Return to Home Incidence > Table

Incidence Rates Table

Data Options

Incidence Rate Report for Maryland by County

Prostate (All Stages^), 2017-2021

All Races (includes Hispanic), Male, All Ages

Sorted by CI*Rank
County
 sort alphabetically by name ascending
2023 Rural-Urban Continuum Codes Φ
 sort by rural urban descending
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
Maryland 6 N/A 136.4 (134.6, 138.1) N/A 5,048 rising rising trend 2.2 (0.7, 4.3)
US (SEER+NPCR) 1 N/A 113.2 (113.0, 113.4) N/A 224,883 rising rising trend 1.9 (0.4, 3.7)
Washington County 6 Urban 100.4 (91.9, 109.7) 24 (21, 24) 104 falling falling trend -3.4 (-4.9, -2.0)
Cecil County 6 Urban 111.5 (100.3, 123.7) 23 (15, 24) 78 falling falling trend -2.2 (-3.9, -0.5)
Garrett County 6 Rural 113.2 (93.9, 135.9) 22 (7, 24) 26 stable stable trend 4.4 (-3.3, 20.9)
Frederick County 6 Urban 114.9 (107.3, 122.8) 21 (15, 24) 184 stable stable trend 6.1 (-0.2, 17.3)
Caroline County 6 Rural 120.1 (100.3, 143.0) 20 (3, 24) 27 stable stable trend -0.4 (-2.2, 1.5)
St. Marys County 6 Urban 121.1 (109.1, 134.1) 19 (9, 23) 79 stable stable trend 2.0 (-2.8, 15.7)
Anne Arundel County 6 Urban 121.7 (116.5, 127.1) 18 (13, 22) 431 rising rising trend 2.5 (0.1, 6.9)
Worcester County 6 Rural 127.5 (113.2, 143.7) 17 (4, 23) 62 stable stable trend -1.5 (-4.0, 1.1)
Harford County 6 Urban 127.8 (120.0, 135.9) 16 (8, 21) 216 falling falling trend -2.4 (-3.1, -1.6)
Montgomery County 6 Urban 127.8 (123.8, 132.0) 15 (10, 19) 797 rising rising trend 3.4 (0.8, 7.1)
Somerset County 6 Urban 127.9 (104.3, 155.8) 14 (1, 24) 22 stable stable trend -1.0 (-3.2, 1.4)
Allegany County 6 Rural 129.2 (115.4, 144.4) 13 (3, 23) 65 stable stable trend -0.9 (-2.7, 0.9)
Dorchester County 6 Rural 134.4 (114.4, 157.6) 12 (1, 23) 34 stable stable trend -0.7 (-3.1, 2.0)
Kent County 6 Rural 136.4 (113.4, 164.4) 11 (1, 23) 25 stable stable trend -1.0 (-3.2, 1.3)
Talbot County 6 Rural 137.7 (119.6, 158.3) 10 (1, 22) 47 stable stable trend -1.6 (-5.2, 1.9)
Queen Annes County 6 Urban 137.9 (121.4, 156.5) 9 (1, 21) 53 stable stable trend -1.6 (-4.2, 1.1)
Wicomico County 6 Urban 140.9 (127.6, 155.3) 8 (1, 18) 87 stable stable trend -0.7 (-2.5, 1.3)
Calvert County 6 Urban 141.2 (127.7, 155.8) 7 (1, 18) 86 stable stable trend 10.2 (-0.5, 22.0)
Baltimore County 6 Urban 143.6 (138.9, 148.4) 6 (2, 12) 758 stable stable trend 2.1 (0.0, 7.1)
Howard County 6 Urban 144.8 (137.0, 152.9) 5 (1, 12) 279 rising rising trend 6.1 (0.3, 17.1)
Charles County 6 Urban 144.9 (133.6, 156.9) 4 (1, 14) 134 stable stable trend -1.0 (-2.7, 0.9)
Carroll County 6 Urban 145.7 (135.9, 156.1) 3 (1, 13) 174 rising rising trend 3.0 (0.2, 10.6)
Baltimore City 6 Urban 149.1 (142.8, 155.6) 2 (1, 10) 464 stable stable trend 1.7 (-0.9, 6.8)
Prince Georges County 6 Urban 151.8 (146.9, 156.9) 1 (1, 7) 780 falling falling trend -1.7 (-2.9, -0.4)
Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 10/14/2024 12:28 am.

State Cancer Registries may provide more current or more local data.
† 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.

Φ Rural-Urban Continuum Codes provided by the USDA.
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.

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