Return to Home Incidence > Table

Incidence Rates Table

Data Options
Comparison Options

Incidence Rate Report by State

Kidney & Renal Pelvis (All Stages^), 2018-2022

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

Sorted by Recentaapc

State
 sort alphabetically by name ascending
Age-Adjusted Incidence Rate
cases per 100,000
(95% Confidence Interval)
 sort by rate descending
CI*Rank
(95% Confidence Interval)
 sort by CI rank descending
Average Annual Count
 sort by count descending
Recent Trend
Recent 5-Year Trend in Incidence Rates
(95% Confidence Interval)
 sort by trend descending
Alaska 2 18.6 (17.1, 20.0) 19 (9, 33) 142 stable stable trend -5.4 (-10.7, 0.5)
Massachusetts 2 14.7 (14.3, 15.1) 48 (44, 48) 1,299 falling falling trend -4.5 (-8.0, -0.9)
Arkansas 2 22.4 (21.7, 23.1) 3 (2, 7) 826 falling falling trend -3.3 (-5.1, -2.2)
Idaho 7 18.3 (17.5, 19.2) 21 (12, 29) 398 stable stable trend -3.3 (-6.0, 0.9)
Connecticut 7 15.5 (15.0, 16.0) 44 (34, 47) 724 stable stable trend -3.0 (-6.3, 0.7)
Tennessee 2 19.9 (19.4, 20.3) 11 (9, 15) 1,688 falling falling trend -2.9 (-5.1, -0.6)
Pennsylvania 2 16.2 (16.0, 16.5) 35 (30, 41) 2,773 falling falling trend -2.7 (-4.8, -1.4)
District of Columbia 2 12.2 (11.0, 13.4) 51 (49, 51) 84 falling falling trend -2.5 (-10.8, -0.3)
Colorado 2 14.8 (14.4, 15.2) 47 (43, 48) 962 stable stable trend -2.2 (-5.5, 0.8)
Indiana 2 19.3 (18.9, 19.8) 14 (10, 19) 1,558 stable stable trend -2.2 (-4.8, 0.6)
Maryland 2 15.6 (15.1, 16.0) 42 (35, 46) 1,171 falling falling trend -2.2 (-4.7, -0.4)
Washington 1 15.5 (15.1, 15.9) 43 (37, 46) 1,411 falling falling trend -2.2 (-3.7, -0.6)
Mississippi 2 22.4 (21.7, 23.1) 2 (1, 7) 802 stable stable trend -2.1 (-6.0, 1.9)
California 7 15.0 (14.8, 15.2) 46 (43, 48) 6,748 falling falling trend -2.0 (-3.0, -1.2)
Illinois 7 18.2 (17.9, 18.5) 23 (18, 27) 2,812 falling falling trend -1.8 (-3.3, -0.3)
Kansas 2 19.5 (18.9, 20.2) 12 (9, 20) 670 stable stable trend -1.8 (-3.8, 0.6)
New York 7 16.4 (16.1, 16.6) 33 (30, 39) 4,094 falling falling trend -1.8 (-3.0, -0.7)
North Carolina 2 18.9 (18.6, 19.2) 17 (12, 21) 2,439 falling falling trend -1.4 (-2.5, -0.5)
Oregon 2 16.0 (15.5, 16.5) 37 (30, 45) 872 stable stable trend -1.3 (-2.6, 0.5)
Hawaii 7 13.2 (12.4, 14.0) 50 (48, 51) 251 stable stable trend -0.5 (-2.4, 0.6)
Wisconsin 2 19.1 (18.7, 19.6) 15 (10, 21) 1,443 stable stable trend -0.4 (-3.2, 1.6)
Vermont 2 15.0 (13.8, 16.3) 45 (30, 50) 135 stable stable trend -0.2 (-1.3, 1.0)
Delaware 2 17.4 (16.4, 18.5) 27 (16, 40) 233 stable stable trend -0.1 (-3.4, 0.8)
Arizona 2 16.3 (16.0, 16.7) 34 (29, 41) 1,471 stable stable trend 0.0 (-3.8, 0.7)
Michigan 2 16.8 (16.5, 17.2) 31 (27, 35) 2,162 stable stable trend 0.0 (-0.5, 0.3)
Rhode Island 2 16.9 (16.0, 18.0) 29 (20, 43) 240 stable stable trend 0.1 (-0.7, 0.8)
New Jersey 7 15.8 (15.5, 16.2) 40 (33, 45) 1,833 stable stable trend 0.2 (-0.4, 0.5)
Puerto Rico 2 9.0 (8.6, 9.5) N/A 414 stable stable trend 0.4 (-1.9, 1.8)
Nevada 2 13.6 (13.0, 14.1) 49 (48, 51) 510 stable stable trend 0.5 (-0.3, 1.5)
Florida 2 16.1 (15.9, 16.3) 36 (32, 41) 4,911 rising rising trend 0.7 (0.5, 1.0)
Virginia 2 16.0 (15.7, 16.4) 38 (31, 43) 1,671 stable stable trend 0.7 (-1.0, 1.3)
Maine 2 17.8 (17.0, 18.7) 26 (15, 32) 359 rising rising trend 1.0 (0.4, 1.5)
New Hampshire 2 16.8 (16.0, 17.7) 32 (23, 42) 319 rising rising trend 1.0 (0.3, 1.7)
Ohio 2 18.2 (17.9, 18.5) 22 (17, 27) 2,702 stable stable trend 1.0 (-0.8, 1.4)
Kentucky 7 22.1 (21.6, 22.7) 4 (2, 7) 1,224 stable stable trend 1.2 (-0.1, 1.8)
Louisiana 7 23.8 (23.2, 24.4) 1 (1, 2) 1,310 rising rising trend 1.2 (0.5, 1.7)
Wyoming 2 15.7 (14.4, 17.2) 41 (26, 49) 114 stable stable trend 1.2 (-0.2, 2.7)
Texas 7 21.2 (20.9, 21.4) 7 (6, 9) 6,433 rising rising trend 1.3 (0.5, 1.5)
South Carolina 2 18.0 (17.5, 18.5) 25 (18, 29) 1,194 rising rising trend 1.4 (0.9, 2.0)
Minnesota 2 18.4 (18.0, 18.9) 20 (14, 27) 1,278 rising rising trend 1.5 (1.0, 2.0)
Iowa 7 21.2 (20.5, 21.8) 8 (4, 10) 839 rising rising trend 1.6 (0.9, 2.9)
Missouri 2 20.5 (20.0, 20.9) 9 (7, 12) 1,568 rising rising trend 1.6 (1.1, 2.1)
Nebraska 2 19.4 (18.5, 20.2) 13 (9, 23) 444 rising rising trend 1.6 (0.9, 2.4)
Alabama 2 18.8 (18.3, 19.3) 18 (12, 25) 1,180 rising rising trend 1.8 (1.4, 2.2)
Georgia 7 18.1 (17.7, 18.4) 24 (18, 28) 2,209 rising rising trend 1.9 (1.5, 2.4)
Montana 2 16.9 (15.9, 18.0) 30 (20, 43) 243 rising rising trend 1.9 (1.1, 2.7)
New Mexico 7 17.3 (16.5, 18.1) 28 (20, 37) 450 rising rising trend 1.9 (1.7, 2.2)
South Dakota 2 18.9 (17.7, 20.2) 16 (9, 29) 202 rising rising trend 1.9 (1.2, 2.7)
North Dakota 2 19.9 (18.6, 21.3) 10 (4, 25) 177 rising rising trend 2.0 (1.3, 2.9)
Oklahoma 2 22.0 (21.4, 22.6) 6 (2, 8) 1,009 rising rising trend 2.3 (1.9, 2.7)
West Virginia 2 22.0 (21.1, 22.9) 5 (2, 9) 533 rising rising trend 2.3 (1.9, 2.8)
Utah 7 15.8 (15.2, 16.5) 39 (30, 46) 473 rising rising trend 2.6 (2.2, 3.2)

Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 03/19/2026 6:37 pm.

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 (SEER areas use 20 age groups and NPCR areas use 19 age groups). 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 US Population Data File is used for SEER and NPCR incidence rates.

Rates and trends are computed using different standards for malignancy. For more information see malignant.html.

^ All Stages refers to any stage. Due to changes in stage coding, Combined Summary Stage with Expanded Regional Codes (2004+) is used for data from Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) databases and Merged Summary Stage is used for data from National Program of Cancer Registries databases. Due to the increased complexity with staging, other staging variables maybe used if necessary.

⋔ Results presented with the CI*Rank statistics help show the usefulness of ranks. For example, ranks for relatively rare diseases or less populated areas may be essentially meaningless because of their large variability, but ranks for more common diseases in densely populated regions can be very useful. The rates used in CI*Rank are all age-adjusted to the 2000 US standard population using 19 age groups for SEER and NPCR areas. More information about methodology can be found on the CI*Rank website.

Source: SEER and NPCR data. For more specific information please see the table.

Data for United States does not include Puerto Rico.

CI*Rank data for Puerto Rico is not available.

Return to Top