Return to Home Mortality > Table

Death Rates Table

Data Options
Comparison Options

Death Rate Report for California by County

Uterus (Corpus & Uterus, NOS), 2019-2023

All Races (includes Hispanic), Female, All Ages

Sorted by Recentaapc

County
sort alphabetically by name ascending 		2023 Rural-Urban Continuum Codes Φ
sort by rural urban descending 		Met Healthy People Objective of ***?
 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
California N/A *** 5.5 (5.3, 5.6) N/A 1,373 rising rising trend 1.9 (1.6, 2.2)
United States N/A *** 5.3 (5.3, 5.4) N/A 12,372 rising rising trend 1.4 (0.7, 1.7)
Ventura County Urban *** 4.4 (3.7, 5.3) 31 (13, 37) 25 stable stable trend -8.3 (-26.3, 2.2)
Marin County Urban *** 4.1 (3.0, 5.7) 34 (7, 37) 9 stable stable trend -0.1 (-2.2, 2.2)
El Dorado County Urban *** 4.1 (2.8, 6.0) 35 (6, 37) 7 stable stable trend 0.7 (-2.3, 5.0)
San Mateo County Urban *** 4.6 (3.8, 5.5) 30 (11, 37) 25 stable stable trend 0.9 (-0.9, 2.8)
Napa County Urban *** 4.9 (3.2, 7.4) 24 (2, 37) 5 stable stable trend 1.1 (-2.3, 5.1)
Kern County Urban *** 5.0 (4.1, 6.1) 20 (4, 36) 22 stable stable trend 1.2 (-0.6, 3.3)
Santa Cruz County Urban *** 5.0 (3.6, 6.8) 22 (2, 37) 9 stable stable trend 1.2 (-1.0, 3.8)
San Joaquin County Urban *** 5.3 (4.4, 6.4) 15 (3, 34) 23 stable stable trend 1.3 (-0.3, 3.2)
Monterey County Urban *** 4.8 (3.7, 6.3) 26 (3, 37) 12 stable stable trend 1.4 (-1.0, 4.5)
Santa Clara County Urban *** 4.6 (4.1, 5.2) 29 (14, 36) 54 rising rising trend 1.4 (0.6, 2.4)
Contra Costa County Urban *** 5.3 (4.6, 6.1) 16 (5, 33) 42 rising rising trend 1.5 (0.2, 3.1)
Orange County Urban *** 4.8 (4.4, 5.2) 27 (15, 34) 100 rising rising trend 1.6 (0.8, 2.6)
Alameda County Urban *** 5.5 (4.9, 6.2) 13 (4, 29) 58 rising rising trend 1.7 (0.6, 3.0)
Yolo County Urban *** 5.2 (3.5, 7.4) 17 (1, 37) 6 stable stable trend 1.7 (-0.8, 5.1)
Butte County Urban *** 4.4 (2.9, 6.4) 33 (3, 37) 6 stable stable trend 1.8 (-1.9, 6.4)
Los Angeles County Urban *** 6.0 (5.7, 6.3) 8 (4, 17) 373 rising rising trend 1.8 (1.3, 2.4)
Placer County Urban *** 4.7 (3.7, 5.9) 28 (6, 37) 16 stable stable trend 1.9 (-0.3, 5.0)
Santa Barbara County Urban *** 4.1 (3.0, 5.4) 36 (11, 37) 11 stable stable trend 1.9 (-0.6, 4.6)
Fresno County Urban *** 5.2 (4.3, 6.1) 19 (4, 34) 27 rising rising trend 2.2 (0.9, 3.9)
San Luis Obispo County Urban *** 5.0 (3.7, 6.7) 21 (2, 37) 10 stable stable trend 2.2 (-1.1, 6.3)
San Bernardino County Urban *** 5.9 (5.3, 6.5) 10 (3, 24) 71 rising rising trend 2.3 (1.2, 3.5)
San Diego County Urban *** 6.0 (5.5, 6.5) 6 (3, 19) 124 rising rising trend 2.5 (1.8, 3.4)
San Francisco County Urban *** 5.4 (4.6, 6.3) 14 (4, 33) 31 stable stable trend 2.5 (-8.6, 10.5)
Sonoma County Urban *** 6.0 (4.9, 7.2) 9 (1, 31) 23 rising rising trend 2.5 (1.1, 4.3)
Shasta County Urban *** 6.3 (4.6, 8.7) 5 (1, 35) 9 rising rising trend 2.6 (0.3, 5.7)
Solano County Urban *** 6.5 (5.2, 7.9) 4 (1, 27) 20 rising rising trend 2.6 (1.1, 4.6)
Stanislaus County Urban *** 4.9 (3.8, 6.1) 25 (4, 37) 15 rising rising trend 2.7 (0.8, 5.1)
Sacramento County Urban *** 6.6 (5.9, 7.4) 3 (1, 14) 67 rising rising trend 2.8 (1.8, 4.3)
Riverside County Urban *** 5.8 (5.2, 6.4) 12 (3, 23) 88 rising rising trend 3.0 (2.1, 4.2)
Tulare County Urban *** 5.8 (4.5, 7.3) 11 (1, 34) 14 rising rising trend 3.0 (1.1, 5.5)
Humboldt County Rural *** 6.0 (4.0, 8.8) 7 (1, 37) 6
*
*
Imperial County Urban *** 3.5 (2.1, 5.7) 37 (6, 37) 3
*
*
Kings County Urban *** 8.6 (5.7, 12.4) 1 (1, 32) 5
*
*
Mendocino County Rural *** 4.9 (2.9, 8.2) 23 (1, 37) 3
*
*
Merced County Urban *** 4.4 (3.0, 6.3) 32 (3, 37) 6
*
*
Nevada County Rural *** 5.2 (3.4, 8.0) 18 (1, 37) 5
*
*
Tuolumne County Rural *** 7.4 (4.5, 12.2) 2 (1, 36) 4
*
*
Alpine County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Amador County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Calaveras County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Colusa County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Del Norte County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Glenn County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Inyo County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Lake County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Lassen County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Madera County Urban ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Mariposa County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Modoc County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Mono County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Plumas County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
San Benito County Urban ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Sierra County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Siskiyou County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Sutter County Urban ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Tehama County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Trinity County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Yuba County Urban ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*

Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 03/20/2026 1:05 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.

*** No Healthy People 2030 Objective for this cancer.

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