Return to Home Mortality > Table

Death Rates Table

Data Options
Comparison Options

Death Rate Report for Oklahoma by County

All Cancer Sites, 2019-2023

All Races (includes Hispanic), Male, 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 descending
Average Annual Count
 sort by count descending
Recent Trend
Recent 5-Year Trend in Death Rates
(95% Confidence Interval)
 sort by trend descending
Oklahoma N/A No 206.1 (203.4, 208.9) N/A 4,459 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.2, -1.0)
United States N/A No 171.5 (171.3, 171.8) N/A 318,737 falling falling trend -1.8 (-1.8, -1.7)
Okfuskee County Rural No 315.2 (259.9, 379.6) 1 (1, 32) 23 stable stable trend 0.9 (-1.0, 3.0)
Grant County Rural No 301.5 (217.0, 411.4) 2 (1, 69) 9 stable stable trend 0.6 (-2.8, 4.0)
Cotton County Urban No 294.8 (219.0, 391.0) 3 (1, 67) 11 stable stable trend 0.0 (-2.2, 2.3)
Seminole County Rural No 279.1 (241.1, 321.7) 4 (1, 38) 40 stable stable trend -0.1 (-0.9, 0.7)
Kiowa County Rural No 277.6 (218.2, 349.7) 5 (1, 62) 16 stable stable trend -0.5 (-2.6, 1.5)
Jefferson County Rural No 272.0 (193.7, 372.5) 6 (1, 74) 9 stable stable trend -0.4 (-2.0, 1.0)
Nowata County Rural No 269.7 (212.6, 338.4) 7 (1, 66) 16 stable stable trend -0.2 (-2.7, 2.3)
Love County Rural No 269.1 (215.8, 332.6) 8 (1, 63) 18 rising rising trend 3.7 (0.7, 11.3)
Caddo County Rural No 266.1 (228.1, 308.5) 9 (1, 48) 37 stable stable trend -0.6 (-1.8, 0.5)
Coal County Rural No 264.4 (190.8, 359.3) 10 (1, 74) 9 stable stable trend -1.2 (-3.5, 0.9)
Okmulgee County Urban No 263.1 (233.6, 295.5) 11 (1, 39) 60 stable stable trend -0.3 (-1.1, 0.6)
Sequoyah County Urban No 260.9 (232.4, 292.0) 12 (2, 42) 65 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.6, -0.2)
Ottawa County Rural No 260.0 (226.4, 297.3) 13 (1, 46) 45 falling falling trend -0.7 (-1.4, -0.1)
Pushmataha County Rural No 258.5 (211.4, 314.7) 14 (1, 63) 22 stable stable trend -1.2 (-3.4, 1.0)
Blaine County Rural No 257.9 (198.1, 331.0) 15 (1, 72) 14 stable stable trend -0.7 (-2.1, 0.6)
Pottawatomie County Rural No 253.8 (231.4, 277.9) 16 (3, 39) 101 stable stable trend 0.0 (-0.9, 0.9)
Muskogee County Rural No 253.7 (231.0, 278.2) 17 (3, 39) 96 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.5, 0.1)
Garvin County Rural No 248.6 (214.3, 287.3) 18 (2, 57) 39 stable stable trend 0.1 (-1.1, 1.3)
Le Flore County Rural No 247.6 (221.5, 276.0) 19 (4, 48) 71 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.2, 0.1)
Adair County Rural No 246.1 (205.9, 292.3) 20 (2, 66) 28 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.8, -0.1)
Carter County Rural No 242.4 (215.4, 272.0) 21 (5, 52) 63 stable stable trend -0.8 (-1.8, 0.2)
Pittsburg County Rural No 239.7 (215.0, 266.7) 22 (6, 53) 71 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.4, 0.5)
Dewey County Rural No 238.6 (149.5, 360.9) 23 (1, 75) 5 stable stable trend 0.1 (-8.6, 12.7)
Marshall County Rural No 235.4 (197.2, 279.9) 24 (3, 67) 28 stable stable trend -0.6 (-2.0, 0.9)
McCurtain County Rural No 235.2 (204.5, 269.4) 25 (4, 65) 44 falling falling trend -1.5 (-2.3, -0.6)
Bryan County Rural No 229.9 (204.3, 257.9) 26 (8, 60) 61 stable stable trend -0.9 (-2.2, 0.5)
Hughes County Rural No 229.2 (185.0, 281.1) 27 (3, 72) 19 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.7, 0.9)
Beckham County Rural No 227.2 (189.3, 270.4) 28 (4, 71) 26 stable stable trend -0.2 (-2.0, 1.7)
Creek County Urban No 226.9 (207.2, 248.2) 29 (12, 56) 103 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.6, -0.4)
Cherokee County Rural No 226.8 (201.9, 254.0) 30 (9, 61) 64 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.5, 0.9)
Haskell County Rural No 226.4 (182.3, 279.2) 31 (3, 74) 19 stable stable trend -1.3 (-3.2, 0.5)
Kay County Rural No 225.6 (201.0, 252.6) 32 (10, 63) 63 falling falling trend -0.8 (-1.4, -0.2)
Pawnee County Urban No 224.1 (184.0, 271.0) 33 (3, 72) 23 stable stable trend -0.5 (-11.4, 7.8)
Greer County Rural No 222.5 (156.5, 308.3) 34 (1, 75) 7 stable stable trend -23.1 (-46.1, 0.9)
Stephens County Rural No 222.3 (197.5, 249.5) 35 (10, 64) 62 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.6, -0.2)
Roger Mills County Rural No 221.2 (143.3, 331.6) 36 (1, 75) 5
*
*
Choctaw County Rural No 220.7 (180.0, 268.8) 37 (4, 74) 21 falling falling trend -1.6 (-3.0, -0.2)
Latimer County Rural No 219.9 (174.1, 275.8) 38 (3, 74) 16 stable stable trend 0.1 (-1.6, 1.8)
Johnston County Rural No 218.9 (169.9, 278.5) 39 (3, 75) 14 stable stable trend -1.1 (-3.1, 0.9)
McIntosh County Rural No 218.5 (187.4, 254.4) 40 (8, 69) 37 stable stable trend -1.0 (-2.1, 0.1)
Mayes County Rural No 218.1 (191.8, 247.1) 41 (10, 66) 54 stable stable trend -1.0 (-2.3, 0.4)
Lincoln County Urban No 217.9 (190.9, 247.9) 42 (10, 66) 49 falling falling trend -1.5 (-2.5, -0.6)
Noble County Rural No 217.3 (171.7, 272.4) 43 (3, 74) 16 stable stable trend -0.6 (-2.1, 0.9)
Atoka County Rural No 210.8 (170.7, 258.1) 44 (6, 74) 19 stable stable trend 0.2 (-1.1, 1.8)
Garfield County Urban No 208.3 (186.9, 231.5) 45 (20, 68) 72 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.6, -0.5)
Custer County Rural No 206.5 (173.7, 243.8) 46 (12, 74) 28 falling falling trend -1.1 (-2.1, -0.1)
Ellis County Rural No 205.4 (132.2, 308.6) 47 (1, 75) 5 stable stable trend 0.9 (-1.3, 3.2)
Oklahoma County Urban No 204.4 (197.7, 211.3) 48 (36, 59) 754 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.4, -0.8)
Washington County Rural No 204.0 (182.8, 227.3) 49 (23, 70) 69 falling falling trend -10.7 (-14.1, -7.5)
Comanche County Urban No 203.6 (187.0, 221.3) 50 (28, 67) 117 falling falling trend -1.7 (-2.6, -0.8)
Texas County Rural No 202.5 (161.6, 250.1) 51 (6, 75) 18 stable stable trend 0.1 (-1.3, 1.4)
Jackson County Rural No 201.7 (167.9, 240.4) 52 (12, 75) 26 stable stable trend -0.8 (-2.4, 0.7)
Payne County Rural No 200.8 (180.3, 223.1) 53 (26, 70) 72 falling falling trend -1.6 (-2.4, -0.8)
Alfalfa County Rural No 200.6 (144.1, 274.4) 54 (2, 75) 8 stable stable trend 0.7 (-1.9, 3.4)
Murray County Rural No 198.9 (161.4, 243.5) 55 (10, 75) 20 falling falling trend -1.5 (-2.9, -0.1)
Grady County Urban No 197.6 (175.5, 221.8) 56 (25, 73) 64 falling falling trend -1.4 (-2.4, -0.5)
Woods County Rural No 195.3 (144.8, 258.5) 57 (4, 75) 10 stable stable trend -0.2 (-2.6, 2.2)
Craig County Rural No 194.2 (154.9, 241.1) 58 (11, 75) 18 falling falling trend -1.6 (-3.0, -0.2)
Rogers County Urban No 193.7 (177.6, 210.9) 59 (35, 71) 112 falling falling trend -0.7 (-1.3, -0.1)
Tulsa County Urban No 192.6 (185.7, 199.7) 60 (45, 67) 626 falling falling trend -1.5 (-1.7, -1.3)
Kingfisher County Rural No 192.2 (152.6, 239.2) 61 (12, 75) 17 stable stable trend -1.1 (-2.4, 0.2)
Pontotoc County Rural No 190.7 (165.4, 219.0) 62 (25, 75) 42 falling falling trend -1.6 (-2.6, -0.5)
Delaware County Rural No 190.1 (169.5, 212.9) 63 (32, 73) 68 falling falling trend -1.4 (-2.5, -0.4)
Tillman County Rural No 187.8 (136.0, 255.3) 64 (7, 75) 9 stable stable trend 0.0 (-2.9, 7.0)
Major County Rural No 184.9 (134.7, 249.3) 65 (5, 75) 9 stable stable trend -0.2 (-2.6, 2.2)
Washita County Rural No 182.0 (137.5, 237.0) 66 (11, 75) 12 stable stable trend -1.1 (-3.5, 1.0)
McClain County Urban No 181.4 (156.5, 209.1) 67 (34, 75) 41 stable stable trend -1.3 (-3.0, 0.5)
Wagoner County Urban No 178.5 (161.8, 196.4) 68 (45, 75) 90 falling falling trend -1.4 (-2.2, -0.4)
Canadian County Urban No 174.4 (160.5, 189.1) 69 (52, 75) 127 falling falling trend -1.4 (-2.0, -0.7)
Woodward County Rural No 171.0 (138.8, 208.7) 70 (30, 75) 20 falling falling trend -1.9 (-3.4, -0.4)
Osage County Urban No 170.1 (150.2, 192.3) 71 (47, 75) 56 falling falling trend -1.5 (-2.8, -0.2)
Beaver County Rural No 169.4 (114.4, 244.8) 72 (7, 75) 6 stable stable trend -1.6 (-4.2, 0.8)
Logan County Urban No 167.7 (147.0, 190.6) 73 (49, 75) 51 falling falling trend -2.3 (-3.0, -1.5)
Cleveland County Urban No 163.9 (154.4, 173.7) 74 (62, 75) 239 falling falling trend -3.3 (-8.1, -1.7)
Harper County Rural No 151.0 (86.3, 250.4) 75 (5, 75) 3
*
*
Cimarron County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Harmon County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*

Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 03/23/2026 12:04 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.


† 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 (20 age groups: <1, 1-4, 5-9, ... , 80-84, 85-89, 90+).

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.

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.

Healthy People 2030 Objectives provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Φ Rural–urban county classifications are based on the 2023 USDA Rural–Urban Continuum Codes (except for Connecticut Counties which use 2013 codes). State-level cancer rates for rural areas are calculated using cancer cases registered exclusively in rural counties, while state-level cancer rates for urban areas are calculated using cases registered exclusively in urban counties.

* 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).

Data for United States does not include Puerto Rico.

Return to Top