Return to Home Incidence > Table

Incidence Rates Table

Data Options

Incidence Rate Report for Utah by County

All Races (includes Hispanic), Both Sexes, Lung & Bronchus, All Ages
Sorted by Rate
County
sort sort alphabetically by nameascending
Annual Incidence Rate
over rate period
(95% Confidence Interval)

sort sort by rateascending
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
Utah 3,8 28.6 (27.6, 29.7) 610 2008-2012 falling falling trend -0.7 (-1.0, -0.3)
US (SEER+NPCR) 1,10 63.7 (63.6, 63.8) 213,812 § 2008-2012 falling falling trend -2.7 (-3.1, -2.3)
Grand County 7 62.4 (43.1, 87.9) 7 2008-2012 stable stable trend 0.0 (0.0, 0.0)
Duchesne County 7,8 53.2 (38.3, 71.8) 9 2008-2012 stable stable trend -0.3 (-3.0, 2.4)
Kane County 7 46.6 (29.5, 71.5) 5 2008-2012 stable stable trend 0.0 (0.0, 0.0)
Tooele County 7,8 43.0 (34.0, 53.4) 17 2008-2012 stable stable trend -1.2 (-2.9, 0.4)
Carbon County 7,8 42.6 (31.6, 56.4) 10 2008-2012 stable stable trend -0.1 (-2.3, 2.1)
Wasatch County 7 37.9 (25.2, 54.1) 6 2008-2012 stable stable trend 0.0 (0.0, 0.0)
Weber County 7,8 33.8 (30.2, 37.6) 68 2008-2012 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.4, 0.6)
Washington County 7,8 31.4 (27.7, 35.4) 56 2008-2012 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.8, 0.5)
Salt Lake County 7,8 30.9 (29.2, 32.7) 244 2008-2012 falling falling trend -0.6 (-1.1, -0.1)
Iron County 7,8 30.7 (23.1, 39.8) 11 2008-2012 stable stable trend -1.0 (-3.6, 1.6)
Uintah County 7,8 30.5 (21.6, 41.6) 8 2008-2012 stable stable trend -18.3 (-33.9, 1.0)
Sevier County 7,8 30.1 (21.0, 42.0) 7 2008-2012 stable stable trend 0.2 (-2.1, 2.6)
Sanpete County 7,8 23.8 (16.2, 33.8) 6 2008-2012 stable stable trend -0.3 (-3.4, 2.9)
Davis County 7,8 23.3 (20.5, 26.4) 51 2008-2012 rising rising trend 12.3 (3.1, 22.3)
Summit County 7,8 22.1 (14.1, 32.8) 6 2008-2012 stable stable trend -2.9 (-6.3, 0.6)
Box Elder County 7,8 21.9 (16.2, 28.9) 10 2008-2012 stable stable trend -0.6 (-2.7, 1.5)
Utah County 7,8 19.7 (17.4, 22.1) 57 2008-2012 falling falling trend -1.3 (-2.2, -0.4)
Cache County 7,8 17.1 (13.1, 21.9) 12 2008-2012 stable stable trend 0.6 (-1.7, 3.0)
Beaver County 7
*
3 or fewer
2008-2012
*
*
Daggett County 7
*
3 or fewer
2008-2012
*
*
Emery County 7,8
*
3 or fewer
2008-2012
*
*
Garfield County 7
*
3 or fewer
2008-2012
*
*
Juab County 7
*
3 or fewer
2008-2012
*
*
Millard County 7
*
3 or fewer
2008-2012
*
*
Morgan County 7
*
3 or fewer
2008-2012
*
*
Piute County 7
*
3 or fewer
2008-2012
*
*
Rich County 7
*
3 or fewer
2008-2012
*
*
San Juan County 7
*
3 or fewer
2008-2012
*
*
Wayne County 7
*
3 or fewer
2008-2012
*
*
Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 09/02/2015 7:48 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.
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.
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