Return to Home Incidence > Table

Incidence Rates Table

Data Options

Incidence Rate Report for Missouri by County

Colon & Rectum (All Stages^), 2014-2018

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

Sorted by Rate
County
 sort alphabetically by name ascending
Met Healthy People Objective of 39.9?
Age-Adjusted Incidence Rate
cases per 100,000
(95% Confidence Interval)
 sort by rate ascending
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
Missouri 6 No 40.1 (39.5, 40.8) N/A 2,960 falling falling trend -2.3 (-2.6, -2.1)
US (SEER+NPCR) 1 Yes 38.0 (37.9, 38.1) N/A 143,200 falling falling trend -1.8 (-2.3, -1.2)
Mercer County 6 No 80.5 (48.5, 127.8) 1 (1, 103) 4
*
*
Clinton County 6 No 61.5 (48.7, 77.0) 2 (1, 65) 17 stable stable trend -0.8 (-4.0, 2.5)
Holt County 6 No 61.2 (33.3, 103.7) 3 (1, 109) 4
*
*
Mississippi County 6 No 61.1 (45.4, 80.8) 4 (1, 92) 10 stable stable trend -1.0 (-4.1, 2.2)
Barton County 6 No 59.4 (43.1, 80.3) 5 (1, 96) 9 stable stable trend -0.6 (-4.8, 3.8)
Linn County 6 No 55.9 (40.5, 75.7) 6 (1, 100) 10 stable stable trend 0.3 (-2.6, 3.3)
Lewis County 6 No 54.6 (38.2, 76.4) 7 (1, 104) 8 stable stable trend 0.0 (-4.0, 4.2)
Gentry County 6 No 54.5 (34.8, 82.5) 8 (1, 109) 5 stable stable trend -1.4 (-6.0, 3.3)
Dallas County 6 No 53.1 (40.4, 69.0) 9 (1, 97) 13 stable stable trend 2.5 (-1.0, 6.2)
Wright County 6 No 52.8 (39.9, 68.8) 10 (1, 97) 12 stable stable trend -1.8 (-4.6, 1.0)
Dunklin County 6 No 52.7 (42.7, 64.5) 11 (2, 84) 20 stable stable trend 0.5 (-1.9, 3.0)
Carroll County 6 No 52.5 (35.8, 75.3) 12 (1, 107) 7 stable stable trend 0.1 (-4.1, 4.5)
Iron County 6 No 52.4 (37.0, 72.9) 13 (1, 105) 8 stable stable trend -0.8 (-3.8, 2.3)
Reynolds County 6 No 51.9 (33.1, 79.3) 14 (1, 109) 5 stable stable trend 2.9 (-2.7, 8.8)
Morgan County 6 No 51.8 (40.2, 66.1) 15 (1, 97) 16 stable stable trend -1.8 (-5.9, 2.5)
Wayne County 6 No 51.6 (38.2, 68.9) 16 (1, 103) 11 stable stable trend -3.1 (-6.7, 0.7)
Marion County 6 No 51.5 (41.3, 63.6) 17 (2, 94) 19 stable stable trend -1.8 (-4.9, 1.4)
Crawford County 6 No 51.4 (40.6, 64.3) 18 (2, 95) 17 stable stable trend -0.7 (-3.4, 2.0)
Audrain County 6 No 51.0 (40.3, 63.8) 19 (1, 95) 16 stable stable trend 1.3 (-1.1, 3.9)
Bates County 6 No 50.6 (37.5, 67.0) 20 (1, 104) 11 stable stable trend 0.5 (-2.7, 3.7)
Stoddard County 6 No 50.4 (40.9, 61.6) 21 (2, 91) 21 stable stable trend -1.1 (-4.1, 2.1)
Macon County 6 No 50.2 (37.4, 66.5) 22 (1, 103) 11 stable stable trend -1.1 (-3.1, 1.0)
Montgomery County 6 No 49.7 (35.7, 68.2) 23 (1, 106) 9 stable stable trend -1.7 (-5.4, 2.2)
Bollinger County 6 No 49.2 (34.8, 68.1) 24 (1, 107) 8 stable stable trend -0.7 (-4.3, 3.0)
Pike County 6 No 49.1 (37.0, 64.1) 25 (1, 102) 12 stable stable trend -2.2 (-4.7, 0.3)
Dent County 6 No 48.8 (36.1, 65.1) 26 (1, 105) 11 stable stable trend -1.6 (-5.2, 2.0)
Randolph County 6 No 48.8 (38.2, 61.6) 27 (2, 100) 15 stable stable trend -1.1 (-4.1, 2.0)
McDonald County 6 No 48.7 (37.2, 62.7) 28 (2, 102) 13 stable stable trend 1.1 (-1.7, 4.0)
Knox County 6 No 48.4 (27.6, 82.6) 29 (1, 109) 3 stable stable trend -2.9 (-8.8, 3.3)
Sullivan County 6 No 48.2 (29.3, 75.8) 30 (1, 109) 4 stable stable trend -1.6 (-5.7, 2.7)
St. Francois County 6 No 48.1 (41.5, 55.5) 31 (6, 83) 39 stable stable trend -1.5 (-3.4, 0.4)
Livingston County 6 No 47.9 (34.6, 65.0) 32 (1, 106) 9 stable stable trend -2.0 (-4.4, 0.4)
Monroe County 6 No 47.9 (31.5, 70.8) 33 (1, 109) 6 stable stable trend 0.8 (-3.0, 4.7)
Jasper County 6 No 47.8 (42.6, 53.5) 34 (9, 69) 64 stable stable trend -0.8 (-2.3, 0.8)
Pemiscot County 6 No 47.0 (34.6, 62.6) 35 (2, 107) 10 stable stable trend -1.8 (-4.6, 1.1)
Ste. Genevieve County 6 No 46.8 (35.5, 61.0) 36 (2, 106) 12 stable stable trend 1.5 (-1.7, 4.8)
Laclede County 6 No 46.6 (37.8, 57.1) 37 (3, 99) 20 stable stable trend -1.0 (-3.1, 1.1)
Ralls County 6 No 46.6 (31.2, 67.6) 38 (1, 109) 6 stable stable trend 0.3 (-4.2, 5.0)
Henry County 6 No 46.4 (35.8, 59.5) 39 (3, 104) 14 stable stable trend -1.5 (-4.3, 1.4)
Miller County 6 No 46.0 (36.0, 58.2) 40 (3, 102) 15 stable stable trend -0.3 (-2.4, 1.9)
Harrison County 6 No 45.8 (30.6, 67.1) 41 (1, 108) 6 stable stable trend -3.0 (-6.2, 0.3)
Adair County 6 No 45.4 (33.5, 60.1) 42 (2, 106) 11 falling falling trend -2.9 (-5.0, -0.6)
Pettis County 6 No 45.0 (37.0, 54.2) 43 (7, 99) 24 falling falling trend -2.2 (-4.2, -0.1)
Johnson County 6 No 45.0 (36.9, 54.3) 44 (6, 99) 22 stable stable trend 0.2 (-2.0, 2.4)
Ripley County 6 No 44.6 (32.4, 60.7) 45 (2, 107) 9 stable stable trend -2.8 (-6.1, 0.6)
Vernon County 6 No 44.6 (34.1, 57.7) 46 (3, 105) 13 stable stable trend -1.8 (-3.8, 0.3)
Cooper County 6 No 44.4 (32.2, 59.9) 47 (2, 107) 9 stable stable trend -1.4 (-5.5, 2.9)
Madison County 6 No 44.2 (30.5, 62.4) 48 (2, 109) 7 stable stable trend -1.3 (-5.6, 3.1)
Andrew County 6 No 43.7 (32.5, 57.9) 49 (3, 107) 11 falling falling trend -3.5 (-6.6, -0.3)
Benton County 6 No 43.6 (33.2, 57.1) 50 (4, 105) 15 falling falling trend -2.9 (-5.1, -0.6)
Carter County 6 No 43.5 (25.6, 70.4) 51 (1, 109) 4 stable stable trend -1.1 (-5.1, 3.2)
Callaway County 6 No 43.4 (35.7, 52.4) 52 (10, 103) 23 falling falling trend -2.4 (-4.6, -0.3)
Lafayette County 6 No 43.4 (34.3, 54.2) 53 (7, 104) 17 stable stable trend 0.7 (-1.5, 2.9)
Clark County 6 No 43.4 (27.7, 66.6) 54 (1, 109) 5 stable stable trend 0.2 (-4.3, 4.8)
New Madrid County 6 No 43.1 (32.0, 57.2) 55 (4, 107) 11 falling falling trend -7.2 (-12.7, -1.3)
Cass County 6 No 42.9 (37.9, 48.5) 56 (18, 93) 54 stable stable trend -1.4 (-2.9, 0.1)
Perry County 6 No 42.7 (32.0, 56.1) 57 (4, 108) 11 stable stable trend -2.5 (-5.9, 1.1)
Barry County 6 No 42.3 (34.4, 51.7) 58 (9, 104) 21 stable stable trend -1.3 (-4.4, 1.8)
Nodaway County 6 No 42.3 (31.5, 55.9) 59 (5, 107) 11 falling falling trend -4.3 (-7.2, -1.4)
St. Louis City 6 No 42.2 (39.1, 45.6) 60 (29, 83) 142 falling falling trend -3.0 (-4.0, -2.0)
Butler County 6 No 41.8 (34.3, 50.6) 61 (12, 103) 23 falling falling trend -3.1 (-5.5, -0.7)
Buchanan County 6 No 41.7 (36.2, 47.9) 62 (20, 98) 43 falling falling trend -2.7 (-4.0, -1.4)
Lawrence County 6 No 41.6 (33.9, 50.8) 63 (12, 104) 21 stable stable trend -1.7 (-3.4, 0.1)
Osage County 6 No 41.4 (28.6, 58.2) 64 (2, 109) 7 stable stable trend -0.6 (-4.8, 3.8)
Scott County 6 No 41.4 (33.6, 50.5) 65 (12, 104) 21 stable stable trend -3.2 (-6.7, 0.3)
Newton County 6 No 41.1 (34.9, 48.2) 66 (18, 103) 32 stable stable trend -1.1 (-2.8, 0.7)
Cape Girardeau County 6 No 41.0 (35.2, 47.5) 67 (19, 101) 38 stable stable trend -1.3 (-3.1, 0.6)
Clay County 6 No 41.0 (37.5, 44.7) 68 (33, 92) 104 falling falling trend -2.0 (-3.2, -0.8)
Saline County 6 No 40.8 (31.3, 52.7) 69 (8, 107) 13 falling falling trend -3.9 (-6.5, -1.3)
Howard County 6 No 40.8 (25.6, 62.1) 70 (2, 109) 5 stable stable trend -1.5 (-5.7, 2.8)
Shelby County 6 No 40.6 (22.5, 68.5) 71 (1, 109) 3 stable stable trend -1.7 (-5.9, 2.7)
Pulaski County 6 No 40.1 (31.5, 50.3) 72 (10, 107) 15 stable stable trend -2.9 (-6.1, 0.3)
Cole County 6 Yes 39.8 (34.0, 46.4) 73 (22, 102) 35 stable stable trend -1.8 (-3.6, 0.0)
Lincoln County 6 Yes 39.7 (32.7, 47.7) 74 (19, 106) 24 falling falling trend -3.8 (-6.3, -1.2)
Jackson County 6 Yes 39.5 (37.5, 41.6) 75 (47, 89) 307 stable stable trend -0.8 (-3.2, 1.6)
Phelps County 6 Yes 39.2 (31.6, 48.1) 76 (16, 106) 20 falling falling trend -2.0 (-3.8, -0.2)
Taney County 6 Yes 39.1 (32.8, 46.3) 77 (23, 105) 30 stable stable trend -2.1 (-4.5, 0.4)
Texas County 6 Yes 39.0 (30.2, 50.0) 78 (11, 108) 14 stable stable trend -3.0 (-6.5, 0.5)
Howell County 6 Yes 38.8 (31.5, 47.4) 79 (17, 106) 21 stable stable trend -0.1 (-2.7, 2.5)
Ray County 6 Yes 38.6 (28.9, 50.8) 80 (12, 108) 11 falling falling trend -2.7 (-5.1, -0.3)
Jefferson County 6 Yes 38.5 (35.0, 42.2) 81 (40, 99) 97 falling falling trend -3.4 (-4.6, -2.1)
Franklin County 6 Yes 38.5 (33.7, 43.8) 82 (37, 103) 49 falling falling trend -2.6 (-4.4, -0.7)
Maries County 6 Yes 38.0 (23.6, 59.0) 83 (2, 109) 5 stable stable trend -3.6 (-8.0, 1.1)
Grundy County 6 Yes 38.0 (25.1, 56.2) 84 (4, 109) 6 falling falling trend -4.6 (-8.0, -1.1)
Boone County 6 Yes 37.6 (33.3, 42.2) 85 (40, 103) 61 stable stable trend -1.1 (-2.5, 0.3)
Cedar County 6 Yes 37.5 (26.9, 51.6) 86 (8, 109) 9 falling falling trend -4.7 (-8.6, -0.6)
St. Louis County 6 Yes 37.2 (35.7, 38.8) 87 (63, 95) 474 falling falling trend -2.7 (-3.2, -2.3)
Moniteau County 6 Yes 37.1 (25.5, 52.2) 88 (6, 109) 7 stable stable trend -3.2 (-6.5, 0.2)
Christian County 6 Yes 36.6 (31.3, 42.6) 89 (37, 106) 35 falling falling trend -3.5 (-5.6, -1.4)
Oregon County 6 Yes 36.1 (24.0, 53.1) 90 (7, 109) 6
*
*
Greene County 6 Yes 36.0 (33.1, 39.1) 91 (59, 102) 120 falling falling trend -2.1 (-3.2, -0.9)
Camden County 6 Yes 35.3 (29.3, 42.5) 92 (37, 107) 28 stable stable trend -2.8 (-5.5, 0.0)
St. Charles County 6 Yes 35.3 (32.8, 37.9) 93 (68, 102) 156 stable stable trend 2.3 (-3.0, 7.8)
Polk County 6 Yes 35.2 (27.3, 44.9) 94 (26, 109) 14 stable stable trend -3.2 (-6.2, 0.0)
Ozark County 6 Yes 34.9 (21.4, 55.0) 95 (6, 109) 5 stable stable trend -2.4 (-5.2, 0.6)
Dade County 6 Yes 34.2 (20.0, 56.0) 96 (3, 109) 4 falling falling trend -5.8 (-9.7, -1.6)
Washington County 6 Yes 34.2 (25.6, 45.0) 97 (20, 109) 11 falling falling trend -4.0 (-7.7, -0.2)
Gasconade County 6 Yes 34.2 (23.4, 48.7) 98 (10, 109) 7 falling falling trend -4.0 (-6.3, -1.6)
Warren County 6 Yes 34.0 (26.2, 43.5) 99 (28, 109) 14 falling falling trend -3.8 (-6.2, -1.3)
Shannon County 6 Yes 33.7 (19.1, 55.7) 100 (3, 109) 4 stable stable trend 0.1 (-5.3, 5.9)
Stone County 6 Yes 33.7 (26.7, 42.4) 101 (35, 109) 20 stable stable trend -1.9 (-5.2, 1.4)
DeKalb County 6 Yes 33.6 (22.1, 49.7) 102 (6, 109) 5 stable stable trend -2.1 (-6.3, 2.2)
Chariton County 6 Yes 33.2 (21.0, 52.1) 103 (9, 109) 5 falling falling trend -4.8 (-7.5, -2.0)
Platte County 6 Yes 31.7 (27.0, 36.9) 104 (65, 109) 35 falling falling trend -3.5 (-5.0, -2.0)
Webster County 6 Yes 29.6 (22.7, 38.0) 105 (54, 109) 13 falling falling trend -3.7 (-5.5, -1.8)
Hickory County 6 Yes 29.2 (18.0, 47.1) 106 (14, 109) 5 stable stable trend -3.5 (-7.0, 0.3)
Douglas County 6 Yes 29.2 (19.6, 42.6) 107 (30, 109) 6 falling falling trend -4.8 (-8.6, -0.8)
Daviess County 6 Yes 27.6 (15.9, 45.7) 108 (20, 109) 3
*
*
St. Clair County 6 Yes 22.4 (13.4, 37.1) 109 (53, 109) 4 falling falling trend -7.4 (-11.7, -2.9)
Atchison County 6 ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Caldwell County 6 ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Putnam County 6 ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Schuyler County 6 ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Scotland County 6 ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Worth County 6 ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 12/03/2021 3:16 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.

⋔ 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.

† 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 1969-2018 US Population Data File is used for SEER and NPCR incidence rates.
‡ Incidence data come from different sources. Due to different years of data availability, most of the trends are AAPCs based on APCs but some are APCs calculated in SEER*Stat. Please refer to the source for each area for additional information.

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 stage.
Healthy People 2020 Objectives provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

* 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 (2001-2018) - United States Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and National Cancer Institute. Based on the 2020 submission.
6 Source: National Program of Cancer Registries SEER*Stat Database (2001-2018) - United States Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (based on the 2020 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 modifed by NCI. The 1969-2018 US Population Data File is used with SEER November 2020 data.

Interpret Rankings provides insight into interpreting cancer incidence statistics. When the population size for a denominator is small, the rates may be unstable. A rate is unstable when a small change in the numerator (e.g., only one or two additional cases) has a dramatic effect on the calculated rate.

Data for 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