Return to Home Incidence > Table

Incidence Rates Table

Data Options

Incidence Rate Report for Indiana by County

Prostate (All Stages^), 2014-2018

All Races (includes Hispanic), Male, All Ages

Sorted by Name
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 *** 96.5 (95.1, 98.0) N/A 3,700 stable stable trend 1.2 (-1.9, 4.4)
US (SEER+NPCR) 1 *** 106.2 (106.0, 106.4) N/A 200,677 stable stable trend 1.8 (-2.6, 6.3)
Whitley County 6 *** 66.1 (51.6, 83.9) 82 (43, 91) 15 falling falling trend -7.0 (-10.6, -3.2)
White County 6 *** 96.2 (76.8, 119.7) 36 (1, 82) 18 stable stable trend 18.8 (-16.1, 68.3)
Wells County 6 *** 85.3 (67.2, 107.3) 61 (6, 87) 16 falling falling trend -3.3 (-6.2, -0.4)
Wayne County 6 *** 92.6 (80.0, 106.9) 42 (8, 75) 40 stable stable trend -1.9 (-4.1, 0.4)
Washington County 6 *** 52.8 (38.5, 71.0) 88 (62, 92) 10 falling falling trend -8.7 (-11.0, -6.4)
Warrick County 6 *** 109.1 (95.0, 124.9) 9 (1, 56) 45 stable stable trend 0.0 (-1.6, 1.6)
Warren County 6 *** 122.1 (86.0, 170.7) 3 (1, 83) 8 stable stable trend 0.7 (-3.2, 4.8)
Wabash County 6 *** 112.6 (93.3, 135.0) 8 (1, 62) 25 stable stable trend -1.5 (-4.3, 1.3)
Vigo County 6 *** 90.1 (79.3, 102.0) 48 (14, 75) 53 falling falling trend -4.9 (-6.4, -3.4)
Vermillion County 6 *** 87.2 (63.8, 117.4) 57 (1, 88) 10 falling falling trend -6.0 (-8.1, -3.9)
Vanderburgh County 6 *** 102.8 (94.2, 112.1) 21 (6, 52) 111 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.7, 0.7)
Union County 6 *** 99.2 (63.2, 150.9) 27 (1, 91) 5 stable stable trend -0.9 (-5.8, 4.2)
Tipton County 6 *** 122.0 (94.7, 156.1) 4 (1, 71) 14 stable stable trend -0.8 (-4.1, 2.7)
Tippecanoe County 6 *** 91.1 (81.8, 101.0) 46 (17, 70) 74 stable stable trend 3.1 (-4.4, 11.1)
Switzerland County 6 *** 53.9 (31.3, 87.5) 87 (24, 92) 4 falling falling trend -13.4 (-18.1, -8.4)
Sullivan County 6 *** 54.5 (38.4, 75.7) 86 (53, 92) 8 falling falling trend -6.8 (-9.1, -4.5)
Steuben County 6 *** 77.0 (62.1, 94.8) 70 (20, 88) 20 falling falling trend -3.6 (-6.9, -0.2)
Starke County 6 *** 98.1 (76.8, 124.1) 31 (1, 81) 15 stable stable trend -2.7 (-5.7, 0.5)
St. Joseph County 6 *** 88.7 (81.9, 95.9) 54 (25, 69) 136 stable stable trend 5.1 (-3.7, 14.7)
Spencer County 6 *** 87.5 (67.3, 112.7) 56 (3, 87) 13 stable stable trend -1.5 (-4.0, 1.0)
Shelby County 6 *** 92.2 (77.1, 109.7) 43 (6, 79) 28 falling falling trend -3.7 (-5.3, -2.1)
Scott County 6 *** 48.7 (33.7, 68.6) 91 (64, 92) 7 falling falling trend -8.7 (-12.9, -4.2)
Rush County 6 *** 82.8 (60.0, 112.2) 66 (2, 90) 9 stable stable trend -3.3 (-7.2, 0.7)
Ripley County 6 *** 107.2 (86.8, 131.4) 13 (1, 72) 20 stable stable trend -0.8 (-3.4, 1.8)
Randolph County 6 *** 95.0 (75.5, 118.5) 37 (3, 81) 17 stable stable trend -2.0 (-4.9, 0.9)
Putnam County 6 *** 98.9 (81.5, 119.1) 29 (1, 76) 23 stable stable trend -1.8 (-5.1, 1.7)
Pulaski County 6 *** 78.0 (54.6, 109.5) 68 (3, 92) 7 falling falling trend -6.2 (-9.2, -3.2)
Posey County 6 *** 98.3 (78.1, 122.6) 30 (1, 80) 18 stable stable trend 0.1 (-3.3, 3.5)
Porter County 6 *** 107.2 (98.1, 117.0) 14 (3, 47) 110 falling falling trend -3.3 (-4.8, -1.7)
Pike County 6 *** 89.7 (64.2, 123.6) 50 (1, 90) 8 stable stable trend 1.1 (-2.1, 4.3)
Perry County 6 *** 90.5 (68.6, 117.8) 47 (2, 86) 12 stable stable trend 1.3 (-3.0, 5.8)
Parke County 6 *** 72.2 (52.5, 98.1) 78 (15, 92) 9 stable stable trend -2.8 (-6.7, 1.4)
Owen County 6 *** 106.5 (83.6, 134.6) 15 (1, 80) 16 stable stable trend -1.5 (-4.4, 1.4)
Orange County 6 *** 89.7 (67.7, 117.1) 51 (1, 87) 12 stable stable trend -2.9 (-7.1, 1.4)
Ohio County 6 *** 89.9 (54.7, 143.9) 49 (1, 92) 4
*
*
Noble County 6 *** 74.5 (60.2, 91.3) 73 (28, 88) 21 falling falling trend -3.1 (-5.7, -0.5)
Newton County 6 *** 85.9 (62.2, 117.0) 60 (2, 90) 9 stable stable trend -2.1 (-5.7, 1.6)
Morgan County 6 *** 116.2 (102.2, 131.8) 6 (1, 42) 53 falling falling trend -3.7 (-5.5, -1.9)
Montgomery County 6 *** 76.4 (61.5, 94.2) 71 (23, 88) 19 falling falling trend -4.4 (-6.9, -1.9)
Monroe County 6 *** 125.7 (113.6, 138.8) 1 (1, 19) 83 rising rising trend 5.8 (2.1, 9.6)
Miami County 6 *** 74.5 (59.3, 92.7) 74 (22, 89) 17 falling falling trend -4.5 (-6.9, -2.0)
Martin County 6 *** 73.8 (49.0, 108.9) 75 (4, 92) 6 stable stable trend -3.9 (-8.1, 0.6)
Marshall County 6 *** 78.5 (64.7, 94.6) 67 (22, 87) 24 falling falling trend -4.5 (-6.8, -2.2)
Marion County 6 *** 107.5 (103.1, 112.1) 12 (7, 31) 483 stable stable trend 1.3 (-3.0, 5.7)
Madison County 6 *** 89.0 (80.1, 98.8) 53 (21, 72) 75 falling falling trend -4.1 (-6.1, -1.9)
Lawrence County 6 *** 103.2 (88.2, 120.4) 19 (1, 67) 35 stable stable trend 13.2 (-4.0, 33.5)
Lake County 6 *** 117.0 (111.3, 122.9) 5 (1, 19) 338 stable stable trend 5.3 (-2.6, 13.8)
LaPorte County 6 *** 99.4 (89.0, 110.7) 26 (7, 61) 71 falling falling trend -5.7 (-6.9, -4.6)
LaGrange County 6 *** 71.2 (54.9, 90.9) 79 (24, 91) 13 stable stable trend -2.1 (-5.6, 1.6)
Kosciusko County 6 *** 94.8 (82.7, 108.3) 38 (7, 71) 46 stable stable trend 8.0 (-1.4, 18.4)
Knox County 6 *** 96.9 (79.3, 117.4) 35 (2, 78) 22 falling falling trend -2.9 (-4.9, -0.8)
Johnson County 6 *** 98.1 (88.5, 108.4) 32 (9, 62) 81 falling falling trend -3.5 (-6.2, -0.8)
Jennings County 6 *** 84.4 (65.3, 107.7) 64 (5, 87) 14 falling falling trend -3.9 (-6.8, -0.9)
Jefferson County 6 *** 103.1 (83.7, 125.9) 20 (1, 77) 21 falling falling trend -3.5 (-5.9, -1.0)
Jay County 6 *** 70.5 (51.2, 95.1) 80 (14, 92) 9 falling falling trend -3.2 (-5.8, -0.4)
Jasper County 6 *** 93.0 (75.5, 113.8) 41 (2, 81) 20 stable stable trend 20.4 (-3.5, 50.3)
Jackson County 6 *** 86.8 (71.0, 105.2) 58 (9, 83) 22 falling falling trend -4.4 (-6.9, -2.0)
Huntington County 6 *** 66.8 (52.1, 84.6) 81 (39, 91) 15 falling falling trend -4.9 (-7.4, -2.2)
Howard County 6 *** 91.4 (80.2, 103.8) 44 (11, 72) 50 falling falling trend -3.1 (-4.8, -1.3)
Henry County 6 *** 85.1 (71.4, 100.9) 62 (12, 82) 28 falling falling trend -4.1 (-6.3, -1.8)
Hendricks County 6 *** 115.6 (105.3, 126.7) 7 (1, 32) 99 falling falling trend -2.0 (-3.4, -0.5)
Harrison County 6 *** 42.3 (31.6, 55.7) 92 (82, 92) 11 falling falling trend -8.7 (-11.4, -5.8)
Hancock County 6 *** 104.3 (91.0, 119.1) 16 (2, 63) 47 rising rising trend 5.5 (1.0, 10.2)
Hamilton County 6 *** 124.9 (116.8, 133.5) 2 (1, 13) 191 stable stable trend -0.5 (-2.1, 1.1)
Greene County 6 *** 74.9 (59.9, 93.1) 72 (21, 89) 18 falling falling trend -4.0 (-6.3, -1.6)
Grant County 6 *** 108.8 (95.4, 123.7) 10 (1, 53) 49 falling falling trend -3.1 (-4.4, -1.7)
Gibson County 6 *** 100.7 (82.2, 122.5) 23 (1, 75) 21 stable stable trend 1.1 (-2.0, 4.2)
Fulton County 6 *** 56.1 (39.4, 78.2) 85 (50, 92) 8 falling falling trend -8.0 (-10.4, -5.5)
Franklin County 6 *** 83.0 (63.9, 106.8) 65 (6, 88) 14 stable stable trend -4.3 (-8.7, 0.3)
Fountain County 6 *** 102.5 (78.3, 132.9) 22 (1, 83) 12 falling falling trend -3.6 (-6.6, -0.5)
Floyd County 6 *** 57.6 (47.6, 69.2) 84 (70, 92) 25 stable stable trend -0.7 (-9.5, 8.9)
Fayette County 6 *** 64.6 (48.0, 85.7) 83 (37, 92) 10 falling falling trend -3.8 (-6.2, -1.3)
Elkhart County 6 *** 73.6 (66.4, 81.3) 76 (53, 84) 81 falling falling trend -6.3 (-8.5, -4.1)
Dubois County 6 *** 100.6 (84.0, 119.7) 24 (2, 74) 27 stable stable trend -2.0 (-4.9, 1.1)
Delaware County 6 *** 94.4 (84.2, 105.4) 39 (11, 68) 65 falling falling trend -3.6 (-5.0, -2.2)
Decatur County 6 *** 99.1 (78.1, 124.2) 28 (1, 81) 16 falling falling trend -3.8 (-7.1, -0.4)
Dearborn County 6 *** 103.6 (88.5, 120.7) 18 (2, 67) 36 falling falling trend -1.8 (-3.6, -0.1)
DeKalb County 6 *** 77.5 (62.8, 94.8) 69 (23, 88) 21 falling falling trend -4.7 (-7.5, -1.8)
Daviess County 6 *** 99.5 (80.1, 122.3) 25 (1, 78) 19 stable stable trend -1.9 (-4.7, 1.0)
Crawford County 6 *** 51.1 (31.7, 80.5) 89 (50, 92) 4 falling falling trend -6.8 (-10.8, -2.6)
Clinton County 6 *** 104.0 (84.1, 127.3) 17 (1, 75) 20 stable stable trend -1.9 (-3.8, 0.0)
Clay County 6 *** 86.5 (67.6, 109.4) 59 (4, 86) 15 falling falling trend -4.6 (-7.8, -1.3)
Clark County 6 *** 49.4 (41.8, 58.1) 90 (80, 92) 32 falling falling trend -9.5 (-12.1, -6.7)
Cass County 6 *** 73.3 (58.5, 90.9) 77 (27, 89) 18 falling falling trend -4.7 (-7.0, -2.3)
Carroll County 6 *** 91.1 (70.2, 117.1) 45 (1, 85) 13 falling falling trend -4.8 (-7.1, -2.5)
Brown County 6 *** 98.0 (75.1, 127.9) 33 (1, 82) 13 stable stable trend -2.0 (-5.6, 1.8)
Boone County 6 *** 108.5 (93.0, 125.8) 11 (1, 61) 38 stable stable trend -0.6 (-3.0, 1.8)
Blackford County 6 *** 88.7 (63.0, 123.0) 55 (1, 90) 8 falling falling trend -4.2 (-7.1, -1.2)
Benton County 6 *** 93.6 (61.0, 139.2) 40 (1, 92) 5 falling falling trend -5.1 (-9.6, -0.3)
Bartholomew County 6 *** 89.6 (77.6, 102.9) 52 (11, 78) 42 falling falling trend -2.5 (-4.1, -0.9)
Allen County 6 *** 97.7 (91.4, 104.3) 34 (14, 54) 191 stable stable trend -0.9 (-3.4, 1.7)
Adams County 6 *** 85.0 (66.9, 106.6) 63 (6, 87) 16 falling falling trend -3.7 (-6.8, -0.5)
Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 11/30/2021 10:01 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.

* Data has been suppressed to ensure confidentiality and stability of rate estimates. Counts are suppressed if fewer than 16 records were reported in a specific area-sex-race category. If an average count of 3 is shown, the total number of cases for the time period is 16 or more which exceeds suppression threshold (but is rounded to 3).

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