Return to Home Incidence > Table

Incidence Rates Table

Data Options

Incidence Rate Report by State

Melanoma of the Skin (All Stages^), 2021

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

Sorted by CI*Rank

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 ascending
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 23.0 (22.8, 23.1) N/A 90,365 stable stable trend -0.4 (-2.5, 1.5)
District of Columbia 2 12.0 (9.4, 14.9) 50 (47, 50) 81 rising rising trend 1.6 (0.1, 3.2)
Massachusetts 7 12.5 (11.8, 13.3) 49 (49, 50) 1,112 falling falling trend -14.7 (-20.6, -7.7)
Texas 7 15.7 (15.2, 16.1) 48 (46, 49) 4,733 rising rising trend 3.0 (1.1, 6.6)
Rhode Island 2 16.8 (14.6, 19.2) 47 (35, 49) 237 falling falling trend -4.7 (-11.0, -2.2)
Alaska 2 17.2 (14.3, 20.6) 46 (30, 49) 133 rising rising trend 1.9 (0.6, 3.6)
New Mexico 7 17.3 (15.7, 19.0) 45 (35, 48) 470 stable stable trend -0.6 (-3.2, 0.2)
Pennsylvania 2 17.7 (17.0, 18.3) 44 (40, 47) 2,994 falling falling trend -4.6 (-6.3, -3.2)
New York 7 17.9 (17.4, 18.4) 43 (40, 47) 4,444 stable stable trend 0.4 (-0.3, 0.9)
Connecticut 7 18.4 (17.1, 19.7) 42 (34, 47) 849 falling falling trend -1.9 (-2.7, -1.3)
Louisiana 7 18.6 (17.4, 19.8) 41 (34, 47) 1,002 stable stable trend 0.4 (-2.9, 2.6)
Arkansas 2 19.0 (17.6, 20.6) 40 (31, 46) 692 stable stable trend -3.0 (-7.9, 3.0)
Tennessee 2 19.1 (18.1, 20.1) 39 (33, 45) 1,602 stable stable trend -0.2 (-1.6, 0.8)
Mississippi 2 19.2 (17.7, 20.8) 38 (31, 46) 663 stable stable trend 1.1 (-1.4, 1.9)
Michigan 2 19.3 (18.5, 20.1) 37 (33, 43) 2,437 rising rising trend 0.7 (0.1, 1.2)
Virginia 2 19.6 (18.7, 20.5) 36 (32, 43) 2,026 stable stable trend 0.7 (-0.5, 1.9)
Oregon 2 20.0 (18.7, 21.2) 35 (29, 43) 1,081 falling falling trend -4.2 (-8.2, -1.8)
Oklahoma 2 20.8 (19.5, 22.2) 34 (27, 41) 955 stable stable trend -2.7 (-8.3, 0.2)
Delaware 2 20.8 (18.4, 23.6) 33 (23, 46) 290 falling falling trend -8.5 (-12.7, -4.9)
Missouri 2 20.9 (19.9, 22.0) 32 (27, 38) 1,567 rising rising trend 0.8 (0.3, 1.3)
New Jersey 7 21.4 (20.6, 22.3) 31 (27, 35) 2,524 stable stable trend -0.2 (-2.2, 0.9)
Colorado 2 21.6 (20.5, 22.8) 30 (26, 36) 1,423 stable stable trend -0.2 (-2.4, 0.4)
Alabama 2 22.0 (20.8, 23.2) 29 (25, 35) 1,332 stable stable trend 0.3 (-1.5, 1.4)
South Carolina 2 22.3 (21.1, 23.5) 28 (25, 34) 1,463 stable stable trend -2.4 (-7.1, 0.3)
Nevada 2 23.2 (21.7, 24.9) 27 (18, 33) 875 stable stable trend 0.7 (-3.9, 6.7)
California 7 23.9 (23.4, 24.3) 26 (21, 28) 10,801 rising rising trend 1.3 (1.0, 1.6)
Maryland 2 24.5 (23.4, 25.7) 25 (16, 28) 1,853 rising rising trend 1.4 (0.7, 2.2)
Hawaii 7 24.6 (22.4, 27.0) 24 (13, 31) 480 stable stable trend 1.9 (-5.9, 2.9)
Illinois 7 24.7 (23.9, 25.5) 23 (17, 27) 3,731 rising rising trend 3.2 (2.7, 3.6)
Georgia 7 24.8 (23.9, 25.8) 22 (16, 27) 2,986 stable stable trend -1.8 (-5.8, 0.1)
Washington 4 24.8 (23.8, 25.9) 21 (15, 27) 2,264 stable stable trend 0.1 (-1.4, 0.5)
Montana 2 25.5 (22.8, 28.5) 20 (10, 31) 358 falling falling trend -3.6 (-7.5, -0.4)
Florida 2 25.6 (25.0, 26.2) 19 (14, 23) 8,081 stable stable trend -0.8 (-3.5, 0.5)
Wyoming 2 25.7 (22.0, 29.9) 18 (8, 35) 185 rising rising trend 1.8 (0.3, 3.5)
Kansas 2 26.1 (24.3, 27.9) 17 (12, 27) 878 stable stable trend -2.1 (-6.2, 1.9)
New Hampshire 2 26.7 (24.3, 29.2) 16 (9, 27) 518 stable stable trend 0.4 (-0.8, 1.6)
Maine 2 26.7 (24.3, 29.4) 15 (9, 27) 503 rising rising trend 1.4 (0.8, 2.1)
West Virginia 2 26.8 (24.6, 29.1) 14 (9, 26) 635 rising rising trend 1.9 (1.3, 2.5)
Wisconsin 2 27.5 (26.3, 28.8) 13 (10, 19) 2,029 stable stable trend 1.0 (-1.0, 2.2)
Ohio 2 28.2 (27.3, 29.1) 12 (10, 17) 4,116 rising rising trend 2.7 (2.1, 3.3)
North Carolina 2 29.4 (28.5, 30.4) 11 (8, 14) 3,732 rising rising trend 1.8 (0.7, 2.5)
Kentucky 7 29.9 (28.4, 31.4) 10 (7, 14) 1,607 rising rising trend 2.1 (1.7, 2.4)
Nebraska 2 30.9 (28.6, 33.4) 9 (4, 14) 693 stable stable trend 1.0 (-1.9, 3.0)
South Dakota 2 31.8 (28.3, 35.7) 8 (3, 16) 331 rising rising trend 4.2 (3.3, 5.2)
Arizona 2 32.6 (31.4, 33.8) 7 (4, 9) 3,058 stable stable trend 1.1 (-1.0, 3.6)
Idaho 7 33.0 (30.6, 35.6) 6 (3, 11) 728 rising rising trend 2.0 (1.5, 2.6)
North Dakota 2 35.0 (31.0, 39.4) 5 (2, 11) 297 rising rising trend 10.1 (4.8, 15.0)
Iowa 7 35.3 (33.3, 37.3) 4 (2, 8) 1,343 rising rising trend 3.4 (3.2, 3.7)
Vermont 2 35.8 (31.7, 40.3) 3 (2, 10) 311 rising rising trend 1.5 (0.3, 2.8)
Minnesota 2 38.0 (36.5, 39.5) 2 (2, 5) 2,581 stable stable trend 1.3 (-0.1, 2.3)
Utah 7 43.4 (41.0, 45.8) 1 (1, 2) 1,302 stable stable trend 1.2 (-1.0, 2.5)
Indiana 2
data not available
N/A
data not available
data not available
data not available
Puerto Rico 2 3.2 (2.7, 3.8) N/A 148 rising rising trend 3.5 (1.3, 6.0)
Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 11/02/2024 9:50 am.

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, Puerto Rico

† 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