Return to Home Incidence > Table

Incidence Rates Table

Data Options

Incidence Rate Report for Indiana by County

Lung & Bronchus (All Stages^), 2014-2018

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

Sorted by Rate
County
 sort alphabetically by name ascending
Met Healthy People Objective of ***?
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
Indiana 6 *** 69.9 (69.1, 70.7) N/A 5,556 falling falling trend -4.8 (-7.6, -2.0)
US (SEER+NPCR) 1 *** 57.3 (57.1, 57.4) N/A 222,811 falling falling trend -2.6 (-3.4, -1.8)
Hamilton County 6 *** 42.1 (38.8, 45.7) 92 (89, 92) 124 falling falling trend -3.3 (-4.3, -2.3)
Dubois County 6 *** 49.0 (41.1, 58.2) 91 (74, 92) 28 stable stable trend -0.2 (-2.4, 2.0)
Union County 6 *** 50.3 (32.6, 75.6) 90 (11, 92) 5 falling falling trend -3.8 (-6.5, -1.0)
Boone County 6 *** 53.4 (45.8, 61.9) 89 (58, 92) 37 stable stable trend -20.0 (-42.5, 11.3)
Monroe County 6 *** 56.9 (51.3, 62.9) 88 (62, 91) 79 falling falling trend -1.7 (-3.1, -0.4)
Tippecanoe County 6 *** 58.8 (53.6, 64.4) 87 (58, 90) 97 stable stable trend -3.8 (-17.9, 12.8)
Posey County 6 *** 58.8 (48.0, 71.7) 86 (21, 92) 21 falling falling trend -2.9 (-5.2, -0.5)
Daviess County 6 *** 59.4 (48.9, 71.4) 85 (30, 91) 23 stable stable trend -0.6 (-3.1, 1.9)
Adams County 6 *** 59.6 (49.0, 71.8) 84 (25, 91) 23 stable stable trend 0.2 (-1.7, 2.0)
Ripley County 6 *** 60.3 (49.6, 72.9) 83 (23, 92) 23 falling falling trend -3.4 (-5.0, -1.8)
Switzerland County 6 *** 61.9 (44.9, 83.9) 82 (3, 92) 9 falling falling trend -3.8 (-6.9, -0.6)
Wabash County 6 *** 62.6 (52.6, 74.3) 81 (20, 91) 29 stable stable trend 0.5 (-1.5, 2.6)
LaGrange County 6 *** 62.7 (52.1, 74.9) 80 (17, 91) 25 stable stable trend 0.0 (-2.8, 2.9)
Steuben County 6 *** 62.7 (53.1, 73.8) 79 (23, 91) 31 stable stable trend -0.1 (-2.6, 2.5)
Decatur County 6 *** 62.9 (51.5, 76.3) 78 (14, 91) 22 falling falling trend -2.0 (-3.7, -0.2)
Spencer County 6 *** 62.9 (50.6, 77.7) 77 (11, 91) 19 stable stable trend -1.5 (-4.4, 1.6)
Marshall County 6 *** 64.1 (55.3, 74.0) 76 (24, 90) 39 stable stable trend 0.2 (-1.4, 1.8)
Hendricks County 6 *** 64.5 (59.1, 70.3) 75 (39, 87) 109 falling falling trend -2.0 (-2.9, -1.0)
Hancock County 6 *** 64.5 (57.2, 72.5) 74 (28, 89) 59 falling falling trend -2.6 (-4.0, -1.2)
Warrick County 6 *** 65.1 (57.4, 73.7) 73 (25, 90) 53 stable stable trend -1.4 (-3.0, 0.3)
Allen County 6 *** 65.2 (61.7, 68.9) 72 (43, 83) 269 stable stable trend -3.9 (-7.9, 0.2)
Lake County 6 *** 65.8 (62.9, 68.8) 71 (45, 80) 399 stable stable trend -5.2 (-11.5, 1.5)
Huntington County 6 *** 66.1 (56.1, 77.5) 70 (15, 90) 32 stable stable trend -0.2 (-2.2, 1.8)
Franklin County 6 *** 66.2 (53.6, 81.0) 69 (7, 91) 20 stable stable trend -1.6 (-3.9, 0.7)
Elkhart County 6 *** 66.2 (61.5, 71.2) 68 (37, 84) 151 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.8, 0.4)
St. Joseph County 6 *** 66.7 (62.6, 70.9) 67 (38, 81) 213 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.9, -0.3)
Gibson County 6 *** 66.8 (56.3, 78.7) 66 (10, 90) 30 stable stable trend -0.1 (-2.5, 2.4)
Pulaski County 6 *** 66.8 (50.3, 87.5) 65 (2, 92) 12 stable stable trend 0.0 (-2.8, 2.9)
Ohio County 6 *** 67.3 (46.1, 97.4) 64 (1, 92) 7 stable stable trend -2.2 (-5.9, 1.8)
Miami County 6 *** 67.6 (57.4, 79.3) 63 (12, 89) 32 falling falling trend -2.5 (-4.1, -0.9)
Porter County 6 *** 68.1 (63.0, 73.5) 62 (27, 81) 140 falling falling trend -1.1 (-2.0, -0.2)
Bartholomew County 6 *** 68.3 (61.2, 76.0) 61 (21, 86) 69 stable stable trend -0.9 (-1.8, 0.1)
White County 6 *** 68.4 (56.5, 82.2) 60 (7, 90) 25 falling falling trend -2.1 (-3.7, -0.5)
Jasper County 6 *** 68.4 (57.7, 80.7) 59 (10, 90) 30 falling falling trend -1.8 (-3.5, -0.1)
Wells County 6 *** 68.8 (57.2, 82.2) 58 (7, 90) 26 stable stable trend 0.8 (-1.5, 3.1)
Lawrence County 6 *** 68.9 (60.2, 78.7) 57 (13, 88) 47 stable stable trend -1.1 (-2.9, 0.7)
Carroll County 6 *** 69.1 (55.7, 85.1) 56 (4, 91) 19 stable stable trend -0.8 (-2.9, 1.4)
Orange County 6 *** 69.1 (55.9, 84.7) 55 (4, 90) 20 stable stable trend -1.1 (-3.9, 1.9)
Parke County 6 *** 69.7 (55.3, 87.0) 54 (2, 91) 17 stable stable trend -1.7 (-4.6, 1.2)
Randolph County 6 *** 69.7 (58.2, 83.3) 53 (6, 89) 26 stable stable trend -1.7 (-3.9, 0.5)
Clinton County 6 *** 70.1 (58.9, 83.0) 52 (5, 89) 28 stable stable trend -0.7 (-3.0, 1.6)
Fulton County 6 *** 70.2 (57.0, 85.8) 51 (4, 90) 21 stable stable trend -2.3 (-4.6, 0.1)
Fountain County 6 *** 70.3 (56.3, 87.3) 50 (3, 91) 18 stable stable trend -1.8 (-4.2, 0.6)
Johnson County 6 *** 70.5 (64.9, 76.5) 49 (22, 79) 120 falling falling trend -1.5 (-2.9, -0.1)
Vanderburgh County 6 *** 70.6 (65.8, 75.8) 48 (23, 76) 163 falling falling trend -1.6 (-2.9, -0.3)
Warren County 6 *** 70.7 (51.4, 96.1) 47 (1, 92) 9 stable stable trend -2.9 (-6.0, 0.2)
Jay County 6 *** 71.1 (57.3, 87.5) 46 (3, 90) 19 stable stable trend -2.8 (-5.4, 0.0)
Jackson County 6 *** 71.6 (61.8, 82.5) 45 (8, 86) 40 stable stable trend -1.1 (-3.1, 1.0)
Perry County 6 *** 71.7 (57.6, 88.5) 44 (2, 90) 19 stable stable trend -1.0 (-4.1, 2.1)
Sullivan County 6 *** 71.8 (58.3, 87.9) 43 (3, 90) 20 falling falling trend -28.1 (-44.1, -7.5)
Newton County 6 *** 72.0 (56.4, 91.2) 42 (1, 91) 15 falling falling trend -2.3 (-3.7, -1.0)
Kosciusko County 6 *** 72.0 (64.6, 80.1) 41 (11, 82) 71 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.4, 0.5)
Montgomery County 6 *** 72.1 (62.0, 83.4) 40 (7, 87) 38 stable stable trend -1.4 (-3.5, 0.8)
Howard County 6 *** 72.2 (65.4, 79.7) 39 (13, 79) 85 stable stable trend -1.3 (-2.6, 0.1)
Wayne County 6 *** 72.4 (64.7, 80.8) 38 (11, 81) 67 falling falling trend -2.4 (-3.7, -1.2)
Tipton County 6 *** 73.1 (57.5, 92.0) 37 (1, 90) 16 stable stable trend 0.1 (-2.4, 2.7)
Brown County 6 *** 73.6 (58.6, 92.1) 36 (1, 90) 19 stable stable trend -0.1 (-2.2, 2.1)
Martin County 6 *** 74.0 (55.7, 97.3) 35 (1, 91) 11 stable stable trend 1.0 (-2.0, 4.1)
Marion County 6 *** 74.6 (72.1, 77.2) 34 (23, 52) 709 falling falling trend -2.0 (-2.6, -1.4)
Greene County 6 *** 74.8 (63.8, 87.4) 33 (4, 85) 34 stable stable trend -0.5 (-2.5, 1.5)
Crawford County 6 *** 75.3 (57.5, 98.0) 32 (1, 91) 13 stable stable trend -2.7 (-5.5, 0.2)
LaPorte County 6 *** 75.8 (69.5, 82.5) 31 (10, 67) 112 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.7, 0.4)
Knox County 6 *** 76.1 (65.4, 88.2) 30 (3, 85) 38 stable stable trend 0.8 (-1.0, 2.6)
Pike County 6 *** 76.2 (59.5, 96.8) 29 (1, 90) 15 stable stable trend -0.9 (-3.5, 1.7)
Fayette County 6 *** 77.3 (64.4, 92.3) 28 (2, 85) 26 falling falling trend -1.7 (-3.2, -0.1)
Vigo County 6 *** 77.4 (70.6, 84.6) 27 (7, 65) 100 falling falling trend -1.7 (-2.7, -0.7)
Cass County 6 *** 77.7 (67.1, 89.7) 26 (3, 81) 40 stable stable trend 0.0 (-2.0, 2.0)
Benton County 6 *** 77.7 (56.4, 105.2) 25 (1, 91) 9 falling falling trend -2.7 (-5.1, -0.3)
Madison County 6 *** 78.0 (72.1, 84.2) 24 (8, 59) 135 stable stable trend -1.1 (-2.2, 0.1)
Noble County 6 *** 78.5 (68.2, 90.0) 23 (2, 77) 45 stable stable trend 0.4 (-1.0, 1.8)
Henry County 6 *** 78.7 (69.4, 89.0) 22 (2, 72) 54 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.9, 0.6)
Delaware County 6 *** 79.6 (73.1, 86.5) 21 (5, 56) 115 stable stable trend -0.5 (-2.0, 0.9)
Whitley County 6 *** 79.7 (68.3, 92.7) 20 (1, 78) 36 stable stable trend 0.8 (-1.3, 2.9)
Dearborn County 6 *** 80.2 (70.6, 90.9) 19 (2, 72) 53 stable stable trend -1.4 (-3.0, 0.3)
Floyd County 6 *** 80.5 (72.4, 89.4) 18 (3, 62) 75 falling falling trend -1.7 (-2.7, -0.6)
Owen County 6 *** 81.7 (67.8, 98.0) 17 (1, 81) 26 stable stable trend -1.7 (-3.7, 0.3)
DeKalb County 6 *** 82.0 (71.4, 93.8) 16 (1, 69) 45 stable stable trend 1.6 (-0.1, 3.2)
Morgan County 6 *** 83.0 (74.7, 92.2) 15 (2, 54) 75 falling falling trend -1.2 (-2.2, -0.1)
Clark County 6 *** 83.3 (76.6, 90.6) 14 (3, 44) 117 falling falling trend -1.7 (-3.1, -0.2)
Grant County 6 *** 83.6 (75.3, 92.6) 13 (2, 52) 79 stable stable trend -0.1 (-1.5, 1.3)
Rush County 6 *** 84.0 (67.9, 103.1) 12 (1, 84) 20 stable stable trend -1.6 (-3.9, 0.8)
Shelby County 6 *** 84.3 (73.9, 95.9) 11 (1, 58) 49 stable stable trend 0.1 (-1.4, 1.7)
Jennings County 6 *** 84.8 (71.4, 100.2) 10 (1, 72) 30 stable stable trend -0.7 (-3.0, 1.6)
Vermillion County 6 *** 86.9 (70.5, 106.6) 9 (1, 81) 20 stable stable trend 0.1 (-2.5, 2.7)
Harrison County 6 *** 88.0 (76.8, 100.5) 8 (1, 51) 46 stable stable trend 0.2 (-1.4, 1.9)
Scott County 6 *** 88.4 (73.9, 105.2) 7 (1, 65) 27 falling falling trend -2.6 (-4.7, -0.4)
Jefferson County 6 *** 90.2 (77.7, 104.4) 6 (1, 50) 39 stable stable trend -1.0 (-3.3, 1.4)
Clay County 6 *** 90.6 (76.9, 106.1) 5 (1, 58) 32 stable stable trend 0.2 (-1.6, 2.0)
Washington County 6 *** 90.8 (77.4, 106.1) 4 (1, 54) 34 stable stable trend 0.2 (-1.9, 2.4)
Putnam County 6 *** 90.9 (78.9, 104.2) 3 (1, 44) 43 stable stable trend -1.4 (-3.2, 0.6)
Blackford County 6 *** 93.9 (75.0, 116.9) 2 (1, 78) 18 stable stable trend -0.6 (-3.3, 2.2)
Starke County 6 *** 99.5 (84.6, 116.5) 1 (1, 36) 33 stable stable trend 0.0 (-1.8, 1.9)
Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 10/18/2021 1:51 pm.

State Cancer Registries may provide more current or more local data.
Trend
Rising when 95% confidence interval of average annual percent change is above 0.
Stable when 95% confidence interval of average annual percent change includes 0.
Falling when 95% confidence interval of average annual percent change is below 0.

⋔ 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.

† 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 1969-2018 US Population Data File is used for SEER and NPCR incidence rates.
‡ Incidence data come from different sources. Due to different years of data availability, most of the trends are AAPCs based on APCs but some are APCs calculated in SEER*Stat. Please refer to the source for each area for additional information.

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.
*** No Healthy People 2020 Objective for this cancer.
Healthy People 2020 Objectives provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.


1 Source: National Program of Cancer Registries and Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results SEER*Stat Database (2001-2018) - United States Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and National Cancer Institute. Based on the 2020 submission.
6 Source: National Program of Cancer Registries SEER*Stat Database (2001-2018) - United States Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (based on the 2020 submission).
8 Source: Incidence data provided by the SEER Program. AAPCs are calculated by the Joinpoint Regression Program and are based on APCs. Data 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. Population counts for denominators are based on Census populations as modifed by NCI. The 1969-2018 US Population Data File is used with SEER November 2020 data.

Interpret Rankings provides insight into interpreting cancer incidence statistics. When the population size for a denominator is small, the rates may be unstable. A rate is unstable when a small change in the numerator (e.g., only one or two additional cases) has a dramatic effect on the calculated rate.

Data for United States does not include Puerto Rico.

When displaying county information, the CI*Rank for the state is not shown because it's not comparable. To see the state CI*Rank please view the statistics at the US By State level.

Return to Top