Return to Home Incidence > Table

Incidence Rates Table

Data Options

Incidence Rate Report by State

Prostate (All Stages^), 2016-2020

All Races (includes Hispanic), Male, 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) 1 110.5 (110.2, 110.7) N/A 212,734 rising rising trend 2.5 (1.0, 4.1)
Arizona 6 76.4 (75.2, 77.5) 49 (49, 49) 3,503 stable stable trend -0.2 (-2.7, 5.0)
New Mexico 7 85.6 (83.3, 87.8) 48 (48, 48) 1,164 stable stable trend 0.8 (-1.0, 4.0)
Oregon 6 94.4 (92.8, 96.1) 47 (43, 47) 2,621 stable stable trend 1.5 (-0.8, 5.4)
California 7 95.4 (94.8, 96.0) 46 (43, 47) 20,666 stable stable trend 2.0 (-0.6, 5.7)
Missouri 6 96.0 (94.6, 97.4) 45 (41, 47) 3,733 stable stable trend 1.7 (-0.9, 4.8)
Florida 6 97.0 (96.3, 97.7) 44 (40, 45) 14,762 falling falling trend -2.5 (-3.2, -1.3)
West Virginia 6 97.7 (95.3, 100.2) 43 (37, 47) 1,295 rising rising trend 4.2 (0.5, 8.5)
Maine 6 98.3 (95.5, 101.1) 42 (35, 47) 1,025 rising rising trend 3.4 (0.8, 7.0)
Colorado 6 98.5 (96.9, 100.1) 41 (37, 45) 3,175 rising rising trend 5.3 (3.7, 6.7)
Alaska 6 99.0 (94.3, 103.9) 40 (34, 47) 395 stable stable trend 7.5 (-2.2, 13.9)
Washington 5 100.3 (98.9, 101.6) 39 (35, 42) 4,539 stable stable trend 1.8 (-0.5, 5.3)
Oklahoma 6 100.5 (98.7, 102.4) 38 (34, 43) 2,342 stable stable trend 3.7 (-0.6, 9.4)
Hawaii 7 101.1 (98.2, 104.1) 37 (34, 44) 950 rising rising trend 5.8 (3.5, 8.9)
Vermont 6 101.9 (97.7, 106.3) 36 (33, 45) 474 rising rising trend 7.5 (2.9, 13.7)
Virginia 6 102.1 (100.8, 103.3) 35 (34, 40) 5,216 stable stable trend 0.5 (-1.4, 3.9)
Texas 7 103.4 (102.6, 104.1) 34 (34, 37) 14,706 rising rising trend 4.5 (2.0, 8.0)
Kentucky 7 108.3 (106.6, 110.1) 33 (30, 34) 3,010 stable stable trend 2.4 (-1.9, 5.4)
Pennsylvania 6 108.9 (107.9, 109.9) 32 (30, 33) 9,412 stable stable trend 2.8 (-1.3, 7.3)
South Carolina 6 109.8 (108.2, 111.5) 31 (28, 33) 3,659 falling falling trend -3.5 (-4.2, -2.8)
Arkansas 6 111.3 (109.2, 113.5) 30 (23, 33) 2,108 stable stable trend 2.1 (-1.0, 7.6)
Michigan 6 112.1 (110.9, 113.3) 29 (24, 31) 7,353 stable stable trend 3.5 (0.0, 8.6)
Minnesota 6 113.1 (111.5, 114.7) 28 (21, 30) 3,953 stable stable trend 1.8 (-0.8, 6.0)
Massachusetts 7 113.2 (111.8, 114.7) 27 (21, 30) 4,864 rising rising trend 4.6 (1.6, 8.5)
Wyoming 6 113.7 (108.9, 118.6) 26 (14, 33) 449 stable stable trend 2.9 (0.0, 8.9)
Ohio 6 114.1 (113.0, 115.2) 25 (21, 28) 8,558 rising rising trend 4.1 (1.3, 7.7)
New Hampshire 6 114.2 (111.1, 117.3) 24 (17, 31) 1,123 rising rising trend 4.0 (1.2, 8.2)
Rhode Island 6 114.2 (110.5, 117.9) 23 (16, 33) 783 rising rising trend 6.6 (2.1, 12.1)
Illinois 7 115.1 (114.0, 116.2) 22 (19, 27) 8,714 stable stable trend 1.4 (-0.6, 4.1)
Tennessee 6 116.1 (114.6, 117.6) 21 (17, 26) 4,868 stable stable trend 2.5 (-0.1, 5.7)
Kansas 6 116.3 (114.0, 118.6) 20 (16, 27) 2,037 rising rising trend 4.0 (0.6, 9.1)
Utah 7 117.4 (114.8, 120.0) 19 (14, 26) 1,652 stable stable trend 1.1 (-1.5, 6.2)
Idaho 7 118.8 (115.9, 121.8) 18 (12, 24) 1,283 rising rising trend 5.9 (2.1, 10.4)
Wisconsin 6 118.9 (117.3, 120.5) 17 (14, 21) 4,604 rising rising trend 4.2 (2.4, 6.7)
Alabama 6 120.3 (118.5, 122.1) 16 (12, 19) 3,693 stable stable trend 0.1 (-2.3, 1.9)
Iowa 7 120.4 (118.2, 122.6) 15 (11, 19) 2,432 rising rising trend 4.3 (3.0, 6.4)
North Dakota 6 122.0 (117.4, 126.8) 14 (8, 22) 556 stable stable trend 2.1 (-1.2, 7.7)
Connecticut 7 122.7 (120.6, 124.8) 13 (9, 17) 2,844 rising rising trend 5.3 (2.6, 9.1)
South Dakota 6 123.2 (119.0, 127.5) 12 (8, 19) 697 stable stable trend 3.0 (-1.4, 8.0)
North Carolina 6 123.9 (122.6, 125.2) 11 (8, 14) 7,846 rising rising trend 3.0 (0.9, 5.6)
Nebraska 6 124.8 (121.9, 127.8) 10 (8, 15) 1,447 rising rising trend 6.1 (3.1, 9.9)
Delaware 6 125.0 (121.1, 128.9) 9 (7, 17) 834 stable stable trend 1.0 (-1.4, 3.8)
New York 7 130.3 (129.4, 131.2) 8 (5, 9) 15,456 rising rising trend 2.6 (1.0, 4.5)
District of Columbia 6 130.5 (124.7, 136.4) 7 (2, 13) 407 stable stable trend 3.2 (-3.5, 11.5)
Montana 6 131.2 (127.5, 135.0) 6 (3, 9) 1,023 stable stable trend 4.9 (-0.4, 10.5)
Mississippi 6 131.4 (128.9, 133.8) 5 (4, 8) 2,342 rising rising trend 3.0 (0.9, 5.7)
Georgia 7 134.7 (133.3, 136.1) 4 (3, 6) 7,711 rising rising trend 4.4 (1.4, 8.1)
Maryland 6 135.7 (133.9, 137.4) 3 (2, 5) 4,853 rising rising trend 4.7 (2.4, 7.7)
Louisiana 7 138.1 (136.1, 140.1) 2 (2, 4) 3,817 rising rising trend 3.8 (1.1, 7.4)
New Jersey 7 143.3 (141.9, 144.8) 1 (1, 1) 7,783 stable stable trend 3.6 (-2.1, 7.6)
Indiana 6
data not available
N/A
data not available
data not available
data not available
Nevada 6
data not available
N/A
data not available
data not available
data not available
Puerto Rico 6 141.2 (138.8, 143.5) N/A 2,873 stable stable trend 2.5 (-0.5, 5.5)
Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 04/16/2024 3:25 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, Nevada, 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 stage.
⋔ 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 not available for this combination of geography, cancer site, age, and race/ethnicity.

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

Return to Top