Return to Home Incidence > Table

Incidence Rates Table

Data Options

Incidence Rate Report by State

Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma (All Stages^), 2017-2021

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

Sorted by Ruralurban
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
US (SEER+NPCR) 1 18.5 (18.4, 18.6) N/A 71,542 falling falling trend -1.9 (-2.4, -1.5)
District of Columbia 6 15.8 (14.4, 17.2) 45 (28, 50) 106 falling falling trend -1.1 (-2.1, -0.2)
Puerto Rico 6 13.7 (13.1, 14.2) N/A 558 stable stable trend -5.3 (-10.9, 0.7)
Alabama 6 14.4 (13.9, 14.8) 49 (46, 50) 889 falling falling trend -4.5 (-7.6, -1.2)
Alaska 6 17.8 (16.4, 19.3) 30 (8, 45) 129 falling falling trend -1.1 (-2.1, -0.1)
Arizona 6 15.2 (14.8, 15.6) 47 (43, 48) 1,348 falling falling trend -0.6 (-1.0, -0.1)
Arkansas 6 17.4 (16.8, 18.1) 35 (24, 41) 648 stable stable trend -0.3 (-0.9, 0.3)
California 7 17.7 (17.5, 17.9) 31 (27, 36) 7,757 falling falling trend -1.4 (-2.8, -0.7)
Colorado 6 16.5 (16.1, 17.0) 40 (36, 44) 1,034 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.4, -0.6)
Connecticut 7 20.6 (20.0, 21.3) 5 (3, 10) 944 stable stable trend -0.4 (-2.0, 0.0)
Delaware 6 17.2 (16.2, 18.3) 39 (17, 45) 226 falling falling trend -5.6 (-9.9, -3.0)
Florida 6 21.7 (21.5, 22.0) 2 (1, 3) 6,519 falling falling trend -3.0 (-4.6, -1.8)
Georgia 7 17.3 (17.0, 17.7) 36 (29, 40) 1,995 stable stable trend -0.2 (-1.2, 0.1)
Hawaii 7 15.2 (14.4, 16.1) 46 (41, 50) 291 stable stable trend 0.0 (-0.4, 0.4)
Idaho 7 18.8 (18.0, 19.7) 20 (8, 34) 398 stable stable trend -0.1 (-0.6, 0.3)
Illinois 7 18.9 (18.6, 19.2) 19 (11, 25) 2,872 falling falling trend -0.3 (-1.7, -0.1)
Iowa 7 21.3 (20.6, 22.0) 3 (1, 7) 844 falling falling trend -0.6 (-1.6, -0.1)
Kansas 6 18.5 (17.9, 19.2) 24 (10, 34) 640 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.1, 0.0)
Kentucky 7 19.6 (19.0, 20.1) 9 (6, 21) 1,072 falling falling trend -0.7 (-3.0, -0.2)
Louisiana 7 18.9 (18.4, 19.5) 18 (9, 28) 1,019 falling falling trend -0.6 (-1.5, -0.2)
Maine 6 19.5 (18.6, 20.5) 10 (4, 27) 387 falling falling trend -3.6 (-6.8, -0.6)
Maryland 6 17.5 (17.0, 17.9) 34 (26, 40) 1,277 stable stable trend -0.2 (-0.8, 0.5)
Massachusetts 7 18.6 (18.2, 19.0) 23 (13, 30) 1,617 falling falling trend -3.7 (-5.5, -1.4)
Michigan 6 18.5 (18.1, 18.8) 25 (17, 30) 2,331 falling falling trend -4.6 (-8.9, -1.0)
Minnesota 6 22.2 (21.6, 22.7) 1 (1, 3) 1,514 stable stable trend 0.1 (-0.3, 0.7)
Mississippi 6 16.2 (15.6, 16.8) 42 (37, 46) 568 falling falling trend -0.9 (-3.3, -0.4)
Missouri 6 18.1 (17.7, 18.6) 27 (19, 35) 1,388 falling falling trend -2.4 (-3.9, -0.6)
Montana 6 17.5 (16.5, 18.6) 33 (15, 43) 248 falling falling trend -5.2 (-8.3, -1.4)
Nebraska 6 19.3 (18.5, 20.2) 12 (6, 28) 441 stable stable trend -0.5 (-0.9, 0.0)
Nevada 6 14.6 (14.0, 15.2) 48 (45, 50) 521 falling falling trend -2.0 (-2.4, -1.6)
New Hampshire 6 20.1 (19.1, 21.0) 8 (3, 23) 370 stable stable trend -0.2 (-0.9, 0.5)
New Jersey 7 20.8 (20.4, 21.2) 4 (3, 8) 2,357 stable stable trend -0.1 (-0.2, 0.1)
New Mexico 7 14.2 (13.5, 14.8) 50 (46, 50) 375 falling falling trend -1.2 (-3.8, -0.4)
New York 7 20.4 (20.1, 20.7) 7 (4, 10) 5,020 falling falling trend -0.6 (-1.0, -0.4)
North Carolina 6 18.0 (17.7, 18.4) 28 (22, 35) 2,243 stable stable trend 0.2 (-1.1, 2.2)
North Dakota 6 19.3 (18.0, 20.7) 13 (3, 36) 171 stable stable trend -0.3 (-1.3, 0.7)
Ohio 6 19.1 (18.8, 19.4) 16 (9, 24) 2,816 stable stable trend -0.2 (-0.5, 0.2)
Oklahoma 6 17.3 (16.8, 17.9) 37 (26, 41) 796 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.3, -0.5)
Oregon 6 17.9 (17.4, 18.4) 29 (19, 38) 952 falling falling trend -0.8 (-1.3, -0.2)
Pennsylvania 6 19.2 (18.9, 19.5) 14 (9, 21) 3,287 falling falling trend -4.3 (-5.5, -3.3)
Rhode Island 6 18.4 (17.4, 19.5) 26 (8, 39) 258 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.3, 0.2)
South Carolina 6 15.8 (15.4, 16.3) 44 (40, 47) 1,011 falling falling trend -0.6 (-1.0, -0.2)
South Dakota 6 19.1 (17.9, 20.3) 15 (4, 36) 207 stable stable trend -0.2 (-0.8, 0.4)
Tennessee 6 17.2 (16.8, 17.7) 38 (28, 40) 1,433 falling falling trend -3.3 (-6.2, -1.8)
Texas 7 17.5 (17.3, 17.8) 32 (28, 38) 5,081 falling falling trend -1.4 (-2.5, -0.6)
Utah 7 18.6 (17.9, 19.4) 22 (10, 33) 531 falling falling trend -0.7 (-3.0, -0.1)
Vermont 6 18.7 (17.4, 20.1) 21 (5, 39) 169 falling falling trend -2.7 (-10.9, -0.3)
Virginia 6 16.4 (16.0, 16.8) 41 (38, 45) 1,653 falling falling trend -3.4 (-5.1, -2.0)
Washington 5 19.1 (18.6, 19.5) 17 (9, 25) 1,685 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.3, -0.8)
West Virginia 6 19.4 (18.6, 20.3) 11 (5, 26) 488 stable stable trend -0.1 (-0.7, 0.4)
Wisconsin 6 20.5 (20.0, 21.0) 6 (3, 10) 1,514 stable stable trend -0.2 (-1.1, 0.2)
Wyoming 6 15.9 (14.6, 17.3) 43 (27, 50) 112 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.7, 0.3)
Indiana 6
data not available
N/A
data not available
data not available
data not available
Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 10/11/2024 11:01 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

† 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