Return to Home Incidence > Table

Incidence Rates Table

Data Options

Incidence Rate Report for Minnesota by County

Prostate (All Stages^), 2017-2021

All Races (includes Hispanic), Male, 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 117.0 (115.4, 118.6) N/A 4,204 stable stable trend 1.7 (-0.3, 4.2)
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)
Anoka County 6 Urban 113.0 (106.6, 119.7) 47 (25, 61) 250 stable stable trend 0.8 (-2.0, 6.1)
Benton County 6 Urban 113.2 (93.4, 135.9) 45 (6, 80) 25 falling falling trend -5.5 (-7.4, -3.8)
Blue Earth County 6 Urban 89.1 (75.4, 104.8) 75 (40, 86) 31 falling falling trend -5.1 (-7.1, -3.2)
Carlton County 6 Urban 119.2 (100.3, 140.8) 32 (4, 76) 30 falling falling trend -3.4 (-5.4, -1.5)
Carver County 6 Urban 101.0 (89.4, 113.7) 64 (28, 81) 62 stable stable trend -0.1 (-3.9, 8.1)
Chisago County 6 Urban 118.3 (102.9, 135.6) 35 (6, 71) 45 rising rising trend 10.9 (4.0, 21.3)
Clay County 6 Urban 125.4 (108.7, 144.0) 22 (4, 65) 42 stable stable trend 7.9 (-2.6, 19.8)
Dakota County 6 Urban 138.4 (131.8, 145.3) 7 (3, 23) 356 rising rising trend 5.8 (2.9, 10.0)
Dodge County 6 Urban 81.9 (60.8, 108.3) 85 (29, 86) 11 stable stable trend -3.6 (-7.8, 0.4)
Fillmore County 6 Urban 113.5 (91.0, 140.5) 44 (4, 84) 19 falling falling trend -4.0 (-6.3, -1.9)
Hennepin County 6 Urban 115.2 (111.6, 118.8) 41 (25, 54) 835 rising rising trend 2.4 (0.6, 5.1)
Houston County 6 Urban 118.4 (94.6, 147.3) 34 (3, 81) 19 stable stable trend 10.2 (-1.6, 34.4)
Isanti County 6 Urban 115.5 (97.5, 136.3) 39 (6, 77) 31 rising rising trend 12.4 (2.8, 19.1)
Le Sueur County 6 Urban 96.5 (78.0, 118.5) 66 (19, 86) 20 stable stable trend 5.6 (-2.8, 17.8)
Mille Lacs County 6 Urban 122.1 (100.5, 147.6) 27 (2, 77) 23 stable stable trend 3.5 (-6.5, 26.4)
Nicollet County 6 Urban 85.7 (69.0, 105.6) 80 (38, 86) 19 falling falling trend -5.7 (-8.4, -3.2)
Olmsted County 6 Urban 120.2 (110.3, 130.9) 30 (10, 58) 112 stable stable trend 4.3 (-2.8, 18.7)
Polk County 6 Urban 102.8 (83.9, 125.1) 59 (12, 85) 22 falling falling trend -3.8 (-6.1, -1.8)
Ramsey County 6 Urban 124.6 (118.9, 130.6) 24 (11, 42) 377 stable stable trend 2.7 (-0.1, 7.0)
Rock County 6 Urban 120.0 (85.9, 165.0) 31 (1, 86) 8 falling falling trend -3.4 (-6.5, -0.6)
Scott County 6 Urban 111.6 (100.7, 123.4) 50 (16, 69) 85 falling falling trend -2.5 (-4.4, -0.4)
Sherburne County 6 Urban 118.5 (104.7, 133.6) 33 (7, 67) 59 stable stable trend 1.4 (-14.3, 17.7)
St. Louis County 6 Urban 126.6 (118.4, 135.2) 19 (8, 43) 194 falling falling trend -2.5 (-3.6, -1.4)
Stearns County 6 Urban 112.8 (103.2, 123.0) 49 (17, 68) 106 falling falling trend -5.0 (-6.4, -3.7)
Wabasha County 6 Urban 88.0 (69.4, 111.1) 77 (29, 86) 16 stable stable trend 0.9 (-5.5, 12.4)
Washington County 6 Urban 131.0 (123.1, 139.4) 16 (5, 38) 214 rising rising trend 3.0 (0.5, 7.7)
Wright County 6 Urban 101.7 (91.5, 112.6) 61 (31, 78) 79 falling falling trend -4.3 (-5.9, -2.6)
Aitkin County 6 Rural 120.7 (99.7, 147.9) 29 (3, 76) 24 falling falling trend -2.6 (-4.8, -0.6)
Becker County 6 Rural 133.0 (113.8, 154.9) 14 (2, 61) 37 rising rising trend 4.2 (0.1, 12.4)
Beltrami County 6 Rural 104.6 (87.7, 124.0) 57 (13, 83) 28 falling falling trend -5.5 (-9.0, -2.6)
Big Stone County 6 Rural 142.9 (95.8, 210.3) 6 (1, 86) 7 stable stable trend -0.4 (-4.1, 3.5)
Brown County 6 Rural 83.6 (66.1, 105.0) 83 (35, 86) 16 falling falling trend -4.9 (-6.6, -3.3)
Cass County 6 Rural 116.8 (99.9, 136.7) 37 (5, 73) 36 stable stable trend 9.8 (-7.3, 22.0)
Chippewa County 6 Rural 135.8 (104.4, 175.1) 12 (1, 77) 13 stable stable trend -2.8 (-5.7, 0.0)
Clearwater County 6 Rural 77.7 (51.0, 116.2) 86 (14, 86) 5 stable stable trend -2.8 (-7.1, 1.0)
Cook County 6 Rural 137.6 (96.3, 197.9) 9 (1, 85) 8 stable stable trend -2.9 (-6.6, 0.8)
Cottonwood County 6 Rural 93.9 (67.9, 128.4) 71 (8, 86) 9 falling falling trend -5.0 (-8.3, -2.1)
Crow Wing County 6 Rural 126.3 (113.3, 140.7) 20 (4, 59) 72 stable stable trend 2.1 (-1.7, 8.9)
Douglas County 6 Rural 125.7 (108.8, 145.0) 21 (3, 65) 42 stable stable trend 10.0 (-1.3, 25.6)
Faribault County 6 Rural 84.4 (62.0, 113.7) 81 (21, 86) 10 stable stable trend 4.7 (-2.3, 17.0)
Freeborn County 6 Rural 88.7 (72.8, 107.7) 76 (33, 86) 22 falling falling trend -4.7 (-6.5, -3.3)
Goodhue County 6 Rural 117.6 (101.6, 135.6) 36 (6, 72) 41 stable stable trend 6.0 (-4.4, 21.8)
Grant County 6 Rural 148.8 (104.7, 209.0) 4 (1, 82) 8 stable stable trend 0.0 (-2.6, 2.7)
Hubbard County 6 Rural 124.6 (102.6, 151.0) 25 (2, 74) 25 rising rising trend 7.6 (2.0, 19.4)
Itasca County 6 Rural 90.3 (77.1, 105.7) 73 (39, 86) 36 falling falling trend -3.7 (-5.8, -1.8)
Jackson County 6 Rural 123.4 (91.7, 164.5) 26 (1, 84) 11 falling falling trend -3.4 (-6.3, -0.7)
Kanabec County 6 Rural 101.6 (77.8, 131.6) 62 (6, 86) 13 falling falling trend -5.5 (-8.9, -2.6)
Kandiyohi County 6 Rural 109.9 (93.7, 128.5) 53 (10, 80) 34 falling falling trend -3.9 (-5.7, -2.1)
Kittson County 6 Rural 168.9 (111.2, 251.7) 1 (1, 84) 6
*
*
Koochiching County 6 Rural 131.7 (103.7, 167.7) 15 (1, 77) 17 stable stable trend -2.2 (-4.9, 0.7)
Lac qui Parle County 6 Rural 137.3 (98.0, 191.3) 10 (1, 83) 9 stable stable trend 9.5 (-6.0, 45.1)
Lake County 6 Rural 121.8 (93.2, 159.1) 28 (2, 83) 13 falling falling trend -4.7 (-24.2, -0.6)
Lake of the Woods County 6 Rural 81.9 (47.8, 144.0) 84 (5, 86) 4
*
*
Lincoln County 6 Rural 95.7 (59.9, 149.5) 67 (2, 86) 5 falling falling trend -6.2 (-11.1, -2.5)
Lyon County 6 Rural 108.5 (85.9, 135.4) 55 (5, 85) 17 stable stable trend -0.3 (-6.8, 16.3)
Mahnomen County 6 Rural 160.9 (108.1, 233.6) 2 (1, 82) 6 stable stable trend -2.6 (-7.4, 2.0)
Marshall County 6 Rural 138.3 (102.9, 184.2) 8 (1, 80) 11 stable stable trend -1.5 (-3.6, 0.6)
Martin County 6 Rural 106.0 (84.7, 132.2) 56 (7, 85) 18 falling falling trend -5.7 (-7.8, -4.0)
McLeod County 6 Rural 113.0 (95.4, 133.2) 48 (7, 78) 30 falling falling trend -4.4 (-6.7, -2.2)
Meeker County 6 Rural 126.6 (104.5, 152.8) 18 (2, 71) 24 falling falling trend -2.5 (-4.5, -0.4)
Morrison County 6 Rural 111.3 (93.4, 132.1) 52 (8, 80) 29 falling falling trend -3.7 (-5.0, -2.5)
Mower County 6 Rural 89.7 (74.1, 107.8) 74 (35, 86) 24 falling falling trend -6.2 (-9.0, -4.0)
Murray County 6 Rural 114.6 (81.8, 159.4) 43 (1, 86) 9 stable stable trend -1.6 (-4.9, 1.6)
Nobles County 6 Rural 84.2 (64.4, 108.6) 82 (29, 86) 13 falling falling trend -6.0 (-9.0, -3.6)
Norman County 6 Rural 86.3 (53.3, 135.3) 78 (5, 86) 4 falling falling trend -5.5 (-9.9, -2.0)
Otter Tail County 6 Rural 133.8 (120.0, 149.1) 13 (2, 48) 72 falling falling trend -3.4 (-5.4, -1.5)
Pennington County 6 Rural 115.0 (86.7, 150.7) 42 (2, 85) 11 stable stable trend 19.9 (-1.8, 40.3)
Pine County 6 Rural 108.9 (90.6, 130.6) 54 (8, 82) 26 stable stable trend 1.1 (-2.0, 8.6)
Pipestone County 6 Rural 101.4 (70.0, 143.9) 63 (2, 86) 7 stable stable trend -3.1 (-6.7, 0.2)
Pope County 6 Rural 130.0 (99.3, 169.1) 17 (1, 80) 13 stable stable trend -2.7 (-5.6, 0.0)
Red Lake County 6 Rural 152.3 (96.6, 234.4) 3 (1, 86) 5
*
*
Redwood County 6 Rural 111.4 (85.6, 143.6) 51 (3, 85) 13 falling falling trend -4.2 (-6.6, -2.0)
Renville County 6 Rural 115.4 (88.7, 148.7) 40 (2, 84) 13 falling falling trend -3.6 (-7.3, -0.3)
Rice County 6 Rural 99.9 (86.8, 114.7) 65 (26, 82) 43 stable stable trend -2.3 (-4.5, 0.0)
Roseau County 6 Rural 124.6 (95.9, 160.1) 23 (1, 81) 14 falling falling trend -3.3 (-6.2, -0.5)
Sibley County 6 Rural 94.8 (70.3, 126.2) 68 (9, 86) 11 falling falling trend -3.9 (-6.8, -1.2)
Steele County 6 Rural 104.5 (87.0, 124.7) 58 (11, 84) 26 falling falling trend -6.1 (-8.9, -3.7)
Stevens County 6 Rural 93.6 (62.2, 136.5) 72 (3, 86) 6 falling falling trend -9.2 (-34.3, -4.9)
Swift County 6 Rural 94.2 (66.0, 132.6) 70 (5, 86) 8 falling falling trend -4.2 (-7.6, -1.1)
Todd County 6 Rural 113.2 (93.5, 136.5) 46 (6, 81) 25 falling falling trend -4.7 (-7.4, -2.3)
Wadena County 6 Rural 137.3 (107.3, 174.2) 11 (1, 73) 15 falling falling trend -3.9 (-7.4, -0.8)
Waseca County 6 Rural 86.1 (65.4, 112.2) 79 (22, 86) 12 stable stable trend -4.1 (-9.2, 0.6)
Watonwan County 6 Rural 102.7 (74.1, 140.2) 60 (4, 86) 9 stable stable trend -3.9 (-8.9, 0.1)
Wilkin County 6 Rural 115.6 (75.8, 171.4) 38 (1, 86) 6 stable stable trend -1.3 (-4.7, 2.1)
Winona County 6 Rural 94.5 (80.1, 111.1) 69 (33, 85) 32 falling falling trend -4.2 (-5.9, -2.6)
Yellow Medicine County 6 Rural 146.0 (107.3, 195.6) 5 (1, 76) 10 stable stable trend -3.0 (-6.7, 0.2)
Traverse County 6 Rural
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 12/08/2024 8:10 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.

† 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.
‡ Incidence data come from different sources. The Average Annual Percent Change (AAPC) is based on the APCs calculated by Joinpoint. Due to data availability issues, the time period used in the calculation of the joinpoint regression model may differ for selected counties.

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.
* 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 - United States Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and National Cancer Institute. Based on the 2023 submission.
6 Source: National Program of Cancer Registries SEER*Stat Database - United States Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (based on the 2023 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 modified by NCI. The US Population Data File is used with SEER November 2023 data.

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