Return to Home Incidence > Table

Incidence Rates Table

Data Options
Comparison Options

Incidence Rate Report by State

Leukemia (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
Nebraska 2 13.6 (12.9, 14.3) 31 (19, 42) 306 falling falling trend -7.0 (-10.9, -3.5)
Massachusetts 2 12.9 (12.5, 13.2) 39 (32, 44) 1,092 falling falling trend -5.5 (-8.8, -2.8)
Virginia 2 10.7 (10.5, 11.0) 49 (48, 51) 1,057 falling falling trend -5.1 (-7.3, -2.8)
Alabama 2 11.9 (11.5, 12.3) 47 (42, 49) 711 falling falling trend -4.4 (-7.3, -0.9)
Oregon 2 13.3 (12.8, 13.8) 34 (27, 42) 685 falling falling trend -4.2 (-6.8, -1.5)
Florida 2 17.5 (17.2, 17.7) 1 (1, 4) 5,248 falling falling trend -3.3 (-5.7, -1.2)
Pennsylvania 2 14.6 (14.3, 14.8) 20 (15, 27) 2,432 falling falling trend -2.9 (-3.9, -1.6)
Delaware 2 13.3 (12.4, 14.3) 33 (19, 47) 171 falling falling trend -2.8 (-7.9, -0.6)
South Carolina 2 12.1 (11.7, 12.5) 46 (40, 48) 763 falling falling trend -2.6 (-3.3, -2.0)
Nevada 2 11.5 (11.0, 12.0) 48 (43, 50) 398 falling falling trend -2.5 (-6.7, -1.2)
North Carolina 2 14.5 (14.2, 14.8) 21 (16, 28) 1,787 falling falling trend -2.4 (-4.9, -0.7)
Indiana 2 14.1 (13.7, 14.5) 27 (19, 33) 1,109 falling falling trend -2.2 (-5.0, -0.5)
Kansas 2 14.9 (14.3, 15.5) 18 (9, 28) 506 falling falling trend -1.9 (-5.7, -0.1)
New York 7 15.2 (14.9, 15.4) 15 (10, 19) 3,689 falling falling trend -1.9 (-3.2, -1.1)
Hawaii 7 10.4 (9.7, 11.1) 51 (48, 51) 191 falling falling trend -1.6 (-5.6, -0.4)
Georgia 7 14.4 (14.1, 14.7) 24 (17, 29) 1,656 falling falling trend -1.5 (-2.6, -0.5)
Colorado 2 12.9 (12.5, 13.3) 40 (32, 45) 799 falling falling trend -1.4 (-1.9, -0.6)
Michigan 2 14.0 (13.7, 14.3) 29 (22, 33) 1,751 falling falling trend -1.4 (-4.5, -0.1)
Minnesota 2 17.0 (16.6, 17.5) 4 (1, 7) 1,150 stable stable trend -1.4 (-4.6, 0.2)
New Hampshire 2 14.2 (13.4, 15.1) 26 (11, 37) 261 falling falling trend -1.4 (-4.4, -0.4)
Tennessee 2 13.3 (12.9, 13.7) 35 (29, 41) 1,079 stable stable trend -1.4 (-3.8, 0.3)
Arkansas 2 14.3 (13.7, 14.8) 25 (15, 33) 518 stable stable trend -1.2 (-3.2, 0.1)
Mississippi 2 12.9 (12.4, 13.5) 38 (30, 46) 445 falling falling trend -1.0 (-2.8, -0.1)
California 7 12.7 (12.5, 12.8) 41 (37, 44) 5,444 falling falling trend -0.9 (-2.0, -0.4)
Washington 1 14.6 (14.3, 15.0) 19 (13, 27) 1,284 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.6, -0.5)
Alaska 2 12.1 (11.0, 13.4) 45 (27, 51) 87 stable stable trend -0.8 (-2.0, 0.6)
Maine 2 15.3 (14.5, 16.1) 14 (6, 28) 293 falling falling trend -0.8 (-2.3, -0.2)
Arizona 2 12.2 (11.9, 12.6) 44 (40, 48) 1,064 stable stable trend -0.7 (-5.7, 0.6)
Oklahoma 2 13.5 (13.0, 14.0) 32 (24, 40) 613 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.7, 0.3)
Kentucky 7 16.4 (15.9, 16.9) 6 (3, 12) 874 stable stable trend -0.6 (-2.2, 0.5)
Wisconsin 2 17.1 (16.7, 17.6) 3 (1, 7) 1,257 stable stable trend -0.6 (-1.6, 0.0)
Maryland 2 13.0 (12.7, 13.4) 36 (30, 43) 930 stable stable trend -0.4 (-2.6, 0.6)
Puerto Rico 2 9.7 (9.3, 10.2) N/A 424 stable stable trend -0.4 (-7.8, 1.4)
Vermont 2 14.1 (12.9, 15.3) 28 (9, 44) 123 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.8, 1.0)
Illinois 7 13.8 (13.5, 14.1) 30 (25, 34) 2,047 stable stable trend -0.2 (-0.4, 0.1)
North Dakota 2 15.7 (14.6, 17.0) 9 (1, 29) 140 stable stable trend -0.2 (-1.4, 0.4)
New Jersey 7 16.0 (15.7, 16.3) 8 (6, 13) 1,778 stable stable trend 0.0 (-1.3, 2.0)
Texas 7 15.0 (14.8, 15.2) 16 (12, 21) 4,374 stable stable trend 0.0 (-0.2, 0.3)
Montana 2 15.3 (14.4, 16.3) 13 (5, 29) 215 stable stable trend 0.2 (-0.4, 0.9)
New Mexico 7 12.5 (11.9, 13.1) 42 (32, 48) 325 stable stable trend 0.2 (-0.1, 0.6)
District of Columbia 2 10.7 (9.6, 11.9) 50 (42, 51) 71 stable stable trend 0.3 (-1.8, 2.5)
Rhode Island 2 14.5 (13.5, 15.5) 22 (9, 37) 195 stable stable trend 0.3 (-0.4, 1.1)
Ohio 2 13.0 (12.7, 13.3) 37 (32, 42) 1,858 rising rising trend 0.4 (0.1, 0.6)
Wyoming 2 12.3 (11.1, 13.6) 43 (26, 50) 86 stable stable trend 0.4 (-1.3, 2.2)
West Virginia 2 15.7 (14.9, 16.4) 11 (5, 21) 382 stable stable trend 0.5 (-0.8, 0.9)
Iowa 7 17.2 (16.6, 17.8) 2 (1, 7) 683 rising rising trend 0.6 (0.4, 0.8)
Idaho 7 17.0 (16.2, 17.8) 5 (1, 10) 362 rising rising trend 0.7 (0.1, 1.4)
Louisiana 7 14.4 (14.0, 14.9) 23 (14, 31) 766 rising rising trend 0.7 (0.2, 1.2)
Missouri 2 15.0 (14.6, 15.4) 17 (10, 24) 1,119 rising rising trend 0.7 (0.4, 1.1)
South Dakota 2 16.1 (15.0, 17.3) 7 (1, 23) 173 stable stable trend 0.8 (-0.2, 1.9)
Connecticut 7 15.5 (14.9, 16.0) 12 (6, 20) 703 rising rising trend 0.9 (0.5, 1.2)
Utah 7 15.7 (15.1, 16.4) 10 (5, 19) 463 rising rising trend 1.0 (0.7, 1.3)

Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 03/20/2026 2:52 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