Return to Home Incidence > Table

Incidence Rates Table

Data Options

Incidence Rate Report for North Dakota by County

All Cancer Sites (All Stages^), 2015-2019

All Races (includes Hispanic), Both Sexes, Ages <50

Sorted by Count
County
 sort alphabetically by name 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
North Dakota 6 106.9 (102.5, 111.5) N/A 454 rising rising trend 1.0 (0.5, 1.5)
US (SEER+NPCR) 1 106.5 (106.3, 106.7) N/A 208,914 falling falling trend -0.7 (-1.3, -0.2)
Pembina County 6 90.3 (51.4, 146.9) 17 (2, 23) 3 stable stable trend 1.0 (-3.1, 5.3)
Pierce County 6 153.3 (87.4, 248.3) 2 (1, 23) 3 stable stable trend 4.4 (-1.2, 10.3)
Benson County 6 111.5 (65.3, 175.5) 10 (1, 23) 4 stable stable trend 0.3 (-4.3, 5.2)
McHenry County 6 115.6 (68.3, 182.5) 9 (1, 23) 4
*
*
Walsh County 6 73.2 (44.5, 112.9) 23 (7, 23) 4 stable stable trend -1.7 (-4.0, 0.7)
Traill County 6 112.2 (71.6, 167.0) 11 (1, 23) 5 stable stable trend 2.8 (-3.2, 9.1)
Ramsey County 6 87.0 (56.0, 128.1) 18 (4, 23) 5 stable stable trend 1.6 (-2.4, 5.9)
McLean County 6 125.4 (84.5, 178.9) 4 (1, 22) 6 stable stable trend 0.6 (-3.5, 5.0)
McKenzie County 6 76.8 (51.9, 109.1) 22 (8, 23) 6 stable stable trend 0.8 (-3.5, 5.2)
Richland County 6 80.3 (54.6, 113.3) 21 (7, 23) 6 stable stable trend -0.4 (-3.4, 2.6)
Rolette County 6 85.3 (58.1, 120.2) 20 (5, 23) 6 stable stable trend -2.2 (-5.0, 0.8)
Barnes County 6 124.0 (85.1, 174.1) 5 (1, 22) 7 stable stable trend 2.5 (0.0, 5.1)
Mountrail County 6 116.7 (81.6, 161.4) 8 (1, 22) 7 stable stable trend 2.4 (-2.1, 7.0)
Mercer County 6 172.7 (122.0, 237.1) 1 (1, 12) 8 stable stable trend 3.3 (-0.8, 7.6)
Stutsman County 6 91.5 (68.2, 120.1) 16 (5, 23) 10 stable stable trend 0.3 (-2.1, 2.8)
Stark County 6 97.0 (77.3, 120.1) 15 (5, 22) 18 stable stable trend 1.0 (-1.9, 4.1)
Williams County 6 86.8 (69.5, 106.9) 19 (9, 23) 18 stable stable trend -3.0 (-6.9, 1.1)
Morton County 6 126.2 (103.9, 151.7) 3 (1, 15) 23 rising rising trend 2.8 (0.5, 5.1)
Grand Forks County 6 107.9 (92.7, 124.8) 12 (4, 18) 38 stable stable trend 0.2 (-1.2, 1.6)
Ward County 6 102.2 (88.2, 117.8) 14 (5, 20) 41 stable stable trend 0.6 (-1.3, 2.5)
Burleigh County 6 118.8 (106.3, 132.4) 7 (2, 14) 67 rising rising trend 1.6 (0.3, 3.0)
Cass County 6 118.4 (109.1, 128.2) 6 (3, 13) 126 rising rising trend 1.0 (0.3, 1.8)
Adams County 6
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Billings County 6
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Bottineau County 6
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Bowman County 6
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Burke County 6
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Cavalier County 6
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Dickey County 6
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Divide County 6
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Dunn County 6
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Eddy County 6
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Emmons County 6
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Foster County 6
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Golden Valley County 6
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Grant County 6
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Griggs County 6
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Hettinger County 6
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Kidder County 6
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
LaMoure County 6
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Logan County 6
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
McIntosh County 6
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Nelson County 6
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Oliver County 6
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Ransom County 6
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Renville County 6
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Sargent County 6
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Sheridan County 6
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Sioux County 6
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Slope County 6
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Steele County 6
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Towner County 6
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Wells County 6
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 12/05/2022 3:56 am.

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.
Adams, Billings, Bottineau, Bowman, Burke, Cavalier, Dickey, Divide, Dunn, Eddy, Emmons, Foster, Golden Valley, Grant, Griggs, Hettinger, Kidder, LaMoure, Logan, McIntosh, Nelson, Oliver, Ransom, Renville, Sargent, Sheridan, Sioux, Slope, Steele, Towner, Wells

⋔ 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 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 stage.
* 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.

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 the United States does not include data from Nevada.
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