Return to Home Incidence > Table

Incidence Rates Table

Data Options
Comparison Options

Incidence Rate Report for Michigan by County

Prostate (All Stages^), 2018-2022

All Races (includes Hispanic), Male, All Ages

Sorted by Count

County
 sort alphabetically by name ascending
2023 Rural-Urban Continuum Codes Φ
 sort by rural urban descending
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 ascending
Recent Trend
Recent 5-Year Trend in Incidence Rates
(95% Confidence Interval)
 sort by trend descending
Michigan 2 N/A 119.6 (118.4, 120.8) N/A 8,137 rising rising trend 2.5 (1.1, 4.8)
US (SEER+NPCR) 1 N/A 116.4 (116.2, 116.6) N/A 240,633 rising rising trend 1.9 (0.8, 3.4)
Wayne County 2 Urban 135.7 (132.5, 139.0) 10 (6, 19) 1,448 stable stable trend 1.1 (-1.0, 5.9)
Oakland County 2 Urban 139.0 (135.4, 142.7) 8 (3, 16) 1,179 stable stable trend 2.1 (-1.2, 9.2)
Macomb County 2 Urban 128.0 (123.8, 132.3) 18 (10, 28) 745 stable stable trend -1.6 (-6.4, 3.3)
Kent County 2 Urban 90.0 (85.5, 94.6) 64 (52, 72) 330 stable stable trend 0.8 (-0.9, 3.5)
Genesee County 2 Urban 109.0 (103.4, 114.9) 39 (27, 54) 293 stable stable trend 1.8 (-0.9, 7.4)
Washtenaw County 2 Urban 122.8 (115.9, 130.0) 23 (11, 38) 253 falling falling trend -3.1 (-4.2, -2.0)
Saginaw County 2 Urban 151.4 (142.0, 161.4) 3 (1, 11) 202 rising rising trend 4.4 (2.0, 7.9)
Ingham County 2 Urban 126.4 (118.3, 134.9) 19 (7, 35) 193 rising rising trend 7.0 (0.3, 15.1)
Ottawa County 2 Urban 97.7 (91.1, 104.7) 55 (39, 67) 171 falling falling trend -3.9 (-5.8, -2.1)
Livingston County 2 Urban 113.0 (105.2, 121.4) 33 (20, 53) 167 falling falling trend -2.7 (-3.7, -1.6)
Kalamazoo County 2 Urban 108.7 (101.2, 116.6) 40 (24, 57) 163 stable stable trend 0.7 (-1.9, 5.9)
Jackson County 2 Urban 143.1 (133.1, 153.6) 7 (1, 20) 162 rising rising trend 10.1 (3.8, 20.7)
St. Clair County 2 Urban 118.3 (109.6, 127.7) 27 (12, 49) 146 rising rising trend 3.6 (0.2, 10.9)
Berrien County 2 Urban 106.5 (97.9, 115.6) 42 (25, 61) 121 stable stable trend 3.2 (-3.5, 11.0)
Calhoun County 2 Urban 126.2 (115.8, 137.4) 20 (6, 40) 115 rising rising trend 10.1 (6.8, 14.3)
Muskegon County 2 Urban 92.6 (84.8, 101.0) 60 (45, 73) 111 falling falling trend -5.2 (-6.4, -4.1)
Bay County 2 Urban 130.6 (119.3, 142.9) 16 (3, 37) 104 stable stable trend 6.2 (-0.1, 19.7)
Eaton County 2 Urban 131.3 (119.9, 143.7) 14 (2, 35) 103 falling falling trend -3.4 (-5.5, -1.3)
Monroe County 2 Urban 90.1 (82.2, 98.7) 62 (47, 76) 102 stable stable trend -2.0 (-4.3, 0.5)
Grand Traverse County 2 Urban 134.2 (122.3, 147.1) 12 (2, 34) 100 stable stable trend 1.5 (-2.5, 9.4)
Lenawee County 2 Rural 112.0 (101.1, 124.0) 34 (15, 58) 81 stable stable trend 6.0 (-2.7, 15.1)
Midland County 2 Urban 131.2 (118.4, 145.2) 15 (3, 39) 80 stable stable trend 6.9 (-0.9, 25.3)
Clinton County 2 Urban 136.2 (122.2, 151.4) 9 (1, 34) 74 falling falling trend -2.7 (-4.6, -0.7)
Allegan County 2 Rural 86.4 (77.4, 96.3) 67 (50, 79) 73 stable stable trend -2.1 (-4.2, 2.1)
Lapeer County 2 Urban 102.3 (91.4, 114.3) 52 (26, 69) 71 stable stable trend 12.3 (-0.3, 24.4)
Shiawassee County 2 Rural 135.2 (120.5, 151.3) 11 (1, 36) 66 stable stable trend 3.0 (-0.3, 11.7)
Marquette County 2 Rural 122.1 (108.7, 136.9) 24 (5, 52) 64 rising rising trend 6.7 (0.2, 20.3)
Van Buren County 2 Rural 97.5 (85.7, 110.7) 56 (27, 74) 54 falling falling trend -4.1 (-5.8, -2.6)
Barry County 2 Urban 106.1 (92.7, 121.2) 43 (19, 69) 50 falling falling trend -3.3 (-5.5, -1.1)
Tuscola County 2 Rural 107.2 (93.6, 122.6) 41 (16, 68) 47 stable stable trend 4.8 (-0.8, 19.3)
Cass County 2 Urban 104.1 (90.7, 119.4) 49 (20, 70) 46 falling falling trend -2.4 (-3.8, -1.0)
Ionia County 2 Urban 105.9 (92.0, 121.4) 45 (16, 70) 45 stable stable trend 7.4 (-2.2, 19.0)
Montcalm County 2 Urban 88.6 (76.8, 101.9) 65 (38, 81) 43 falling falling trend -4.7 (-6.5, -3.1)
Isabella County 2 Rural 132.4 (114.5, 152.3) 13 (1, 46) 43 rising rising trend 10.3 (5.2, 23.1)
Delta County 2 Rural 123.9 (107.2, 143.0) 22 (3, 55) 42 stable stable trend -0.9 (-3.4, 1.8)
Branch County 2 Rural 124.0 (107.0, 143.2) 21 (3, 56) 41 rising rising trend 14.3 (2.4, 39.8)
Sanilac County 2 Rural 117.0 (100.8, 135.5) 30 (6, 63) 40 falling falling trend -1.9 (-3.8, -0.1)
Gratiot County 2 Rural 146.7 (126.6, 169.2) 5 (1, 33) 39 rising rising trend 13.9 (5.2, 35.9)
Chippewa County 2 Rural 145.3 (125.1, 168.1) 6 (1, 35) 39 rising rising trend 32.3 (9.8, 50.9)
Leelanau County 2 Urban 147.8 (126.0, 173.8) 4 (1, 35) 38 stable stable trend 6.4 (-1.3, 21.4)
Hillsdale County 2 Rural 101.8 (87.0, 118.7) 54 (18, 75) 36 stable stable trend 4.1 (-0.2, 13.8)
Roscommon County 2 Rural 109.1 (91.9, 130.5) 38 (8, 70) 33 falling falling trend -3.8 (-5.6, -2.2)
St. Joseph County 2 Rural 75.7 (64.3, 88.8) 78 (56, 82) 33 falling falling trend -3.1 (-4.5, -1.8)
Newaygo County 2 Rural 80.3 (68.0, 94.4) 72 (48, 82) 33 falling falling trend -4.6 (-6.6, -2.9)
Clare County 2 Rural 111.4 (94.4, 131.4) 35 (6, 69) 33 stable stable trend 1.9 (-2.9, 16.2)
Antrim County 2 Rural 122.0 (102.8, 145.1) 25 (2, 62) 30 stable stable trend 3.5 (-1.4, 14.4)
Mason County 2 Rural 113.5 (95.3, 134.8) 31 (5, 68) 30 falling falling trend -2.1 (-3.8, -0.5)
Benzie County 2 Urban 157.2 (131.9, 187.6) 1 (1, 32) 29 rising rising trend 8.6 (3.5, 17.4)
Iosco County 2 Rural 104.7 (87.5, 125.7) 46 (13, 76) 29 rising rising trend 8.0 (1.4, 23.8)
Gladwin County 2 Rural 109.3 (91.4, 130.8) 37 (6, 73) 28 stable stable trend 3.0 (-3.6, 18.7)
Cheboygan County 2 Rural 102.8 (85.9, 123.4) 51 (14, 76) 28 falling falling trend -3.6 (-5.8, -1.5)
Emmet County 2 Rural 90.0 (75.1, 107.6) 63 (30, 81) 27 falling falling trend -3.4 (-5.3, -1.5)
Ogemaw County 2 Rural 129.4 (107.8, 155.4) 17 (1, 58) 27 stable stable trend -1.3 (-4.1, 1.5)
Wexford County 2 Rural 104.4 (87.1, 124.6) 48 (11, 75) 27 stable stable trend 3.0 (-4.5, 16.5)
Manistee County 2 Rural 106.0 (87.8, 127.9) 44 (9, 75) 26 stable stable trend 13.7 (-3.6, 26.4)
Houghton County 2 Rural 103.3 (85.6, 123.9) 50 (11, 77) 25 rising rising trend 7.0 (0.6, 27.1)
Huron County 2 Rural 80.7 (66.6, 97.8) 71 (44, 82) 25 falling falling trend -5.6 (-7.4, -4.1)
Otsego County 2 Rural 120.0 (98.9, 145.1) 26 (2, 68) 24 falling falling trend -2.7 (-5.1, -0.3)
Charlevoix County 2 Rural 90.2 (73.9, 110.1) 61 (29, 81) 23 falling falling trend -3.0 (-5.4, -0.8)
Mecosta County 2 Rural 80.2 (65.4, 97.9) 73 (41, 82) 23 falling falling trend -5.6 (-9.2, -2.8)
Oceana County 2 Rural 81.8 (66.1, 101.0) 70 (39, 82) 20 rising rising trend 12.1 (1.7, 26.5)
Alpena County 2 Rural 76.1 (61.0, 94.6) 77 (47, 82) 19 falling falling trend -3.3 (-5.7, -1.1)
Dickinson County 2 Rural 78.5 (62.9, 97.6) 76 (39, 82) 18 stable stable trend 0.8 (-4.3, 15.8)
Arenac County 2 Rural 111.1 (88.7, 139.8) 36 (3, 76) 18 stable stable trend -2.1 (-4.9, 0.6)
Kalkaska County 2 Urban 118.3 (94.4, 147.6) 28 (1, 73) 18 stable stable trend -2.6 (-5.9, 0.7)
Menominee County 2 Rural 79.7 (63.6, 99.7) 75 (37, 82) 18 stable stable trend -1.7 (-4.5, 1.4)
Gogebic County 2 Rural 94.3 (73.1, 122.1) 58 (15, 82) 15 stable stable trend 1.9 (-2.2, 22.6)
Crawford County 2 Rural 102.0 (79.1, 132.1) 53 (6, 80) 14 stable stable trend 3.2 (-3.4, 20.7)
Missaukee County 2 Rural 113.3 (87.9, 145.3) 32 (2, 78) 14 falling falling trend -2.9 (-5.9, -0.1)
Alger County 2 Rural 153.2 (117.2, 200.1) 2 (1, 58) 14 stable stable trend 0.0 (-3.2, 3.5)
Mackinac County 2 Rural 117.3 (90.1, 153.7) 29 (1, 77) 14 rising rising trend 16.6 (5.7, 40.7)
Osceola County 2 Rural 63.4 (48.2, 82.9) 82 (61, 82) 12 falling falling trend -10.4 (-22.1, -7.6)
Presque Isle County 2 Rural 80.0 (59.4, 109.0) 74 (27, 82) 12 falling falling trend -4.2 (-7.0, -1.8)
Lake County 2 Rural 74.8 (55.2, 102.1) 80 (35, 82) 10 falling falling trend -4.4 (-8.4, -1.0)
Iron County 2 Rural 75.7 (55.8, 104.5) 79 (31, 82) 10 falling falling trend -3.4 (-6.5, -0.6)
Alcona County 2 Rural 69.1 (49.4, 100.6) 81 (41, 82) 9 falling falling trend -3.6 (-5.8, -1.8)
Montmorency County 2 Rural 87.4 (62.2, 124.4) 66 (11, 82) 9 falling falling trend -3.8 (-6.8, -1.4)
Oscoda County 2 Rural 94.4 (66.5, 134.8) 57 (5, 82) 8 falling falling trend -2.5 (-4.9, -0.3)
Schoolcraft County 2 Rural 93.7 (64.9, 135.8) 59 (3, 82) 8 stable stable trend 7.0 (-1.1, 25.4)
Ontonagon County 2 Rural 85.9 (59.8, 134.7) 69 (11, 82) 8 stable stable trend -1.6 (-4.8, 1.6)
Baraga County 2 Rural 104.7 (72.7, 148.7) 47 (1, 82) 7 falling falling trend -33.7 (-49.9, -19.1)
Luce County 2 Rural 86.1 (54.7, 132.5) 68 (4, 82) 5 stable stable trend 0.2 (-20.3, 26.2)
Keweenaw County 2 Rural
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*

Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 03/14/2026 9:15 am.

State Cancer Registries may provide more current or more local data.

Trend
Rising when 95% confidence interval of average annual percent change is above 0.
Stable when 95% confidence interval of average annual percent change includes 0.
Falling when 95% confidence interval of average annual percent change is below 0.


† 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.

‡ Incidence data come from different sources. The Average Annual Percent Change (AAPC) is based on the APCs calculated by Joinpoint. Due to data availability issues, the time period used in the calculation of the joinpoint regression model may differ for selected counties.

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.

When displaying county information, the CI*Rank for the state is not shown because it's not comparable. To see the state CI*Rank please view the statistics at the US By State level.

Φ Rural–urban county classifications are based on the 2023 USDA Rural–Urban Continuum Codes (except for Connecticut Counties which use 2013 codes). State-level cancer rates for rural areas are calculated using cancer cases registered exclusively in rural counties, while state-level cancer rates for urban areas are calculated using cases registered exclusively in urban counties.

1 Source: National Program of Cancer Registries and Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results SEER*Stat Database - United States Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and National Cancer Institute. Based on the 2024 submission.

2 Source: National Program of Cancer Registries SEER*Stat Database - United States Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (based on the 2024 submission).

* Data has been suppressed to ensure confidentiality and stability of rate estimates. Counts are suppressed if fewer than 16 records were reported in a specific area-sex-race category.

Data for United States does not include Puerto Rico.

Return to Top