Return to Home Incidence > Table

Incidence Rates Table

Data Options

Incidence Rate Report for Oklahoma by County

Stomach (All Stages^), 2017-2021

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

Sorted by CI*Rank

County
sort alphabetically by name ascending 		2023 Rural-Urban Continuum Codes Φ
sort by rural urban descending 		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 N/A 5.3 (5.0, 5.6) N/A 248 stable stable trend -0.3 (-1.0, 0.5)
US (SEER+NPCR) 1 N/A 6.3 (6.3, 6.4) N/A 24,764 stable stable trend 0.7 (-0.1, 1.4)
Pottawatomie County 6 Rural 4.3 (2.6, 6.9) 22 (5, 22) 4 stable stable trend 2.1 (-2.0, 7.2)
Rogers County 6 Urban 4.3 (2.8, 6.5) 21 (5, 22) 5 stable stable trend -1.8 (-6.7, 3.7)
Cleveland County 6 Urban 4.6 (3.5, 5.8) 20 (8, 22) 14 stable stable trend -2.0 (-4.8, 1.1)
Payne County 6 Rural 4.8 (2.9, 7.6) 19 (3, 22) 4
*
*
Comanche County 6 Urban 4.9 (3.3, 7.0) 18 (4, 22) 6 falling falling trend -27.8 (-52.2, -2.8)
Creek County 6 Urban 5.0 (3.1, 7.7) 17 (3, 22) 5 stable stable trend -1.6 (-6.4, 3.2)
Oklahoma County 6 Urban 5.3 (4.6, 6.0) 16 (7, 20) 42 stable stable trend -1.1 (-2.3, 0.1)
Wagoner County 6 Urban 5.3 (3.4, 7.9) 15 (2, 22) 5 stable stable trend -0.9 (-5.9, 5.4)
Delaware County 6 Rural 5.4 (3.1, 9.0) 14 (2, 22) 4 stable stable trend 0.3 (-6.6, 7.8)
Le Flore County 6 Rural 5.4 (3.1, 8.9) 13 (2, 22) 3
*
*
Carter County 6 Rural 5.4 (3.1, 8.9) 12 (2, 22) 3 stable stable trend 2.9 (-3.0, 10.5)
Tulsa County 6 Urban 5.5 (4.7, 6.3) 11 (6, 19) 40 rising rising trend 2.1 (0.2, 7.0)
Garfield County 6 Urban 6.0 (3.7, 9.2) 10 (1, 22) 4 stable stable trend 23.7 (-3.1, 44.6)
Pittsburg County 6 Rural 6.1 (3.6, 9.8) 9 (1, 22) 4 stable stable trend -1.4 (-5.2, 2.5)
Osage County 6 Urban 6.1 (3.8, 9.6) 8 (1, 22) 4
*
*
Bryan County 6 Rural 6.2 (3.6, 10.1) 7 (1, 22) 4 stable stable trend -0.7 (-5.2, 4.3)
Canadian County 6 Urban 6.2 (4.5, 8.3) 6 (2, 21) 9 stable stable trend 0.2 (-3.6, 5.0)
Stephens County 6 Rural 6.6 (3.9, 10.7) 5 (1, 22) 4 stable stable trend -0.6 (-6.1, 5.3)
Lincoln County 6 Urban 7.8 (4.8, 12.5) 4 (1, 21) 4
*
*
Muskogee County 6 Rural 7.9 (5.4, 11.2) 3 (1, 18) 7 stable stable trend 0.2 (-2.8, 3.3)
Okmulgee County 6 Urban 8.7 (5.2, 13.6) 2 (1, 20) 4
*
*
Ottawa County 6 Rural 9.3 (5.3, 15.3) 1 (1, 21) 3
*
*
Adair County 6 Rural
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Alfalfa County 6 Rural
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Atoka County 6 Rural
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Beaver County 6 Rural
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Beckham County 6 Rural
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Blaine County 6 Rural
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Caddo County 6 Rural
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Cherokee County 6 Rural
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Choctaw County 6 Rural
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Cimarron County 6 Rural
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Coal County 6 Rural
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Cotton County 6 Urban
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Craig County 6 Rural
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Custer County 6 Rural
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Dewey County 6 Rural
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Ellis County 6 Rural
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Garvin County 6 Rural
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Grady County 6 Urban
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Grant County 6 Rural
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Greer County 6 Rural
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Harmon County 6 Rural
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Harper County 6 Rural
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Haskell County 6 Rural
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Hughes County 6 Rural
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Jackson County 6 Rural
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Jefferson County 6 Rural
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Johnston County 6 Rural
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Kay County 6 Rural
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Kingfisher County 6 Rural
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Kiowa County 6 Rural
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Latimer County 6 Rural
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Logan County 6 Urban
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Love County 6 Rural
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Major County 6 Rural
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Marshall County 6 Rural
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Mayes County 6 Rural
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
McClain County 6 Urban
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
McCurtain County 6 Rural
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
McIntosh County 6 Rural
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Murray County 6 Rural
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Noble County 6 Rural
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Nowata County 6 Rural
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Okfuskee County 6 Rural
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Pawnee County 6 Urban
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Pontotoc County 6 Rural
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Pushmataha County 6 Rural
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Roger Mills County 6 Rural
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Seminole County 6 Rural
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Sequoyah County 6 Urban
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Texas County 6 Rural
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Tillman County 6 Rural
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Washington County 6 Rural
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Washita County 6 Rural
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Woods County 6 Rural
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Woodward County 6 Rural
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 10/22/2024 4:01 pm.

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