Return to Home Incidence > Table

Incidence Rates Table

Data Options

Incidence Rate Report for Mississippi by County

Kidney & Renal Pelvis (All Stages^), 2017-2021

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

Sorted by Rate

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 descending
Average Annual Count
 sort by count descending
Recent Trend
Recent 5-Year Trend in Incidence Rates
(95% Confidence Interval)
 sort by trend descending
Mississippi 6 N/A 21.9 (21.2, 22.7) N/A 781 stable stable trend -2.6 (-6.7, 1.5)
US (SEER+NPCR) 1 N/A 17.3 (17.2, 17.4) N/A 67,373 falling falling trend -0.7 (-1.3, -0.1)
Adams County 6 Rural 13.7 (9.0, 20.1) 64 (30, 64) 6 stable stable trend -0.1 (-3.7, 3.8)
Lincoln County 6 Rural 14.5 (9.8, 20.9) 63 (25, 64) 6 falling falling trend -24.3 (-41.9, -1.9)
Leake County 6 Rural 15.8 (9.6, 24.6) 62 (12, 64) 4 stable stable trend -2.4 (-7.5, 2.5)
Coahoma County 6 Rural 16.4 (9.8, 25.8) 61 (8, 64) 4 stable stable trend 0.0 (-5.2, 5.4)
George County 6 Rural 16.7 (10.5, 25.4) 60 (10, 64) 5
*
*
Itawamba County 6 Rural 17.0 (10.7, 25.8) 59 (8, 64) 5 stable stable trend 2.7 (-1.2, 7.1)
Newton County 6 Rural 17.3 (10.4, 27.2) 58 (7, 64) 4 stable stable trend 0.6 (-6.6, 9.1)
Lauderdale County 6 Rural 17.4 (13.8, 21.7) 57 (24, 64) 16 stable stable trend 0.9 (-2.4, 4.5)
Monroe County 6 Rural 17.5 (12.1, 24.4) 56 (13, 64) 8 stable stable trend 0.4 (-2.9, 3.8)
Clarke County 6 Rural 18.4 (11.3, 28.8) 55 (6, 64) 4
*
*
Marion County 6 Rural 18.6 (12.3, 27.1) 54 (8, 64) 6 stable stable trend 0.6 (-6.3, 8.7)
Lawrence County 6 Rural 18.6 (10.7, 30.9) 53 (4, 64) 3
*
*
Sunflower County 6 Rural 18.7 (12.3, 27.3) 52 (6, 64) 6
*
*
Covington County 6 Rural 18.9 (11.6, 29.4) 51 (4, 64) 4 stable stable trend 3.7 (-1.8, 10.6)
Washington County 6 Rural 19.0 (14.0, 25.3) 50 (11, 64) 11 stable stable trend -6.1 (-34.4, 0.7)
Pike County 6 Rural 19.3 (14.1, 25.9) 49 (10, 64) 10 stable stable trend 1.9 (-1.6, 6.0)
Lee County 6 Rural 19.5 (15.7, 24.0) 48 (15, 62) 19 stable stable trend 1.1 (-2.2, 4.9)
Oktibbeha County 6 Rural 19.7 (14.0, 26.9) 47 (7, 64) 8 stable stable trend -2.5 (-13.2, 1.8)
Hancock County 6 Urban 20.0 (15.1, 26.0) 46 (10, 63) 13 stable stable trend 0.4 (-2.9, 4.1)
Lamar County 6 Urban 20.1 (15.7, 25.4) 45 (10, 63) 15 stable stable trend 1.2 (-1.4, 4.8)
Bolivar County 6 Rural 20.1 (14.0, 28.1) 44 (5, 64) 8 stable stable trend -4.3 (-31.8, 3.7)
Smith County 6 Rural 20.2 (12.7, 31.3) 43 (3, 64) 5 stable stable trend 4.2 (-0.3, 10.8)
Rankin County 6 Urban 20.5 (17.6, 23.7) 42 (17, 59) 37 stable stable trend -7.3 (-20.0, 1.4)
Madison County 6 Urban 20.5 (17.0, 24.5) 41 (13, 60) 26 stable stable trend 2.3 (-0.9, 6.5)
Copiah County 6 Urban 20.5 (14.2, 28.8) 40 (5, 64) 8 stable stable trend 1.0 (-2.9, 5.5)
DeSoto County 6 Urban 20.6 (17.8, 23.7) 39 (17, 58) 41 stable stable trend -9.9 (-22.6, 1.3)
Alcorn County 6 Rural 20.8 (15.2, 28.0) 38 (6, 64) 9 stable stable trend 1.7 (-3.2, 7.1)
Calhoun County 6 Rural 20.9 (12.6, 33.3) 37 (2, 64) 4 stable stable trend -0.8 (-7.7, 6.2)
Pearl River County 6 Rural 21.3 (16.7, 27.0) 36 (8, 61) 16 stable stable trend 0.1 (-2.5, 2.9)
Lowndes County 6 Rural 22.1 (17.3, 27.8) 35 (7, 61) 16 stable stable trend 7.5 (-3.2, 21.2)
Jackson County 6 Urban 22.4 (19.3, 25.8) 34 (11, 54) 40 rising rising trend 3.0 (1.0, 5.6)
Attala County 6 Rural 22.5 (14.6, 33.5) 33 (2, 64) 5 stable stable trend 0.9 (-3.8, 6.1)
Stone County 6 Urban 22.6 (14.7, 33.7) 32 (2, 64) 5
*
*
Walthall County 6 Rural 22.6 (13.3, 36.2) 31 (2, 64) 4 stable stable trend 0.5 (-5.3, 6.3)
Leflore County 6 Rural 22.7 (15.5, 32.1) 30 (3, 64) 7
*
*
Marshall County 6 Urban 22.8 (16.8, 30.3) 29 (3, 62) 10 stable stable trend 2.4 (-0.3, 5.6)
Scott County 6 Urban 22.9 (16.0, 31.9) 28 (2, 63) 7
*
*
Neshoba County 6 Rural 23.2 (16.2, 32.2) 27 (2, 63) 8 stable stable trend 4.8 (-0.1, 11.0)
Pontotoc County 6 Rural 23.2 (16.7, 31.4) 26 (3, 62) 9 stable stable trend 5.4 (0.0, 12.8)
Lafayette County 6 Rural 23.4 (17.9, 30.0) 25 (4, 60) 13 stable stable trend 2.8 (-2.7, 10.5)
Simpson County 6 Urban 23.5 (16.6, 32.6) 24 (2, 63) 8 rising rising trend 5.5 (2.6, 9.3)
Harrison County 6 Urban 23.6 (20.9, 26.6) 23 (9, 47) 58 rising rising trend 3.7 (2.2, 5.6)
Jones County 6 Rural 23.9 (19.2, 29.5) 22 (4, 57) 19 stable stable trend 1.5 (-2.7, 6.3)
Yazoo County 6 Urban 24.1 (16.9, 33.5) 21 (2, 63) 7
*
*
Tate County 6 Urban 24.5 (17.3, 33.7) 20 (2, 62) 8 stable stable trend 1.3 (-2.6, 5.8)
Jasper County 6 Rural 24.8 (16.1, 36.8) 19 (1, 64) 6 stable stable trend 1.4 (-2.9, 6.2)
Hinds County 6 Urban 25.3 (22.5, 28.3) 18 (6, 39) 65 rising rising trend 2.0 (0.2, 3.9)
Chickasaw County 6 Rural 25.4 (16.9, 37.1) 17 (2, 63) 6 stable stable trend 3.1 (-0.6, 8.1)
Clay County 6 Rural 25.6 (17.3, 36.8) 16 (2, 63) 7 stable stable trend 0.9 (-3.8, 6.4)
Grenada County 6 Rural 25.8 (17.6, 36.7) 15 (1, 63) 7 rising rising trend 8.4 (5.0, 13.4)
Amite County 6 Rural 25.9 (15.4, 41.3) 14 (1, 64) 5 stable stable trend -0.7 (-5.3, 4.4)
Tippah County 6 Rural 26.4 (18.3, 37.2) 13 (1, 61) 7
*
*
Tishomingo County 6 Rural 26.9 (18.8, 37.7) 12 (1, 60) 8 rising rising trend 4.0 (0.2, 9.3)
Warren County 6 Rural 26.9 (21.0, 34.0) 11 (2, 51) 15 rising rising trend 4.0 (1.4, 7.2)
Forrest County 6 Urban 26.9 (21.9, 32.8) 10 (3, 48) 21 rising rising trend 3.0 (0.4, 6.2)
Panola County 6 Rural 28.3 (21.2, 37.0) 9 (1, 53) 11 stable stable trend 2.5 (-0.2, 5.8)
Prentiss County 6 Rural 28.8 (20.7, 39.1) 8 (1, 56) 9 stable stable trend 2.9 (-1.5, 8.2)
Webster County 6 Rural 28.9 (16.8, 46.8) 7 (1, 64) 4
*
*
Union County 6 Rural 29.5 (21.7, 39.4) 6 (1, 53) 10 stable stable trend 0.7 (-3.0, 4.9)
Noxubee County 6 Rural 30.6 (16.8, 50.7) 5 (1, 64) 3
*
*
Holmes County 6 Urban 31.2 (20.5, 45.5) 4 (1, 59) 6 rising rising trend 6.5 (1.6, 13.2)
Montgomery County 6 Rural 33.1 (19.9, 52.3) 3 (1, 62) 4
*
*
Winston County 6 Rural 36.9 (25.9, 51.1) 2 (1, 43) 8 stable stable trend 3.0 (-2.0, 9.6)
Quitman County 6 Rural 46.9 (26.8, 76.6) 1 (1, 59) 3
*
*
Benton County 6 Urban
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Carroll County 6 Rural
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Choctaw County 6 Rural
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Claiborne County 6 Rural
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Franklin County 6 Rural
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Greene County 6 Rural
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Humphreys County 6 Rural
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Issaquena County 6 Rural
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Jefferson County 6 Rural
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Jefferson Davis County 6 Rural
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Kemper County 6 Rural
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Perry County 6 Urban
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Sharkey County 6 Rural
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Tallahatchie County 6 Rural
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Tunica County 6 Urban
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Wayne County 6 Rural
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Wilkinson County 6 Rural
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Yalobusha County 6 Rural
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 11/05/2024 5:13 am.

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