Return to Home Mortality > Table

Death Rates Table

Data Options
Comparison Options

Death Rate Report by State

Breast, 2023

All Races (includes Hispanic), Female, All Ages

Sorted by Recentaapc

State
 sort alphabetically by name ascending
Met Healthy People Objective of 15.3?
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 No 18.6 (18.4, 18.7) N/A 42,213 falling falling trend -1.5 (-1.7, -1.3)
Illinois No 17.5 (16.6, 18.5) 39 (22, 46) 1,514 falling falling trend -3.6 (-5.5, -1.8)
Puerto Rico No 15.4 (13.9, 17.1) N/A 453 stable stable trend -3.0 (-9.2, 3.5)
Massachusetts No 15.5 (14.4, 16.7) 50 (39, 51) 793 falling falling trend -2.7 (-3.0, -2.4)
New York No 15.6 (14.9, 16.3) 49 (41, 51) 2,204 falling falling trend -2.3 (-2.5, -2.2)
New Jersey No 18.3 (17.3, 19.4) 29 (13, 44) 1,221 falling falling trend -2.2 (-2.4, -2.1)
Rhode Island No 16.9 (14.0, 20.2) 43 (4, 51) 136 falling falling trend -2.2 (-2.6, -1.9)
Vermont No 18.0 (14.3, 22.4) 35 (1, 51) 90 falling falling trend -2.2 (-3.1, -1.3)
North Dakota No 16.5 (12.8, 20.8) 45 (2, 51) 78 falling falling trend -2.1 (-2.7, -1.5)
New Hampshire No 17.8 (15.2, 20.7) 38 (4, 51) 188 falling falling trend -1.9 (-2.3, -1.4)
Pennsylvania No 18.0 (17.2, 19.0) 33 (19, 44) 1,795 falling falling trend -1.8 (-2.0, -1.6)
Alaska No 17.1 (13.1, 22.0) 42 (1, 51) 66 falling falling trend -1.7 (-2.7, -0.7)
Maine No 17.8 (15.3, 20.7) 37 (4, 51) 206 falling falling trend -1.7 (-2.2, -1.2)
Maryland No 18.5 (17.2, 19.9) 28 (9, 45) 796 falling falling trend -1.7 (-2.0, -1.5)
Ohio No 19.9 (18.9, 20.9) 14 (5, 29) 1,659 falling falling trend -1.7 (-1.9, -1.6)
Wisconsin No 16.6 (15.3, 17.9) 44 (27, 51) 673 falling falling trend -1.7 (-1.9, -1.5)
Iowa No 16.0 (14.3, 17.8) 47 (23, 51) 354 falling falling trend -1.6 (-1.9, -1.3)
Louisiana No 20.2 (18.6, 22.0) 11 (2, 37) 612 falling falling trend -1.6 (-1.9, -1.3)
Minnesota No 17.3 (16.0, 18.7) 41 (19, 49) 679 falling falling trend -1.6 (-1.9, -0.4)
South Dakota No 15.4 (12.3, 19.2) 51 (8, 51) 92 falling falling trend -1.6 (-2.3, -0.9)
District of Columbia No 24.0 (19.3, 29.6) 1 (1, 41) 93 falling falling trend -1.5 (-2.3, -0.8)
Michigan No 17.9 (16.9, 19.0) 36 (18, 46) 1,279 falling falling trend -1.5 (-1.7, -1.2)
Montana No 18.7 (15.6, 22.3) 26 (1, 51) 141 falling falling trend -1.4 (-2.0, -0.8)
Alabama No 21.0 (19.5, 22.6) 6 (1, 26) 752 falling falling trend -1.3 (-1.6, -1.0)
Kansas No 18.6 (16.7, 20.7) 27 (5, 48) 367 falling falling trend -1.3 (-2.0, -0.7)
Oregon No 18.8 (17.2, 20.5) 23 (5, 44) 567 falling falling trend -1.3 (-1.7, -0.9)
California No 18.1 (17.5, 18.6) 32 (22, 42) 4,519 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.4, -0.5)
Connecticut No 16.2 (14.7, 17.9) 46 (26, 51) 446 stable stable trend -1.2 (-2.5, 1.7)
Florida No 18.2 (17.5, 18.9) 31 (20, 42) 3,251 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.4, -1.0)
North Carolina No 19.5 (18.4, 20.5) 20 (7, 35) 1,436 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.5, -0.9)
Virginia No 18.8 (17.7, 20.0) 24 (10, 41) 1,115 stable stable trend -1.2 (-1.6, 0.3)
Washington No 18.9 (17.7, 20.1) 21 (8, 42) 955 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.5, -0.9)
Arkansas No 18.7 (16.9, 20.8) 25 (4, 47) 391 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.5, -0.7)
South Carolina No 20.1 (18.6, 21.6) 12 (2, 36) 760 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.6, -0.7)
Arizona No 17.5 (16.3, 18.7) 40 (20, 48) 915 stable stable trend -0.9 (-1.3, 0.2)
Georgia No 21.1 (20.0, 22.2) 5 (1, 21) 1,430 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.2, -0.7)
Idaho No 18.0 (15.6, 20.6) 34 (4, 51) 220 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.5, -0.2)
Nevada No 19.6 (17.7, 21.7) 18 (2, 43) 399 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.3, -0.6)
West Virginia No 20.5 (18.1, 23.2) 10 (1, 41) 287 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.3, -0.6)
Wyoming No 18.3 (14.2, 23.3) 30 (1, 51) 73 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.7, -0.2)
Nebraska No 20.8 (18.3, 23.5) 7 (1, 42) 270 falling falling trend -0.8 (-1.5, -0.2)
New Mexico No 19.6 (17.3, 22.0) 19 (1, 46) 298 falling falling trend -0.8 (-1.3, -0.4)
Utah No 19.7 (17.5, 22.0) 16 (2, 45) 311 falling falling trend -0.8 (-1.1, -0.4)
Oklahoma No 22.6 (20.7, 24.6) 2 (1, 17) 584 falling falling trend -0.7 (-1.0, -0.4)
Texas No 19.7 (19.0, 20.4) 17 (8, 28) 3,310 falling falling trend -0.6 (-0.8, -0.1)
Hawaii No 15.9 (13.6, 18.7) 48 (16, 51) 179 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.1, 0.3)
Indiana No 19.9 (18.6, 21.3) 13 (3, 36) 905 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.3, 1.3)
Tennessee No 21.4 (20.1, 22.8) 4 (1, 21) 1,013 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.5, 0.3)
Colorado No 18.8 (17.4, 20.3) 22 (7, 43) 684 stable stable trend -0.3 (-0.9, 2.0)
Kentucky No 20.7 (19.1, 22.5) 8 (1, 32) 628 stable stable trend -0.3 (-1.4, 2.7)
Mississippi No 21.9 (19.8, 24.1) 3 (1, 27) 438 stable stable trend -0.3 (-0.9, 1.9)
Delaware No 20.6 (17.5, 24.1) 9 (1, 47) 172 stable stable trend 0.1 (-0.9, 4.5)
Missouri No 19.7 (18.4, 21.2) 15 (4, 37) 869 stable stable trend 0.4 (-1.7, 2.3)

Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 03/21/2026 8:33 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.

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