Return to Home Incidence > Table

Incidence Rates Table

Data Options

Incidence Rate Report for Missouri by County

Colon & Rectum (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
Missouri 6 N/A 38.9 (38.3, 39.6) N/A 2,938 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.9, 1.6)
US (SEER+NPCR) 1 N/A 36.4 (36.3, 36.4) N/A 140,088 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.3, -0.9)
Andrew County 6 Urban 35.4 (25.5, 48.2) 94 (16, 108) 9 falling falling trend -4.0 (-6.9, -1.3)
Bates County 6 Urban 45.0 (32.7, 60.7) 50 (3, 106) 10 stable stable trend -0.6 (-4.1, 2.8)
Bollinger County 6 Urban 49.6 (34.2, 70.3) 31 (1, 106) 7 stable stable trend -0.7 (-3.9, 2.5)
Boone County 6 Urban 33.3 (29.5, 37.5) 101 (62, 107) 58 stable stable trend -1.3 (-2.8, 0.3)
Buchanan County 6 Urban 46.2 (40.3, 52.8) 45 (12, 79) 47 stable stable trend -1.9 (-3.9, 0.0)
Caldwell County 6 Urban 38.7 (25.0, 58.2) 73 (3, 108) 5 stable stable trend -2.9 (-8.2, 1.5)
Callaway County 6 Urban 41.6 (34.2, 50.2) 61 (15, 102) 23 stable stable trend -1.7 (-3.8, 0.4)
Cape Girardeau County 6 Urban 38.2 (32.6, 44.6) 77 (32, 104) 35 falling falling trend -1.7 (-3.3, -0.1)
Cass County 6 Urban 40.1 (35.4, 45.4) 65 (32, 99) 54 falling falling trend -1.4 (-2.6, -0.2)
Christian County 6 Urban 35.7 (30.6, 41.4) 91 (44, 106) 37 falling falling trend -2.4 (-4.2, -0.5)
Clay County 6 Urban 37.7 (34.5, 41.2) 81 (50, 98) 103 falling falling trend -1.6 (-2.8, -0.3)
Clinton County 6 Urban 41.6 (31.7, 54.1) 60 (6, 107) 12 stable stable trend -1.7 (-5.0, 1.6)
Cole County 6 Urban 37.7 (32.3, 43.9) 80 (35, 104) 36 stable stable trend -1.8 (-3.6, 0.0)
Cooper County 6 Urban 37.8 (26.6, 52.4) 79 (8, 108) 8 stable stable trend -1.2 (-5.3, 3.1)
Dallas County 6 Urban 48.9 (37.0, 63.9) 34 (2, 102) 12 stable stable trend 1.9 (-1.9, 6.3)
DeKalb County 6 Urban 38.6 (26.4, 55.3) 74 (4, 108) 7 stable stable trend -2.7 (-6.7, 1.2)
Franklin County 6 Urban 38.3 (33.6, 43.6) 75 (37, 102) 51 falling falling trend -2.3 (-3.9, -0.7)
Greene County 6 Urban 35.3 (32.5, 38.4) 95 (61, 102) 119 falling falling trend -1.9 (-3.1, -0.8)
Howard County 6 Urban 46.7 (30.6, 68.8) 43 (1, 108) 6 stable stable trend -1.7 (-6.7, 2.8)
Jackson County 6 Urban 36.6 (34.7, 38.5) 86 (63, 96) 296 stable stable trend -0.8 (-1.7, 0.8)
Jasper County 6 Urban 45.6 (40.5, 51.0) 49 (16, 76) 62 stable stable trend -0.8 (-2.1, 0.4)
Jefferson County 6 Urban 36.7 (33.4, 40.2) 85 (51, 101) 98 falling falling trend -2.8 (-3.9, -1.7)
Lafayette County 6 Urban 47.8 (38.4, 58.8) 40 (4, 96) 20 stable stable trend 1.0 (-0.8, 2.8)
Lincoln County 6 Urban 39.8 (33.0, 47.5) 68 (20, 104) 26 stable stable trend -2.4 (-5.0, 0.2)
Moniteau County 6 Urban 51.5 (37.4, 69.1) 20 (1, 102) 9 stable stable trend -0.6 (-5.0, 3.4)
Newton County 6 Urban 41.9 (35.4, 49.2) 59 (18, 100) 32 stable stable trend -0.8 (-2.6, 1.0)
Osage County 6 Urban 51.0 (36.9, 69.2) 24 (1, 105) 9 stable stable trend 1.7 (-1.9, 5.9)
Platte County 6 Urban 30.8 (26.4, 35.7) 104 (71, 108) 37 falling falling trend -2.8 (-4.5, -1.1)
Polk County 6 Urban 49.0 (39.2, 60.5) 33 (3, 96) 19 stable stable trend -1.3 (-4.8, 2.0)
Ray County 6 Urban 50.1 (38.9, 63.6) 27 (2, 94) 15 stable stable trend -1.4 (-4.2, 1.3)
St. Charles County 6 Urban 34.1 (31.8, 36.6) 99 (70, 103) 162 stable stable trend 0.7 (-3.6, 8.2)
St. Louis City 6 Urban 36.3 (33.3, 39.4) 88 (54, 101) 121 falling falling trend -3.2 (-4.5, -2.1)
St. Louis County 6 Urban 35.6 (34.1, 37.2) 93 (69, 97) 461 falling falling trend -2.7 (-3.3, -2.2)
Warren County 6 Urban 34.7 (27.0, 43.9) 97 (27, 108) 15 falling falling trend -2.9 (-5.6, -0.3)
Webster County 6 Urban 33.4 (26.1, 42.2) 100 (37, 108) 15 falling falling trend -2.8 (-5.0, -0.7)
Adair County 6 Rural 49.8 (38.2, 64.0) 28 (1, 99) 13 stable stable trend -2.1 (-4.5, 0.1)
Audrain County 6 Rural 45.0 (35.0, 57.1) 51 (5, 104) 15 stable stable trend 0.5 (-2.4, 3.6)
Barry County 6 Rural 46.0 (37.4, 56.2) 46 (7, 97) 22 stable stable trend -0.5 (-4.4, 3.5)
Barton County 6 Rural 48.8 (33.1, 69.5) 35 (1, 107) 7 stable stable trend 0.3 (-3.6, 4.1)
Benton County 6 Rural 39.5 (29.4, 52.6) 70 (9, 107) 14 falling falling trend -2.5 (-4.6, -0.6)
Butler County 6 Rural 51.9 (43.5, 61.6) 17 (2, 73) 29 stable stable trend -1.8 (-4.3, 0.6)
Camden County 6 Rural 34.1 (27.7, 41.9) 98 (40, 107) 25 stable stable trend -2.5 (-5.4, 0.4)
Carroll County 6 Rural 39.5 (25.2, 60.1) 69 (2, 108) 5 stable stable trend -0.4 (-4.0, 3.1)
Carter County 6 Rural 49.7 (29.3, 80.5) 29 (1, 108) 4 stable stable trend -1.1 (-4.8, 2.7)
Cedar County 6 Rural 37.8 (27.2, 52.1) 78 (10, 108) 9 falling falling trend -4.5 (-8.5, -1.0)
Chariton County 6 Rural 46.4 (29.1, 71.3) 44 (1, 108) 5 stable stable trend -2.5 (-6.1, 0.8)
Clark County 6 Rural 45.6 (29.0, 70.1) 48 (1, 108) 5 stable stable trend 0.3 (-3.4, 4.2)
Crawford County 6 Rural 53.4 (42.3, 66.8) 12 (1, 87) 17 stable stable trend -0.3 (-2.9, 2.4)
Dade County 6 Rural 35.7 (22.5, 56.0) 90 (5, 108) 5 falling falling trend -4.0 (-7.8, -0.5)
Daviess County 6 Rural 44.3 (29.0, 66.1) 54 (1, 108) 6 stable stable trend -0.9 (-5.6, 3.5)
Dent County 6 Rural 55.9 (41.1, 74.5) 9 (1, 98) 11 stable stable trend -0.6 (-4.9, 3.5)
Douglas County 6 Rural 49.3 (34.5, 69.0) 32 (1, 105) 9 stable stable trend 15.1 (-6.6, 49.5)
Dunklin County 6 Rural 56.8 (46.3, 69.3) 7 (1, 68) 21 stable stable trend 0.8 (-1.0, 2.6)
Gasconade County 6 Rural 24.1 (15.7, 36.1) 108 (60, 108) 6 falling falling trend -4.4 (-6.7, -2.4)
Gentry County 6 Rural 61.5 (39.7, 91.9) 2 (1, 105) 5 stable stable trend -0.5 (-4.7, 3.6)
Grundy County 6 Rural 40.6 (25.9, 61.1) 62 (2, 108) 6
*
*
Harrison County 6 Rural 44.5 (29.3, 66.1) 53 (1, 108) 6 falling falling trend -3.5 (-6.5, -0.7)
Henry County 6 Rural 27.9 (20.0, 38.2) 105 (50, 108) 9 stable stable trend -2.5 (-5.8, 0.4)
Hickory County 6 Rural 35.7 (24.1, 54.0) 92 (10, 108) 7 stable stable trend 19.6 (-1.3, 42.9)
Holt County 6 Rural 52.3 (27.8, 91.2) 14 (1, 108) 3
*
*
Howell County 6 Rural 48.4 (40.0, 58.2) 36 (4, 90) 25 stable stable trend 0.9 (-0.9, 2.8)
Iron County 6 Rural 47.9 (32.2, 69.4) 39 (1, 108) 7 stable stable trend -1.0 (-4.3, 2.4)
Johnson County 6 Rural 40.3 (32.8, 49.1) 63 (16, 105) 21 stable stable trend -0.1 (-2.2, 2.1)
Knox County 6 Rural 59.7 (32.5, 102.4) 4 (1, 108) 3 stable stable trend -0.8 (-6.1, 4.4)
Laclede County 6 Rural 47.0 (38.1, 57.5) 42 (5, 96) 21 stable stable trend -0.7 (-2.5, 1.0)
Lawrence County 6 Rural 38.3 (30.8, 47.2) 76 (22, 106) 19 falling falling trend -1.9 (-3.5, -0.3)
Lewis County 6 Rural 53.6 (37.2, 75.4) 11 (1, 105) 7 stable stable trend -0.3 (-4.2, 3.8)
Linn County 6 Rural 52.0 (36.8, 71.9) 16 (1, 103) 9 stable stable trend -0.1 (-3.0, 2.6)
Livingston County 6 Rural 51.1 (37.3, 68.5) 23 (1, 104) 10 stable stable trend -1.5 (-3.7, 0.5)
Macon County 6 Rural 66.9 (51.2, 86.1) 1 (1, 62) 14 rising rising trend 19.4 (0.3, 34.1)
Madison County 6 Rural 47.3 (33.9, 64.9) 41 (1, 107) 9 stable stable trend -1.5 (-6.4, 3.1)
Maries County 6 Rural 27.4 (16.2, 44.9) 107 (25, 108) 4 stable stable trend -3.2 (-7.6, 1.0)
Marion County 6 Rural 51.4 (41.0, 63.7) 21 (2, 90) 18 stable stable trend -1.7 (-5.0, 1.3)
McDonald County 6 Rural 43.1 (32.6, 56.1) 58 (4, 106) 12 stable stable trend 0.8 (-1.9, 3.8)
Miller County 6 Rural 44.2 (34.5, 56.1) 55 (6, 104) 15 stable stable trend -0.2 (-2.1, 1.8)
Mississippi County 6 Rural 36.4 (24.5, 52.5) 87 (9, 108) 6 stable stable trend -2.2 (-6.3, 1.6)
Monroe County 6 Rural 51.3 (32.9, 76.7) 22 (1, 108) 6 stable stable trend 0.2 (-4.0, 4.5)
Montgomery County 6 Rural 60.2 (43.6, 81.7) 3 (1, 92) 10 stable stable trend -1.1 (-4.4, 2.2)
Morgan County 6 Rural 49.7 (38.0, 64.0) 30 (1, 101) 15 stable stable trend -1.2 (-5.1, 2.6)
New Madrid County 6 Rural 37.0 (26.7, 50.5) 83 (11, 108) 9 falling falling trend -4.8 (-15.7, -1.7)
Nodaway County 6 Rural 50.2 (38.0, 65.3) 26 (1, 101) 13 falling falling trend -3.1 (-6.1, -0.4)
Oregon County 6 Rural 53.0 (35.5, 77.1) 13 (1, 106) 7
*
*
Ozark County 6 Rural 34.8 (23.1, 52.7) 96 (9, 108) 6 stable stable trend -2.3 (-5.3, 0.5)
Pemiscot County 6 Rural 39.5 (27.7, 54.7) 71 (5, 108) 8 stable stable trend -1.3 (-4.0, 1.3)
Perry County 6 Rural 38.8 (28.7, 51.6) 72 (12, 108) 11 stable stable trend -2.0 (-5.8, 1.9)
Pettis County 6 Rural 40.1 (32.8, 48.7) 66 (17, 104) 22 stable stable trend -1.7 (-3.8, 0.4)
Phelps County 6 Rural 45.7 (37.7, 55.0) 47 (7, 97) 24 stable stable trend 8.9 (-0.5, 18.4)
Pike County 6 Rural 51.9 (39.2, 67.6) 18 (1, 101) 12 stable stable trend 0.8 (-3.0, 10.8)
Pulaski County 6 Rural 36.9 (28.8, 46.5) 84 (23, 107) 15 falling falling trend -3.1 (-6.0, -0.4)
Ralls County 6 Rural 52.0 (36.2, 73.2) 15 (1, 106) 8 stable stable trend 0.6 (-2.6, 4.3)
Randolph County 6 Rural 55.9 (44.6, 69.3) 8 (1, 77) 18 stable stable trend -0.5 (-4.1, 3.1)
Reynolds County 6 Rural 55.1 (34.5, 85.0) 10 (1, 108) 5 stable stable trend 2.7 (-1.9, 8.1)
Ripley County 6 Rural 59.0 (43.3, 79.4) 5 (1, 92) 10 stable stable trend -0.8 (-3.6, 2.0)
Saline County 6 Rural 35.9 (26.8, 47.4) 89 (18, 108) 11 falling falling trend -4.4 (-7.3, -1.9)
Scott County 6 Rural 40.0 (32.2, 49.4) 67 (17, 106) 19 stable stable trend -2.3 (-5.7, 1.0)
Shannon County 6 Rural 58.5 (38.9, 85.9) 6 (1, 104) 6 stable stable trend 1.2 (-3.5, 6.3)
Shelby County 6 Rural 48.3 (29.5, 76.2) 37 (1, 108) 4 stable stable trend -0.9 (-5.4, 3.3)
St. Clair County 6 Rural 32.4 (21.1, 49.2) 102 (17, 108) 6 falling falling trend -5.1 (-9.7, -1.3)
St. Francois County 6 Rural 43.8 (37.6, 50.7) 56 (16, 95) 37 stable stable trend -1.6 (-3.2, 0.2)
Ste. Genevieve County 6 Rural 48.2 (36.8, 62.4) 38 (2, 103) 13 stable stable trend 2.2 (-1.3, 6.3)
Stoddard County 6 Rural 51.5 (41.9, 62.8) 19 (2, 81) 21 stable stable trend -0.7 (-3.5, 2.1)
Stone County 6 Rural 32.1 (25.4, 40.6) 103 (46, 108) 19 stable stable trend -2.5 (-5.9, 0.8)
Taney County 6 Rural 43.2 (36.4, 50.9) 57 (15, 97) 32 stable stable trend -1.6 (-3.9, 0.8)
Texas County 6 Rural 37.4 (28.7, 48.2) 82 (16, 108) 13 stable stable trend -2.2 (-6.2, 1.6)
Vernon County 6 Rural 44.9 (34.2, 58.2) 52 (5, 105) 13 stable stable trend -0.6 (-2.6, 1.4)
Washington County 6 Rural 27.5 (19.7, 37.7) 106 (55, 108) 9 falling falling trend -4.0 (-7.6, -0.5)
Wayne County 6 Rural 50.7 (37.4, 68.3) 25 (1, 102) 10 stable stable trend -0.6 (-4.5, 3.3)
Wright County 6 Rural 40.2 (29.5, 53.7) 64 (9, 108) 10 stable stable trend -1.8 (-4.3, 0.5)
Atchison County 6 Rural
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Mercer County 6 Rural
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Putnam County 6 Rural
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Schuyler County 6 Rural
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Scotland County 6 Rural
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Sullivan County 6 Rural
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Worth County 6 Rural
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 12/05/2024 1:54 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