Return to Home Mortality > Table

Death Rates Table

Data Options

Death Rate Report by State

All Cancer Sites, 2016-2020

Asian/Pacific Islander Non-Hispanic, Both Sexes, All Ages

Sorted by Rate
State
 sort alphabetically by name ascending
Met Healthy People Objective of 122.7?
Age-Adjusted Death Rate
deaths per 100,000
(95% Confidence Interval)
 sort by rate ascending
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 Yes 94.5 (93.9, 95.1) N/A 18,736 falling falling trend -2.0 (-2.5, -1.6)
South Dakota No 138.8 (93.8, 195.1) 1 (1, 47) 9
*
*
Hawaii 8 Yes 118.5 (115.8, 121.2) 2 (1, 7) 1,590 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.3, -1.1)
Minnesota Yes 114.8 (107.1, 122.8) 3 (1, 13) 187 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.7, -0.6)
Idaho Yes 112.7 (93.2, 134.8) 4 (1, 38) 26 falling falling trend -1.8 (-3.0, -0.5)
Iowa Yes 112.3 (97.6, 128.3) 5 (1, 25) 50 falling falling trend -1.2 (-2.1, -0.3)
Oregon Yes 110.6 (103.8, 117.7) 6 (1, 15) 210 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.6, -0.9)
Oklahoma Yes 110.5 (99.1, 122.7) 7 (1, 22) 79
*
*
Utah Yes 106.7 (96.1, 118.1) 8 (2, 23) 83 falling falling trend -1.3 (-1.9, -0.7)
Nevada Yes 104.2 (99.3, 109.3) 9 (5, 20) 360 falling falling trend -0.8 (-1.3, -0.4)
Wisconsin Yes 103.3 (93.8, 113.3) 10 (3, 28) 99 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.6, -0.3)
Alaska Yes 102.0 (89.0, 116.3) 11 (1, 39) 50 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.3, 0.4)
Montana Yes 100.9 (71.2, 137.9) 12 (1, 51) 8
*
*
California Yes 100.8 (99.8, 101.9) 13 (9, 19) 7,305 falling falling trend -2.1 (-2.8, -1.4)
Washington Yes 100.1 (96.7, 103.6) 14 (8, 21) 684 falling falling trend -2.0 (-2.5, -1.6)
Louisiana Yes 99.4 (89.2, 110.4) 15 (4, 34) 77 stable stable trend -0.6 (-1.5, 0.3)
District of Columbia Yes 98.0 (78.7, 120.5) 16 (1, 50) 19 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.6, 0.8)
Mississippi Yes 97.1 (81.0, 115.2) 17 (2, 47) 29 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.8, 0.8)
Wyoming Yes 94.5 (57.6, 144.6) 18 (1, 51) 4
*
*
Arkansas Yes 92.8 (78.7, 108.4) 19 (4, 48) 36 falling falling trend -1.4 (-2.4, -0.4)
Nebraska Yes 92.8 (77.3, 110.2) 20 (3, 49) 28 falling falling trend -1.6 (-2.6, -0.6)
North Dakota Yes 92.8 (54.6, 143.8) 21 (1, 51) 5
*
*
Arizona Yes 92.5 (87.0, 98.2) 22 (13, 36) 222 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.8, -0.6)
Kansas Yes 92.2 (81.4, 103.9) 23 (7, 44) 58 stable stable trend -0.6 (-1.7, 0.5)
Massachusetts Yes 90.7 (86.3, 95.2) 24 (15, 36) 341 falling falling trend -1.4 (-1.8, -1.0)
New York Yes 89.6 (87.7, 91.7) 25 (18, 33) 1,607 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.2, -0.8)
Missouri Yes 89.3 (81.0, 98.1) 26 (12, 44) 92 falling falling trend -1.8 (-2.5, -1.0)
Tennessee Yes 88.5 (80.0, 97.7) 27 (13, 44) 89 falling falling trend -1.6 (-2.4, -0.8)
Colorado Yes 88.1 (81.6, 94.9) 28 (15, 42) 147 falling falling trend -1.6 (-2.3, -1.0)
Georgia Yes 87.7 (83.1, 92.4) 29 (17, 41) 312 stable stable trend 0.0 (-0.8, 0.8)
Rhode Island Yes 87.5 (71.8, 105.3) 30 (6, 50) 24 falling falling trend -1.4 (-2.6, -0.2)
Pennsylvania Yes 87.1 (82.8, 91.6) 31 (18, 41) 327 falling falling trend -3.1 (-4.6, -1.5)
Virginia Yes 86.5 (82.8, 90.3) 32 (19, 41) 450 falling falling trend -1.8 (-2.1, -1.6)
Texas Yes 85.3 (82.9, 87.8) 33 (23, 41) 1,024 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.5, -1.0)
North Carolina Yes 84.8 (79.2, 90.7) 34 (18, 44) 190 falling falling trend -1.3 (-1.8, -0.7)
Maryland Yes 84.8 (80.8, 88.9) 35 (21, 43) 355 falling falling trend -1.4 (-1.9, -1.0)
Kentucky Yes 84.4 (72.3, 97.8) 36 (10, 50) 40 falling falling trend -2.3 (-3.5, -1.2)
Florida Yes 83.9 (80.8, 87.0) 37 (24, 43) 582 falling falling trend -0.8 (-1.4, -0.2)
Ohio Yes 83.7 (78.1, 89.7) 38 (20, 46) 175 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.5, -0.2)
Vermont Yes 83.5 (55.8, 119.1) 39 (1, 51) 7
*
*
Maine Yes 82.2 (62.4, 106.0) 40 (4, 51) 12
*
*
Illinois Yes 81.8 (78.8, 84.9) 41 (29, 44) 585 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.2, -0.6)
South Carolina Yes 78.1 (69.1, 87.8) 42 (20, 51) 61 falling falling trend -1.8 (-2.9, -0.7)
New Mexico Yes 76.5 (64.1, 90.7) 43 (16, 51) 28 falling falling trend -2.5 (-3.8, -1.2)
Indiana Yes 75.9 (67.7, 84.7) 44 (25, 51) 73 stable stable trend -0.9 (-1.9, 0.1)
Alabama Yes 75.7 (65.7, 86.7) 45 (21, 51) 46 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.8, 0.9)
New Hampshire Yes 75.2 (60.6, 91.9) 46 (14, 51) 21
*
*
Michigan Yes 74.3 (69.5, 79.3) 47 (37, 50) 191 falling falling trend -3.9 (-5.2, -2.6)
New Jersey Yes 73.2 (70.6, 75.9) 48 (40, 50) 615 falling falling trend -1.3 (-1.6, -1.0)
Connecticut Yes 68.8 (62.3, 75.7) 49 (40, 51) 90 falling falling trend -4.3 (-6.4, -2.2)
Delaware Yes 67.8 (56.0, 81.2) 50 (28, 51) 24 stable stable trend -1.4 (-2.8, 0.0)
West Virginia Yes 63.0 (46.4, 83.6) 51 (23, 51) 10
*
*
Puerto Rico 8 ***
¶¶¶
N/A
¶¶¶
¶¶¶
¶¶¶
Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 05/31/2023 7:19 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 (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.

¶¶¶ Data for Puerto Rico is only available for All Races (includes Hispanics). For more information see data not available.
* 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.

Interpret Rankings provides insight into interpreting cancer incidence statistics. When the population size for a denominator is small, the rates may be unstable. A rate is unstable when a small change in the numerator (e.g., only one or two additional cases) has a dramatic effect on the calculated rate.

Data for United States does not include Puerto Rico.
CI*Rank data for Puerto Rico is not available.

Return to Top