Return to Home Incidence > Table

Incidence Rates Table

Data Options

Incidence Rate Report by State

All Races (includes Hispanic), Female, Cervix, All Ages
Sorted by Name
State
sort sort alphabetically by namedescending
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 7.5 (7.3, 7.6) 12,187 § 2011 falling falling trend -1.9 (-3.5, -0.3)
Alabama 2,10 7.9 (6.9, 9.2) 202 2011 stable stable trend -4.3 (-11.9, 3.8)
Alaska 2 5.5 (3.3, 8.6) 20 2011 * *
Arizona 2,10 6.1 (5.3, 7.0) 196 2011 falling falling trend -4.9 (-9.4, -0.2)
Arkansas 2,10 8.0 (6.6, 9.6) 122 2011 stable stable trend -3.8 (-14.9, 8.7)
California 3 7.2 (6.8, 7.6) 1,389 2011 * *
Colorado 2,10 5.7 (4.8, 6.7) 148 2011 stable stable trend -3.9 (-8.3, 0.7)
Connecticut 3,8 6.6 (5.5, 8.0) 124 2011 falling falling trend -2.2 (-2.9, -1.5)
Delaware 2,10 8.7 (6.2, 11.7) 44 2011 stable stable trend -0.3 (-2.8, 2.2)
District of Columbia 2,10 13.7 (9.7, 18.7) 41 2011 stable stable trend 3.7 (-20.3, 34.8)
Florida 2,10 9.0 (8.4, 9.6) 948 2011 stable stable trend -0.9 (-5.8, 4.3)
Georgia 7 7.7 (7.0, 8.5) 392 2011 * *
Hawaii 3,8 5.7 (4.1, 7.8) 43 2011 falling falling trend -2.6 (-4.7, -0.5)
Idaho 2,10 7.0 (5.2, 9.2) 53 2011 stable stable trend 9.7 (-5.0, 26.7)
Illinois 2,10 8.0 (7.3, 8.7) 549 2011 stable stable trend -3.5 (-10.7, 4.3)
Indiana 2,10 7.5 (6.6, 8.5) 252 2011 stable stable trend -0 (-1.9, 2.0)
Iowa 3,8 7.1 (5.7, 8.6) 108 2011 falling falling trend -2.2 (-3.0, -1.4)
Kansas 2,10 6.7 (5.4, 8.2) 93 2011 stable stable trend 3.5 (-11.5, 21.1)
Kentucky 3 8.0 (6.8, 9.2) 181 2011 * *
Louisiana 3 9.1 (7.9, 10.4) 212 2011 * *
Maine 2,10 7.3 (5.3, 9.7) 52 2011 stable stable trend -0.8 (-10.4, 9.9)
Maryland 2,10 6.4 (5.5, 7.3) 199 2011 stable stable trend 0.8 (-6.4, 8.6)
Massachusetts 2,10 5.2 (4.5, 6.0) 195 2011 stable stable trend -0.3 (-3.8, 3.3)
Michigan 4,10 7.0 # (6.2, 7.7) 359 2011 stable stable trend -3.8 (-8.4, 1.0)
Minnesota 2,10 6.0 (5.1, 7.0) 168 2011 stable stable trend 1.8 (-2.9, 6.7)
Mississippi 2,10 9.9 (8.4, 11.6) 152 2011 stable stable trend 1.5 (-7.3, 11.2)
Missouri 2,10 7.8 (6.9, 8.9) 250 2011 stable stable trend -0.7 (-7.7, 6.8)
Montana 2,10 6.2 (4.2, 8.8) 34 2011 stable stable trend 1.1 (-7.4, 10.4)
Nebraska 2,10 7.3 (5.6, 9.3) 66 2011 stable stable trend -1.6 (-16.0, 15.4)
Nevada 2
¶¶
¶¶
2011 * *
New Hampshire 2,10 4.5 (3.0, 6.4) 31 2011 stable stable trend -4.6 (-13.0, 4.6)
New Jersey 3,8 7.6 (6.8, 8.4) 380 2011 falling falling trend -2.7 (-3.0, -2.4)
New Mexico 3,8 8.1 (6.4, 10.1) 83 2011 falling falling trend -2.1 (-2.9, -1.3)
New York 2,10 7.3 (6.7, 7.8) 787 2011 falling falling trend -3.8 (-6.8, -0.8)
North Carolina 2,10 7.3 (6.5, 8.0) 373 2011 stable stable trend -0.8 (-5.8, 4.3)
North Dakota 2,10 5.7 (3.3, 9.0) 19 2011 stable stable trend -5.4 (-34.5, 36.6)
Ohio 2,10 7.9 (7.2, 8.7) 482 2011 stable stable trend -0.7 (-7.3, 6.3)
Oklahoma 2,10 8.7 (7.4, 10.2) 160 2011 stable stable trend -2.2 (-9.7, 5.9)
Oregon 2,10 6.4 (5.3, 7.7) 128 2011 stable stable trend -7.1 (-14.2, 0.5)
Pennsylvania 2,10 8.1 (7.4, 8.8) 552 2011 stable stable trend -1.6 (-8.0, 5.3)
Rhode Island 2,10 4.7 (3.0, 7.0) 25 2011 falling falling trend -9.9 (-15.7, -3.8)
South Carolina 2,10 7.1 (6.1, 8.3) 174 2011 stable stable trend -2.5 (-15.1, 12.0)
South Dakota 2,10 8.0 (5.4, 11.3) 32 2011 stable stable trend 5.5 (-9.4, 22.8)
Tennessee 2,10 8.0 (7.1, 9.1) 272 2011 stable stable trend -0.2 (-9.1, 9.5)
Texas 2,10 9.0 (8.4, 9.5) 1,130 2011 stable stable trend -1.5 (-3.6, 0.5)
Utah 3,8 5.4 (4.2, 7.0) 64 2011 falling falling trend -3.1 (-3.9, -2.2)
Vermont 2,10
*
15 or fewer
2011 stable stable trend 5.9 (-12.7, 28.5)
Virginia 2,10 6.2 (5.4, 7.0) 263 2011 stable stable trend -1.6 (-4.0, 0.8)
Washington 4,10 7.0 (6.2, 8.0) 247 2011 stable stable trend 3.3 (-4.4, 11.6)
West Virginia 2,10 10.1 (8.1, 12.4) 97 2011 stable stable trend 3.2 (-4.4, 11.5)
Wisconsin 2,10 5.7 (4.9, 6.7) 172 2011 stable stable trend 1.6 (-5.6, 9.4)
Wyoming 2,10 11.0 (7.4, 15.7) 31 2011 stable stable trend 11 (-2.0, 25.7)
Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 11/26/2014 3:17 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 1969-2012 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 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.
* 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) 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 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