Return to Home Incidence > Table

Incidence Rates Table

Data Options

Incidence Rate Report by State

Colon & Rectum (All Stages^), 2017-2021

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

Sorted by Rate
State
 sort alphabetically by name ascending
Age-Adjusted Incidence Rate
cases per 100,000
(95% Confidence Interval)
 sort by rate ascending
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
US (SEER+NPCR) 1 36.4 (36.3, 36.4) N/A 140,088 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.3, -0.9)
Mississippi 6 46.4 (45.4, 47.4) 1 (1, 3) 1,651 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.2, -0.7)
Kentucky 7 45.9 (45.0, 46.7) 2 (1, 3) 2,500 stable stable trend -1.1 (-1.7, 0.3)
Louisiana 7 44.5 (43.7, 45.3) 3 (2, 5) 2,419 stable stable trend 0.1 (-1.1, 1.8)
West Virginia 6 44.3 (43.1, 45.5) 4 (1, 5) 1,100 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.4, 0.7)
Alaska 6 41.6 (39.4, 43.9) 5 (3, 18) 302 falling falling trend -1.8 (-2.3, -1.2)
Arkansas 6 41.1 (40.2, 42.1) 6 (5, 10) 1,515 stable stable trend -0.2 (-1.2, 2.6)
Oklahoma 6 40.3 (39.4, 41.1) 7 (5, 14) 1,835 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.5, 2.1)
Alabama 6 40.1 (39.4, 40.8) 8 (5, 14) 2,483 falling falling trend -1.8 (-2.9, -1.3)
Iowa 7 39.9 (39.0, 40.8) 9 (5, 18) 1,561 stable stable trend -1.5 (-2.2, 0.2)
South Dakota 6 39.5 (37.7, 41.3) 10 (5, 23) 417 stable stable trend -1.7 (-2.4, 0.3)
Georgia 7 39.4 (38.9, 39.9) 11 (7, 18) 4,621 stable stable trend -0.5 (-2.1, 0.7)
Nebraska 6 39.2 (38.0, 40.4) 12 (6, 22) 880 falling falling trend -3.6 (-5.5, -2.5)
Kansas 6 39.0 (38.0, 39.9) 13 (7, 21) 1,325 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.9, 2.1)
Missouri 6 38.9 (38.3, 39.6) 14 (9, 20) 2,938 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.9, 1.6)
Ohio 6 38.9 (38.4, 39.3) 15 (10, 19) 5,707 falling falling trend -1.9 (-3.2, -1.3)
Illinois 7 38.8 (38.4, 39.3) 16 (10, 20) 5,928 falling falling trend -1.8 (-2.3, -0.5)
Tennessee 6 38.7 (38.1, 39.4) 17 (9, 21) 3,201 stable stable trend -0.8 (-1.5, 0.6)
North Dakota 6 38.7 (36.8, 40.7) 18 (5, 26) 337 falling falling trend -2.1 (-3.0, -1.4)
Hawaii 7 38.1 (36.8, 39.5) 19 (8, 25) 707 stable stable trend 1.2 (-1.9, 3.0)
Texas 7 37.9 (37.6, 38.3) 20 (16, 23) 11,132 stable stable trend -0.1 (-0.5, 0.2)
New Jersey 7 37.9 (37.4, 38.4) 21 (16, 23) 4,322 stable stable trend 0.5 (-1.3, 1.6)
Pennsylvania 6 37.2 (36.8, 37.6) 22 (20, 25) 6,343 falling falling trend -1.9 (-2.5, -0.5)
Puerto Rico 6 37.2 (36.4, 38.1) N/A 1,559 stable stable trend -4.6 (-14.6, 6.5)
Montana 6 36.7 (35.2, 38.2) 23 (14, 36) 507 falling falling trend -1.9 (-2.5, -1.3)
Minnesota 6 36.1 (35.4, 36.7) 24 (22, 33) 2,414 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.5, 1.1)
District of Columbia 6 36.1 (34.0, 38.2) 25 (12, 43) 237 falling falling trend -2.6 (-3.4, -1.9)
Florida 6 35.7 (35.4, 36.0) 26 (23, 33) 10,682 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.5, -0.6)
New York 7 35.7 (35.3, 36.0) 27 (23, 33) 8,808 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.5, -0.5)
South Carolina 6 35.6 (34.9, 36.3) 28 (23, 35) 2,268 stable stable trend -1.4 (-2.3, 1.3)
Michigan 6 35.4 (34.9, 35.9) 29 (24, 35) 4,433 falling falling trend -3.3 (-5.9, -1.3)
North Carolina 6 35.4 (34.9, 35.9) 30 (24, 35) 4,394 falling falling trend -1.6 (-2.8, -0.9)
Idaho 7 35.3 (34.1, 36.5) 31 (23, 41) 726 stable stable trend 1.7 (-0.5, 3.8)
Wyoming 6 35.2 (33.2, 37.4) 32 (19, 45) 244 stable stable trend 1.9 (-2.1, 7.3)
Maryland 6 35.2 (34.5, 35.8) 33 (24, 38) 2,566 stable stable trend -0.6 (-1.5, 1.2)
Maine 6 35.0 (33.8, 36.3) 34 (23, 43) 672 stable stable trend -0.8 (-2.1, 2.0)
Wisconsin 6 34.6 (34.0, 35.2) 35 (28, 41) 2,511 stable stable trend -1.1 (-1.8, 0.3)
Washington 5 34.2 (33.7, 34.8) 36 (32, 43) 2,964 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.3, 0.3)
New Hampshire 6 34.2 (32.9, 35.5) 37 (25, 45) 614 stable stable trend -1.3 (-2.5, 2.0)
Nevada 6 34.0 (33.2, 34.9) 38 (30, 44) 1,218 falling falling trend -2.5 (-2.8, -2.2)
Connecticut 7 33.9 (33.1, 34.7) 39 (31, 44) 1,542 stable stable trend -0.8 (-2.1, 1.4)
Virginia 6 33.8 (33.3, 34.3) 40 (34, 44) 3,401 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.5, -0.5)
Delaware 6 33.7 (32.2, 35.2) 41 (26, 48) 432 falling falling trend -5.0 (-6.6, -3.8)
California 7 33.5 (33.2, 33.7) 42 (38, 44) 14,745 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.4, -0.5)
New Mexico 7 32.9 (31.9, 34.0) 43 (35, 48) 846 stable stable trend -0.3 (-1.4, 2.0)
Vermont 6 32.7 (30.9, 34.5) 44 (29, 49) 281 stable stable trend -0.6 (-2.9, 3.0)
Oregon 6 32.5 (31.8, 33.3) 45 (40, 48) 1,688 stable stable trend -1.6 (-2.3, 0.0)
Rhode Island 6 32.1 (30.7, 33.5) 46 (37, 49) 449 stable stable trend 0.2 (-3.5, 3.6)
Arizona 6 31.8 (31.3, 32.4) 47 (43, 49) 2,772 falling falling trend -1.9 (-2.3, -1.6)
Colorado 6 31.3 (30.7, 32.0) 48 (45, 49) 1,955 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.5, -0.7)
Massachusetts 7 31.3 (30.8, 31.9) 49 (45, 49) 2,687 falling falling trend -2.5 (-3.0, -1.7)
Utah 7 29.3 (28.4, 30.2) 50 (50, 50) 829 stable stable trend 0.5 (-2.1, 3.5)
Indiana 6
data not available
N/A
data not available
data not available
data not available
Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 10/09/2024 10:45 pm.

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

Data cannot be shown for the following areas. For more information on what areas are suppressed or not available, please refer to the table.
Indiana

† 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 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 in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Summary/Historic Combined Summary Stage (2004+).
⋔ 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. More information about methodology can be found on the CI*Rank website.

Data not available for this combination of data selections.
Source: SEER and NPCR data. For more specific information please see the table.

Data for the United States does not include data from Indiana.
Data for the United States does not include Puerto Rico.
CI*Rank data for Puerto Rico is not available.

Return to Top