Return to Home Incidence > Table

Incidence Rates Table

Data Options

Incidence Rate Report for Missouri 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
Missouri 6 N/A 97.3 (95.9, 98.7) N/A 3,826 stable stable trend 1.9 (-0.2, 4.8)
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)
Andrew County 6 Urban 98.3 (75.3, 127.0) 44 (4, 103) 13 stable stable trend -1.3 (-4.1, 1.6)
Bates County 6 Urban 61.2 (42.1, 87.0) 107 (38, 110) 7 falling falling trend -5.6 (-10.2, -1.9)
Bollinger County 6 Urban 101.2 (72.8, 138.9) 34 (2, 108) 9 stable stable trend -2.1 (-6.3, 1.8)
Boone County 6 Urban 95.8 (86.6, 105.7) 49 (20, 75) 85 falling falling trend -3.1 (-5.3, -0.8)
Buchanan County 6 Urban 101.9 (89.5, 115.6) 33 (9, 74) 51 stable stable trend 7.1 (-3.1, 14.3)
Caldwell County 6 Urban 85.4 (56.7, 125.8) 68 (4, 110) 6 falling falling trend -8.3 (-15.8, -5.6)
Callaway County 6 Urban 97.0 (81.7, 114.6) 48 (11, 90) 30 falling falling trend -5.3 (-14.9, -3.3)
Cape Girardeau County 6 Urban 152.2 (136.7, 169.1) 2 (1, 12) 73 stable stable trend 7.9 (-0.5, 20.0)
Cass County 6 Urban 69.6 (60.9, 79.4) 99 (62, 107) 47 rising rising trend 6.8 (1.4, 17.7)
Christian County 6 Urban 98.4 (86.6, 111.5) 43 (14, 77) 52 stable stable trend 2.5 (-2.8, 14.8)
Clay County 6 Urban 70.5 (64.2, 77.2) 98 (68, 105) 99 stable stable trend -2.0 (-6.5, 7.8)
Clinton County 6 Urban 64.1 (47.4, 85.7) 104 (47, 110) 10 falling falling trend -4.9 (-7.9, -2.3)
Cole County 6 Urban 131.2 (117.3, 146.5) 6 (2, 30) 67 rising rising trend 5.6 (0.9, 17.2)
Cooper County 6 Urban 110.2 (84.0, 142.6) 24 (1, 97) 12 stable stable trend -1.7 (-6.2, 2.7)
Dallas County 6 Urban 85.6 (64.5, 112.6) 66 (11, 108) 12 falling falling trend -2.4 (-3.9, -1.0)
DeKalb County 6 Urban 63.1 (40.5, 94.6) 106 (21, 110) 5
*
*
Franklin County 6 Urban 95.7 (85.7, 106.7) 50 (19, 75) 70 falling falling trend -3.8 (-5.7, -2.0)
Greene County 6 Urban 111.8 (104.7, 119.2) 20 (10, 42) 193 stable stable trend 4.0 (-2.6, 13.0)
Howard County 6 Urban 97.8 (67.7, 138.5) 46 (2, 109) 7 stable stable trend -3.4 (-7.4, 0.4)
Jackson County 6 Urban 79.4 (75.5, 83.5) 76 (60, 90) 325 stable stable trend 3.8 (-2.0, 12.6)
Jasper County 6 Urban 116.0 (104.6, 128.3) 14 (5, 47) 79 stable stable trend 0.1 (-2.5, 2.9)
Jefferson County 6 Urban 99.2 (91.9, 107.1) 38 (22, 65) 147 falling falling trend -2.2 (-4.0, -0.3)
Lafayette County 6 Urban 77.3 (61.8, 96.0) 80 (31, 108) 18 falling falling trend -2.6 (-4.9, -0.3)
Lincoln County 6 Urban 86.5 (73.4, 101.5) 64 (25, 98) 33 stable stable trend 10.3 (-1.5, 21.0)
Moniteau County 6 Urban 85.7 (62.0, 116.1) 65 (8, 109) 9 stable stable trend -2.3 (-7.3, 2.7)
Newton County 6 Urban 123.5 (108.3, 140.6) 8 (2, 45) 49 rising rising trend 12.2 (3.0, 31.3)
Osage County 6 Urban 125.5 (94.8, 163.9) 7 (1, 84) 12 stable stable trend -3.1 (-6.6, 0.4)
Platte County 6 Urban 80.4 (70.4, 91.5) 74 (40, 100) 50 falling falling trend -3.9 (-7.3, -0.5)
Polk County 6 Urban 82.5 (65.9, 102.5) 70 (20, 108) 17 falling falling trend -3.7 (-6.0, -1.5)
Ray County 6 Urban 67.9 (51.0, 89.4) 100 (41, 110) 11 falling falling trend -4.1 (-7.8, -0.6)
St. Charles County 6 Urban 101.0 (95.3, 106.9) 35 (22, 58) 251 falling falling trend -3.0 (-4.0, -1.9)
St. Louis City 6 Urban 98.6 (91.8, 105.9) 42 (23, 64) 172 falling falling trend -3.1 (-4.6, -1.8)
St. Louis County 6 Urban 113.3 (109.6, 117.2) 19 (11, 34) 740 falling falling trend -2.6 (-3.8, -1.5)
Warren County 6 Urban 86.5 (70.8, 105.1) 63 (19, 105) 22 falling falling trend -4.2 (-6.0, -2.2)
Webster County 6 Urban 93.3 (76.4, 113.0) 53 (12, 99) 22 falling falling trend -2.9 (-5.5, -0.5)
Adair County 6 Rural 79.2 (59.4, 104.0) 77 (18, 109) 11 falling falling trend -4.0 (-7.3, -0.8)
Audrain County 6 Rural 111.7 (88.7, 139.2) 21 (2, 90) 18 falling falling trend -3.3 (-6.5, -0.4)
Barry County 6 Rural 106.6 (89.8, 126.1) 31 (5, 76) 30 stable stable trend -0.9 (-3.8, 2.2)
Barton County 6 Rural 108.2 (78.8, 146.4) 27 (1, 106) 9 stable stable trend -0.7 (-3.2, 1.9)
Benton County 6 Rural 77.8 (62.4, 97.9) 79 (31, 108) 18 falling falling trend -3.6 (-5.9, -1.4)
Butler County 6 Rural 108.8 (92.1, 127.9) 26 (4, 74) 31 stable stable trend 6.5 (-14.6, 23.6)
Camden County 6 Rural 76.0 (64.8, 89.3) 82 (44, 106) 36 falling falling trend -3.3 (-5.4, -1.3)
Carroll County 6 Rural 75.3 (48.2, 114.7) 86 (8, 110) 5 stable stable trend -1.7 (-5.8, 2.1)
Carter County 6 Rural 98.8 (58.5, 160.2) 41 (1, 110) 4
*
*
Cedar County 6 Rural 66.4 (46.8, 93.0) 103 (32, 110) 8 falling falling trend -4.5 (-8.1, -1.3)
Chariton County 6 Rural 76.6 (48.5, 118.6) 81 (8, 110) 5 stable stable trend -1.5 (-5.1, 1.9)
Clark County 6 Rural 114.9 (77.4, 167.4) 16 (1, 107) 6 stable stable trend -0.3 (-5.2, 5.2)
Crawford County 6 Rural 67.5 (51.1, 88.2) 101 (43, 110) 12 falling falling trend -6.4 (-8.9, -4.3)
Dade County 6 Rural 70.9 (45.6, 109.3) 95 (10, 110) 5 falling falling trend -5.4 (-8.7, -2.7)
Daviess County 6 Rural 74.6 (46.5, 115.6) 89 (8, 110) 5
*
*
Dent County 6 Rural 45.5 (30.1, 67.8) 110 (80, 110) 6 falling falling trend -4.7 (-9.1, -0.7)
Douglas County 6 Rural 72.0 (50.9, 101.4) 92 (20, 110) 8 stable stable trend -2.2 (-4.8, 0.5)
Dunklin County 6 Rural 113.4 (92.4, 138.2) 18 (3, 76) 21 rising rising trend 16.2 (7.2, 32.0)
Gasconade County 6 Rural 95.2 (72.1, 124.8) 52 (5, 106) 12 falling falling trend -3.6 (-6.3, -1.0)
Gentry County 6 Rural 98.0 (60.4, 153.3) 45 (1, 110) 4
*
*
Grundy County 6 Rural 89.9 (61.9, 128.2) 58 (3, 109) 7 stable stable trend -2.2 (-5.2, 0.7)
Harrison County 6 Rural 93.0 (62.2, 136.5) 54 (2, 109) 6
*
*
Henry County 6 Rural 71.4 (54.0, 93.4) 94 (31, 110) 12 falling falling trend -5.2 (-8.7, -2.4)
Hickory County 6 Rural 55.3 (36.1, 88.3) 108 (47, 110) 5 falling falling trend -3.6 (-7.5, -0.3)
Holt County 6 Rural 123.0 (78.0, 192.4) 9 (1, 108) 5 stable stable trend 6.3 (-3.9, 44.9)
Howell County 6 Rural 63.2 (50.8, 78.2) 105 (58, 110) 18 falling falling trend -4.9 (-8.7, -1.8)
Iron County 6 Rural 100.2 (70.3, 140.8) 36 (1, 107) 8 stable stable trend -0.9 (-5.2, 4.1)
Johnson County 6 Rural 70.7 (57.3, 86.4) 96 (46, 109) 20 stable stable trend 8.5 (-8.4, 27.0)
Laclede County 6 Rural 79.1 (63.7, 97.3) 78 (29, 107) 19 falling falling trend -23.1 (-46.4, -0.4)
Lawrence County 6 Rural 80.0 (65.0, 97.8) 75 (27, 107) 20 stable stable trend -2.1 (-4.5, 0.2)
Lewis County 6 Rural 85.6 (57.0, 125.2) 67 (4, 110) 6 stable stable trend 14.4 (-1.0, 51.5)
Linn County 6 Rural 99.0 (71.7, 134.9) 40 (2, 107) 9 stable stable trend -1.7 (-4.7, 1.1)
Livingston County 6 Rural 91.7 (66.1, 125.1) 55 (5, 108) 9 stable stable trend -1.8 (-5.2, 1.5)
Macon County 6 Rural 66.6 (47.3, 92.4) 102 (31, 110) 8 stable stable trend -2.1 (-5.8, 1.5)
Madison County 6 Rural 119.7 (88.9, 158.9) 10 (1, 94) 11 stable stable trend 10.8 (-2.1, 38.7)
Maries County 6 Rural 81.2 (54.5, 119.8) 72 (6, 110) 6 stable stable trend -0.1 (-4.8, 4.6)
Marion County 6 Rural 117.3 (95.8, 142.6) 13 (2, 73) 22 stable stable trend -0.4 (-3.5, 2.7)
McDonald County 6 Rural 90.7 (69.7, 116.4) 56 (9, 105) 13 stable stable trend -0.9 (-5.4, 3.9)
Miller County 6 Rural 99.7 (79.7, 123.8) 37 (5, 99) 18 stable stable trend 5.1 (-17.8, 27.8)
Mississippi County 6 Rural 159.2 (122.4, 204.3) 1 (1, 46) 13 stable stable trend 1.7 (-1.4, 5.4)
Monroe County 6 Rural 97.5 (68.9, 137.2) 47 (2, 108) 8 falling falling trend -4.9 (-13.9, -1.9)
Montgomery County 6 Rural 81.2 (55.9, 115.7) 73 (7, 110) 7 stable stable trend -2.6 (-6.4, 0.9)
Morgan County 6 Rural 89.6 (71.2, 112.5) 59 (10, 104) 17 stable stable trend -3.0 (-6.6, 0.1)
New Madrid County 6 Rural 87.5 (64.5, 116.9) 61 (8, 108) 10 falling falling trend -3.6 (-6.8, -0.6)
Nodaway County 6 Rural 70.6 (51.4, 95.3) 97 (25, 110) 9 stable stable trend -3.2 (-7.3, 0.6)
Oregon County 6 Rural 110.7 (77.6, 155.7) 23 (1, 105) 8
*
*
Ozark County 6 Rural 90.0 (64.7, 126.9) 57 (6, 108) 9 falling falling trend -3.2 (-6.5, -0.1)
Pemiscot County 6 Rural 104.8 (76.7, 140.3) 32 (1, 105) 10 stable stable trend 0.7 (-4.0, 5.9)
Perry County 6 Rural 136.4 (109.5, 168.6) 5 (1, 52) 18 rising rising trend 11.6 (1.5, 36.2)
Pettis County 6 Rural 95.7 (79.4, 114.5) 51 (11, 94) 26 falling falling trend -3.8 (-8.7, -2.2)
Phelps County 6 Rural 75.4 (61.4, 91.7) 85 (40, 108) 21 falling falling trend -3.8 (-6.5, -1.3)
Pike County 6 Rural 74.2 (53.9, 100.3) 90 (23, 110) 9 stable stable trend -2.4 (-7.1, 1.9)
Pulaski County 6 Rural 110.9 (90.5, 134.3) 22 (3, 80) 22 stable stable trend -3.0 (-6.0, 0.1)
Putnam County 6 Rural 87.1 (52.2, 143.2) 62 (2, 110) 4
*
*
Ralls County 6 Rural 85.4 (59.1, 121.6) 69 (7, 110) 7 stable stable trend -0.8 (-5.1, 4.0)
Randolph County 6 Rural 75.1 (56.5, 98.2) 88 (27, 110) 11 stable stable trend -2.5 (-5.4, 0.3)
Reynolds County 6 Rural 107.0 (71.7, 158.5) 28 (1, 109) 6
*
*
Ripley County 6 Rural 107.0 (77.5, 145.8) 29 (1, 103) 9 stable stable trend -0.3 (-3.0, 2.4)
Saline County 6 Rural 81.8 (62.3, 105.9) 71 (16, 109) 13 stable stable trend 3.7 (-4.4, 21.1)
Schuyler County 6 Rural 118.7 (68.8, 195.5) 12 (1, 110) 3 stable stable trend -0.4 (-6.7, 6.8)
Scott County 6 Rural 143.0 (122.3, 166.5) 3 (1, 30) 35 stable stable trend 0.2 (-1.9, 2.5)
Shannon County 6 Rural 72.3 (46.1, 112.7) 91 (10, 110) 5 stable stable trend -1.3 (-7.3, 5.2)
Shelby County 6 Rural 115.6 (72.8, 176.9) 15 (1, 109) 5 stable stable trend -2.5 (-6.3, 1.0)
St. Clair County 6 Rural 49.6 (30.6, 79.9) 109 (61, 110) 4 falling falling trend -6.1 (-11.5, -2.1)
St. Francois County 6 Rural 119.0 (104.5, 135.0) 11 (3, 51) 51 stable stable trend 2.5 (-0.3, 11.4)
Ste. Genevieve County 6 Rural 141.5 (113.9, 174.5) 4 (1, 49) 20 rising rising trend 3.0 (0.6, 6.1)
Stoddard County 6 Rural 113.9 (93.9, 137.4) 17 (2, 71) 23 stable stable trend -0.2 (-2.2, 1.9)
Stone County 6 Rural 106.9 (91.3, 125.4) 30 (7, 72) 38 falling falling trend -2.8 (-5.6, -0.1)
Sullivan County 6 Rural 75.7 (45.1, 123.3) 83 (5, 110) 4
*
*
Taney County 6 Rural 109.9 (96.1, 125.4) 25 (6, 64) 48 rising rising trend 9.9 (3.5, 23.0)
Texas County 6 Rural 71.5 (55.4, 91.5) 93 (40, 110) 14 falling falling trend -4.0 (-7.6, -0.9)
Vernon County 6 Rural 75.5 (55.9, 100.5) 84 (24, 110) 10 stable stable trend -3.0 (-6.8, 0.5)
Washington County 6 Rural 75.2 (57.5, 97.1) 87 (27, 110) 13 stable stable trend -1.4 (-4.0, 1.5)
Wayne County 6 Rural 99.2 (73.4, 133.7) 39 (3, 106) 10 stable stable trend 1.1 (-2.5, 4.9)
Wright County 6 Rural 88.4 (66.7, 115.8) 60 (9, 108) 12 falling falling trend -3.3 (-6.3, -0.5)
Atchison County 6 Rural
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Knox County 6 Rural
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Mercer County 6 Rural
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Scotland County 6 Rural
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Worth County 6 Rural
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 12/09/2024 1:26 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