (-5.2, 1.5)
Pennsylvania 2,10 128.2 (125.7, 130.7) 10,561 2011 stable stable trend 0.6 (-1.6, 2.8)
Illinois 2,10 129.7 (127.0, 132.3) 9,581 2011 stable stable trend 0.6 (0.0, 1.2)
Ohio 2,10 120.4 (117.8, 123.0) 8,603 2011 stable stable trend -0.6 (-3.1, 2.0)
North Carolina 2,10 129.8 (126.8, 132.8) 7,449 2011 stable stable trend 1 (-0.4, 2.3)
Michigan 4,10 121.8 # (118.9, 124.7) 7,329 2011 stable stable trend -0.3 (-2.5, 2.0)
New Jersey 3,8 125.2 (122.1, 128.2) 6,766 2011 stable stable trend -0.1 (-0.7, 0.5)
Georgia 7 125.3 (122.2, 128.4) 6,618 2011 * *
Virginia 2,10 124.0 (120.8, 127.3) 5,814 2011 stable stable trend -1.1 (-3.1, 0.9)
Massachusetts 2,10 135.5 (131.9, 139.2) 5,526 2011 stable stable trend -0.7 (-4.3, 3.0)
Washington 4,10 133.9 (130.2, 137.7) 5,170 2011 stable stable trend 0.9 (-3.4, 5.5)
Tennessee 2,10 118.2 (114.7, 121.7) 4,604 2011 stable stable trend -0.3 (-2.2, 1.6)
Missouri 2,10 123.9 (120.2, 127.6) 4,524 2011 stable stable trend 0.4 (-3.5, 4.5)
Indiana 2,10 116.2 (112.7, 119.7) 4,409 2011 stable stable trend -0.5 (-2.3, 1.4)
Maryland 2,10 126.1 (122.3, 130.0) 4,383 2011 stable stable trend -0.7 (-3.9, 2.7)
Wisconsin 2,10 126.3 (122.4, 130.2) 4,293 2011 stable stable trend -0.2 (-2.0, 1.6)
Minnesota 2,10 135.1 (130.9, 139.4) 4,141 2011 stable stable trend 0.4 (-2.2, 3.1)
Arizona 2,10 108.6 (105.2, 112.1) 4,049 2011 stable stable trend -1.4 (-3.5, 0.8)
Alabama 2,10 116.5 (112.6, 120.6) 3,424 2011 stable stable trend -0.6 (-2.4, 1.3)
South Carolina 2,10 119.1 (115.0, 123.3) 3,393 2011 stable stable trend -0.9 (-2.4, 0.5)
Colorado 2,10 122.0 (117.8, 126.3) 3,356 2011 stable stable trend -0.5 (-3.4, 2.6)
Louisiana 3 123.1 (118.8, 127.5) 3,205 2011 * *
Kentucky 3 119.7 (115.5, 124.0) 3,159 2011 * *
Connecticut 3,8 135.2 (130.3, 140.2) 3,063 2011 stable stable trend 0.5 (-0.3, 1.4)
Oregon 2,10 129.0 (124.3, 133.8) 3,021 2011 stable stable trend -0.6 (-2.9, 1.7)
Oklahoma 2,10 114.7 (110.2, 119.4) 2,534 2011 falling falling trend -2.2 (-2.9, -1.5)
Iowa 3,8 126.7 (121.5, 132.1) 2,366 2011 stable stable trend 1.1 (-0.9, 3.1)
Kansas 2,10 124.3 (118.9, 130.0) 2,029 2011 stable stable trend -0.2 (-2.0, 1.6)
Mississippi 2,10 112.6 (107.6, 117.9) 1,940 2011 stable stable trend -0.7 (-2.4, 1.1)
Arkansas 2,10 105.9 (101.0, 110.9) 1,881 2011 stable stable trend -1.3 (-4.8, 2.4)
Utah 3,8 116.3 (110.2, 122.7) 1,381 2011 stable stable trend -0.1 (-0.4, 0.3)
West Virginia 2,10 110.3 (104.3, 116.6) 1,357 2011 stable stable trend 0.3 (-4.1, 4.9)
New Mexico 3,8 110.7 (104.7, 117.0) 1,352 2011 stable stable trend 0.1 (-1.0, 1.2)
Nebraska 2,10 124.7 (117.8, 131.9) 1,301 2011 stable stable trend 0.2 (-4.7, 5.4)
New Hampshire 2,10 141.7 (133.4, 150.3) 1,156 2011 stable stable trend 1.2 (-2.6, 5.1)
Maine 2,10 127.1 (119.6, 135.0) 1,137 2011 stable stable trend -0.8 (-2.8, 1.4)
Hawaii 3,8 124.9 (117.2, 133.0) 1,042 2011 stable stable trend -0.3 (-0.8, 0.2)
Idaho 2,10 115.8 (108.5, 123.4) 997 2011 stable stable trend -1.3 (-2.9, 0.3)
Rhode Island 2,10 126.4 (117.7, 135.6) 834 2011 stable stable trend -4 (-11.3, 4.0)
Montana 2,10 127.2 (118.1, 136.8) 785 2011 stable stable trend 1.2 (-1.1, 3.5)
Delaware 2,10 123.0 (113.9, 132.7) 706 2011 stable stable trend -1.2 (-4.7, 2.5)
South Dakota 2,10 129.1 (118.9, 140.1) 623 2011 stable stable trend -0.4 (-6.8, 6.6)
Vermont 2,10 125.2 (114.2, 137.1) 510 2011 stable stable trend -0.8 (-4.2, 2.7)
District of Columbia 2,10 153.1 (139.7, 167.5) 500 2011 stable stable trend 2.1 (-1.4, 5.8)
North Dakota 2,10 118.5 (107.6, 130.2) 469 2011 stable stable trend -0.4 (-5.6, 5.1)
Alaska 2 127.9 (115.2, 141.6) 417 2011 * *
Wyoming 2,10 118.5 (106.5, 131.5) 375 2011 stable stable trend 0.3 (-4.6, 5.5)
Nevada 2
¶¶
¶¶
2011 * *
Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 10/31/2014 6:41 am.
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 1969-2012 US Population Data File is used for SEER and NPCR incidence rates.
§ 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 2013 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 2013 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.

1 Source: CDC's National Program of Cancer Registries Cancer Surveillance System (NPCR-CSS) January 2014 data submission and SEER November 2013 submission.
2 Source: State Cancer Registry and the CDC's National Program of Cancer Registries Cancer Surveillance System (NPCR-CSS) January 2014 data submission as published in United States Cancer Statistics 2013.
3 Source: SEER November 2013 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.
7 Source: SEER November 2013 submission.
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 1969-2012 US Population Data File is used with SEER November 2013 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 1969-2012 US Population Data File is used with NPCR January 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 EAPCs 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