Return to Home Incidence > Table

Incidence Rates Table

Data Options

Incidence Rate Report for Minnesota by County

Lung & Bronchus (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 54.4 (53.6, 55.2) N/A 3,877 falling falling trend -2.2 (-3.8, -0.5)
US (SEER+NPCR) 1 N/A 53.1 (53.0, 53.2) N/A 216,523 falling falling trend -3.5 (-4.2, -2.9)
Anoka County 6 Urban 63.1 (59.7, 66.7) 29 (17, 47) 264 falling falling trend -5.1 (-8.5, -1.1)
Benton County 6 Urban 54.5 (44.8, 65.7) 54 (14, 84) 23 stable stable trend -1.4 (-3.8, 1.1)
Blue Earth County 6 Urban 51.4 (44.2, 59.5) 61 (23, 83) 38 stable stable trend 0.0 (-1.9, 2.1)
Carlton County 6 Urban 68.4 (58.2, 79.9) 18 (4, 62) 34 stable stable trend 0.0 (-2.1, 2.2)
Carver County 6 Urban 41.3 (35.8, 47.4) 82 (62, 87) 44 falling falling trend -3.1 (-7.8, -1.2)
Chisago County 6 Urban 68.2 (59.7, 77.7) 20 (5, 54) 48 stable stable trend 2.9 (-0.8, 12.2)
Clay County 6 Urban 59.7 (51.6, 68.8) 39 (11, 74) 40 stable stable trend 1.2 (-0.9, 3.4)
Dakota County 6 Urban 48.6 (45.9, 51.5) 72 (54, 80) 245 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.8, -0.2)
Dodge County 6 Urban 39.9 (29.5, 53.1) 83 (37, 87) 10 stable stable trend -0.8 (-5.3, 4.2)
Fillmore County 6 Urban 53.2 (42.2, 66.7) 58 (12, 85) 17 stable stable trend 0.1 (-2.4, 2.7)
Hennepin County 6 Urban 47.2 (45.6, 48.8) 77 (61, 80) 676 falling falling trend -1.3 (-1.8, -0.9)
Houston County 6 Urban 43.8 (33.6, 56.8) 79 (30, 87) 13 stable stable trend -0.2 (-3.2, 2.9)
Isanti County 6 Urban 68.6 (58.8, 79.7) 17 (4, 59) 36 stable stable trend 1.0 (-0.8, 3.1)
Le Sueur County 6 Urban 61.0 (50.5, 73.4) 33 (7, 79) 24 stable stable trend 0.1 (-2.1, 2.4)
Mille Lacs County 6 Urban 62.0 (51.1, 74.9) 32 (6, 78) 23 stable stable trend -0.7 (-2.9, 1.6)
Nicollet County 6 Urban 43.7 (35.2, 53.8) 80 (40, 87) 19 falling falling trend -15.5 (-30.5, -0.9)
Olmsted County 6 Urban 51.0 (46.6, 55.8) 63 (39, 79) 101 stable stable trend -0.9 (-2.2, 0.5)
Polk County 6 Urban 60.2 (50.1, 71.9) 36 (9, 79) 27 rising rising trend 1.9 (0.3, 3.7)
Ramsey County 6 Urban 54.5 (51.9, 57.3) 53 (38, 66) 342 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.8, -0.1)
Rock County 6 Urban 37.4 (24.9, 55.1) 86 (32, 87) 6 stable stable trend 1.5 (-2.9, 6.8)
Scott County 6 Urban 50.6 (45.3, 56.4) 65 (35, 81) 69 stable stable trend -1.1 (-2.3, 0.1)
Sherburne County 6 Urban 65.4 (58.0, 73.5) 24 (7, 55) 61 rising rising trend 1.0 (0.1, 2.0)
St. Louis County 6 Urban 62.2 (58.1, 66.4) 31 (17, 54) 188 stable stable trend -0.1 (-0.9, 0.8)
Stearns County 6 Urban 57.7 (52.8, 63.0) 45 (21, 67) 106 stable stable trend 0.2 (-0.9, 1.3)
Wabasha County 6 Urban 48.7 (38.8, 61.0) 71 (23, 86) 17 stable stable trend -1.2 (-4.1, 1.9)
Washington County 6 Urban 48.0 (44.6, 51.6) 76 (53, 82) 152 stable stable trend -0.6 (-2.0, 0.9)
Wright County 6 Urban 60.7 (55.1, 66.7) 34 (16, 63) 89 stable stable trend -0.1 (-2.0, 2.0)
Aitkin County 6 Rural 77.0 (64.0, 93.1) 9 (1, 49) 28 stable stable trend 0.5 (-1.6, 2.7)
Becker County 6 Rural 59.8 (50.9, 70.1) 38 (10, 77) 33 stable stable trend 0.5 (-1.2, 2.4)
Beltrami County 6 Rural 69.4 (59.8, 80.1) 16 (3, 54) 39 stable stable trend 0.6 (-1.3, 2.8)
Big Stone County 6 Rural 51.7 (31.1, 83.3) 60 (3, 87) 4 stable stable trend -1.1 (-6.0, 3.9)
Brown County 6 Rural 58.1 (47.8, 70.2) 43 (8, 81) 24 stable stable trend 1.1 (-0.9, 3.3)
Cass County 6 Rural 65.9 (56.6, 76.7) 22 (6, 63) 38 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.7, 1.0)
Chippewa County 6 Rural 82.8 (65.0, 104.6) 6 (1, 55) 16 rising rising trend 7.8 (2.1, 23.1)
Clearwater County 6 Rural 82.2 (60.3, 110.3) 7 (1, 76) 10 stable stable trend 0.6 (-3.1, 4.7)
Cook County 6 Rural 39.2 (22.8, 66.3) 85 (12, 87) 4 stable stable trend -2.1 (-6.2, 2.1)
Cottonwood County 6 Rural 49.5 (35.5, 68.0) 69 (10, 87) 9 stable stable trend 1.2 (-1.7, 4.4)
Crow Wing County 6 Rural 57.4 (51.3, 64.2) 46 (18, 71) 66 stable stable trend -0.7 (-2.0, 0.8)
Douglas County 6 Rural 48.3 (40.9, 56.9) 75 (32, 85) 32 stable stable trend -0.5 (-2.2, 1.4)
Faribault County 6 Rural 66.6 (52.5, 84.1) 21 (3, 80) 16 stable stable trend 1.5 (-2.6, 5.8)
Freeborn County 6 Rural 56.9 (47.6, 67.7) 47 (13, 80) 29 stable stable trend -0.3 (-6.8, 1.3)
Goodhue County 6 Rural 57.9 (50.2, 66.6) 44 (15, 76) 42 stable stable trend 0.6 (-1.5, 2.9)
Grant County 6 Rural 58.7 (39.8, 85.9) 41 (2, 87) 6 stable stable trend 0.1 (-3.8, 4.2)
Hubbard County 6 Rural 70.1 (58.3, 84.2) 15 (2, 63) 27 stable stable trend 0.8 (-1.1, 2.9)
Itasca County 6 Rural 74.3 (65.3, 84.3) 11 (3, 39) 55 rising rising trend 2.1 (0.8, 3.7)
Jackson County 6 Rural 60.5 (43.5, 82.7) 35 (3, 86) 9 stable stable trend 2.2 (-1.5, 6.3)
Kanabec County 6 Rural 85.3 (69.7, 104.0) 5 (1, 38) 22 stable stable trend 1.2 (-2.5, 5.6)
Kandiyohi County 6 Rural 49.4 (41.6, 58.3) 70 (31, 85) 31 stable stable trend 0.4 (-0.8, 1.8)
Kittson County 6 Rural 93.9 (61.8, 139.1) 2 (1, 81) 6 stable stable trend 1.7 (-2.2, 5.7)
Koochiching County 6 Rural 42.8 (31.7, 57.9) 81 (27, 87) 10 falling falling trend -3.7 (-7.4, -0.4)
Lac qui Parle County 6 Rural 39.5 (26.0, 60.6) 84 (24, 87) 6 stable stable trend -0.8 (-5.3, 3.6)
Lake County 6 Rural 68.2 (53.2, 87.7) 19 (1, 78) 15 stable stable trend 0.4 (-3.1, 4.2)
Lake of the Woods County 6 Rural 54.4 (32.3, 91.1) 55 (2, 87) 4 stable stable trend 0.5 (-4.9, 6.5)
Lincoln County 6 Rural 73.3 (50.3, 105.3) 13 (1, 85) 7 stable stable trend 1.8 (-3.4, 7.6)
Lyon County 6 Rural 54.1 (43.2, 67.0) 56 (13, 85) 18 stable stable trend -15.4 (-33.7, 2.9)
Mahnomen County 6 Rural 94.7 (64.9, 134.8) 1 (1, 76) 7 stable stable trend 1.1 (-1.4, 3.8)
Marshall County 6 Rural 72.0 (53.7, 95.6) 14 (1, 78) 11 stable stable trend 1.3 (-1.9, 4.9)
Martin County 6 Rural 64.4 (52.0, 79.2) 26 (4, 77) 21 stable stable trend 1.5 (-2.0, 5.2)
McLeod County 6 Rural 48.6 (40.6, 57.9) 73 (30, 86) 26 falling falling trend -2.8 (-17.5, -0.1)
Meeker County 6 Rural 62.3 (51.2, 75.5) 30 (6, 76) 23 stable stable trend 0.6 (-1.7, 3.2)
Morrison County 6 Rural 59.4 (50.1, 70.1) 40 (10, 77) 31 stable stable trend 0.7 (-1.7, 3.3)
Mower County 6 Rural 60.0 (51.0, 70.3) 37 (8, 76) 33 stable stable trend -0.2 (-2.3, 1.9)
Murray County 6 Rural 53.5 (38.4, 74.4) 57 (6, 87) 8 stable stable trend 0.7 (-2.7, 4.6)
Nobles County 6 Rural 55.4 (43.5, 69.6) 49 (9, 85) 16 stable stable trend 1.6 (-0.8, 4.3)
Norman County 6 Rural 77.4 (53.7, 109.3) 8 (1, 81) 7 stable stable trend 1.8 (-1.7, 5.4)
Otter Tail County 6 Rural 54.8 (48.3, 62.1) 51 (23, 77) 57 stable stable trend 0.9 (-0.5, 2.4)
Pennington County 6 Rural 63.7 (49.1, 82.0) 27 (3, 83) 13 stable stable trend 1.2 (-1.4, 4.4)
Pine County 6 Rural 74.0 (63.3, 86.5) 12 (2, 46) 35 stable stable trend 0.6 (-0.9, 2.3)
Pipestone County 6 Rural 64.9 (47.1, 88.0) 25 (2, 85) 9 stable stable trend 2.7 (-2.2, 8.1)
Pope County 6 Rural 44.0 (31.6, 60.8) 78 (19, 87) 9 stable stable trend -1.7 (-4.5, 1.2)
Red Lake County 6 Rural 54.5 (32.0, 90.5) 52 (2, 87) 4
*
*
Redwood County 6 Rural 52.6 (40.1, 68.4) 59 (10, 86) 12 stable stable trend 0.8 (-1.8, 3.4)
Renville County 6 Rural 54.8 (41.7, 71.4) 50 (8, 86) 13 stable stable trend 0.9 (-1.3, 3.3)
Rice County 6 Rural 55.8 (48.6, 63.8) 48 (17, 78) 45 stable stable trend 0.0 (-1.4, 1.5)
Roseau County 6 Rural 51.1 (38.4, 67.2) 62 (12, 87) 11 stable stable trend 1.3 (-2.7, 6.1)
Sibley County 6 Rural 49.8 (36.9, 66.4) 67 (11, 87) 10 stable stable trend -1.3 (-3.9, 1.4)
Steele County 6 Rural 48.6 (40.2, 58.4) 74 (28, 86) 24 stable stable trend -0.6 (-3.0, 2.1)
Stevens County 6 Rural 31.8 (18.2, 51.8) 87 (36, 87) 4 stable stable trend -2.1 (-6.7, 2.1)
Swift County 6 Rural 63.6 (47.3, 84.9) 28 (2, 84) 10 stable stable trend 1.4 (-0.8, 4.0)
Todd County 6 Rural 49.7 (40.6, 60.6) 68 (20, 86) 21 stable stable trend -0.4 (-3.1, 2.3)
Traverse County 6 Rural 91.5 (60.6, 137.3) 3 (1, 80) 6
*
*
Wadena County 6 Rural 75.4 (59.8, 94.4) 10 (1, 68) 17 stable stable trend 1.7 (-1.4, 5.0)
Waseca County 6 Rural 51.0 (39.3, 65.4) 64 (12, 86) 13 stable stable trend -0.7 (-3.9, 2.5)
Watonwan County 6 Rural 65.5 (48.5, 87.2) 23 (2, 85) 11 stable stable trend 2.3 (-1.3, 6.1)
Wilkin County 6 Rural 88.5 (63.7, 121.2) 4 (1, 69) 9 rising rising trend 8.2 (3.7, 21.7)
Winona County 6 Rural 50.6 (43.0, 59.3) 66 (26, 84) 33 stable stable trend -0.1 (-2.2, 2.2)
Yellow Medicine County 6 Rural 58.5 (41.6, 80.7) 42 (3, 86) 9 rising rising trend 3.6 (0.6, 7.1)
Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 11/12/2024 3:40 pm.

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+).
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