Return to Home Mortality > Table

Death Rates Table

Data Options

Death Rate Report for Colorado by County

All Cancer Sites, 2018-2022

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
Met Healthy People Objective of 122.7?
Age-Adjusted Death Rate
deaths 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 Death Rates
(95% Confidence Interval)
 sort by trend descending
Colorado N/A No 127.6 (126.3, 128.9) N/A 8,086 falling falling trend -1.5 (-1.8, -1.4)
United States N/A No 146.0 (145.8, 146.2) N/A 602,955 falling falling trend -1.5 (-1.6, -1.4)
Pitkin County Rural Yes 65.8 (52.0, 82.7) 61 (53, 61) 17 falling falling trend -2.4 (-3.5, -1.0)
Summit County Rural Yes 69.1 (54.3, 86.6) 60 (52, 61) 20 stable stable trend -1.9 (-3.2, 0.2)
Eagle County Rural Yes 70.9 (60.0, 83.2) 59 (54, 61) 36 falling falling trend -3.2 (-4.1, -2.0)
Costilla County Rural Yes 83.5 (51.9, 131.3) 58 (14, 61) 5 falling falling trend -5.3 (-29.3, -1.7)
Lake County Rural Yes 86.0 (56.3, 125.4) 57 (20, 61) 6 falling falling trend -2.5 (-4.1, -0.8)
Clear Creek County Urban Yes 86.2 (65.0, 113.5) 56 (32, 61) 13 falling falling trend -2.5 (-3.7, -1.2)
Dolores County Rural Yes 90.3 (54.9, 148.7) 55 (10, 61) 4 stable stable trend -2.0 (-3.9, 0.0)
Routt County Rural Yes 96.6 (80.1, 115.6) 54 (31, 59) 28 falling falling trend -2.5 (-3.4, -1.4)
Grand County Rural Yes 99.0 (78.3, 123.8) 53 (23, 60) 19 stable stable trend -1.4 (-2.7, 0.2)
Archuleta County Rural Yes 102.1 (83.4, 124.7) 52 (25, 59) 24 stable stable trend -1.2 (-2.3, 0.1)
Kit Carson County Rural Yes 104.3 (78.2, 137.6) 51 (14, 60) 11 falling falling trend -1.9 (-3.1, -0.7)
Ouray County Rural Yes 108.2 (76.4, 152.4) 50 (6, 61) 9 stable stable trend -2.1 (-4.5, 0.6)
Gilpin County Urban Yes 108.6 (71.3, 159.2) 49 (4, 61) 7
*
*
Broomfield County 8 Urban Yes 108.9 (99.0, 119.6) 48 (31, 55) 90 falling falling trend -4.9 (-8.2, -3.2)
La Plata County Rural Yes 110.3 (99.3, 122.2) 47 (28, 56) 80 falling falling trend -1.7 (-2.2, -1.2)
Park County Urban Yes 110.8 (90.6, 134.7) 46 (17, 57) 29 stable stable trend -1.0 (-2.3, 0.8)
Custer County Rural Yes 110.9 (77.9, 157.2) 45 (6, 61) 11 stable stable trend -1.6 (-2.9, 0.3)
Douglas County Urban Yes 111.7 (106.7, 116.9) 44 (35, 53) 394 falling falling trend -1.8 (-2.1, -1.3)
Gunnison County Rural Yes 112.4 (89.4, 139.5) 43 (15, 58) 18 falling falling trend -2.2 (-3.3, -1.0)
Boulder County 8 Urban Yes 114.5 (109.6, 119.6) 42 (33, 50) 422 falling falling trend -1.7 (-2.2, -1.1)
Chaffee County Rural Yes 115.5 (99.1, 134.3) 41 (18, 56) 39 stable stable trend -1.1 (-2.1, 0.0)
Elbert County Urban Yes 115.8 (98.7, 135.0) 40 (18, 56) 38 falling falling trend -2.2 (-3.0, -1.0)
Montrose County Rural Yes 117.9 (106.6, 130.4) 39 (22, 53) 87 falling falling trend -1.3 (-1.8, -0.7)
Garfield County Rural Yes 119.5 (107.2, 132.9) 38 (20, 53) 74 falling falling trend -1.8 (-2.2, -1.3)
Larimer County Urban Yes 119.9 (115.1, 124.7) 37 (29, 46) 504 falling falling trend -1.3 (-1.5, -1.1)
Bent County Rural Yes 120.6 (88.8, 162.0) 36 (4, 59) 10 stable stable trend -0.9 (-2.5, 0.7)
Arapahoe County Urban No 123.4 (119.6, 127.3) 35 (26, 42) 837 falling falling trend -1.4 (-1.6, -1.1)
Alamosa County Rural No 124.9 (102.5, 150.9) 34 (8, 55) 22 falling falling trend -0.8 (-1.4, -0.1)
Teller County Urban No 125.1 (107.8, 144.6) 33 (13, 53) 48 falling falling trend -2.2 (-2.9, -1.2)
Jefferson County 8 Urban No 125.5 (121.8, 129.3) 32 (25, 41) 910 falling falling trend -1.5 (-1.7, -1.3)
San Miguel County Rural No 129.6 (91.1, 178.2) 31 (2, 59) 9
*
*
Weld County 8 Urban No 131.5 (125.8, 137.5) 30 (18, 37) 413 falling falling trend -1.5 (-1.9, -1.0)
Logan County Rural No 133.6 (115.1, 154.4) 29 (7, 49) 39 falling falling trend -0.8 (-1.3, -0.2)
Denver County Urban No 134.0 (130.0, 138.1) 28 (17, 34) 875 falling falling trend -3.2 (-5.5, -1.7)
Mesa County Urban No 135.0 (128.1, 142.2) 27 (14, 35) 301 falling falling trend -1.5 (-1.8, -1.2)
Crowley County Rural No 136.6 (97.9, 187.2) 26 (2, 58) 8 stable stable trend -0.8 (-2.6, 1.1)
Montezuma County Rural No 137.0 (120.7, 155.2) 25 (8, 45) 56 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.6, -0.7)
El Paso County Urban No 137.2 (133.4, 141.1) 24 (15, 31) 1,010 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.3, -1.0)
Adams County 8 Urban No 138.3 (133.3, 143.5) 23 (13, 31) 611 falling falling trend -1.8 (-2.2, -1.3)
Phillips County Rural No 139.7 (101.7, 189.3) 22 (2, 57) 11 falling falling trend -1.2 (-2.4, -0.1)
Yuma County Rural No 141.2 (113.5, 174.2) 21 (3, 52) 19 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.2, 0.4)
Sedgwick County Rural No 142.5 (97.4, 209.6) 20 (1, 59) 7 stable stable trend -1.4 (-3.0, 0.0)
Kiowa County Rural No 143.3 (75.3, 253.8) 19 (1, 61) 3
*
*
Saguache County Rural No 143.7 (110.0, 186.0) 18 (2, 54) 15 stable stable trend -0.1 (-1.6, 1.7)
Fremont County Rural No 145.4 (133.4, 158.5) 17 (7, 33) 113 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.4, -0.6)
Rio Blanco County Rural No 148.1 (111.2, 193.8) 16 (1, 54) 11 stable stable trend -0.6 (-1.7, 0.7)
Moffat County Rural No 148.6 (121.7, 179.9) 15 (2, 48) 23 stable stable trend -0.6 (-1.6, 0.5)
Rio Grande County Rural No 149.2 (123.3, 179.6) 14 (2, 48) 25 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.7, -0.1)
Las Animas County Rural No 153.4 (132.3, 177.8) 13 (3, 38) 41 stable stable trend 8.1 (-0.4, 13.9)
Morgan County Rural No 154.7 (136.4, 174.8) 12 (3, 32) 54 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.1, 0.3)
Conejos County Rural No 156.1 (122.7, 196.5) 11 (1, 49) 16 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.7, 0.3)
Washington County Rural No 156.8 (118.1, 205.9) 10 (1, 53) 12 stable stable trend -1.0 (-2.4, 0.3)
Delta County Rural No 157.4 (142.3, 174.1) 9 (3, 26) 89 stable stable trend -0.4 (-0.8, 0.1)
Pueblo County Urban No 160.8 (153.4, 168.5) 8 (4, 18) 372 falling falling trend -0.6 (-0.9, -0.4)
Otero County Rural No 162.2 (140.7, 186.4) 7 (2, 30) 44 falling falling trend -0.7 (-1.4, -0.1)
Lincoln County Rural No 164.6 (126.1, 212.4) 6 (1, 49) 13 stable stable trend 1.4 (-1.0, 14.1)
Prowers County Rural No 182.0 (152.9, 215.5) 5 (1, 24) 29 stable stable trend -0.6 (-1.4, 0.3)
Huerfano County Rural No 182.5 (149.0, 223.6) 4 (1, 28) 25 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.4, 0.7)
Jackson County Rural No 184.5 (111.6, 299.1) 3 (1, 58) 4
*
*
Baca County Rural No 203.4 (154.6, 266.2) 2 (1, 30) 13 stable stable trend -0.3 (-1.5, 0.9)
Cheyenne County Rural No 224.1 (151.0, 326.8) 1 (1, 49) 6 stable stable trend -0.1 (-2.0, 1.8)
Hinsdale County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Mineral County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
San Juan County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 09/20/2024 8:00 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.

† Death data provided by the National Vital Statistics System public use data file. Death rates calculated by the National Cancer Institute using SEER*Stat. Death rates are age-adjusted to the 2000 US standard population (19 age groups: <1, 1-4, 5-9, ... , 80-84, 85+). The Healthy People 2030 goals are based on rates adjusted using different methods but the differences should be minimal. Population counts for denominators are based on Census populations as modified by NCI.
The US Population Data File is used with mortality data.
‡ 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.

⋔ 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.

Healthy People 2030 Objectives provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
8 Due to data availability issues, the time period used in the calculation of the joinpoint regression model may differ for selected counties.


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).

Please note that the data comes 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 graph for additional information.

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