Return to Home Incidence > Table

Incidence Rates Table

Data Options

Incidence Rate Report for Pennsylvania by County

Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma (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
Pennsylvania 6 N/A 19.2 (18.9, 19.5) N/A 3,287 falling falling trend -4.3 (-5.5, -3.3)
US (SEER+NPCR) 1 N/A 18.5 (18.4, 18.6) N/A 71,542 falling falling trend -1.9 (-2.4, -1.5)
Wyoming County 6 Urban 13.1 (8.7, 19.4) 64 (18, 64) 6 stable stable trend -2.9 (-8.0, 1.8)
McKean County 6 Rural 13.1 (9.1, 18.5) 63 (19, 64) 8 falling falling trend -4.2 (-7.8, -1.4)
Tioga County 6 Rural 15.1 (10.9, 20.6) 62 (8, 64) 9 stable stable trend 0.6 (-15.3, 25.5)
Indiana County 6 Rural 15.5 (12.2, 19.4) 61 (16, 64) 17 stable stable trend 0.0 (-2.2, 2.1)
Susquehanna County 6 Rural 15.7 (11.0, 21.8) 60 (5, 64) 9 stable stable trend -0.5 (-5.4, 4.5)
Fulton County 6 Rural 15.7 (8.7, 26.6) 59 (1, 64) 3 falling falling trend -23.7 (-51.1, -5.9)
Elk County 6 Rural 15.8 (10.7, 22.6) 58 (3, 64) 7 stable stable trend -0.6 (-4.2, 3.0)
Adams County 6 Urban 16.1 (13.3, 19.4) 57 (15, 64) 24 stable stable trend -2.0 (-4.7, 0.7)
Westmoreland County 6 Urban 16.6 (15.0, 18.3) 56 (32, 62) 94 falling falling trend -12.0 (-23.6, -2.1)
Philadelphia County 6 Urban 16.8 (15.9, 17.7) 55 (40, 61) 283 falling falling trend -9.8 (-13.3, -6.0)
Wayne County 6 Rural 17.1 (13.3, 21.9) 54 (5, 64) 15 stable stable trend -0.9 (-3.2, 1.5)
Bedford County 6 Rural 17.3 (13.0, 22.7) 53 (3, 64) 12 falling falling trend -3.1 (-5.8, -0.5)
Lackawanna County 6 Urban 17.5 (15.4, 19.8) 52 (18, 62) 54 stable stable trend -1.1 (-2.9, 0.9)
Mercer County 6 Rural 17.5 (14.6, 20.8) 51 (10, 63) 29 stable stable trend -1.1 (-2.6, 0.4)
Delaware County 6 Urban 17.6 (16.1, 19.1) 50 (25, 60) 122 falling falling trend -14.5 (-23.5, -7.1)
Huntingdon County 6 Rural 17.7 (13.3, 23.4) 49 (2, 64) 11 stable stable trend -1.1 (-4.4, 2.4)
Chester County 6 Urban 17.8 (16.3, 19.3) 48 (23, 60) 115 falling falling trend -5.4 (-11.5, -2.3)
Carbon County 6 Urban 17.9 (14.0, 22.7) 47 (4, 64) 16 stable stable trend -1.6 (-4.6, 1.4)
Centre County 6 Urban 18.0 (15.2, 21.3) 46 (9, 62) 31 stable stable trend -0.8 (-2.4, 1.0)
Butler County 6 Urban 18.1 (15.8, 20.6) 45 (12, 61) 50 falling falling trend -4.2 (-15.1, -1.6)
Fayette County 6 Urban 18.1 (15.3, 21.3) 44 (9, 63) 34 falling falling trend -1.8 (-3.8, -0.1)
Clearfield County 6 Rural 18.2 (14.7, 22.3) 43 (5, 64) 20 falling falling trend -1.7 (-3.3, -0.1)
Lehigh County 6 Urban 18.3 (16.5, 20.2) 42 (16, 59) 85 falling falling trend -4.7 (-12.9, -1.6)
Armstrong County 6 Urban 18.6 (14.8, 23.1) 41 (3, 63) 19 stable stable trend 0.0 (-3.2, 3.3)
York County 6 Urban 18.8 (17.3, 20.5) 40 (14, 56) 113 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.8, 0.4)
Union County 6 Rural 18.9 (14.0, 25.0) 39 (1, 64) 11 stable stable trend 0.6 (-2.6, 4.2)
Potter County 6 Rural 19.0 (11.6, 29.8) 38 (1, 64) 5
*
*
Cumberland County 6 Urban 19.0 (16.9, 21.2) 37 (10, 58) 65 stable stable trend -0.7 (-2.8, 1.5)
Pike County 6 Rural 19.0 (15.0, 24.0) 36 (2, 63) 18 stable stable trend -0.3 (-2.6, 2.3)
Franklin County 6 Urban 19.1 (16.4, 22.1) 35 (6, 61) 40 stable stable trend -0.3 (-1.8, 1.2)
Allegheny County 6 Urban 19.2 (18.3, 20.2) 34 (18, 48) 328 falling falling trend -0.8 (-1.4, -0.2)
Clarion County 6 Rural 19.6 (14.0, 26.8) 33 (1, 64) 9 stable stable trend -1.1 (-5.3, 2.9)
Bucks County 6 Urban 19.6 (18.3, 21.0) 32 (12, 49) 177 falling falling trend -2.6 (-10.6, -0.7)
Lebanon County 6 Urban 19.7 (16.9, 22.8) 31 (5, 59) 38 stable stable trend -0.7 (-2.5, 1.1)
Lawrence County 6 Urban 19.8 (16.3, 23.9) 30 (2, 60) 26 falling falling trend -2.5 (-12.4, -0.4)
Montgomery County 6 Urban 19.8 (18.6, 21.0) 29 (12, 46) 219 falling falling trend -1.7 (-6.5, -0.4)
Dauphin County 6 Urban 19.8 (17.8, 22.1) 28 (6, 54) 70 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.4, 0.4)
Schuylkill County 6 Rural 19.9 (17.1, 22.9) 27 (4, 59) 41 stable stable trend 0.6 (-0.7, 1.9)
Bradford County 6 Rural 19.9 (15.8, 24.9) 26 (2, 62) 18 stable stable trend -0.5 (-2.8, 1.8)
Clinton County 6 Rural 20.0 (14.4, 27.0) 25 (1, 64) 9 stable stable trend -1.0 (-5.0, 3.0)
Lycoming County 6 Urban 20.0 (17.0, 23.5) 24 (3, 59) 33 stable stable trend 0.3 (-1.3, 2.1)
Washington County 6 Urban 20.4 (18.1, 22.9) 23 (4, 54) 64 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.5, 0.6)
Lancaster County 6 Urban 20.4 (18.9, 22.0) 22 (7, 45) 148 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.9, 1.2)
Beaver County 6 Urban 20.6 (18.0, 23.4) 21 (4, 53) 53 stable stable trend 0.0 (-1.7, 1.8)
Northampton County 6 Urban 20.6 (18.6, 22.7) 20 (5, 50) 87 stable stable trend -1.0 (-4.7, 0.0)
Luzerne County 6 Urban 20.7 (18.7, 22.8) 19 (5, 47) 91 stable stable trend 0.4 (-0.7, 1.6)
Venango County 6 Rural 20.7 (16.1, 26.4) 18 (1, 62) 16 stable stable trend 1.1 (-1.8, 4.0)
Somerset County 6 Rural 20.9 (17.2, 25.1) 17 (1, 59) 25 stable stable trend -1.0 (-3.7, 1.6)
Greene County 6 Rural 21.2 (15.4, 28.5) 16 (1, 64) 10 stable stable trend 0.5 (-3.2, 4.3)
Monroe County 6 Rural 21.2 (18.4, 24.3) 15 (2, 52) 46 rising rising trend 3.7 (0.2, 9.6)
Crawford County 6 Rural 21.4 (17.7, 25.7) 14 (1, 58) 27 stable stable trend 0.1 (-2.0, 2.2)
Juniata County 6 Rural 21.5 (15.1, 30.0) 13 (1, 64) 8 stable stable trend -0.5 (-3.2, 2.4)
Snyder County 6 Rural 21.5 (16.1, 28.3) 12 (1, 62) 11 stable stable trend 0.3 (-2.6, 3.3)
Cambria County 6 Urban 21.8 (18.9, 25.1) 11 (2, 50) 45 stable stable trend 0.2 (-1.5, 1.9)
Berks County 6 Urban 22.0 (20.2, 23.9) 10 (3, 36) 116 stable stable trend -0.3 (-1.3, 0.8)
Mifflin County 6 Rural 22.5 (17.5, 28.6) 9 (1, 60) 15 stable stable trend -0.5 (-2.8, 1.8)
Northumberland County 6 Rural 22.6 (18.9, 26.8) 8 (1, 53) 30 stable stable trend 0.4 (-2.0, 2.8)
Columbia County 6 Rural 23.0 (18.3, 28.5) 7 (1, 58) 19 stable stable trend 1.6 (0.0, 3.4)
Warren County 6 Rural 23.0 (17.1, 30.3) 6 (1, 61) 12 stable stable trend 0.0 (-2.7, 2.8)
Blair County 6 Urban 23.5 (20.3, 27.2) 5 (1, 41) 42 stable stable trend 0.7 (-0.6, 1.9)
Erie County 6 Urban 23.6 (21.3, 26.1) 4 (1, 30) 83 stable stable trend 0.4 (-0.7, 1.5)
Jefferson County 6 Rural 23.7 (18.4, 30.2) 3 (1, 58) 15 stable stable trend 1.0 (-2.7, 4.9)
Perry County 6 Urban 24.3 (19.0, 30.7) 2 (1, 56) 16 stable stable trend -0.3 (-2.0, 1.5)
Montour County 6 Rural 30.1 (21.2, 42.0) 1 (1, 58) 8 stable stable trend 0.0 (-5.0, 5.3)
Cameron County 6 Rural
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Forest County 6 Rural
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Sullivan County 6 Rural
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 10/14/2024 5:36 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