Return to Home Incidence > Table

Incidence Rates Table

Data Options

Incidence Rate Report for Utah by County

All Races (includes Hispanic), Both Sexes, All Cancer Sites, 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
sort sort by countdescending
Rate Period
Recent Trend
Recent AAPC
sort sort by trenddescending
Utah 3,8 413.3 (409.4, 417.2) 8,967 2007-2011 stable stable trend 0 (-0.1, 0.2)
US (SEER+NPCR) 1,10 459.8 (459.4, 460.1) 1,514,446 § 2007-2011 falling falling trend -1.8 (-2.5, -1.1)
Beaver County 7,8 384.7 (318.1, 460.9) 24 2007-2011 stable stable trend 0.7 (-1.3, 2.7)
Box Elder County 7,8 378.1 (352.6, 404.8) 167 2007-2011 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.3, 0.3)
Cache County 7,8 392.1 (372.1, 412.9) 299 2007-2011 falling falling trend -2.4 (-3.7, -1.2)
Carbon County 7,8 410.3 (373.7, 449.7) 96 2007-2011 stable stable trend -0.2 (-1.0, 0.6)
Daggett County 7 227.1 (126.5, 401.9) 3 2007-2011 * *
Davis County 7,8 429.5 (417.2, 442.0) 976 2007-2011 rising rising trend 0.5 (0.2, 0.9)
Duchesne County 7,8 484.9 (436.6, 537.0) 76 2007-2011 stable stable trend 0.7 (-0.2, 1.7)
Emery County 7,8 355.2 (305.2, 411.0) 38 2007-2011 stable stable trend -0.9 (-2.2, 0.5)
Garfield County 7,8 405.9 (336.5, 486.3) 25 2007-2011 stable stable trend -0.4 (-2.5, 1.8)
Grand County 7,8 390.4 (338.0, 449.0) 42 2007-2011 stable stable trend -0.2 (-1.9, 1.5)
Iron County 7,8 418.6 (388.8, 450.0) 152 2007-2011 stable stable trend 0.1 (-0.9, 1.0)
Juab County 7,8 362.0 (306.4, 424.4) 31 2007-2011 stable stable trend 0.3 (-1.4, 2.0)
Kane County 7,8 394.1 (336.6, 459.4) 38 2007-2011 stable stable trend -0.6 (-1.8, 0.7)
Millard County 7,8 359.3 (314.4, 409.0) 48 2007-2011 stable stable trend 0.2 (-0.7, 1.0)
Morgan County 7,8 388.0 (329.7, 453.5) 33 2007-2011 stable stable trend -0.4 (-2.0, 1.2)
Piute County 7,8 494.6 (355.0, 674.4) 10 2007-2011 stable stable trend 2 (-0.9, 5.0)
Rich County 7,8 355.1 (256.8, 479.7) 9 2007-2011 stable stable trend -1.6 (-4.4, 1.4)
Salt Lake County 7,8 420.2 (413.8, 426.6) 3,462 2007-2011 falling falling trend -0.5 (-1.0, -0.1)
San Juan County 7,8 261.4 (223.5, 303.7) 35 2007-2011 stable stable trend 0.1 (-1.2, 1.5)
Sanpete County 7,8 371.3 (337.4, 407.7) 91 2007-2011 stable stable trend -0.1 (-1.0, 0.8)
Sevier County 7,8 444.7 (405.2, 486.9) 97 2007-2011 stable stable trend 0.8 (-0.3, 1.9)
Summit County 7,8 438.7 (402.0, 477.8) 139 2007-2011 rising rising trend 1.2 (0.3, 2.1)
Tooele County 7,8 478.8 (448.2, 510.7) 196 2007-2011 stable stable trend 0.3 (-0.2, 0.8)
Uintah County 7,8 380.6 (347.3, 416.2) 99 2007-2011 stable stable trend -0.1 (-0.9, 0.7)
Utah County 7,8 395.2 (385.0, 405.6) 1,210 2007-2011 stable stable trend 0.3 (0.0, 0.5)
Wasatch County 7,8 407.8 (365.2, 453.9) 73 2007-2011 stable stable trend 0.5 (-0.6, 1.6)
Washington County 7,8 414.0 (399.4, 429.0) 658 2007-2011 stable stable trend 0.2 (-0.2, 0.6)
Wayne County 7,8 391.9 (298.7, 506.1) 13 2007-2011 stable stable trend 0.7 (-1.9, 3.4)
Weber County 7,8 414.6 (401.9, 427.5) 829 2007-2011 stable stable trend 0.3 (-0.2, 0.8)
Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 09/30/2014 9:54 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.

1 Source: CDC's National Program of Cancer Registries Cancer Surveillance System (NPCR-CSS) January 2014 data submission and SEER November 2013 submission.
3 Source: SEER November 2013 submission. State Cancer Registry also receives funding from CDC's National Program of Cancer Registries.
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.

Suppression is used to avoid misinterpretation when rates are unstable.

Return to Top