Return to Home Incidence > Table

Incidence Rates Table

Data Options

Incidence Rate Report for Oklahoma by County

Colon & Rectum (All Stages^), 2017-2021

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

Sorted by Name

County
 sort alphabetically by name descending
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 descending
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 40.3 (39.4, 41.1) N/A 1,835 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.5, 2.1)
US (SEER+NPCR) 1 N/A 36.4 (36.3, 36.4) N/A 140,088 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.3, -0.9)
Adair County 6 Rural 55.0 (42.0, 70.9) 8 (1, 60) 13 stable stable trend 0.3 (-3.8, 4.7)
Alfalfa County 6 Rural 40.5 (22.9, 67.9) 41 (1, 67) 3
*
*
Atoka County 6 Rural 46.3 (33.4, 63.1) 24 (1, 66) 9 stable stable trend -1.0 (-4.6, 2.6)
Beckham County 6 Rural 43.4 (32.2, 57.3) 34 (4, 66) 10 stable stable trend 0.4 (-3.0, 3.9)
Blaine County 6 Rural 36.2 (23.3, 54.8) 59 (5, 67) 5 stable stable trend -1.9 (-6.6, 2.5)
Bryan County 6 Rural 48.8 (40.6, 58.3) 21 (4, 56) 26 stable stable trend 3.1 (-10.6, 15.6)
Caddo County 6 Rural 49.8 (39.3, 62.2) 16 (2, 60) 16 stable stable trend 0.4 (-3.2, 4.0)
Canadian County 6 Urban 37.2 (33.0, 41.8) 53 (29, 65) 58 falling falling trend -2.5 (-4.5, -0.5)
Carter County 6 Rural 35.2 (28.7, 42.9) 61 (24, 67) 21 stable stable trend -2.2 (-4.6, 0.0)
Cherokee County 6 Rural 45.8 (38.0, 54.7) 25 (5, 60) 26 stable stable trend -0.1 (-2.2, 2.1)
Choctaw County 6 Rural 52.8 (38.7, 70.6) 11 (1, 64) 10 stable stable trend -0.8 (-3.0, 1.3)
Cleveland County 6 Urban 34.3 (31.4, 37.5) 62 (41, 66) 104 falling falling trend -2.5 (-3.2, -1.7)
Coal County 6 Rural 64.5 (39.8, 99.9) 4 (1, 66) 5
*
*
Comanche County 6 Urban 42.8 (37.7, 48.4) 36 (13, 59) 53 stable stable trend -0.3 (-1.5, 1.0)
Craig County 6 Rural 44.7 (32.3, 60.8) 32 (2, 66) 9 stable stable trend -0.6 (-4.2, 3.1)
Creek County 6 Urban 49.4 (42.9, 56.6) 19 (5, 45) 44 stable stable trend -1.4 (-3.9, 1.2)
Custer County 6 Rural 45.1 (34.7, 57.6) 29 (4, 65) 13 stable stable trend -0.3 (-3.2, 2.8)
Delaware County 6 Rural 43.8 (35.9, 53.1) 33 (7, 63) 26 stable stable trend 0.3 (-1.6, 2.1)
Dewey County 6 Rural 74.1 (43.7, 117.9) 1 (1, 66) 4 stable stable trend 1.7 (-3.2, 6.3)
Garfield County 6 Urban 41.2 (34.8, 48.5) 39 (13, 64) 31 stable stable trend -0.6 (-2.0, 1.4)
Garvin County 6 Rural 45.5 (35.5, 57.5) 27 (4, 64) 15 stable stable trend -1.3 (-4.7, 1.9)
Grady County 6 Urban 34.1 (28.1, 41.2) 64 (29, 67) 24 stable stable trend -1.3 (-4.4, 1.8)
Haskell County 6 Rural 40.4 (27.2, 58.2) 43 (3, 67) 6 stable stable trend 0.2 (-2.7, 3.2)
Hughes County 6 Rural 36.7 (25.0, 52.4) 58 (6, 67) 7 stable stable trend -2.1 (-6.7, 2.0)
Jackson County 6 Rural 31.2 (22.6, 42.2) 66 (23, 67) 9 falling falling trend -3.1 (-23.7, -1.0)
Jefferson County 6 Rural 48.1 (27.6, 79.1) 22 (1, 67) 4
*
*
Johnston County 6 Rural 50.3 (33.9, 72.2) 14 (1, 66) 6 stable stable trend -0.3 (-3.9, 3.4)
Kay County 6 Rural 53.0 (44.6, 62.7) 10 (2, 43) 30 stable stable trend -0.7 (-2.2, 0.6)
Kingfisher County 6 Rural 49.8 (36.1, 67.2) 15 (1, 65) 9 stable stable trend 2.3 (-1.7, 14.4)
Kiowa County 6 Rural 49.5 (31.9, 73.8) 18 (1, 67) 6 stable stable trend -2.6 (-5.7, 0.3)
Latimer County 6 Rural 69.8 (49.8, 95.5) 2 (1, 44) 9
*
*
Le Flore County 6 Rural 40.2 (33.1, 48.5) 45 (12, 66) 24 stable stable trend -1.4 (-4.6, 1.8)
Lincoln County 6 Urban 42.4 (34.0, 52.4) 37 (8, 65) 19 stable stable trend 1.3 (-2.8, 13.7)
Logan County 6 Urban 37.3 (30.5, 45.2) 52 (20, 66) 22 falling falling trend -2.4 (-4.6, -0.1)
Love County 6 Rural 21.5 (12.2, 36.2) 67 (41, 67) 3
*
*
Marshall County 6 Rural 35.5 (25.1, 49.3) 60 (9, 67) 8 stable stable trend -1.4 (-5.1, 2.2)
Mayes County 6 Rural 52.6 (43.9, 62.8) 12 (2, 46) 27 stable stable trend 2.7 (-0.6, 12.0)
McClain County 6 Urban 38.7 (31.0, 47.8) 50 (13, 66) 18 stable stable trend -0.2 (-2.0, 3.2)
McCurtain County 6 Rural 61.4 (50.3, 74.3) 5 (1, 32) 23 stable stable trend 1.1 (-1.5, 3.8)
McIntosh County 6 Rural 44.9 (34.0, 58.7) 31 (3, 66) 14 rising rising trend 20.1 (2.4, 32.3)
Murray County 6 Rural 36.7 (25.3, 52.0) 57 (6, 67) 7 stable stable trend -1.5 (-5.4, 2.4)
Muskogee County 6 Rural 47.4 (40.7, 54.9) 23 (6, 51) 38 rising rising trend 13.8 (1.7, 20.4)
Noble County 6 Rural 49.2 (34.1, 69.4) 20 (1, 66) 7 stable stable trend -0.9 (-5.5, 3.7)
Nowata County 6 Rural 55.8 (38.5, 78.8) 6 (1, 65) 7 stable stable trend 1.6 (-3.2, 6.7)
Okfuskee County 6 Rural 55.4 (39.6, 75.9) 7 (1, 65) 8 stable stable trend 0.9 (-3.3, 5.3)
Oklahoma County 6 Urban 37.2 (35.3, 39.1) 55 (38, 61) 307 falling falling trend -1.7 (-2.4, -1.1)
Okmulgee County 6 Urban 53.7 (44.3, 64.5) 9 (2, 47) 25 stable stable trend -0.1 (-2.4, 2.3)
Osage County 6 Urban 40.4 (33.5, 48.5) 42 (13, 65) 26 stable stable trend 0.1 (-2.1, 2.5)
Ottawa County 6 Rural 45.1 (35.7, 56.4) 28 (4, 65) 17 falling falling trend -3.4 (-5.7, -1.3)
Pawnee County 6 Urban 42.9 (31.6, 57.5) 35 (4, 67) 10 stable stable trend -1.6 (-4.8, 1.6)
Payne County 6 Rural 45.0 (38.2, 52.7) 30 (8, 59) 33 stable stable trend -1.3 (-4.3, 1.8)
Pittsburg County 6 Rural 38.9 (31.9, 47.0) 48 (16, 66) 24 stable stable trend -1.7 (-4.8, 1.0)
Pontotoc County 6 Rural 51.7 (42.6, 62.3) 13 (2, 48) 24 stable stable trend -0.6 (-3.2, 2.2)
Pottawatomie County 6 Rural 37.3 (31.7, 43.6) 51 (21, 66) 33 falling falling trend -2.1 (-3.6, -0.7)
Pushmataha County 6 Rural 41.0 (26.9, 60.5) 40 (3, 67) 6 stable stable trend -2.9 (-6.1, 0.0)
Rogers County 6 Urban 38.9 (33.8, 44.5) 49 (21, 64) 45 stable stable trend -1.0 (-2.6, 0.7)
Seminole County 6 Rural 33.5 (24.8, 44.4) 65 (18, 67) 11 falling falling trend -3.6 (-7.2, -0.6)
Sequoyah County 6 Urban 49.6 (41.1, 59.4) 17 (3, 54) 25 stable stable trend 1.0 (-3.2, 5.7)
Stephens County 6 Rural 40.0 (32.8, 48.4) 46 (13, 66) 24 falling falling trend -2.6 (-4.9, -0.6)
Texas County 6 Rural 37.0 (25.9, 51.0) 56 (7, 67) 8 falling falling trend -2.9 (-5.6, -0.4)
Tillman County 6 Rural 45.5 (28.2, 70.7) 26 (1, 67) 5 stable stable trend 0.5 (-4.7, 5.8)
Tulsa County 6 Urban 37.2 (35.2, 39.3) 54 (38, 62) 269 falling falling trend -1.5 (-2.2, -0.8)
Wagoner County 6 Urban 34.2 (29.1, 40.0) 63 (33, 67) 34 stable stable trend -1.8 (-3.6, 0.2)
Washington County 6 Rural 40.4 (33.5, 48.3) 44 (12, 65) 27 falling falling trend -19.2 (-27.2, -13.7)
Washita County 6 Rural 42.1 (27.2, 62.3) 38 (2, 67) 6 stable stable trend 0.5 (-2.7, 3.6)
Woods County 6 Rural 66.0 (44.6, 94.4) 3 (1, 61) 7 stable stable trend 4.5 (-28.1, 42.9)
Woodward County 6 Rural 39.1 (28.7, 52.3) 47 (7, 67) 10 falling falling trend -2.9 (-4.9, -0.9)
Beaver County 6 Rural
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Cimarron County 6 Rural
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Cotton County 6 Urban
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Ellis County 6 Rural
*
*
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
*
*
Major County 6 Rural
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Roger Mills County 6 Rural
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 12/04/2024 4:33 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.
Beaver, Cimarron, Cotton, Ellis, Grant, Greer, Harmon, Harper, Major, Roger Mills

† 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/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).
Source: SEER and NPCR data. For more specific information please see the table.

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