Return to Home Incidence > Table

Incidence Rates Table

Data Options

Incidence Rate Report for Mississippi 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
Mississippi 6 N/A 135.2 (132.7, 137.7) N/A 2,425 stable stable trend 1.3 (-0.6, 5.3)
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)
Benton County 6 Urban 107.0 (70.2, 158.3) 69 (8, 81) 6 stable stable trend -1.4 (-5.1, 2.6)
Copiah County 6 Urban 118.4 (96.9, 143.8) 57 (24, 80) 23 falling falling trend -5.3 (-16.4, -3.2)
DeSoto County 6 Urban 124.0 (113.9, 134.8) 49 (33, 68) 119 stable stable trend 0.4 (-0.9, 2.1)
Forrest County 6 Urban 164.6 (146.5, 184.5) 15 (3, 40) 62 stable stable trend 0.5 (-0.6, 1.9)
Hancock County 6 Urban 110.2 (94.5, 128.1) 64 (40, 80) 38 falling falling trend -3.5 (-15.3, -1.5)
Harrison County 6 Urban 119.5 (110.8, 128.8) 55 (39, 70) 147 stable stable trend 1.5 (-0.5, 5.2)
Hinds County 6 Urban 162.0 (151.8, 172.7) 16 (6, 35) 203 stable stable trend 2.7 (-1.2, 9.7)
Holmes County 6 Urban 194.0 (155.2, 239.8) 2 (1, 43) 18 rising rising trend 17.1 (0.2, 38.3)
Jackson County 6 Urban 112.9 (103.2, 123.4) 59 (42, 75) 106 falling falling trend -3.7 (-4.9, -2.5)
Lamar County 6 Urban 149.9 (131.8, 169.8) 30 (6, 52) 52 stable stable trend 0.3 (-1.1, 1.8)
Madison County 6 Urban 167.5 (152.4, 183.8) 10 (3, 36) 101 rising rising trend 5.1 (1.3, 12.6)
Marshall County 6 Urban 158.4 (135.7, 184.2) 22 (3, 55) 38 stable stable trend -0.8 (-3.3, 2.1)
Perry County 6 Urban 143.9 (108.8, 188.0) 35 (2, 79) 12 stable stable trend 2.6 (-0.7, 6.7)
Rankin County 6 Urban 111.6 (101.9, 122.0) 63 (45, 76) 102 falling falling trend -2.4 (-3.8, -1.0)
Scott County 6 Urban 120.2 (96.4, 148.3) 53 (15, 80) 19 falling falling trend -2.7 (-5.1, -0.6)
Simpson County 6 Urban 134.6 (111.0, 162.3) 43 (9, 75) 24 stable stable trend -0.7 (-3.3, 2.1)
Stone County 6 Urban 116.1 (89.3, 148.9) 58 (16, 81) 14 stable stable trend -2.8 (-6.3, 1.3)
Tate County 6 Urban 118.7 (97.3, 143.8) 56 (23, 79) 22 stable stable trend 0.0 (-2.7, 3.2)
Tunica County 6 Urban 157.0 (112.6, 214.2) 24 (1, 78) 9 stable stable trend 1.3 (-1.7, 5.1)
Yazoo County 6 Urban 149.8 (121.9, 182.3) 31 (2, 69) 22 stable stable trend 4.6 (-0.3, 14.7)
Adams County 6 Rural 147.8 (125.2, 173.7) 32 (5, 61) 33 stable stable trend -1.4 (-4.2, 1.4)
Alcorn County 6 Rural 103.3 (85.3, 124.4) 72 (39, 81) 24 stable stable trend -1.7 (-4.6, 1.5)
Amite County 6 Rural 142.5 (111.2, 181.8) 37 (2, 78) 16 falling falling trend -3.3 (-6.5, -0.2)
Attala County 6 Rural 104.2 (80.1, 134.0) 71 (30, 81) 13 stable stable trend -1.9 (-5.5, 1.6)
Bolivar County 6 Rural 178.8 (150.4, 211.2) 6 (1, 44) 31 stable stable trend 3.4 (-0.6, 8.4)
Calhoun County 6 Rural 109.1 (80.8, 145.3) 66 (18, 81) 10 falling falling trend -6.9 (-23.3, -2.8)
Carroll County 6 Rural 108.8 (79.3, 148.1) 67 (19, 81) 9 stable stable trend -1.3 (-4.7, 2.4)
Chickasaw County 6 Rural 157.8 (125.8, 196.1) 23 (1, 66) 17 stable stable trend -2.0 (-5.3, 1.1)
Choctaw County 6 Rural 107.4 (74.5, 152.7) 68 (13, 81) 7 stable stable trend 0.6 (-2.4, 3.9)
Claiborne County 6 Rural 138.7 (93.1, 199.4) 40 (1, 81) 7 falling falling trend -5.9 (-11.9, -0.8)
Clarke County 6 Rural 165.0 (133.7, 202.8) 14 (1, 57) 20 stable stable trend -6.8 (-20.6, 4.7)
Clay County 6 Rural 146.9 (117.8, 181.8) 33 (2, 72) 19 stable stable trend -2.4 (-5.3, 0.6)
Coahoma County 6 Rural 193.1 (157.0, 235.1) 4 (1, 41) 22 stable stable trend 2.2 (-0.2, 4.9)
Covington County 6 Rural 166.9 (135.2, 204.4) 11 (1, 54) 20 stable stable trend 0.3 (-1.9, 2.6)
Franklin County 6 Rural 111.7 (76.5, 160.3) 62 (7, 81) 7 falling falling trend -14.6 (-37.1, -6.4)
George County 6 Rural 97.0 (75.4, 123.3) 77 (36, 81) 15 stable stable trend 14.7 (-0.2, 35.1)
Greene County 6 Rural 105.6 (75.8, 143.5) 70 (21, 81) 9 stable stable trend -0.8 (-5.1, 4.2)
Grenada County 6 Rural 125.2 (99.9, 155.5) 48 (14, 80) 18 falling falling trend -11.2 (-25.7, -3.7)
Humphreys County 6 Rural 98.4 (64.2, 147.1) 75 (17, 81) 5 falling falling trend -9.7 (-41.3, -6.3)
Itawamba County 6 Rural 120.3 (96.7, 148.4) 52 (19, 80) 18 falling falling trend -3.8 (-7.8, -0.2)
Jasper County 6 Rural 159.9 (128.8, 197.3) 20 (1, 66) 19 stable stable trend -1.1 (-3.7, 1.8)
Jefferson County 6 Rural 195.8 (142.5, 264.3) 1 (1, 63) 10 stable stable trend -0.4 (-3.9, 3.6)
Jefferson Davis County 6 Rural 156.1 (119.6, 201.9) 25 (1, 74) 13 stable stable trend 0.0 (-2.8, 3.1)
Jones County 6 Rural 158.6 (141.5, 177.2) 21 (5, 45) 66 stable stable trend 1.6 (-1.4, 5.0)
Kemper County 6 Rural 161.9 (119.2, 216.6) 17 (1, 76) 10 stable stable trend -1.3 (-4.5, 2.0)
Lafayette County 6 Rural 98.0 (81.3, 117.2) 76 (45, 81) 27 falling falling trend -3.5 (-6.1, -1.0)
Lauderdale County 6 Rural 143.3 (127.9, 160.2) 36 (12, 56) 66 falling falling trend -2.6 (-5.0, -0.3)
Lawrence County 6 Rural 160.6 (123.2, 207.0) 19 (1, 70) 13 stable stable trend 10.4 (-1.2, 34.2)
Leake County 6 Rural 92.7 (70.6, 120.0) 80 (41, 81) 13 falling falling trend -3.4 (-5.6, -1.2)
Lee County 6 Rural 153.2 (136.9, 170.9) 27 (7, 47) 70 rising rising trend 11.9 (2.6, 19.7)
Leflore County 6 Rural 171.3 (142.3, 204.6) 8 (1, 49) 26 stable stable trend -0.1 (-2.8, 2.8)
Lincoln County 6 Rural 112.8 (93.3, 135.5) 60 (30, 80) 25 falling falling trend -4.7 (-7.2, -2.4)
Lowndes County 6 Rural 122.6 (106.2, 140.9) 50 (27, 75) 43 falling falling trend -5.9 (-19.3, -3.7)
Marion County 6 Rural 161.4 (134.6, 192.5) 18 (1, 55) 27 stable stable trend 1.1 (-2.1, 4.9)
Monroe County 6 Rural 155.9 (133.5, 181.4) 26 (3, 55) 36 stable stable trend -1.4 (-3.7, 0.8)
Montgomery County 6 Rural 153.2 (113.9, 203.3) 28 (1, 78) 11 stable stable trend -0.4 (-4.0, 3.3)
Neshoba County 6 Rural 120.1 (97.2, 147.0) 54 (20, 80) 20 rising rising trend 12.0 (1.1, 30.3)
Newton County 6 Rural 134.8 (107.4, 167.5) 42 (5, 77) 17 stable stable trend -2.0 (-5.0, 0.8)
Noxubee County 6 Rural 126.5 (89.8, 174.4) 45 (4, 81) 8 falling falling trend -4.2 (-7.1, -1.5)
Oktibbeha County 6 Rural 153.2 (130.1, 179.1) 29 (3, 57) 33 stable stable trend 6.3 (-1.3, 16.7)
Panola County 6 Rural 121.8 (101.1, 145.9) 51 (21, 78) 26 stable stable trend -2.5 (-5.0, 0.1)
Pearl River County 6 Rural 126.4 (110.8, 143.9) 46 (26, 72) 50 stable stable trend -1.2 (-3.4, 1.1)
Pike County 6 Rural 168.4 (145.5, 194.1) 9 (1, 43) 41 stable stable trend 12.4 (-0.5, 26.9)
Pontotoc County 6 Rural 112.2 (90.7, 137.4) 61 (28, 81) 20 falling falling trend -3.1 (-5.8, -0.5)
Prentiss County 6 Rural 83.7 (64.1, 107.9) 81 (51, 81) 13 falling falling trend -6.8 (-31.8, -1.1)
Quitman County 6 Rural 138.8 (91.2, 205.0) 39 (1, 81) 6 stable stable trend 3.2 (-1.4, 8.5)
Sharkey County 6 Rural 166.2 (99.5, 264.1) 13 (1, 81) 4 stable stable trend -4.7 (-10.9, 0.2)
Smith County 6 Rural 140.2 (108.4, 179.6) 38 (3, 78) 14 stable stable trend 0.9 (-4.0, 6.1)
Sunflower County 6 Rural 193.6 (161.1, 230.7) 3 (1, 36) 27 stable stable trend 3.0 (-0.3, 7.0)
Tallahatchie County 6 Rural 125.2 (92.0, 167.2) 47 (5, 81) 10 stable stable trend -0.9 (-3.4, 1.7)
Tippah County 6 Rural 98.8 (75.6, 127.3) 74 (32, 81) 13 stable stable trend -1.3 (-4.1, 1.6)
Tishomingo County 6 Rural 95.9 (73.3, 124.2) 79 (36, 81) 13 stable stable trend -0.7 (-4.1, 2.8)
Union County 6 Rural 110.0 (88.2, 135.9) 65 (30, 81) 18 falling falling trend -3.7 (-7.5, -0.2)
Walthall County 6 Rural 166.8 (131.8, 209.2) 12 (1, 61) 16 stable stable trend -0.1 (-2.2, 2.1)
Warren County 6 Rural 101.7 (85.5, 120.4) 73 (43, 81) 30 rising rising trend 10.5 (2.1, 25.8)
Washington County 6 Rural 178.4 (155.3, 204.1) 7 (1, 36) 48 stable stable trend 0.5 (-1.8, 3.0)
Wayne County 6 Rural 146.2 (117.2, 180.8) 34 (3, 73) 19 falling falling trend -15.7 (-25.8, -5.5)
Webster County 6 Rural 129.9 (91.1, 180.7) 44 (2, 81) 8 stable stable trend -3.6 (-8.1, 0.7)
Wilkinson County 6 Rural 186.2 (139.3, 245.3) 5 (1, 60) 11 stable stable trend -0.7 (-3.8, 2.7)
Winston County 6 Rural 135.3 (107.9, 168.4) 41 (5, 77) 18 stable stable trend -1.2 (-4.2, 1.9)
Yalobusha County 6 Rural 96.6 (69.8, 131.9) 78 (33, 81) 9 stable stable trend -3.3 (-9.0, 2.1)
Issaquena County 6 Rural
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 11/11/2024 1:25 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.
Issaquena

† 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