Return to Home Mortality > Table

Death Rates Table

Data Options

Death Rate Report by State

All Cancer Sites, 2018-2022

All Races (includes Hispanic), Both Sexes, Ages <50

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 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 Yes 14.4 (14.4, 14.5) N/A 29,194 falling falling trend -0.7 (-1.3, -0.2)
Colorado Yes 10.7 (10.3, 11.2) 51 (49, 51) 401 falling falling trend -2.0 (-2.1, -1.8)
Massachusetts Yes 11.5 (11.0, 11.9) 50 (45, 51) 483 falling falling trend -2.5 (-2.7, -2.3)
Rhode Island Yes 11.8 (10.6, 13.0) 49 (32, 51) 76 falling falling trend -2.6 (-3.0, -2.3)
Utah Yes 11.9 (11.3, 12.6) 48 (38, 50) 246 falling falling trend -1.6 (-1.9, -1.2)
New Jersey Yes 12.2 (11.8, 12.6) 47 (39, 50) 699 falling falling trend -2.7 (-2.8, -2.5)
District of Columbia Yes 12.2 (10.8, 13.8) 46 (21, 51) 55 falling falling trend -3.9 (-4.4, -3.5)
Connecticut Yes 12.4 (11.7, 13.1) 45 (34, 50) 266 stable stable trend -1.8 (-2.2, 0.1)
Montana Yes 12.5 (11.3, 13.8) 44 (22, 51) 78 falling falling trend -1.7 (-2.1, -1.3)
Idaho Yes 12.5 (11.6, 13.4) 43 (28, 50) 137 falling falling trend -1.6 (-1.9, -1.3)
Alaska Yes 12.5 (11.1, 14.1) 42 (20, 51) 57 falling falling trend -1.3 (-1.8, -1.0)
New Hampshire Yes 12.6 (11.5, 13.7) 41 (25, 50) 100 falling falling trend -2.1 (-2.5, -1.8)
Wyoming Yes 12.7 (11.1, 14.5) 40 (15, 51) 43 falling falling trend -1.6 (-2.3, -0.9)
Washington Yes 12.9 (12.4, 13.3) 39 (32, 46) 622 falling falling trend -1.9 (-2.0, -1.7)
Wisconsin Yes 12.9 (12.4, 13.5) 38 (30, 47) 442 falling falling trend -1.8 (-1.9, -1.6)
Minnesota Yes 12.9 (12.4, 13.5) 37 (30, 47) 439 falling falling trend -1.7 (-1.9, -1.5)
Oregon Yes 13.3 (12.7, 13.9) 36 (24, 45) 352 falling falling trend -1.8 (-2.0, -1.6)
New York Yes 13.4 (13.1, 13.7) 35 (29, 41) 1,621 falling falling trend -2.2 (-2.4, -1.8)
North Dakota Yes 13.6 (12.1, 15.2) 34 (12, 50) 60 stable stable trend 1.9 (-1.7, 10.0)
California Yes 13.7 (13.5, 13.9) 33 (26, 36) 3,447 stable stable trend -1.0 (-1.5, 0.1)
South Dakota Yes 13.8 (12.4, 15.4) 32 (12, 48) 68 falling falling trend -1.6 (-2.1, -1.1)
Iowa Yes 13.8 (13.1, 14.6) 31 (17, 41) 254 falling falling trend -2.2 (-4.9, -1.6)
New Mexico Yes 13.8 (12.9, 14.8) 30 (15, 43) 168 falling falling trend -1.3 (-1.6, -1.0)
Virginia Yes 13.9 (13.5, 14.4) 29 (20, 37) 745 stable stable trend 1.6 (-1.4, 3.4)
Hawaii 8 Yes 14.0 (12.9, 15.2) 28 (13, 45) 121 falling falling trend -1.6 (-2.0, -1.2)
Illinois Yes 14.0 (13.7, 14.4) 27 (20, 35) 1,107 stable stable trend -0.3 (-2.1, 0.9)
Maryland Yes 14.2 (13.6, 14.7) 26 (17, 35) 539 stable stable trend -1.4 (-2.3, 0.8)
Nevada Yes 14.2 (13.4, 14.9) 25 (15, 38) 277 stable stable trend 0.0 (-1.1, 2.5)
Vermont Yes 14.2 (12.5, 16.0) 24 (8, 49) 52 falling falling trend -1.5 (-2.0, -1.1)
Nebraska Yes 14.3 (13.3, 15.3) 23 (13, 41) 164 falling falling trend -1.4 (-1.8, -1.1)
Pennsylvania Yes 14.4 (14.0, 14.7) 22 (17, 32) 1,081 falling falling trend -1.9 (-2.1, -1.8)
Texas Yes 14.5 (14.3, 14.7) 21 (17, 28) 2,742 stable stable trend -1.1 (-1.8, 0.3)
Puerto Rico 8 Yes 14.7 (13.9, 15.5) N/A 280 stable stable trend -1.5 (-6.1, 3.2)
Arizona Yes 14.7 (14.2, 15.2) 20 (14, 30) 624 stable stable trend 1.0 (-1.5, 4.4)
Maine Yes 14.7 (13.6, 16.0) 19 (9, 38) 115 falling falling trend -1.8 (-2.1, -1.5)
North Carolina Yes 14.9 (14.4, 15.3) 18 (14, 27) 957 falling falling trend -2.0 (-2.1, -1.8)
Georgia Yes 14.9 (14.5, 15.4) 17 (13, 25) 1,018 stable stable trend 0.2 (-1.6, 1.4)
Kansas Yes 15.2 (14.4, 16.1) 16 (9, 28) 260 falling falling trend -1.4 (-1.7, -1.1)
Florida Yes 15.3 (15.0, 15.6) 15 (12, 20) 1,951 falling falling trend -1.4 (-1.8, -0.1)
Michigan Yes 15.6 (15.2, 16.1) 14 (9, 18) 914 falling falling trend -1.5 (-1.7, -1.4)
Delaware Yes 15.7 (14.3, 17.3) 13 (3, 33) 88 stable stable trend 5.1 (-1.9, 10.3)
Missouri Yes 15.8 (15.2, 16.3) 12 (8, 19) 568 stable stable trend -0.1 (-2.0, 2.3)
Ohio Yes 16.0 (15.6, 16.4) 11 (8, 16) 1,106 falling falling trend -2.0 (-3.8, -1.6)
Indiana Yes 16.2 (15.7, 16.8) 10 (7, 16) 659 falling falling trend -1.3 (-1.5, -1.2)
South Carolina Yes 16.6 (15.9, 17.2) 9 (5, 14) 503 falling falling trend -1.9 (-2.0, -1.7)
Louisiana Yes 16.8 (16.1, 17.5) 8 (4, 13) 461 falling falling trend -2.6 (-3.7, -2.2)
Tennessee Yes 17.2 (16.6, 17.7) 7 (3, 10) 723 falling falling trend -2.2 (-2.8, -1.9)
Oklahoma Yes 17.5 (16.8, 18.3) 6 (2, 10) 413 falling falling trend -1.3 (-1.5, -1.1)
Alabama Yes 17.6 (17.0, 18.3) 5 (2, 9) 528 falling falling trend -1.7 (-1.9, -1.5)
Arkansas Yes 17.7 (16.8, 18.6) 4 (2, 10) 315 falling falling trend -1.7 (-1.9, -1.5)
Kentucky Yes 17.9 (17.2, 18.7) 3 (2, 8) 485 falling falling trend -1.4 (-1.6, -1.3)
West Virginia Yes 19.1 (18.0, 20.3) 2 (1, 6) 201 falling falling trend -2.0 (-4.8, -1.3)
Mississippi Yes 20.6 (19.7, 21.6) 1 (1, 2) 361 rising rising trend 3.0 (0.6, 6.4)
Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 11/06/2024 4:19 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 (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.



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.

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

Return to Top