Return to Home Incidence > Table

Incidence Rates Table

Data Options

Incidence Rate Report for Oklahoma by County

Prostate (All Stages^), 2016-2020

All Races (includes Hispanic), Male, All Ages

Sorted by CI*Rank
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 ascending
Average Annual Count
 sort by count descending
Recent Trend
Recent 5-Year Trend in Incidence Rates
(95% Confidence Interval)
 sort by trend descending
Oklahoma 6 100.5 (98.7, 102.4) N/A 2,342 stable stable trend 3.7 (-0.6, 9.4)
US (SEER+NPCR) 1 110.5 (110.2, 110.7) N/A 212,734 rising rising trend 2.5 (1.0, 4.1)
Atoka County 6 55.1 (36.4, 81.1) 70 (36, 70) 6 falling falling trend -7.4 (-13.1, -2.7)
Adair County 6 57.1 (40.0, 79.4) 69 (39, 70) 8 falling falling trend -4.6 (-7.7, -1.7)
Bryan County 6 65.9 (53.3, 80.7) 68 (43, 70) 20 falling falling trend -5.1 (-8.0, -2.3)
Osage County 6 68.4 (56.7, 82.2) 67 (40, 70) 25 falling falling trend -4.5 (-7.9, -1.2)
Marshall County 6 69.7 (50.5, 95.0) 66 (18, 70) 9 stable stable trend -3.7 (-7.2, 0.0)
Stephens County 6 70.9 (57.9, 86.2) 65 (32, 70) 22 falling falling trend -12.4 (-25.0, -2.5)
Okfuskee County 6 71.4 (47.4, 104.1) 64 (9, 70) 6 falling falling trend -7.0 (-11.4, -3.2)
McIntosh County 6 72.2 (55.0, 94.4) 63 (23, 70) 13 falling falling trend -7.0 (-9.7, -4.8)
Garvin County 6 72.5 (55.8, 93.1) 62 (21, 70) 13 falling falling trend -9.5 (-21.8, -6.6)
Delaware County 6 75.7 (63.4, 90.2) 61 (28, 69) 29 stable stable trend -1.4 (-4.6, 2.1)
Haskell County 6 76.2 (52.9, 107.7) 60 (7, 70) 7 stable stable trend 22.3 (-5.4, 74.8)
Le Flore County 6 78.5 (65.3, 93.8) 59 (22, 69) 26 falling falling trend -2.8 (-4.6, -1.0)
Tillman County 6 78.6 (47.4, 124.7) 58 (2, 70) 4 stable stable trend -1.2 (-7.3, 4.9)
Seminole County 6 80.0 (62.1, 102.2) 57 (11, 70) 14 rising rising trend 12.4 (5.2, 19.0)
Logan County 6 81.2 (67.5, 97.1) 56 (18, 68) 26 falling falling trend -4.0 (-5.5, -2.5)
Sequoyah County 6 81.3 (66.9, 98.3) 55 (17, 69) 23 falling falling trend -3.1 (-6.1, -0.1)
Nowata County 6 81.8 (55.3, 118.4) 54 (3, 70) 6 stable stable trend -4.1 (-8.8, 0.0)
Beckham County 6 82.5 (60.6, 109.8) 53 (6, 70) 10 falling falling trend -6.0 (-8.7, -3.7)
Washita County 6 83.7 (56.4, 121.0) 52 (3, 70) 6 falling falling trend -6.6 (-10.6, -3.4)
Cherokee County 6 84.0 (69.6, 100.8) 51 (14, 68) 25 stable stable trend 1.6 (-4.0, 13.1)
Ottawa County 6 84.6 (67.8, 104.8) 50 (9, 68) 18 stable stable trend -0.8 (-4.6, 3.2)
Pottawatomie County 6 85.4 (73.4, 99.0) 49 (16, 65) 38 stable stable trend 4.5 (-1.6, 16.3)
Murray County 6 86.3 (61.9, 118.2) 48 (3, 70) 9 stable stable trend -1.7 (-5.0, 1.6)
Johnston County 6 87.8 (60.3, 125.0) 47 (3, 70) 7 stable stable trend -2.5 (-8.2, 3.3)
Pittsburg County 6 88.0 (73.6, 104.6) 46 (11, 66) 27 falling falling trend -3.6 (-5.6, -1.7)
Jackson County 6 88.2 (66.7, 114.6) 45 (5, 70) 12 stable stable trend -2.6 (-7.2, 2.0)
Carter County 6 88.5 (73.7, 105.7) 44 (10, 66) 26 stable stable trend -1.3 (-3.0, 0.6)
Woodward County 6 89.2 (66.8, 116.9) 43 (4, 69) 11 stable stable trend 15.6 (-7.6, 39.3)
Cleveland County 6 90.1 (83.3, 97.4) 42 (20, 55) 136 stable stable trend 0.1 (-3.1, 5.0)
Payne County 6 91.2 (77.8, 106.2) 41 (10, 62) 34 rising rising trend 12.1 (2.7, 19.2)
Hughes County 6 91.6 (65.0, 126.0) 40 (2, 70) 8 falling falling trend -4.7 (-6.7, -2.9)
Choctaw County 6 91.9 (67.3, 123.6) 39 (2, 69) 10 stable stable trend 12.5 (-4.9, 29.2)
Pushmataha County 6 92.3 (66.0, 127.8) 38 (2, 70) 8 stable stable trend -3.4 (-10.4, 2.7)
Grady County 6 92.5 (78.9, 107.9) 37 (8, 63) 35 stable stable trend -2.7 (-5.1, 0.0)
Mayes County 6 92.7 (77.0, 110.9) 36 (7, 64) 26 stable stable trend 13.0 (-4.0, 27.3)
Lincoln County 6 93.1 (76.5, 112.7) 35 (6, 65) 23 falling falling trend -3.7 (-7.0, -0.4)
Muskogee County 6 94.4 (81.3, 109.1) 34 (8, 60) 39 falling falling trend -4.4 (-6.8, -2.3)
Love County 6 94.7 (64.4, 135.6) 33 (1, 70) 7 stable stable trend 0.5 (-5.1, 7.8)
Major County 6 95.2 (61.9, 142.6) 32 (1, 70) 5 stable stable trend -4.1 (-9.1, 0.3)
Greer County 6 95.9 (55.8, 155.1) 31 (1, 70) 3 stable stable trend -3.6 (-8.0, 0.1)
Pontotoc County 6 96.0 (78.7, 116.0) 30 (4, 63) 22 falling falling trend -5.7 (-7.9, -3.6)
Latimer County 6 96.4 (68.6, 133.7) 29 (1, 70) 8 stable stable trend -1.3 (-6.1, 3.9)
Kiowa County 6 96.6 (65.8, 139.2) 28 (1, 70) 7 falling falling trend -3.8 (-6.9, -1.0)
Washington County 6 96.8 (82.6, 113.0) 27 (6, 59) 34 rising rising trend 14.1 (7.8, 22.4)
Dewey County 6 96.8 (56.1, 160.4) 26 (1, 70) 3 stable stable trend -5.4 (-11.8, 0.0)
Caddo County 6 97.7 (77.8, 121.2) 25 (3, 66) 17 stable stable trend -1.6 (-3.6, 0.3)
Rogers County 6 98.8 (87.5, 111.2) 24 (7, 52) 58 rising rising trend 11.2 (3.2, 22.6)
Noble County 6 99.1 (70.3, 137.3) 23 (1, 69) 8 falling falling trend -3.4 (-6.6, -0.2)
Custer County 6 99.7 (77.9, 125.9) 22 (3, 64) 15 falling falling trend -4.2 (-7.0, -1.6)
Kay County 6 100.1 (84.4, 118.1) 21 (4, 58) 30 falling falling trend -6.3 (-8.6, -4.5)
Garfield County 6 100.1 (85.9, 116.2) 20 (5, 56) 36 stable stable trend 6.9 (-1.8, 13.4)
Pawnee County 6 101.7 (77.7, 131.9) 19 (2, 67) 12 stable stable trend -0.8 (-5.1, 3.7)
Craig County 6 101.7 (75.1, 135.6) 18 (1, 68) 10 stable stable trend -2.9 (-6.4, 0.5)
Wagoner County 6 103.6 (91.2, 117.3) 17 (4, 49) 53 stable stable trend -2.6 (-5.5, 0.5)
McCurtain County 6 103.9 (85.6, 125.3) 16 (3, 58) 23 stable stable trend -1.8 (-4.5, 1.2)
Creek County 6 104.1 (91.3, 118.2) 15 (5, 50) 50 stable stable trend 11.9 (-4.0, 27.9)
Canadian County 6 105.3 (94.9, 116.6) 14 (5, 43) 80 falling falling trend -4.4 (-6.7, -2.1)
Kingfisher County 6 105.4 (77.9, 140.1) 13 (1, 68) 10 stable stable trend -3.4 (-7.7, 0.8)
Oklahoma County 6 109.4 (104.8, 114.2) 12 (6, 25) 452 falling falling trend -3.4 (-4.6, -2.2)
Okmulgee County 6 109.9 (92.2, 130.3) 11 (2, 53) 28 stable stable trend -2.7 (-5.7, 0.3)
Texas County 6 111.3 (83.5, 145.4) 10 (1, 65) 11 stable stable trend 13.4 (-1.0, 35.0)
McClain County 6 113.5 (95.2, 134.5) 9 (1, 48) 28 falling falling trend -3.4 (-6.0, -0.6)
Comanche County 6 115.2 (103.0, 128.4) 8 (2, 32) 68 rising rising trend 8.2 (0.8, 15.8)
Woods County 6 117.7 (81.4, 166.2) 7 (1, 68) 7 stable stable trend 15.1 (-5.5, 38.2)
Alfalfa County 6 120.0 (77.9, 179.1) 6 (1, 69) 5 stable stable trend -1.5 (-8.5, 5.2)
Ellis County 6 123.4 (72.4, 202.2) 5 (1, 70) 4 stable stable trend -2.2 (-6.9, 1.9)
Harper County 6 125.9 (70.7, 211.4) 4 (1, 70) 3 stable stable trend -2.0 (-7.8, 4.2)
Tulsa County 6 130.6 (125.1, 136.2) 3 (1, 10) 452 rising rising trend 7.6 (0.2, 17.2)
Blaine County 6 141.6 (103.8, 190.4) 2 (1, 53) 10 stable stable trend -1.5 (-5.0, 2.0)
Beaver County 6 142.9 (94.3, 211.1) 1 (1, 64) 6
*
*
Cimarron County 6
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Coal County 6
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Cotton County 6
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Grant County 6
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Harmon County 6
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Jefferson County 6
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Roger Mills County 6
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 07/19/2024 11:05 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. 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.
⋔ 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.

* 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 2022 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 2022 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 US Population Data File is used with SEER November 2022 data.
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