Return to Home Incidence > Table

Incidence Rates Table

Data Options

Incidence Rate Report for Mississippi by County

All Races (includes Hispanic), Both Sexes, Lung & Bronchus, 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
Mississippi 6,10 78.0 (76.6, 79.4) 2,495 2008-2012 falling falling trend -3.3 (-5.5, -1.0)
US (SEER+NPCR) 1,10 63.7 (63.6, 63.8) 213,812 § 2008-2012 falling falling trend -2.7 (-3.1, -2.3)
Adams County 6,10 73.5 (62.3, 86.3) 31 2008-2012 stable stable trend 2.1 (-13.5, 20.5)
Alcorn County 6,10 85.9 (74.5, 98.7) 41 2008-2012 stable stable trend -12.7 (-27.2, 4.7)
Amite County 6,10 60.4 (45.7, 79.0) 12 2008-2012 * *
Attala County 6,10 67.7 (54.2, 83.8) 18 2008-2012 stable stable trend -10.9 (-20.8, 0.2)
Benton County 6,10 65.8 (46.2, 91.6) 7 2008-2012 * *
Bolivar County 6,10 73.3 (60.9, 87.5) 26 2008-2012 stable stable trend 7.1 (-2.3, 17.4)
Calhoun County 6,10 86.9 (69.2, 108.1) 17 2008-2012 stable stable trend -2.7 (-24.8, 25.9)
Carroll County 6,10 79.8 (60.3, 104.2) 12 2008-2012 * *
Chickasaw County 6,10 80.9 (64.3, 100.7) 17 2008-2012 stable stable trend -2.1 (-15.0, 12.8)
Choctaw County 6,10 49.5 (33.2, 71.9) 6 2008-2012 * *
Claiborne County 6,10 80.5 (57.2, 110.3) 8 2008-2012 * *
Clarke County 6,10 86.1 (69.4, 105.9) 19 2008-2012 stable stable trend -1.0 (-23.7, 28.5)
Clay County 6,10 81.1 (65.9, 98.9) 20 2008-2012 stable stable trend -4.1 (-26.9, 25.9)
Coahoma County 6,10 79.3 (64.8, 96.1) 21 2008-2012 stable stable trend 4.8 (-9.7, 21.8)
Copiah County 6,10 78.2 (65.1, 93.1) 26 2008-2012 stable stable trend 5.9 (-19.7, 39.6)
Covington County 6,10 88.8 (72.4, 107.9) 21 2008-2012 stable stable trend -8.0 (-26.7, 15.4)
DeSoto County 6,10 76.4 (69.9, 83.2) 109 2008-2012 stable stable trend -2.4 (-15.0, 12.1)
Forrest County 6,10 86.8 (77.3, 97.1) 62 2008-2012 stable stable trend 0.4 (-10.0, 12.1)
Franklin County 6,10 61.1 (42.0, 86.8) 7 2008-2012 * *
George County 6,10 76.1 (61.1, 93.8) 19 2008-2012 stable stable trend -1.8 (-9.3, 6.3)
Greene County 6,10 64.1 (46.2, 86.6) 9 2008-2012 * *
Grenada County 6,10 102.2 (85.5, 121.4) 27 2008-2012 stable stable trend -6.2 (-21.1, 11.6)
Hancock County 6,10 71.3 (61.4, 82.4) 38 2008-2012 stable stable trend -0.9 (-30.5, 41.4)
Harrison County 6,10 90.7 (84.7, 97.0) 176 2008-2012 stable stable trend -7.2 (-19.9, 7.5)
Hinds County 6,10 75.2 (70.3, 80.5) 176 2008-2012 falling falling trend -3.3 (-5.2, -1.3)
Holmes County 6,10 96.9 (78.3, 118.5) 19 2008-2012 stable stable trend 9.9 (-5.9, 28.4)
Humphreys County 6,10 86.6 (62.0, 117.8) 8 2008-2012 * *
Issaquena County 6,10
*
3 or fewer
2008-2012 * *
Itawamba County 6,10 98.8 (83.1, 116.8) 29 2008-2012 stable stable trend -5.0 (-22.2, 16.1)
Jackson County 6,10 77.4 (71.1, 84.1) 115 2008-2012 stable stable trend -3.4 (-11.8, 5.8)
Jasper County 6,10 83.0 (66.6, 102.4) 18 2008-2012 stable stable trend 0.7 (-17.4, 22.7)
Jefferson County 6,10 68.1 (45.3, 98.5) 6 2008-2012 * *
Jefferson Davis County 6,10 76.1 (58.1, 98.3) 13 2008-2012 * *
Jones County 6,10 65.8 (58.0, 74.4) 52 2008-2012 stable stable trend -5.2 (-22.7, 16.2)
Kemper County 6,10 62.8 (44.9, 85.9) 8 2008-2012 * *
Lafayette County 6,10 62.7 (52.2, 74.6) 26 2008-2012 stable stable trend 8.8 (-0.4, 18.9)
Lamar County 6,10 70.7 (60.6, 82.0) 36 2008-2012 stable stable trend -6.3 (-18.2, 7.2)
Lauderdale County 6,10 71.3 (63.7, 79.6) 65 2008-2012 stable stable trend -0.6 (-8.5, 7.9)
Lawrence County 6,10 106.0 (84.1, 132.0) 17 2008-2012 stable stable trend 1.8 (-21.1, 31.5)
Leake County 6,10 72.0 (57.9, 88.5) 18 2008-2012 stable stable trend 0.7 (-23.9, 33.1)
Lee County 6,10 91.0 (82.3, 100.5) 81 2008-2012 stable stable trend 1.1 (-3.8, 6.3)
Leflore County 6,10 86.6 (72.5, 102.5) 28 2008-2012 stable stable trend 4.5 (-11.4, 23.3)
Lincoln County 6,10 70.6 (59.4, 83.5) 29 2008-2012 stable stable trend -8.3 (-30.5, 20.8)
Lowndes County 6,10 73.5 (64.2, 83.7) 46 2008-2012 falling falling trend -12.3 (-21.0, -2.5)
Madison County 6,10 71.0 (63.1, 79.6) 62 2008-2012 stable stable trend -3.1 (-14.6, 10.1)
Marion County 6,10 81.6 (68.2, 97.0) 26 2008-2012 stable stable trend -0.4 (-10.9, 11.4)
Marshall County 6,10 80.0 (68.0, 93.5) 33 2008-2012 rising rising trend 3.9 (1.0, 6.9)
Monroe County 6,10 82.0 (70.7, 94.7) 38 2008-2012 stable stable trend -9.2 (-30.2, 18.0)
Montgomery County 6,10 72.4 (54.0, 95.5) 11 2008-2012 * *
Neshoba County 6,10 65.4 (53.4, 79.4) 21 2008-2012 stable stable trend -7.9 (-27.1, 16.2)
Newton County 6,10 77.3 (62.7, 94.3) 20 2008-2012 stable stable trend -11.1 (-34.5, 20.7)
Noxubee County 6,10 62.0 (43.9, 85.2) 8 2008-2012 * *
Oktibbeha County 6,10 54.4 (44.3, 66.2) 20 2008-2012 stable stable trend -9.2 (-26.4, 12.0)
Panola County 6,10 77.2 (64.9, 91.2) 29 2008-2012 stable stable trend 7.5 (-9.9, 28.2)
Pearl River County 6,10 91.4 (81.2, 102.6) 61 2008-2012 stable stable trend -3.2 (-10.8, 5.1)
Perry County 6,10 93.4 (72.2, 119.1) 14 2008-2012 * *
Pike County 6,10 79.9 (68.8, 92.3) 38 2008-2012 stable stable trend -4.1 (-15.1, 8.3)
Pontotoc County 6,10 86.7 (72.8, 102.4) 28 2008-2012 stable stable trend -3.9 (-24.7, 22.6)
Prentiss County 6,10 82.2 (68.4, 98.1) 25 2008-2012 stable stable trend 2.4 (-17.8, 27.6)
Quitman County 6,10 79.0 (55.7, 109.3) 8 2008-2012 * *
Rankin County 6,10 75.2 (68.8, 82.1) 105 2008-2012 stable stable trend 0.4 (-12.7, 15.3)
Scott County 6,10 94.8 (79.7, 111.9) 29 2008-2012 stable stable trend -7.5 (-20.7, 8.0)
Sharkey County 6,10 68.2 (41.5, 106.5) 4 2008-2012 * *
Simpson County 6,10 85.1 (71.3, 100.9) 27 2008-2012 stable stable trend 5.5 (-14.3, 29.8)
Smith County 6,10 62.0 (47.7, 79.6) 13 2008-2012 * *
Stone County 6,10 89.8 (70.9, 112.1) 17 2008-2012 stable stable trend -13.3 (-25.6, 0.9)
Sunflower County 6,10 67.7 (54.3, 83.5) 18 2008-2012 stable stable trend -2.2 (-23.1, 24.4)
Tallahatchie County 6,10 69.8 (52.3, 91.2) 11 2008-2012 * *
Tate County 6,10 87.5 (72.8, 104.3) 26 2008-2012 stable stable trend 1.4 (-14.9, 20.8)
Tippah County 6,10 75.9 (61.5, 92.7) 20 2008-2012 stable stable trend -2.9 (-21.1, 19.5)
Tishomingo County 6,10 73.2 (59.5, 89.5) 20 2008-2012 stable stable trend -8.2 (-22.4, 8.7)
Tunica County 6,10 80.7 (56.6, 111.5) 8 2008-2012 * *
Union County 6,10 67.8 (55.5, 82.1) 22 2008-2012 stable stable trend -1.1 (-24.3, 29.2)
Walthall County 6,10 58.1 (44.0, 75.6) 12 2008-2012 * *
Warren County 6,10 78.4 (68.0, 89.9) 43 2008-2012 stable stable trend -10.4 (-28.1, 11.8)
Washington County 6,10 74.7 (64.6, 86.0) 40 2008-2012 stable stable trend 1.4 (-19.3, 27.4)
Wayne County 6,10 75.0 (60.0, 92.7) 18 2008-2012 stable stable trend -7.7 (-29.1, 20.1)
Webster County 6,10 102.5 (79.3, 130.9) 13 2008-2012 * *
Wilkinson County 6,10 58.0 (39.8, 81.9) 7 2008-2012 * *
Winston County 6,10 76.8 (62.0, 94.3) 19 2008-2012 stable stable trend 5.2 (-32.5, 64.0)
Yalobusha County 6,10 106.3 (85.7, 131.0) 19 2008-2012 stable stable trend 3.1 (-18.5, 30.4)
Yazoo County 6,10 85.2 (70.5, 102.0) 24 2008-2012 stable stable trend 11.4 (-4.4, 29.7)
Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 07/30/2015 11:03 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 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.
6 Source: State Cancer Registry and the CDC's National Program of Cancer Registries Cancer Surveillance System (NPCR-CSS) November 2014 data submission. State rates include rates from metropolitan areas funded by SEER.
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