Return to Home Incidence > Table

Incidence Rates Table

Data Options

Incidence Rate Report for West Virginia by County

Melanoma of the Skin (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 descending
Average Annual Count
 sort by count descending
Recent Trend
Recent 5-Year Trend in Incidence Rates
(95% Confidence Interval)
 sort by trend descending
West Virginia 6 N/A 23.4 (22.5, 24.4) N/A 555 rising rising trend 1.9 (1.3, 2.5)
US (SEER+NPCR) 1 N/A 22.7 (22.6, 22.8) N/A 86,630 stable stable trend -0.4 (-2.5, 1.5)
Pleasants County 6 Rural 34.4 (20.0, 56.3) 1 (1, 44) 4
*
*
Webster County 6 Rural 34.3 (20.3, 55.4) 2 (1, 44) 4
*
*
Monongalia County 6 Urban 30.1 (25.4, 35.5) 3 (1, 26) 30 rising rising trend 4.6 (1.5, 8.7)
Lincoln County 6 Rural 29.9 (21.1, 41.4) 4 (1, 40) 8 stable stable trend 1.2 (-3.4, 6.6)
Wayne County 6 Urban 29.8 (23.1, 38.0) 5 (1, 35) 15 rising rising trend 3.9 (1.5, 6.7)
Putnam County 6 Urban 29.7 (24.1, 36.2) 6 (1, 32) 21 stable stable trend 0.2 (-2.4, 3.0)
Cabell County 6 Urban 29.4 (25.0, 34.5) 7 (1, 27) 34 stable stable trend 1.9 (-1.0, 5.0)
Mineral County 6 Rural 28.9 (21.4, 38.4) 8 (1, 40) 11 rising rising trend 8.9 (5.8, 18.3)
Pocahontas County 6 Rural 28.6 (15.5, 49.5) 9 (1, 45) 3
*
*
Greenbrier County 6 Rural 27.9 (21.0, 36.6) 10 (1, 39) 13 stable stable trend 2.5 (-1.0, 6.4)
Grant County 6 Rural 27.9 (16.7, 44.3) 11 (1, 45) 4
*
*
Boone County 6 Urban 27.8 (19.7, 38.3) 12 (1, 42) 9 stable stable trend -4.2 (-52.1, 11.5)
Doddridge County 6 Rural 27.7 (15.3, 47.8) 13 (1, 45) 3
*
*
Wetzel County 6 Rural 27.6 (18.5, 40.2) 14 (1, 43) 6
*
*
Ohio County 6 Urban 26.6 (20.8, 33.7) 15 (1, 38) 16 rising rising trend 3.7 (0.1, 8.0)
Jackson County 6 Rural 26.2 (18.8, 35.6) 16 (1, 42) 9 stable stable trend 2.9 (-1.6, 8.3)
Tyler County 6 Rural 25.9 (14.2, 44.7) 17 (1, 45) 3
*
*
Marshall County 6 Urban 25.3 (18.6, 33.8) 18 (1, 42) 11 rising rising trend 4.9 (0.4, 10.4)
Marion County 6 Rural 25.3 (20.0, 31.5) 19 (3, 40) 17 stable stable trend 1.4 (-0.7, 3.7)
Nicholas County 6 Rural 25.2 (18.0, 34.6) 20 (1, 43) 9 stable stable trend 1.3 (-2.5, 5.4)
Upshur County 6 Rural 25.1 (17.7, 34.8) 21 (1, 43) 8 stable stable trend 0.6 (-3.3, 5.4)
Taylor County 6 Rural 25.0 (16.6, 36.8) 22 (1, 44) 6
*
*
Mercer County 6 Rural 24.2 (19.3, 30.1) 23 (4, 41) 19 stable stable trend 0.6 (-1.4, 2.7)
Summers County 6 Rural 24.0 (14.3, 38.6) 24 (1, 45) 4 stable stable trend 3.6 (-1.6, 9.5)
Kanawha County 6 Urban 23.5 (20.7, 26.6) 25 (10, 37) 57 falling falling trend -2.9 (-8.7, -0.2)
Monroe County 6 Rural 23.3 (14.5, 36.4) 26 (1, 45) 5 stable stable trend 0.4 (-2.7, 4.1)
Mason County 6 Rural 23.0 (15.6, 32.7) 27 (2, 45) 7 stable stable trend 0.5 (-3.5, 4.7)
Raleigh County 6 Urban 22.9 (18.6, 27.8) 28 (7, 41) 23 stable stable trend 1.0 (-0.6, 2.7)
Berkeley County 6 Urban 22.3 (18.7, 26.3) 29 (11, 41) 30 stable stable trend 2.0 (-0.7, 5.2)
Morgan County 6 Urban 22.2 (15.0, 32.6) 30 (2, 45) 6 rising rising trend 4.3 (1.0, 8.9)
Hampshire County 6 Urban 22.2 (15.3, 31.4) 31 (3, 45) 8 rising rising trend 4.4 (0.6, 9.7)
Wood County 6 Urban 21.4 (17.6, 25.8) 32 (12, 42) 25 stable stable trend -0.6 (-3.3, 2.0)
Jefferson County 6 Urban 21.3 (16.6, 27.0) 33 (9, 44) 15 stable stable trend 1.3 (-1.3, 4.4)
Roane County 6 Rural 21.2 (13.0, 33.4) 34 (2, 45) 5 stable stable trend 0.1 (-3.9, 4.5)
Hancock County 6 Urban 21.0 (15.3, 28.5) 35 (6, 45) 10 rising rising trend 3.4 (0.2, 7.3)
Lewis County 6 Rural 19.4 (12.3, 29.7) 36 (4, 45) 5 stable stable trend -0.3 (-4.8, 4.8)
Wyoming County 6 Rural 19.3 (12.1, 29.4) 37 (4, 45) 5 stable stable trend 3.1 (-1.2, 7.7)
Fayette County 6 Urban 18.8 (14.0, 24.9) 38 (12, 45) 11 rising rising trend 4.1 (1.3, 7.5)
Brooke County 6 Urban 18.7 (12.4, 27.5) 39 (7, 45) 6 stable stable trend 3.4 (-1.2, 9.3)
Preston County 6 Urban 18.3 (12.9, 25.2) 40 (11, 45) 8 rising rising trend 4.0 (0.9, 8.1)
Logan County 6 Rural 18.0 (12.4, 25.3) 41 (11, 45) 8 stable stable trend 1.0 (-2.8, 5.0)
Harrison County 6 Rural 17.2 (13.4, 21.9) 42 (23, 45) 15 stable stable trend -0.3 (-5.2, 4.7)
Barbour County 6 Rural 15.6 (8.6, 26.4) 43 (10, 45) 3
*
*
Mingo County 6 Rural 14.3 (8.5, 22.7) 44 (18, 45) 4 stable stable trend 0.6 (-3.2, 4.4)
Randolph County 6 Rural 13.6 (8.8, 20.4) 45 (25, 45) 6 stable stable trend -3.1 (-8.7, 2.3)
Braxton County 6 Rural
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Calhoun County 6 Rural
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Clay County 6 Urban
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Gilmer County 6 Rural
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Hardy County 6 Rural
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
McDowell County 6 Rural
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Pendleton County 6 Rural
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Ritchie County 6 Rural
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Tucker County 6 Rural
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Wirt County 6 Urban
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 11/07/2024 12:15 pm.

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.
Braxton, Calhoun, Clay, Gilmer, Hardy, McDowell, Pendleton, Ritchie, Tucker, Wirt

† 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