Return to Home Incidence > Table

Incidence Rates Table

Data Options

Incidence Rate Report for Minnesota by County

Colon & Rectum (All Stages^), 2017-2021

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

Sorted by Ruralurban

County
 sort alphabetically by name ascending
2023 Rural-Urban Continuum Codes Φ
 sort by rural urban 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
Minnesota 6 N/A 36.1 (35.4, 36.7) N/A 2,414 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.5, 1.1)
US (SEER+NPCR) 1 N/A 36.4 (36.3, 36.4) N/A 140,088 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.3, -0.9)
Anoka County 6 Urban 34.4 (31.9, 37.1) 62 (36, 76) 142 stable stable trend -1.0 (-3.3, 2.8)
Benton County 6 Urban 35.0 (27.4, 44.0) 60 (13, 82) 15 stable stable trend -1.0 (-3.2, 1.3)
Blue Earth County 6 Urban 36.8 (30.5, 43.9) 54 (15, 80) 26 falling falling trend -2.9 (-5.4, -0.5)
Carlton County 6 Urban 44.9 (36.6, 54.7) 19 (5, 72) 22 stable stable trend -1.4 (-4.2, 1.3)
Carver County 6 Urban 32.9 (28.1, 38.2) 74 (30, 82) 36 stable stable trend -0.7 (-2.5, 1.4)
Chisago County 6 Urban 38.7 (32.2, 46.3) 42 (11, 79) 26 stable stable trend -1.8 (-3.7, 0.2)
Clay County 6 Urban 31.4 (25.5, 38.3) 76 (28, 82) 21 falling falling trend -3.5 (-6.0, -1.1)
Dakota County 6 Urban 34.0 (31.7, 36.5) 64 (40, 77) 165 falling falling trend -2.4 (-3.4, -1.4)
Dodge County 6 Urban 48.7 (36.6, 63.4) 12 (2, 76) 11 stable stable trend 0.5 (-3.6, 4.8)
Fillmore County 6 Urban 38.9 (29.3, 51.1) 38 (6, 82) 12 stable stable trend 3.4 (-3.2, 22.9)
Hennepin County 6 Urban 33.3 (31.9, 34.7) 71 (47, 76) 460 falling falling trend -1.8 (-2.1, -1.5)
Houston County 6 Urban 34.7 (25.0, 47.3) 61 (9, 82) 10 falling falling trend -3.0 (-5.9, -0.5)
Isanti County 6 Urban 37.9 (30.3, 46.8) 49 (10, 81) 19 stable stable trend 3.1 (-4.0, 13.8)
Le Sueur County 6 Urban 33.3 (25.4, 43.2) 70 (15, 82) 12 falling falling trend -3.2 (-6.0, -0.7)
Mille Lacs County 6 Urban 36.5 (27.8, 47.4) 55 (8, 82) 13 stable stable trend -1.7 (-5.3, 1.6)
Nicollet County 6 Urban 37.0 (28.8, 47.0) 51 (10, 82) 15 stable stable trend -2.5 (-5.5, 0.6)
Olmsted County 6 Urban 31.4 (27.8, 35.3) 77 (40, 82) 58 falling falling trend -2.3 (-3.7, -0.8)
Polk County 6 Urban 42.5 (33.7, 53.1) 24 (5, 78) 17 falling falling trend -2.5 (-4.8, -0.4)
Ramsey County 6 Urban 34.3 (32.2, 36.5) 63 (40, 76) 204 stable stable trend -0.1 (-1.8, 4.2)
Rock County 6 Urban 42.3 (27.2, 63.2) 25 (2, 82) 5 stable stable trend -1.7 (-5.0, 1.5)
Scott County 6 Urban 35.1 (30.9, 39.8) 57 (26, 80) 52 falling falling trend -2.3 (-4.0, -0.4)
Sherburne County 6 Urban 32.9 (27.8, 38.7) 73 (27, 82) 31 stable stable trend -0.5 (-2.3, 1.6)
St. Louis County 6 Urban 40.8 (37.3, 44.7) 28 (15, 55) 109 stable stable trend -1.0 (-2.5, 0.5)
Stearns County 6 Urban 33.7 (29.8, 37.9) 67 (33, 80) 59 falling falling trend -1.9 (-3.3, -0.6)
Wabasha County 6 Urban 33.3 (24.3, 44.8) 72 (11, 82) 10 stable stable trend -2.7 (-6.3, 0.8)
Washington County 6 Urban 33.4 (30.5, 36.5) 68 (39, 79) 102 falling falling trend -2.3 (-3.7, -0.8)
Wright County 6 Urban 35.1 (30.9, 39.8) 58 (25, 79) 51 stable stable trend -1.0 (-2.2, 0.3)
Aitkin County 6 Rural 47.2 (34.7, 63.6) 14 (2, 80) 13 stable stable trend -0.9 (-4.4, 2.3)
Becker County 6 Rural 38.9 (30.7, 48.7) 40 (8, 81) 18 stable stable trend -1.8 (-4.7, 0.9)
Beltrami County 6 Rural 51.7 (43.0, 61.6) 6 (3, 43) 27 stable stable trend -0.7 (-3.4, 2.1)
Big Stone County 6 Rural 32.3 (17.8, 57.6) 75 (4, 82) 3 stable stable trend -4.4 (-9.6, 0.0)
Brown County 6 Rural 40.2 (31.2, 51.2) 33 (6, 81) 16 stable stable trend -2.0 (-4.4, 0.3)
Cass County 6 Rural 36.8 (28.7, 46.6) 53 (11, 82) 18 falling falling trend -3.2 (-5.2, -1.3)
Chippewa County 6 Rural 47.9 (34.2, 65.9) 13 (2, 80) 9 stable stable trend -0.4 (-5.3, 4.4)
Clearwater County 6 Rural 51.5 (34.8, 74.4) 9 (1, 81) 7 stable stable trend -0.7 (-5.6, 4.2)
Cottonwood County 6 Rural 49.0 (34.7, 67.9) 11 (2, 80) 9 stable stable trend -0.9 (-3.9, 1.9)
Crow Wing County 6 Rural 37.3 (31.7, 43.7) 50 (16, 79) 36 stable stable trend -0.9 (-2.9, 1.2)
Douglas County 6 Rural 38.4 (31.2, 46.8) 46 (11, 80) 23 stable stable trend -1.2 (-3.2, 0.9)
Faribault County 6 Rural 58.2 (43.5, 76.8) 4 (1, 56) 12 stable stable trend -0.1 (-3.0, 2.5)
Freeborn County 6 Rural 43.1 (34.8, 53.1) 22 (6, 77) 21 stable stable trend 0.0 (-2.4, 2.3)
Goodhue County 6 Rural 33.8 (27.6, 41.2) 65 (19, 82) 23 falling falling trend -2.4 (-4.0, -0.9)
Grant County 6 Rural 47.0 (27.4, 76.2) 15 (1, 82) 4 stable stable trend -2.2 (-5.7, 1.0)
Hubbard County 6 Rural 46.0 (35.1, 59.7) 17 (3, 79) 14 stable stable trend 2.3 (-13.9, 16.5)
Itasca County 6 Rural 35.0 (28.5, 42.8) 59 (17, 82) 24 falling falling trend -2.9 (-4.8, -1.2)
Jackson County 6 Rural 41.2 (27.5, 60.2) 27 (3, 82) 7 stable stable trend -0.8 (-5.1, 3.4)
Kanabec County 6 Rural 38.2 (27.8, 51.8) 47 (6, 82) 9 stable stable trend -0.4 (-4.3, 4.0)
Kandiyohi County 6 Rural 39.2 (31.8, 47.9) 37 (9, 80) 22 stable stable trend -2.0 (-4.2, 0.2)
Koochiching County 6 Rural 39.3 (27.4, 55.9) 36 (4, 82) 9 falling falling trend -3.4 (-7.2, -0.2)
Lac qui Parle County 6 Rural 41.9 (25.4, 67.1) 26 (2, 82) 5 stable stable trend -2.0 (-6.9, 2.2)
Lake County 6 Rural 40.3 (26.9, 59.0) 31 (4, 82) 7 stable stable trend -1.3 (-4.5, 1.7)
Lake of the Woods County 6 Rural 86.0 (52.4, 135.7) 2 (1, 51) 5
*
*
Lincoln County 6 Rural 78.5 (51.1, 116.2) 3 (1, 50) 6 stable stable trend 1.5 (-2.6, 5.4)
Lyon County 6 Rural 44.4 (34.0, 57.0) 20 (3, 78) 13 stable stable trend -1.2 (-4.4, 1.9)
Marshall County 6 Rural 45.8 (31.0, 66.4) 18 (2, 82) 7 falling falling trend -3.6 (-7.8, -0.1)
Martin County 6 Rural 38.6 (28.7, 51.1) 44 (6, 82) 12 stable stable trend -3.3 (-7.2, 0.4)
McLeod County 6 Rural 33.7 (26.9, 41.9) 66 (18, 82) 18 stable stable trend -1.9 (-4.7, 0.9)
Meeker County 6 Rural 44.0 (33.5, 56.9) 21 (4, 80) 13 stable stable trend -1.6 (-4.2, 0.8)
Morrison County 6 Rural 33.3 (26.0, 42.3) 69 (20, 82) 15 stable stable trend -1.6 (-3.5, 0.3)
Mower County 6 Rural 31.3 (24.6, 39.4) 78 (25, 82) 16 falling falling trend -2.5 (-5.2, -0.1)
Murray County 6 Rural 51.4 (34.6, 74.8) 10 (1, 81) 7 stable stable trend -2.8 (-7.8, 1.5)
Nobles County 6 Rural 51.5 (39.6, 66.0) 8 (2, 72) 13 stable stable trend -2.9 (-6.2, 0.1)
Otter Tail County 6 Rural 37.9 (32.1, 44.6) 48 (14, 79) 35 falling falling trend -2.0 (-3.5, -0.6)
Pennington County 6 Rural 38.4 (26.9, 53.7) 45 (5, 82) 8 stable stable trend -2.6 (-6.4, 1.0)
Pine County 6 Rural 36.9 (28.9, 46.6) 52 (10, 82) 16 stable stable trend -2.0 (-5.2, 1.0)
Pipestone County 6 Rural 40.1 (27.1, 58.4) 34 (4, 82) 6 stable stable trend -1.9 (-7.1, 3.0)
Pope County 6 Rural 39.7 (26.9, 57.4) 35 (4, 82) 7 stable stable trend -3.8 (-9.2, 0.9)
Redwood County 6 Rural 40.2 (28.6, 55.4) 32 (4, 82) 9 stable stable trend -2.2 (-5.5, 0.8)
Renville County 6 Rural 46.1 (34.1, 61.5) 16 (3, 80) 11 stable stable trend 5.5 (-2.0, 25.1)
Rice County 6 Rural 38.9 (32.7, 46.0) 39 (12, 78) 30 falling falling trend -2.2 (-4.1, -0.3)
Roseau County 6 Rural 42.9 (30.7, 58.9) 23 (4, 81) 9 stable stable trend -1.1 (-4.1, 1.9)
Sibley County 6 Rural 53.9 (39.9, 71.7) 5 (1, 74) 11 stable stable trend 0.1 (-4.1, 4.6)
Steele County 6 Rural 31.0 (24.3, 39.1) 79 (24, 82) 15 falling falling trend -2.6 (-5.3, -0.1)
Stevens County 6 Rural 30.1 (16.7, 50.3) 81 (5, 82) 3 stable stable trend -3.4 (-7.7, 0.2)
Swift County 6 Rural 30.7 (19.1, 47.8) 80 (8, 82) 5 falling falling trend -5.1 (-9.1, -1.8)
Todd County 6 Rural 38.8 (29.8, 49.9) 41 (7, 81) 14 stable stable trend 17.9 (-3.1, 34.0)
Traverse County 6 Rural 87.6 (52.6, 139.7) 1 (1, 71) 5
*
*
Wadena County 6 Rural 38.6 (27.3, 53.6) 43 (5, 82) 8 stable stable trend -1.0 (-6.0, 3.8)
Waseca County 6 Rural 40.6 (30.0, 54.0) 29 (4, 82) 10 stable stable trend -0.4 (-3.2, 2.6)
Watonwan County 6 Rural 26.2 (15.9, 41.2) 82 (16, 82) 5 stable stable trend -1.2 (-4.6, 1.8)
Wilkin County 6 Rural 40.3 (22.5, 67.3) 30 (2, 82) 3 stable stable trend -4.1 (-9.4, 0.3)
Winona County 6 Rural 36.3 (29.4, 44.5) 56 (14, 81) 21 falling falling trend -3.9 (-6.8, -1.4)
Yellow Medicine County 6 Rural 51.6 (34.3, 75.0) 7 (1, 81) 6 stable stable trend 0.8 (-4.3, 5.6)
Cook County 6 Rural
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Kittson County 6 Rural
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Mahnomen County 6 Rural
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Norman County 6 Rural
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Red Lake County 6 Rural
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 11/14/2024 7:26 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.
Cook, Kittson, Mahnomen, Norman, Red Lake

† 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+).
Φ Rural-Urban Continuum Codes provided by the USDA.
* 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).
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