Return to Home Incidence > Table

Incidence Rates Table

Data Options

Incidence Rate Report by State

Breast (in situ) (All Stages^), 2017-2021

All Races (includes Hispanic), Female, 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 29.3 (29.2, 29.4) N/A 57,211 stable stable trend 1.5 (-1.1, 3.7)
New York 7 42.7 (42.1, 43.2) 1 (1, 3) 5,193 rising rising trend 3.1 (1.6, 4.7)
Connecticut 7 42.3 (41.0, 43.6) 2 (1, 4) 947 stable stable trend 3.1 (-0.4, 5.3)
New Jersey 7 40.9 (40.2, 41.7) 3 (2, 4) 2,318 rising rising trend 3.1 (1.0, 4.4)
District of Columbia 6 39.1 (36.1, 42.3) 4 (1, 7) 133 stable stable trend -1.3 (-7.8, 0.9)
Rhode Island 6 37.6 (35.5, 39.9) 5 (3, 8) 263 stable stable trend 0.4 (-2.2, 1.0)
Massachusetts 7 36.2 (35.3, 37.0) 6 (4, 8) 1,552 stable stable trend 1.9 (-0.6, 3.6)
Hawaii 7 35.8 (34.0, 37.7) 7 (4, 10) 321 stable stable trend -0.2 (-1.5, 0.6)
Wisconsin 6 34.3 (33.4, 35.2) 8 (7, 10) 1,229 rising rising trend 0.9 (0.4, 1.4)
New Hampshire 6 33.1 (31.3, 34.9) 9 (7, 18) 299 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.5, -0.4)
Delaware 6 32.9 (30.8, 35.0) 10 (6, 20) 215 rising rising trend 13.2 (4.3, 19.3)
Illinois 7 32.1 (31.6, 32.7) 11 (9, 15) 2,452 rising rising trend 2.5 (0.8, 3.9)
North Carolina 6 31.7 (31.1, 32.4) 12 (9, 17) 2,081 rising rising trend 1.1 (0.5, 1.8)
Virginia 6 31.4 (30.7, 32.1) 13 (9, 19) 1,628 stable stable trend 3.7 (-1.3, 6.7)
Washington 5 31.4 (30.6, 32.1) 14 (10, 19) 1,405 stable stable trend 1.9 (-0.5, 3.3)
Pennsylvania 6 31.3 (30.7, 31.9) 15 (10, 18) 2,579 falling falling trend -0.7 (-2.3, -0.1)
Michigan 6 30.8 (30.1, 31.4) 16 (12, 20) 1,943 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.0, 0.0)
Maryland 6 30.7 (29.9, 31.5) 17 (11, 21) 1,178 rising rising trend 3.9 (0.1, 8.1)
Minnesota 6 30.2 (29.4, 31.1) 18 (12, 22) 999 stable stable trend 2.6 (-0.3, 4.5)
South Carolina 6 30.1 (29.2, 30.9) 19 (13, 22) 1,013 stable stable trend -0.6 (-2.5, 1.3)
Iowa 7 29.7 (28.6, 30.9) 20 (13, 24) 559 rising rising trend 0.8 (0.2, 1.3)
South Dakota 6 28.8 (26.6, 31.1) 21 (11, 35) 146 falling falling trend -1.9 (-5.0, -0.3)
Nebraska 6 28.3 (26.9, 29.8) 22 (17, 33) 310 stable stable trend 0.1 (-0.8, 1.1)
Florida 6 28.1 (27.7, 28.5) 23 (21, 27) 4,123 stable stable trend 0.4 (0.0, 0.8)
Georgia 7 28.0 (27.4, 28.6) 24 (21, 30) 1,765 falling falling trend -0.8 (-2.4, -0.1)
Maine 6 27.6 (26.0, 29.2) 25 (19, 36) 266 rising rising trend 6.1 (0.4, 10.6)
Colorado 6 27.6 (26.7, 28.4) 26 (21, 32) 888 falling falling trend -0.6 (-1.0, -0.1)
Ohio 6 27.3 (26.8, 27.9) 27 (22, 32) 2,022 stable stable trend 0.0 (-0.5, 0.5)
Missouri 6 27.2 (26.5, 28.0) 28 (22, 34) 1,042 stable stable trend -0.3 (-4.0, 0.6)
Arkansas 6 27.1 (26.0, 28.2) 29 (21, 35) 498 rising rising trend 1.1 (0.6, 1.7)
Kentucky 7 26.9 (26.1, 27.9) 30 (22, 35) 764 rising rising trend 1.0 (0.6, 1.3)
California 7 26.6 (26.3, 26.9) 31 (27, 34) 5,985 falling falling trend -0.6 (-1.7, -0.2)
Idaho 7 26.3 (24.9, 27.8) 32 (22, 39) 273 stable stable trend 0.4 (-0.5, 1.3)
Oregon 6 25.8 (24.9, 26.8) 33 (27, 38) 681 stable stable trend 5.6 (-0.8, 9.5)
Louisiana 7 25.5 (24.7, 26.4) 34 (30, 39) 730 rising rising trend 1.1 (0.5, 1.7)
Mississippi 6 25.4 (24.4, 26.5) 35 (28, 40) 470 rising rising trend 1.6 (0.6, 2.7)
North Dakota 6 25.2 (22.9, 27.7) 36 (21, 46) 99 stable stable trend -1.8 (-7.5, 0.4)
Kansas 6 24.6 (23.5, 25.7) 37 (32, 43) 422 stable stable trend -0.8 (-5.1, 0.3)
Arizona 6 24.6 (23.9, 25.3) 38 (33, 41) 1,065 falling falling trend -0.8 (-2.6, -0.1)
Alaska 6 24.3 (22.0, 26.7) 39 (24, 47) 92 falling falling trend -2.1 (-3.5, -0.7)
Utah 7 23.6 (22.5, 24.7) 40 (35, 46) 347 stable stable trend 0.0 (-0.6, 0.5)
Montana 6 23.4 (21.7, 25.2) 41 (33, 48) 162 falling falling trend -1.4 (-2.4, -0.5)
West Virginia 6 23.3 (22.0, 24.6) 42 (35, 47) 279 stable stable trend 1.1 (-0.6, 5.4)
Tennessee 6 23.2 (22.6, 23.9) 43 (38, 46) 1,006 falling falling trend -1.7 (-2.7, -1.0)
Alabama 6 23.1 (22.3, 23.8) 44 (38, 46) 746 stable stable trend -0.8 (-1.6, 0.0)
Texas 7 22.4 (22.1, 22.7) 45 (42, 47) 3,467 stable stable trend -0.2 (-0.6, 0.2)
Vermont 6 21.4 (19.4, 23.6) 46 (37, 49) 95 falling falling trend -5.7 (-10.4, -4.0)
Oklahoma 6 21.0 (20.2, 21.9) 47 (45, 49) 491 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.5, -0.2)
Nevada 6 20.8 (19.8, 21.8) 48 (45, 49) 383 stable stable trend -0.3 (-1.3, 0.7)
Wyoming 6 19.9 (17.7, 22.3) 49 (41, 50) 66 rising rising trend 10.7 (0.9, 16.1)
Puerto Rico 6 19.7 (18.8, 20.7) N/A 413 rising rising trend 2.3 (1.1, 3.6)
New Mexico 7 17.4 (16.3, 18.5) 50 (49, 50) 229 stable stable trend -0.1 (-0.8, 0.5)
Indiana 6
data not available
N/A
data not available
data not available
data not available
Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 12/12/2024 10:39 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