Return to Home Incidence > Table

Incidence Rates Table

Data Options

Incidence Rate Report for California by County

All Races (includes Hispanic), Female, Cervix, All Ages
Sorted by Name
County
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
California 3 7.7 (7.5, 7.9) 1,459 2008-2012 * *
US (SEER+NPCR) 1,10 7.7 (7.6, 7.8) 12,476 § 2008-2012 falling falling trend -2.2 (-3.4, -0.9)
Alameda County 7,8 6.6 (5.9, 7.5) 53 2008-2012 stable stable trend 5.1 (-2.3, 13.0)
Alpine County 7,9
*
3 or fewer
2008-2012 * *
Amador County 7,9
*
3 or fewer
2008-2012 * *
Butte County 7,9 6.9 (4.8, 9.7) 7 2008-2012 * *
Calaveras County 7,9
*
3 or fewer
2008-2012 * *
Colusa County 7,9
*
3 or fewer
2008-2012 * *
Contra Costa County 7,8 6.2 (5.3, 7.2) 35 2008-2012 stable stable trend 5.1 (-1.0, 11.7)
Del Norte County 7,9
*
3 or fewer
2008-2012 * *
El Dorado County 7,9 6.6 (4.4, 9.5) 7 2008-2012 * *
Fresno County 7,9 8.3 (7.1, 9.7) 35 2008-2012 stable stable trend -1.9 (-14.1, 11.9)
Glenn County 7,9
*
3 or fewer
2008-2012 * *
Humboldt County 7,9 8.0 (5.1, 11.9) 5 2008-2012 * *
Imperial County 7,9 8.9 (6.2, 12.4) 7 2008-2012 * *
Inyo County 7,9
*
3 or fewer
2008-2012 * *
Kern County 7,9 9.6 (8.2, 11.1) 36 2008-2012 stable stable trend -3.9 (-19.6, 15.0)
Kings County 7,9 11.1 (7.6, 15.6) 7 2008-2012 * *
Lake County 7,9
*
3 or fewer
2008-2012 * *
Lassen County 7,9
*
3 or fewer
2008-2012 * *
Los Angeles County 7,9 8.8 (8.5, 9.2) 446 2008-2012 falling falling trend -4.8 (-7.7, -1.8)
Madera County 7,9 11.8 (8.6, 15.8) 9 2008-2012 * *
Marin County 7,8 4.8 (3.3, 6.8) 7 2008-2012 stable stable trend -2.1 (-4.1, 0.0)
Mariposa County 7,9
*
3 or fewer
2008-2012 * *
Mendocino County 7,9 11.8 (7.4, 17.8) 5 2008-2012 * *
Merced County 7,9 8.4 (6.2, 11.2) 9 2008-2012 * *
Modoc County 7,9
*
3 or fewer
2008-2012 * *
Mono County 7,9
*
3 or fewer
2008-2012 * *
Monterey County 7,9 7.2 (5.6, 9.1) 14 2008-2012 * *
Napa County 7,9 6.5 (4.1, 9.8) 5 2008-2012 * *
Nevada County 7,9
*
3 or fewer
2008-2012 * *
Orange County 7,9 6.5 (5.9, 7.1) 101 2008-2012 stable stable trend -4.6 (-10.4, 1.4)
Placer County 7,9 6.0 (4.5, 7.8) 11 2008-2012 * *
Plumas County 7,9
*
3 or fewer
2008-2012 * *
Riverside County 7,9 8.4 (7.6, 9.2) 88 2008-2012 stable stable trend -6.3 (-12.2, 0.0)
Sacramento County 7,9 8.2 (7.3, 9.2) 60 2008-2012 stable stable trend -0.8 (-10.5, 10.0)
San Benito County 7,9
*
3 or fewer
2008-2012 * *
San Bernardino County 7,9 9.3 (8.5, 10.2) 91 2008-2012 stable stable trend 3.4 (-6.9, 14.8)
San Diego County 7,9 7.2 (6.6, 7.8) 112 2008-2012 stable stable trend -2.6 (-11.6, 7.2)
San Francisco County 7,8 6.0 (5.0, 7.2) 27 2008-2012 falling falling trend -4.7 (-6.0, -3.4)
San Joaquin County 7,9 6.9 (5.7, 8.3) 23 2008-2012 stable stable trend 8.8 (-11.5, 33.9)
San Luis Obispo County 7,9 4.6 (3.1, 6.6) 7 2008-2012 * *
San Mateo County 7,8 6.4 (5.4, 7.7) 26 2008-2012 falling falling trend -2.3 (-3.7, -0.8)
Santa Barbara County 7,9 6.1 (4.7, 7.9) 13 2008-2012 * *
Santa Clara County 7,9 5.9 (5.2, 6.7) 55 2008-2012 stable stable trend -9.6 (-18.8, 0.7)
Santa Cruz County 7,9 7.4 (5.5, 9.9) 10 2008-2012 * *
Shasta County 7,9 7.9 (5.4, 11.1) 7 2008-2012 * *
Sierra County 7,9
*
3 or fewer
2008-2012 * *
Siskiyou County 7,9 15.6 (8.6, 25.8) 4 2008-2012 * *
Solano County 7,9 7.1 (5.6, 8.9) 16 2008-2012 stable stable trend -1.3 (-19.2, 20.5)
Sonoma County 7,9 6.2 (4.8, 7.8) 15 2008-2012 stable stable trend 0.2 (-12.8, 15.1)
Stanislaus County 7,9 8.0 (6.5, 9.8) 20 2008-2012 stable stable trend 0.7 (-19.5, 25.9)
Sutter County 7,9
*
3 or fewer
2008-2012 * *
Tehama County 7,9
*
3 or fewer
2008-2012 * *
Trinity County 7,9
*
3 or fewer
2008-2012 * *
Tulare County 7,9 10.7 (8.7, 13.0) 21 2008-2012 stable stable trend -3.6 (-24.2, 22.7)
Tuolumne County 7,9
*
3 or fewer
2008-2012 * *
Ventura County 7,9 7.5 (6.3, 8.8) 30 2008-2012 stable stable trend -7.5 (-31.1, 24.2)
Yolo County 7,9 7.4 (5.1, 10.4) 7 2008-2012 * *
Yuba County 7,9 9.3 (5.2, 15.1) 3 2008-2012 * *
Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 08/28/2015 1:09 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 1969-2013 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 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.
3 Source: SEER November 2014 submission. State Cancer Registry also receives funding from CDC's National Program of Cancer Registries.
7 Source: SEER November 2014 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 1969-2013 US Population Data File is used with SEER November 2014 data.
9 Source: Incidence data provided by the SEER Program. 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 modifed by NCI. 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.

Suppression is used to avoid misinterpretation when rates are unstable.

Return to Top