Return to Home Incidence > Table

Incidence Rates Table

Data Options

Incidence Rate Report for Wisconsin by County

Bladder (All Stages^), 2014-2018

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

Sorted by Rate
County
 sort alphabetically by name ascending
Met Healthy People Objective of ***?
Age-Adjusted Incidence Rate
cases per 100,000
(95% Confidence Interval)
 sort by rate ascending
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
Wisconsin 6 *** 22.6 (22.1, 23.1) N/A 1,638 stable stable trend -1.9 (-3.8, 0.0)
US (SEER+NPCR) 1 *** 19.7 (19.6, 19.7) N/A 75,383 falling falling trend -2.5 (-3.5, -1.5)
Vilas County 6 *** 38.5 (30.3, 49.2) 1 (1, 14) 17 rising rising trend 2.6 (0.1, 5.2)
Waupaca County 6 *** 29.8 (24.4, 36.1) 2 (1, 43) 23 stable stable trend 0.2 (-2.9, 3.4)
Marquette County 6 *** 28.1 (19.7, 39.9) 3 (1, 65) 8
*
*
Door County 6 *** 27.8 (21.5, 35.9) 4 (1, 58) 15 stable stable trend 1.1 (-2.1, 4.4)
Price County 6 *** 27.7 (19.2, 40.1) 5 (1, 66) 7 stable stable trend 2.6 (-1.3, 6.7)
Oconto County 6 *** 26.7 (20.8, 34.0) 6 (1, 60) 15 stable stable trend 0.6 (-1.8, 3.1)
Racine County 6 *** 26.4 (23.5, 29.6) 7 (2, 41) 63 rising rising trend 2.0 (0.6, 3.4)
Calumet County 6 *** 26.2 (20.4, 33.2) 8 (1, 61) 15 stable stable trend -0.6 (-4.0, 3.0)
Juneau County 6 *** 25.9 (19.1, 34.7) 9 (1, 65) 10 stable stable trend -0.6 (-3.4, 2.3)
Washburn County 6 *** 25.9 (17.5, 37.9) 10 (1, 68) 7 stable stable trend -0.3 (-4.5, 4.1)
Chippewa County 6 *** 25.8 (21.0, 31.5) 11 (2, 57) 21 stable stable trend -18.1 (-36.4, 5.3)
Marinette County 6 *** 25.6 (20.3, 32.2) 12 (1, 60) 17 stable stable trend 1.2 (-1.0, 3.4)
Green Lake County 6 *** 25.6 (18.2, 35.7) 13 (1, 66) 8 stable stable trend 0.2 (-3.6, 4.2)
Manitowoc County 6 *** 25.5 (21.4, 30.2) 14 (2, 53) 29 stable stable trend -0.6 (-2.8, 1.6)
Lincoln County 6 *** 25.4 (19.1, 33.5) 15 (1, 64) 11 stable stable trend 1.1 (-1.8, 4.1)
Rock County 6 *** 25.2 (22.1, 28.6) 16 (3, 48) 50 stable stable trend -0.4 (-2.1, 1.3)
Ozaukee County 6 *** 24.9 (21.1, 29.3) 17 (2, 55) 32 stable stable trend -0.3 (-2.4, 1.7)
Winnebago County 6 *** 24.8 (21.7, 28.1) 18 (3, 49) 50 stable stable trend -8.8 (-17.0, 0.3)
Fond du Lac County 6 *** 24.8 (21.2, 28.8) 19 (3, 53) 35 stable stable trend -0.3 (-2.5, 2.0)
Oneida County 6 *** 24.7 (19.5, 31.3) 20 (2, 62) 16 stable stable trend -0.8 (-3.7, 2.0)
Washington County 6 *** 24.7 (21.5, 28.3) 21 (3, 52) 44 stable stable trend 0.0 (-1.9, 2.1)
Douglas County 6 *** 24.7 (19.1, 31.6) 22 (2, 63) 14 rising rising trend 6.0 (2.0, 10.1)
Brown County 6 *** 24.6 (22.0, 27.4) 23 (5, 48) 71 stable stable trend -0.6 (-2.0, 0.8)
Kenosha County 6 *** 24.0 (20.8, 27.4) 24 (4, 55) 44 stable stable trend -1.4 (-3.0, 0.2)
Waushara County 6 *** 23.9 (17.7, 32.2) 25 (2, 67) 10 stable stable trend 0.8 (-2.5, 4.3)
Sheboygan County 6 *** 23.6 (20.2, 27.4) 26 (4, 57) 36 stable stable trend -0.7 (-2.5, 1.1)
Jackson County 6 *** 23.4 (16.1, 33.2) 27 (1, 68) 7 stable stable trend -2.5 (-6.3, 1.4)
Trempealeau County 6 *** 23.4 (17.2, 31.4) 28 (2, 67) 10 stable stable trend 1.1 (-3.2, 5.5)
Langlade County 6 *** 23.3 (16.5, 32.8) 29 (1, 67) 8 stable stable trend -1.8 (-5.6, 2.2)
Outagamie County 6 *** 23.2 (20.3, 26.3) 30 (7, 56) 48 stable stable trend -0.2 (-2.1, 1.8)
Sawyer County 6 *** 22.9 (15.6, 33.5) 31 (1, 68) 7 stable stable trend -0.9 (-5.1, 3.6)
Buffalo County 6 *** 22.8 (14.3, 35.3) 32 (1, 68) 5 stable stable trend 4.2 (-0.7, 9.4)
Adams County 6 *** 22.6 (16.3, 31.5) 33 (2, 67) 9 stable stable trend -1.1 (-5.1, 3.0)
Monroe County 6 *** 22.6 (17.3, 29.0) 34 (2, 65) 13 stable stable trend 1.2 (-1.1, 3.5)
Green County 6 *** 22.5 (16.9, 29.6) 35 (2, 66) 11 stable stable trend 0.1 (-3.3, 3.6)
Barron County 6 *** 22.4 (17.6, 28.3) 36 (3, 65) 16 stable stable trend -0.5 (-3.1, 2.1)
Milwaukee County 6 *** 22.1 (20.8, 23.5) 37 (21, 51) 221 stable stable trend 0.4 (-0.3, 1.1)
Waukesha County 6 *** 22.0 (20.3, 23.9) 38 (18, 54) 123 stable stable trend -0.9 (-1.9, 0.2)
Burnett County 6 *** 21.9 (15.0, 32.4) 39 (2, 68) 7 stable stable trend 0.4 (-3.0, 3.9)
Shawano County 6 *** 21.9 (17.0, 28.1) 40 (3, 66) 14 stable stable trend 0.0 (-1.5, 1.4)
Wood County 6 *** 21.8 (18.1, 26.3) 41 (6, 63) 25 stable stable trend -0.6 (-2.9, 1.7)
Clark County 6 *** 21.7 (16.0, 28.9) 42 (2, 68) 10 stable stable trend -1.7 (-5.4, 2.1)
La Crosse County 6 *** 21.6 (18.3, 25.5) 43 (8, 63) 31 stable stable trend -12.5 (-27.0, 4.8)
Bayfield County 6 *** 21.5 (14.5, 32.2) 44 (2, 68) 6 stable stable trend 0.2 (-5.3, 6.0)
Vernon County 6 *** 21.3 (15.6, 28.6) 45 (3, 68) 10 stable stable trend 0.2 (-3.5, 4.1)
Dodge County 6 *** 21.2 (17.6, 25.4) 46 (10, 64) 25 stable stable trend 0.2 (-1.5, 2.0)
Forest County 6 *** 21.1 (11.9, 36.2) 47 (1, 68) 3 stable stable trend -0.2 (-6.6, 6.7)
Richland County 6 *** 20.9 (13.9, 31.0) 48 (2, 68) 6
*
*
Walworth County 6 *** 20.8 (17.4, 24.8) 49 (12, 65) 28 falling falling trend -11.2 (-18.1, -3.7)
Dane County 6 *** 20.5 (18.8, 22.4) 50 (26, 60) 109 stable stable trend 1.1 (-0.5, 2.6)
Sauk County 6 *** 20.5 (16.3, 25.4) 51 (8, 67) 18 stable stable trend 0.7 (-3.0, 4.6)
Rusk County 6 *** 20.5 (13.0, 31.7) 52 (2, 68) 5
*
*
Eau Claire County 6 *** 20.3 (16.7, 24.4) 53 (11, 66) 24 stable stable trend 0.3 (-2.5, 3.2)
Columbia County 6 *** 19.3 (15.1, 24.4) 54 (12, 68) 15 stable stable trend -0.8 (-3.5, 1.9)
Jefferson County 6 *** 19.1 (15.5, 23.4) 55 (14, 67) 20 stable stable trend -0.1 (-2.0, 1.9)
Lafayette County 6 *** 19.0 (12.1, 29.1) 56 (2, 68) 5
*
*
Kewaunee County 6 *** 18.9 (12.2, 28.3) 57 (2, 68) 5 stable stable trend -2.9 (-7.1, 1.6)
Crawford County 6 *** 18.8 (12.0, 28.8) 58 (2, 68) 5 stable stable trend -3.0 (-7.9, 2.0)
Marathon County 6 *** 18.5 (15.7, 21.7) 59 (29, 67) 32 falling falling trend -2.1 (-3.9, -0.2)
Portage County 6 *** 18.1 (14.2, 22.8) 60 (18, 68) 15 stable stable trend -2.0 (-4.3, 0.4)
Grant County 6 *** 18.1 (13.7, 23.5) 61 (14, 68) 12 stable stable trend 1.8 (-2.0, 5.8)
Dunn County 6 *** 17.9 (13.1, 24.1) 62 (13, 68) 9 falling falling trend -13.0 (-21.8, -3.1)
Ashland County 6 *** 17.4 (10.4, 27.9) 63 (3, 68) 4 stable stable trend 1.1 (-4.7, 7.3)
Polk County 6 *** 16.5 (12.3, 21.8) 64 (28, 68) 11 stable stable trend 0.6 (-3.0, 4.2)
St. Croix County 6 *** 16.0 (12.5, 20.2) 65 (38, 68) 15 stable stable trend -0.1 (-3.2, 3.1)
Pierce County 6 *** 16.0 (11.1, 22.4) 66 (17, 68) 7 stable stable trend -2.1 (-5.2, 1.1)
Taylor County 6 *** 14.7 (9.2, 22.8) 67 (17, 68) 5 stable stable trend -1.8 (-5.6, 2.1)
Iowa County 6 *** 12.8 (7.9, 20.2) 68 (35, 68) 4 falling falling trend -5.4 (-9.9, -0.7)
Florence County 6 ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Iron County 6 ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Menominee County 6 ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Pepin County 6 ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 10/20/2021 8:30 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.

⋔ 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.

† 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 1969-2018 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.
*** No Healthy People 2020 Objective for this cancer.
Healthy People 2020 Objectives provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

* 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 (2001-2018) - United States Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and National Cancer Institute. Based on the 2020 submission.
6 Source: National Program of Cancer Registries SEER*Stat Database (2001-2018) - United States Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (based on the 2020 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 1969-2018 US Population Data File is used with SEER November 2020 data.

Interpret Rankings provides insight into interpreting cancer incidence statistics. When the population size for a denominator is small, the rates may be unstable. A rate is unstable when a small change in the numerator (e.g., only one or two additional cases) has a dramatic effect on the calculated rate.

Data for 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