Return to Home Incidence > Table

Incidence Rates Table

Data Options

Incidence Rate Report for Ohio by County

Prostate (All Stages^), 2014-2018

All Races (includes Hispanic), Male, All Ages

Sorted by Recentaapc
County
 sort alphabetically by name ascending
Met Healthy People Objective of ***?
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 ascending
Ohio 6 *** 107.2 (106.1, 108.3) N/A 7,754 stable stable trend 3.9 (-1.2, 9.2)
US (SEER+NPCR) 1 *** 106.2 (106.0, 106.4) N/A 200,677 stable stable trend 1.8 (-2.6, 6.3)
Noble County 6 *** 50.2 (35.2, 72.3) 88 (76, 88) 9 stable stable trend 23.9 (-7.2, 65.5)
Defiance County 6 *** 122.1 (103.3, 143.6) 9 (1, 56) 32 rising rising trend 16.4 (2.2, 32.5)
Williams County 6 *** 78.4 (63.2, 96.4) 82 (27, 88) 19 stable stable trend 15.4 (-4.1, 38.7)
Marion County 6 *** 89.2 (76.9, 103.2) 65 (23, 86) 39 rising rising trend 13.3 (0.1, 28.3)
Muskingum County 6 *** 113.3 (100.9, 126.9) 19 (2, 57) 63 rising rising trend 13.1 (1.9, 25.5)
Washington County 6 *** 94.0 (81.6, 108.1) 51 (14, 83) 43 stable stable trend 13.0 (-4.1, 33.0)
Wood County 6 *** 108.3 (97.6, 119.9) 25 (7, 61) 79 rising rising trend 12.9 (0.7, 26.5)
Allen County 6 *** 131.4 (118.9, 144.8) 4 (1, 24) 86 stable stable trend 11.6 (-0.1, 24.8)
Clark County 6 *** 82.5 (74.3, 91.6) 77 (44, 85) 76 stable stable trend 10.6 (-7.1, 31.6)
Licking County 6 *** 109.8 (100.9, 119.2) 22 (8, 51) 120 stable stable trend 9.0 (-5.1, 25.1)
Ashtabula County 6 *** 84.4 (74.8, 95.0) 74 (37, 86) 58 stable stable trend 8.9 (-9.8, 31.4)
Richland County 6 *** 111.3 (101.1, 122.2) 21 (7, 50) 91 rising rising trend 8.9 (4.2, 13.8)
Ashland County 6 *** 107.1 (92.3, 123.8) 26 (4, 75) 39 rising rising trend 8.6 (2.4, 15.2)
Coshocton County 6 *** 89.3 (73.6, 107.7) 64 (13, 86) 24 stable stable trend 8.5 (-15.3, 38.9)
Seneca County 6 *** 84.5 (71.3, 99.7) 73 (24, 87) 31 stable stable trend 7.7 (-9.2, 27.8)
Hamilton County 6 *** 117.8 (113.2, 122.5) 13 (7, 25) 536 rising rising trend 6.8 (0.1, 14.0)
Sandusky County 6 *** 98.8 (85.5, 113.8) 38 (8, 80) 41 stable stable trend 6.1 (-5.4, 18.9)
Jefferson County 6 *** 92.1 (80.5, 105.2) 56 (20, 84) 47 stable stable trend 5.9 (-5.3, 18.5)
Knox County 6 *** 114.3 (99.6, 130.6) 15 (1, 58) 46 stable stable trend 5.2 (-4.9, 16.4)
Mahoning County 6 *** 106.9 (99.8, 114.5) 28 (11, 50) 177 stable stable trend 4.9 (-7.4, 18.8)
Lucas County 6 *** 114.1 (108.2, 120.3) 16 (8, 33) 297 stable stable trend 4.4 (-3.4, 12.8)
Franklin County 6 *** 131.5 (127.2, 135.9) 3 (1, 11) 774 stable stable trend 4.3 (-6.8, 16.8)
Cuyahoga County 6 *** 128.0 (124.4, 131.7) 6 (2, 13) 999 stable stable trend 2.4 (-5.7, 11.2)
Greene County 6 *** 91.1 (82.9, 100.0) 61 (29, 81) 95 stable stable trend 2.0 (-6.9, 11.8)
Clermont County 6 *** 81.1 (74.0, 88.8) 79 (54, 86) 103 stable stable trend 1.7 (-12.6, 18.3)
Van Wert County 6 *** 121.6 (99.9, 147.0) 10 (1, 66) 23 stable stable trend 0.9 (-2.9, 4.8)
Auglaize County 6 *** 119.7 (102.7, 139.1) 12 (1, 57) 37 stable stable trend 0.7 (-1.7, 3.1)
Fulton County 6 *** 122.6 (104.3, 143.5) 8 (1, 55) 34 stable stable trend 0.4 (-1.8, 2.7)
Pike County 6 *** 84.7 (66.8, 106.4) 70 (14, 87) 16 stable stable trend 0.2 (-2.4, 2.9)
Mercer County 6 *** 127.1 (108.2, 148.5) 7 (1, 47) 34 stable stable trend 0.0 (-1.7, 1.8)
Lawrence County 6 *** 92.8 (79.8, 107.5) 52 (13, 85) 38 stable stable trend -0.2 (-2.5, 2.1)
Gallia County 6 *** 114.0 (94.0, 137.3) 17 (1, 74) 24 stable stable trend -0.3 (-3.0, 2.5)
Highland County 6 *** 100.7 (84.3, 119.5) 35 (6, 83) 28 stable stable trend -0.3 (-2.7, 2.1)
Putnam County 6 *** 129.2 (108.3, 153.3) 5 (1, 49) 28 stable stable trend -0.5 (-2.7, 1.7)
Holmes County 6 *** 76.0 (60.1, 94.8) 84 (29, 88) 16 stable stable trend -0.8 (-3.5, 1.9)
Meigs County 6 *** 95.9 (75.9, 120.4) 45 (3, 87) 17 stable stable trend -0.8 (-3.3, 1.8)
Perry County 6 *** 92.3 (75.4, 112.2) 54 (10, 86) 22 stable stable trend -1.1 (-4.1, 1.9)
Montgomery County 6 *** 98.1 (93.3, 103.1) 41 (27, 61) 324 stable stable trend -1.4 (-4.5, 1.8)
Guernsey County 6 *** 98.3 (82.2, 116.9) 39 (7, 84) 27 stable stable trend -1.5 (-3.9, 1.0)
Henry County 6 *** 91.6 (72.5, 114.6) 58 (8, 87) 16 stable stable trend -1.5 (-4.4, 1.5)
Morrow County 6 *** 112.6 (93.9, 134.4) 20 (1, 76) 27 stable stable trend -1.5 (-4.2, 1.4)
Preble County 6 *** 85.6 (70.7, 103.0) 68 (18, 87) 24 stable stable trend -1.5 (-3.9, 1.0)
Medina County 6 *** 135.8 (126.3, 145.9) 1 (1, 13) 160 falling falling trend -1.7 (-3.0, -0.3)
Paulding County 6 *** 102.1 (78.8, 131.1) 32 (1, 86) 14 stable stable trend -1.7 (-5.3, 1.9)
Wayne County 6 *** 101.5 (91.3, 112.5) 33 (12, 72) 76 stable stable trend -1.7 (-3.3, 0.0)
Fairfield County 6 *** 120.5 (110.5, 131.2) 11 (1, 33) 111 falling falling trend -1.9 (-3.5, -0.3)
Ross County 6 *** 90.6 (78.8, 103.8) 62 (22, 85) 45 stable stable trend -1.9 (-4.6, 0.9)
Champaign County 6 *** 91.5 (75.4, 110.3) 59 (11, 86) 24 stable stable trend -2.0 (-4.4, 0.4)
Jackson County 6 *** 95.4 (76.7, 117.6) 48 (6, 86) 20 stable stable trend -2.0 (-4.8, 0.9)
Monroe County 6 *** 113.6 (88.0, 146.0) 18 (1, 83) 14 stable stable trend -2.0 (-4.7, 0.7)
Delaware County 6 *** 134.6 (124.5, 145.2) 2 (1, 14) 144 falling falling trend -2.1 (-3.6, -0.5)
Fayette County 6 *** 83.0 (65.1, 104.8) 76 (18, 88) 15 stable stable trend -2.1 (-5.2, 1.0)
Madison County 6 *** 102.5 (85.4, 122.0) 31 (3, 82) 27 stable stable trend -2.1 (-4.6, 0.4)
Tuscarawas County 6 *** 109.2 (97.8, 121.7) 23 (5, 61) 70 falling falling trend -2.2 (-3.9, -0.5)
Harrison County 6 *** 106.6 (81.4, 138.5) 29 (1, 86) 13 stable stable trend -2.4 (-4.7, 0.0)
Union County 6 *** 109.1 (92.1, 128.4) 24 (1, 76) 32 falling falling trend -2.5 (-3.8, -1.1)
Huron County 6 *** 99.6 (85.2, 115.9) 37 (9, 82) 36 falling falling trend -2.7 (-4.8, -0.6)
Lorain County 6 *** 115.9 (109.2, 122.9) 14 (7, 33) 235 falling falling trend -2.9 (-4.0, -1.8)
Hardin County 6 *** 95.2 (75.9, 118.3) 49 (5, 86) 17 stable stable trend -3.0 (-6.5, 0.7)
Hocking County 6 *** 84.6 (67.7, 105.0) 71 (16, 87) 18 stable stable trend -3.1 (-6.2, 0.2)
Ottawa County 6 *** 107.0 (92.1, 124.1) 27 (2, 72) 40 falling falling trend -3.2 (-4.9, -1.4)
Summit County 6 *** 100.1 (95.3, 105.0) 36 (24, 57) 352 falling falling trend -3.2 (-4.4, -2.0)
Stark County 6 *** 105.7 (100.0, 111.7) 30 (15, 49) 267 falling falling trend -3.3 (-4.3, -2.3)
Pickaway County 6 *** 89.2 (75.4, 105.0) 66 (18, 86) 31 falling falling trend -3.4 (-5.3, -1.4)
Adams County 6 *** 85.0 (66.6, 107.5) 69 (12, 87) 16 falling falling trend -3.5 (-5.5, -1.5)
Carroll County 6 *** 95.4 (77.9, 116.5) 47 (7, 86) 22 falling falling trend -3.5 (-6.2, -0.7)
Erie County 6 *** 90.6 (79.9, 102.5) 63 (24, 83) 54 falling falling trend -3.5 (-4.9, -2.0)
Morgan County 6 *** 77.8 (56.4, 106.0) 83 (14, 88) 9 falling falling trend -3.5 (-6.3, -0.5)
Warren County 6 *** 101.0 (93.2, 109.4) 34 (15, 64) 129 falling falling trend -3.5 (-5.0, -1.9)
Clinton County 6 *** 97.1 (80.5, 116.3) 42 (7, 85) 25 falling falling trend -3.7 (-6.3, -1.1)
Butler County 6 *** 84.1 (78.5, 90.1) 75 (51, 84) 177 falling falling trend -3.8 (-5.2, -2.4)
Crawford County 6 *** 78.9 (65.4, 94.8) 81 (31, 87) 24 falling falling trend -3.8 (-6.6, -1.0)
Brown County 6 *** 81.3 (67.3, 97.8) 78 (27, 87) 24 falling falling trend -4.0 (-6.1, -1.9)
Portage County 6 *** 98.2 (89.6, 107.6) 40 (18, 73) 101 falling falling trend -4.0 (-5.1, -2.8)
Logan County 6 *** 96.6 (81.4, 114.2) 44 (10, 84) 30 falling falling trend -4.2 (-6.8, -1.6)
Athens County 6 *** 92.8 (78.1, 109.6) 53 (12, 85) 31 falling falling trend -4.3 (-6.8, -1.7)
Belmont County 6 *** 91.2 (79.5, 104.3) 60 (21, 84) 46 falling falling trend -4.3 (-6.5, -2.0)
Trumbull County 6 *** 97.0 (89.9, 104.6) 43 (23, 70) 144 falling falling trend -4.3 (-5.5, -3.1)
Geauga County 6 *** 94.5 (84.6, 105.5) 50 (22, 79) 69 falling falling trend -4.4 (-5.8, -3.0)
Columbiana County 6 *** 88.2 (78.9, 98.5) 67 (31, 84) 68 falling falling trend -4.6 (-6.0, -3.3)
Lake County 6 *** 95.7 (88.9, 102.9) 46 (25, 72) 154 falling falling trend -4.8 (-6.8, -2.8)
Miami County 6 *** 80.7 (71.4, 90.9) 80 (45, 86) 57 falling falling trend -4.9 (-6.7, -3.0)
Wyandot County 6 *** 73.1 (55.2, 95.7) 86 (27, 88) 12 falling falling trend -5.0 (-7.5, -2.5)
Shelby County 6 *** 73.2 (59.9, 88.9) 85 (46, 88) 22 falling falling trend -5.2 (-7.6, -2.7)
Scioto County 6 *** 92.2 (80.4, 105.5) 55 (20, 84) 45 falling falling trend -5.4 (-7.7, -3.1)
Vinton County 6 *** 84.6 (58.7, 119.1) 72 (3, 88) 8 falling falling trend -6.0 (-10.5, -1.3)
Darke County 6 *** 61.3 (50.3, 74.2) 87 (74, 88) 22 falling falling trend -6.2 (-8.3, -4.0)
Hancock County 6 *** 91.8 (79.8, 105.3) 57 (18, 84) 43 falling falling trend -7.9 (-10.9, -4.9)
Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 10/20/2021 9:31 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.

⋔ 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.
*** No Healthy People 2020 Objective for this cancer.
Healthy People 2020 Objectives provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.


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