Return to Home Incidence > Table

Incidence Rates Table

Data Options

Incidence Rate Report for by County

Melanoma of the Skin, 2008-2012

All Races (includes Hispanic), Both Sexes, All Ages

Sorted by Rate
County
sort sort alphabetically by nameascending
Age-Adjusted Incidence Rate
cases per 100,000
(95% Confidence Interval)
sort sort by rateascending
Average Annual Count
sort sort by countdescending
Recent Trend
Recent 5-Year Trend in Incidence Rates
(95% Confidence Interval)
sort sort by trenddescending
New York 6,10 17.5 (17.2, 17.7) 3,717 stable stable trend -0.0 (-5.0, 5.2)
US (SEER+NPCR) 1,10 19.9 (19.8, 20.0) 65,719 § stable stable trend 0.1 (-0.9, 1.1)
Wyoming County 6,10 28.8 (22.3, 36.7) 14
*
*
Ontario County 6,10 28.8 (24.7, 33.4) 39 stable stable trend 0.1 (-8.2, 9.1)
Schuyler County 6,10 28.6 (19.8, 40.4) 7
*
*
Yates County 6,10 28.6 (20.2, 39.5) 8
*
*
Tioga County 6,10 26.5 (20.8, 33.4) 16 stable stable trend -15.2 (-32.8, 7.1)
St. Lawrence County 6,10 26.1 (22.1, 30.7) 31 stable stable trend -0.6 (-8.1, 7.5)
Genesee County 6,10 25.5 (20.4, 31.4) 18 stable stable trend -4.0 (-30.2, 32.2)
Tompkins County 6,10 25.2 (20.7, 30.5) 23 stable stable trend -3.0 (-26.4, 27.8)
Chenango County 6,10 25.2 (19.8, 31.7) 16 stable stable trend 1.5 (-24.6, 36.5)
Chemung County 6,10 24.8 (20.6, 29.6) 26 falling falling trend -8.6 (-15.9, -0.7)
Warren County 6,10 24.7 (20.0, 30.2) 21 stable stable trend 1.6 (-9.3, 13.7)
Suffolk County 6,10 24.7 (23.6, 25.8) 409 stable stable trend -3.5 (-10.4, 4.0)
Nassau County 6,10 24.5 (23.4, 25.7) 395 stable stable trend -3.3 (-12.0, 6.3)
Erie County 6,10 24.5 (23.2, 25.9) 266 stable stable trend 6.8 (-0.8, 15.1)
Saratoga County 6,10 24.0 (21.3, 27.0) 60 stable stable trend 8.4 (-11.2, 32.3)
Broome County 6,10 23.6 (20.8, 26.6) 56 stable stable trend 4.8 (-12.4, 25.2)
Lewis County 6,10 23.6 (16.3, 33.0) 7
*
*
Cayuga County 6,10 23.6 (19.2, 28.6) 22 stable stable trend 8.0 (-12.1, 32.7)
Wayne County 6,10 23.5 (19.5, 28.2) 25 falling falling trend -3.2 (-4.9, -1.6)
Monroe County 6,10 23.1 (21.6, 24.7) 188 stable stable trend 4.3 (-6.8, 16.6)
Essex County 6,10 22.9 (17.3, 29.9) 12
*
*
Chautauqua County 6,10 22.9 (19.6, 26.6) 37 stable stable trend -1.7 (-17.7, 17.6)
Steuben County 6,10 22.7 (18.8, 27.1) 26 stable stable trend 7.9 (-5.0, 22.4)
Delaware County 6,10 22.7 (17.8, 28.7) 16 stable stable trend -15.2 (-38.5, 16.9)
Rensselaer County 6,10 22.3 (19.3, 25.7) 40 stable stable trend 9.5 (-9.1, 31.9)
Otsego County 6,10 22.2 (17.5, 27.8) 17 stable stable trend 6.7 (-12.8, 30.5)
Washington County 6,10 22.0 (17.4, 27.5) 17 stable stable trend -1.8 (-32.0, 41.7)
Orleans County 6,10 21.8 (16.3, 28.6) 11
*
*
Livingston County 6,10 21.7 (16.9, 27.4) 15 stable stable trend 16.7 (-13.3, 57.1)
Madison County 6,10 21.5 (17.1, 26.7) 17 stable stable trend 5.6 (-16.8, 33.9)
Greene County 6,10 21.3 (16.6, 27.2) 14
*
*
Niagara County 6,10 21.0 (18.6, 23.7) 56 stable stable trend -1.1 (-11.0, 10.0)
Putnam County 6,10 20.6 (16.8, 24.9) 23 stable stable trend -13.2 (-31.2, 9.5)
Ulster County 6,10 19.5 (16.9, 22.4) 43 stable stable trend -2.1 (-17.4, 16.0)
Schoharie County 6,10 19.3 (13.2, 27.4) 7
*
*
Columbia County 6,10 19.3 (15.0, 24.5) 16 stable stable trend 3.8 (-7.1, 16.0)
Montgomery County 6,10 19.3 (14.3, 25.4) 11
*
*
Albany County 6,10 19.2 (17.1, 21.4) 66 stable stable trend 7.0 (-10.8, 28.2)
Westchester County 6,10 18.9 (17.8, 20.1) 210 stable stable trend -2.7 (-10.1, 5.5)
Franklin County 6,10 18.9 (14.2, 24.7) 11
*
*
New York County 6,10 18.8 (17.9, 19.8) 336 stable stable trend -1.9 (-14.2, 12.2)
Allegany County 6,10 18.8 (13.8, 25.0) 10
*
*
Seneca County 6,10 18.8 (13.2, 26.0) 8
*
*
Schenectady County 6,10 18.3 (15.6, 21.4) 33 stable stable trend -6.0 (-23.5, 15.6)
Rockland County 6,10 18.2 (16.1, 20.3) 61 stable stable trend -5.9 (-21.0, 12.1)
Oswego County 6,10 17.9 (14.7, 21.7) 22 stable stable trend 6.2 (-20.6, 42.1)
Clinton County 6,10 17.9 (14.1, 22.3) 16 stable stable trend 6.4 (-19.8, 41.1)
Onondaga County 6,10 17.5 (15.8, 19.2) 89 stable stable trend 2.4 (-8.2, 14.3)
Sullivan County 6,10 17.5 (13.8, 21.8) 16 stable stable trend 9.2 (-25.3, 59.7)
Dutchess County 6,10 17.4 (15.4, 19.6) 58 stable stable trend 4.1 (-13.8, 25.8)
Cattaraugus County 6,10 17.4 (13.8, 21.6) 17 stable stable trend 6.1 (-21.4, 43.1)
Oneida County 6,10 17.3 (15.2, 19.7) 49 stable stable trend -2.9 (-20.4, 18.3)
Herkimer County 6,10 16.8 (12.9, 21.5) 14
*
*
Orange County 6,10 16.5 (14.7, 18.5) 62 stable stable trend -1.8 (-16.6, 15.7)
Jefferson County 6,10 16.5 (13.2, 20.2) 18 stable stable trend -2.4 (-14.2, 10.9)
Richmond County 6,10 16.0 (14.5, 17.7) 82 stable stable trend 6.3 (-9.9, 25.4)
Cortland County 6,10 14.4 (10.1, 20.0) 7
*
*
Fulton County 6,10 13.3 (9.7, 17.9) 9
*
*
Kings County 6,10 9.0 (8.5, 9.6) 223 stable stable trend -3.7 (-12.9, 6.6)
Queens County 6,10 8.9 (8.4, 9.5) 215 stable stable trend -1.4 (-7.7, 5.3)
Bronx County 6,10 4.4 (3.9, 5.0) 56 stable stable trend 2.1 (-12.2, 18.7)
Hamilton County 6,10
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 04/30/2016 1:13 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. If an average count of 3 is shown, the total number of cases for the time period is 16 or more which exceeds suppression threshold (but is rounded to 3).

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.


Return to Top