Return to Home Mortality > Table

Death Rates Table

Data Options
Comparison Options

Death Rate Report by State

Esophagus, 2019-2023

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

Sorted by Recentaapc

State
 sort alphabetically by name ascending
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
United States *** 3.7 (3.7, 3.7) N/A 15,888 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.2, -1.0)
District of Columbia *** 2.9 (2.3, 3.5) 49 (31, 51) 19 falling falling trend -4.7 (-6.4, -3.3)
Puerto Rico *** 1.8 (1.6, 2.0) N/A 95 stable stable trend -3.8 (-9.7, 2.4)
Colorado *** 3.2 (3.0, 3.4) 45 (36, 48) 217 falling falling trend -3.7 (-7.3, -2.0)
Rhode Island *** 3.7 (3.3, 4.2) 32 (15, 47) 55 falling falling trend -2.9 (-6.8, -2.0)
Louisiana *** 3.6 (3.4, 3.8) 33 (27, 44) 209 falling falling trend -2.4 (-4.6, -1.5)
New York *** 3.0 (2.9, 3.1) 46 (44, 49) 810 falling falling trend -2.4 (-3.3, -2.1)
Arizona *** 3.4 (3.3, 3.6) 39 (32, 46) 339 falling falling trend -2.0 (-5.0, -1.1)
Maryland *** 3.4 (3.2, 3.6) 43 (32, 46) 263 falling falling trend -1.9 (-2.4, -1.5)
New Jersey *** 3.0 (2.9, 3.2) 47 (43, 50) 367 falling falling trend -1.9 (-2.3, -1.5)
Florida *** 3.4 (3.3, 3.5) 42 (35, 45) 1,155 falling falling trend -1.8 (-2.6, -1.4)
Massachusetts *** 4.0 (3.9, 4.2) 26 (16, 32) 379 falling falling trend -1.7 (-4.2, -1.3)
Delaware *** 3.4 (3.0, 3.9) 41 (23, 50) 50 falling falling trend -1.6 (-2.6, -0.5)
California *** 2.9 (2.8, 3.0) 48 (47, 51) 1,342 falling falling trend -1.4 (-1.6, -1.2)
Connecticut *** 3.5 (3.3, 3.7) 36 (29, 46) 177 falling falling trend -1.4 (-2.0, -0.7)
Georgia *** 3.4 (3.3, 3.6) 40 (32, 46) 427 falling falling trend -1.4 (-1.6, -1.1)
New Hampshire *** 4.5 (4.1, 4.9) 13 (3, 30) 92 falling falling trend -1.2 (-2.1, -0.4)
Virginia *** 3.6 (3.4, 3.8) 34 (29, 42) 390 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.6, -0.6)
Washington *** 4.0 (3.8, 4.1) 28 (18, 33) 378 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.5, -0.5)
Wyoming *** 4.8 (4.1, 5.5) 5 (1, 32) 37 stable stable trend -1.0 (-2.3, 0.5)
Illinois *** 4.0 (3.9, 4.2) 25 (17, 31) 656 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.2, -0.6)
North Carolina *** 3.5 (3.3, 3.6) 37 (32, 45) 476 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.3, -0.5)
Pennsylvania *** 4.4 (4.3, 4.6) 14 (8, 22) 821 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.2, -0.7)
Alabama *** 3.5 (3.3, 3.7) 38 (31, 45) 235 falling falling trend -0.8 (-1.3, -0.3)
Mississippi *** 3.9 (3.6, 4.2) 29 (16, 37) 150 stable stable trend -0.8 (-1.5, 0.0)
Nevada *** 4.0 (3.7, 4.3) 27 (13, 35) 157 stable stable trend -0.8 (-1.5, 0.1)
Oregon *** 4.3 (4.1, 4.6) 18 (7, 28) 248 falling falling trend -0.8 (-1.3, -0.3)
Wisconsin *** 4.4 (4.2, 4.6) 15 (6, 25) 351 falling falling trend -0.8 (-1.2, -0.3)
Hawaii *** 2.5 (2.2, 2.8) 51 (47, 51) 51 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.9, 0.5)
South Carolina *** 3.9 (3.7, 4.1) 31 (20, 35) 276 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.8, 2.6)
Minnesota *** 4.1 (3.9, 4.3) 24 (14, 32) 296 falling falling trend -0.5 (-0.9, -0.2)
Montana *** 4.3 (3.8, 4.8) 19 (3, 35) 66 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.5, 0.4)
Michigan *** 4.6 (4.5, 4.8) 8 (3, 16) 644 falling falling trend -0.4 (-0.8, -0.1)
Ohio *** 4.8 (4.6, 4.9) 6 (3, 12) 754 stable stable trend -0.4 (-0.7, 0.0)
Alaska *** 4.4 (3.7, 5.1) 16 (2, 42) 33 stable stable trend -0.3 (-1.5, 1.2)
Idaho *** 3.9 (3.5, 4.3) 30 (12, 42) 91 stable stable trend -0.3 (-1.2, 0.7)
New Mexico *** 3.5 (3.2, 3.9) 35 (25, 46) 102 stable stable trend -0.3 (-1.1, 0.6)
Texas *** 3.3 (3.2, 3.4) 44 (39, 46) 1,007 stable stable trend -0.3 (-2.2, 2.0)
Utah *** 2.8 (2.5, 3.0) 50 (45, 51) 84 stable stable trend -0.3 (-1.4, 0.9)
Maine *** 5.8 (5.4, 6.3) 1 (1, 3) 128 stable stable trend -0.2 (-1.0, 0.7)
Iowa *** 4.6 (4.3, 4.9) 9 (3, 22) 196 stable stable trend 0.0 (-0.6, 0.6)
Indiana *** 4.8 (4.6, 5.0) 4 (2, 13) 409 stable stable trend 0.1 (-0.2, 0.4)
Kentucky *** 4.5 (4.2, 4.7) 12 (4, 24) 259 stable stable trend 0.1 (-0.4, 0.5)
South Dakota *** 4.5 (4.0, 5.1) 10 (2, 33) 53 stable stable trend 0.1 (-0.7, 1.1)
Tennessee *** 4.2 (4.0, 4.4) 22 (11, 29) 378 stable stable trend 0.1 (-0.4, 0.5)
Nebraska *** 4.7 (4.3, 5.1) 7 (2, 24) 113 stable stable trend 0.2 (-0.4, 0.7)
Oklahoma *** 4.3 (4.1, 4.6) 17 (6, 29) 213 stable stable trend 0.2 (-0.5, 0.9)
Missouri *** 4.5 (4.3, 4.7) 11 (4, 21) 368 stable stable trend 0.3 (-0.2, 0.8)
Vermont *** 5.1 (4.5, 5.8) 3 (1, 21) 50 stable stable trend 0.3 (-0.6, 1.3)
North Dakota *** 4.2 (3.7, 4.9) 20 (3, 42) 40 stable stable trend 0.4 (-0.7, 1.5)
Arkansas *** 4.1 (3.8, 4.4) 23 (9, 33) 163 stable stable trend 0.6 (-0.2, 1.4)
Kansas *** 4.2 (3.9, 4.5) 21 (7, 31) 155 stable stable trend 0.6 (0.0, 1.3)
West Virginia *** 5.3 (4.9, 5.8) 2 (1, 7) 142 rising rising trend 1.1 (0.2, 2.1)

Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 03/22/2026 1:19 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 (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.

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

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

Data for United States does not include Puerto Rico.

CI*Rank data for Puerto Rico is not available.

Return to Top