Return to Home Incidence > Table

Incidence Rates Table

Data Options

Incidence Rate Report for Ohio by County

Bladder (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 ***?
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
Ohio 6 *** 21.8 (21.5, 22.2) N/A 3,224 stable stable trend -0.2 (-0.4, 0.0)
US (SEER+NPCR) 1 *** 19.7 (19.6, 19.7) N/A 75,383 falling falling trend -2.5 (-3.5, -1.5)
Logan County 6 *** 30.2 (24.1, 37.5) 1 (1, 61) 18 rising rising trend 4.2 (0.4, 8.1)
Athens County 6 *** 27.7 (21.9, 34.5) 2 (1, 79) 17 rising rising trend 3.4 (0.6, 6.2)
Shelby County 6 *** 27.1 (21.4, 34.0) 3 (1, 79) 16 stable stable trend 1.8 (-0.9, 4.6)
Allen County 6 *** 27.1 (23.2, 31.5) 4 (1, 61) 36 stable stable trend 2.1 (0.0, 4.1)
Trumbull County 6 *** 27.1 (24.5, 29.9) 5 (1, 42) 85 stable stable trend -0.9 (-2.0, 0.1)
Vinton County 6 *** 26.9 (16.8, 41.3) 6 (1, 88) 5
*
*
Guernsey County 6 *** 26.7 (20.9, 33.8) 7 (1, 83) 15 stable stable trend 1.3 (-2.0, 4.8)
Union County 6 *** 26.7 (20.6, 33.9) 8 (1, 83) 14 stable stable trend 0.3 (-2.7, 3.3)
Pike County 6 *** 26.6 (19.6, 35.4) 9 (1, 86) 10 stable stable trend 1.2 (-1.9, 4.4)
Brown County 6 *** 26.6 (21.0, 33.3) 10 (1, 80) 16 stable stable trend 1.1 (-2.0, 4.4)
Preble County 6 *** 26.3 (20.6, 33.2) 11 (1, 82) 15 rising rising trend 3.6 (0.8, 6.6)
Carroll County 6 *** 26.2 (19.3, 35.1) 12 (1, 86) 10 stable stable trend 1.4 (-2.0, 5.0)
Henry County 6 *** 26.0 (19.3, 34.6) 13 (1, 86) 10 stable stable trend 0.0 (-4.2, 4.4)
Adams County 6 *** 25.9 (19.0, 34.7) 14 (1, 86) 10 rising rising trend 3.7 (0.8, 6.6)
Huron County 6 *** 25.6 (20.7, 31.5) 15 (1, 81) 20 stable stable trend 1.0 (-2.1, 4.1)
Seneca County 6 *** 25.6 (20.6, 31.6) 16 (1, 81) 19 stable stable trend -1.2 (-3.0, 0.7)
Jackson County 6 *** 25.4 (18.9, 33.6) 17 (1, 86) 11 rising rising trend 6.3 (1.4, 11.5)
Hancock County 6 *** 24.6 (20.3, 29.7) 18 (1, 83) 23 stable stable trend 1.0 (-2.0, 4.1)
Hardin County 6 *** 24.6 (17.8, 33.2) 19 (1, 87) 9 stable stable trend 1.4 (-1.7, 4.7)
Lawrence County 6 *** 24.4 (19.8, 29.7) 20 (1, 83) 21 stable stable trend 2.4 (-0.5, 5.4)
Lake County 6 *** 24.3 (22.0, 26.9) 21 (5, 65) 81 stable stable trend -0.1 (-1.8, 1.7)
Mahoning County 6 *** 24.3 (21.9, 26.8) 22 (7, 66) 85 stable stable trend -1.1 (-2.5, 0.4)
Tuscarawas County 6 *** 24.2 (20.5, 28.4) 23 (2, 79) 32 stable stable trend 1.1 (-1.1, 3.4)
Muskingum County 6 *** 24.1 (20.2, 28.6) 24 (2, 81) 28 stable stable trend 0.7 (-1.6, 3.1)
Van Wert County 6 *** 23.9 (17.5, 32.1) 25 (1, 87) 10 stable stable trend 2.1 (-0.8, 5.2)
Columbiana County 6 *** 23.9 (20.5, 27.7) 26 (2, 79) 38 stable stable trend -0.8 (-2.3, 0.7)
Coshocton County 6 *** 23.9 (18.2, 31.0) 27 (1, 87) 12 stable stable trend -0.2 (-3.3, 3.0)
Gallia County 6 *** 23.5 (17.3, 31.4) 28 (1, 87) 10 stable stable trend 2.5 (-1.5, 6.7)
Clark County 6 *** 23.5 (20.5, 26.8) 29 (4, 78) 46 stable stable trend 0.8 (-1.1, 2.8)
Licking County 6 *** 23.4 (20.5, 26.6) 30 (6, 78) 49 stable stable trend 0.0 (-1.5, 1.4)
Madison County 6 *** 23.3 (17.8, 30.1) 31 (1, 87) 12 stable stable trend 2.5 (-1.3, 6.5)
Defiance County 6 *** 23.3 (17.7, 30.2) 32 (1, 87) 12 stable stable trend 0.4 (-2.1, 3.0)
Stark County 6 *** 23.3 (21.4, 25.3) 33 (12, 68) 123 stable stable trend 0.3 (-1.0, 1.8)
Erie County 6 *** 23.3 (19.4, 27.8) 34 (3, 83) 27 stable stable trend 0.5 (-1.1, 2.1)
Monroe County 6 *** 23.3 (15.3, 34.9) 35 (1, 88) 5 rising rising trend 40.1 (0.1, 96.1)
Ottawa County 6 *** 23.2 (18.3, 29.4) 36 (1, 86) 16 stable stable trend 0.4 (-2.8, 3.7)
Darke County 6 *** 23.2 (18.5, 28.9) 37 (1, 85) 17 stable stable trend -0.3 (-3.1, 2.5)
Fulton County 6 *** 23.2 (17.8, 29.8) 38 (1, 86) 13 stable stable trend -0.9 (-4.2, 2.6)
Perry County 6 *** 23.2 (17.1, 30.9) 39 (1, 87) 10 stable stable trend 0.9 (-4.4, 6.4)
Portage County 6 *** 23.1 (20.1, 26.3) 40 (6, 80) 46 stable stable trend -0.4 (-2.2, 1.5)
Lorain County 6 *** 23.0 (20.9, 25.2) 41 (11, 72) 93 stable stable trend -0.8 (-1.9, 0.2)
Sandusky County 6 *** 22.9 (18.5, 28.2) 42 (3, 85) 19 stable stable trend -1.6 (-4.2, 1.2)
Meigs County 6 *** 22.9 (16.2, 31.9) 43 (1, 88) 8 stable stable trend 1.9 (-1.2, 5.1)
Miami County 6 *** 22.8 (19.3, 26.7) 44 (5, 83) 32 stable stable trend 0.9 (-1.5, 3.3)
Ross County 6 *** 22.6 (18.6, 27.3) 45 (4, 85) 23 stable stable trend 0.3 (-2.7, 3.4)
Highland County 6 *** 22.6 (17.4, 28.9) 46 (2, 87) 13 stable stable trend 0.7 (-2.5, 4.0)
Clinton County 6 *** 22.5 (17.0, 29.4) 47 (1, 88) 12 stable stable trend -2.3 (-5.4, 0.8)
Lucas County 6 *** 22.5 (20.7, 24.5) 48 (16, 73) 118 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.4, 0.4)
Geauga County 6 *** 22.5 (19.0, 26.6) 49 (5, 84) 31 stable stable trend -1.5 (-3.8, 0.7)
Ashtabula County 6 *** 22.4 (18.9, 26.3) 50 (6, 84) 31 stable stable trend -1.1 (-3.0, 0.8)
Pickaway County 6 *** 22.4 (17.6, 28.1) 51 (2, 87) 15 stable stable trend 0.7 (-2.3, 3.9)
Washington County 6 *** 22.3 (18.2, 27.2) 52 (4, 85) 21 stable stable trend -0.7 (-3.5, 2.2)
Knox County 6 *** 22.1 (17.7, 27.4) 53 (3, 86) 18 stable stable trend 0.4 (-2.7, 3.6)
Auglaize County 6 *** 22.0 (17.0, 28.2) 54 (1, 87) 14 stable stable trend -1.0 (-3.1, 1.1)
Putnam County 6 *** 22.0 (16.1, 29.5) 55 (1, 88) 10 stable stable trend 0.2 (-3.6, 4.2)
Wood County 6 *** 22.0 (18.7, 25.7) 56 (7, 84) 32 stable stable trend 0.0 (-1.8, 1.8)
Jefferson County 6 *** 21.9 (18.1, 26.5) 57 (5, 85) 23 stable stable trend 0.2 (-1.7, 2.2)
Crawford County 6 *** 21.7 (16.8, 27.8) 58 (3, 87) 14 stable stable trend 1.4 (-0.2, 3.0)
Fairfield County 6 *** 21.6 (18.6, 24.9) 59 (12, 84) 39 stable stable trend 0.2 (-1.8, 2.2)
Montgomery County 6 *** 21.6 (20.1, 23.2) 60 (27, 76) 153 rising rising trend 1.0 (0.2, 1.7)
Mercer County 6 *** 21.6 (16.2, 28.2) 61 (2, 88) 12 stable stable trend -1.1 (-3.8, 1.7)
Warren County 6 *** 21.5 (18.9, 24.3) 62 (15, 83) 52 stable stable trend -0.6 (-3.1, 1.8)
Richland County 6 *** 21.5 (18.5, 24.9) 63 (11, 84) 38 stable stable trend 0.1 (-2.2, 2.5)
Morgan County 6 *** 21.4 (13.7, 32.7) 64 (1, 88) 5 stable stable trend -0.2 (-4.0, 3.8)
Cuyahoga County 6 *** 21.4 (20.4, 22.4) 65 (36, 73) 364 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.0, 0.3)
Belmont County 6 *** 21.3 (17.5, 25.9) 66 (5, 87) 23 stable stable trend -0.9 (-3.3, 1.5)
Clermont County 6 *** 21.0 (18.5, 23.8) 67 (19, 84) 51 stable stable trend -0.6 (-2.4, 1.2)
Ashland County 6 *** 21.0 (16.4, 26.5) 68 (5, 87) 15 stable stable trend -0.7 (-4.0, 2.7)
Summit County 6 *** 20.8 (19.3, 22.4) 69 (34, 80) 148 falling falling trend -1.6 (-2.4, -0.8)
Wayne County 6 *** 20.6 (17.5, 24.2) 70 (16, 86) 31 stable stable trend -1.1 (-3.0, 0.8)
Greene County 6 *** 20.5 (17.8, 23.5) 71 (19, 85) 43 stable stable trend -0.2 (-2.5, 2.2)
Hocking County 6 *** 20.4 (14.6, 28.0) 72 (2, 88) 8 stable stable trend 2.0 (-2.6, 6.8)
Medina County 6 *** 20.1 (17.6, 23.0) 73 (21, 86) 46 falling falling trend -3.1 (-4.0, -2.2)
Marion County 6 *** 19.8 (15.8, 24.7) 74 (9, 88) 17 stable stable trend 0.2 (-2.1, 2.4)
Delaware County 6 *** 19.6 (16.9, 22.6) 75 (24, 87) 40 stable stable trend -1.6 (-3.4, 0.3)
Champaign County 6 *** 19.5 (14.5, 25.9) 76 (6, 88) 10 stable stable trend -0.8 (-3.9, 2.3)
Franklin County 6 *** 19.2 (18.1, 20.4) 77 (57, 84) 229 stable stable trend -0.3 (-1.2, 0.7)
Butler County 6 *** 19.2 (17.3, 21.2) 78 (45, 86) 80 stable stable trend -0.5 (-2.4, 1.5)
Scioto County 6 *** 19.1 (15.5, 23.5) 79 (16, 88) 19 falling falling trend -3.0 (-4.9, -1.0)
Williams County 6 *** 18.7 (13.7, 25.1) 80 (7, 88) 10 stable stable trend -1.2 (-4.6, 2.3)
Morrow County 6 *** 18.6 (13.4, 25.3) 81 (7, 88) 9
*
*
Paulding County 6 *** 18.5 (11.5, 28.6) 82 (1, 88) 4 stable stable trend 0.3 (-4.6, 5.4)
Hamilton County 6 *** 18.1 (16.9, 19.4) 83 (64, 86) 173 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.6, 0.8)
Noble County 6 *** 17.7 (10.9, 28.6) 84 (2, 88) 5
*
*
Holmes County 6 *** 16.8 (11.8, 23.2) 85 (15, 88) 8 stable stable trend 4.1 (-0.8, 9.3)
Fayette County 6 *** 16.4 (11.0, 23.7) 86 (11, 88) 6 stable stable trend -0.3 (-6.0, 5.7)
Harrison County 6 *** 15.1 (8.8, 25.0) 87 (6, 88) 4 stable stable trend -2.9 (-7.6, 2.1)
Wyandot County 6 *** 13.9 (8.9, 21.2) 88 (32, 88) 5 stable stable trend -0.6 (-6.1, 5.3)
Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 08/17/2022 6:59 pm.

State Cancer Registries may provide more current or more local data.
† 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.
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 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