Return to Home Mortality > Table

Death Rates Table

Data Options

Death Rate Report by State

All Cancer Sites, 2016-2020

Black Non-Hispanic, Both Sexes, All Ages

Sorted by CI*Rank
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 ascending
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 174.7 (174.1, 175.3) N/A 70,283 falling falling trend -2.1 (-2.1, -2.0)
South Dakota Yes 87.8 (54.8, 131.1) 50 (37, 50) 7
*
*
Wyoming Yes 99.3 (61.7, 149.3) 49 (23, 50) 5
*
*
Idaho Yes 104.7 (70.3, 148.3) 48 (31, 50) 8
*
*
New Hampshire Yes 112.7 (85.2, 145.4) 47 (31, 50) 14
*
*
Rhode Island No 125.7 (112.6, 139.8) 46 (40, 49) 72 falling falling trend -4.0 (-4.5, -3.5)
Hawaii 8 No 132.1 (107.8, 159.7) 45 (26, 49) 24 falling falling trend -1.4 (-2.5, -0.3)
Alaska No 138.5 (112.2, 168.5) 44 (17, 49) 24 falling falling trend -2.1 (-3.5, -0.8)
Massachusetts No 138.6 (133.7, 143.7) 43 (39, 46) 630 falling falling trend -2.8 (-3.1, -2.6)
Maine No 138.8 (106.9, 176.3) 42 (7, 50) 15
*
*
North Dakota No 142.7 (88.7, 212.7) 41 (1, 50) 9
*
*
New York No 147.1 (145.2, 149.0) 40 (36, 43) 4,724 falling falling trend -3.7 (-5.3, -2.0)
New Mexico No 147.4 (130.9, 165.3) 39 (25, 47) 62 falling falling trend -1.6 (-2.2, -1.0)
Vermont No 150.2 (101.6, 211.6) 38 (1, 50) 8
*
*
Connecticut No 151.6 (145.8, 157.6) 37 (32, 43) 542 falling falling trend -2.2 (-2.4, -1.9)
Colorado No 154.4 (146.3, 162.9) 36 (30, 43) 295 falling falling trend -1.9 (-2.1, -1.6)
Florida No 154.8 (152.8, 156.8) 35 (32, 40) 4,867 falling falling trend -2.2 (-2.3, -2.1)
Utah No 155.7 (127.7, 187.3) 34 (2, 48) 28 falling falling trend -2.5 (-3.4, -1.6)
Arizona No 156.2 (149.2, 163.5) 33 (29, 41) 415 falling falling trend -1.9 (-2.1, -1.7)
Washington No 156.6 (148.9, 164.6) 32 (27, 41) 366 falling falling trend -2.0 (-2.2, -1.7)
Minnesota No 166.5 (157.6, 175.6) 31 (19, 37) 327 falling falling trend -2.3 (-2.7, -2.0)
Georgia No 166.6 (164.4, 168.8) 30 (26, 34) 4,864 falling falling trend -2.1 (-2.2, -1.9)
Oregon No 167.4 (153.2, 182.4) 29 (12, 40) 116 falling falling trend -1.8 (-2.2, -1.3)
Nevada No 168.1 (160.8, 175.6) 28 (19, 35) 431 falling falling trend -1.8 (-2.0, -1.5)
Maryland No 168.5 (165.8, 171.3) 27 (25, 33) 3,188 falling falling trend -2.1 (-2.2, -2.0)
New Jersey No 168.7 (165.4, 172.1) 26 (25, 33) 2,062 falling falling trend -2.2 (-2.4, -2.1)
Delaware No 172.8 (164.7, 181.1) 25 (15, 33) 371 falling falling trend -2.6 (-2.8, -2.3)
Virginia No 174.4 (171.5, 177.3) 24 (19, 29) 2,963 falling falling trend -2.1 (-2.2, -2.0)
California No 175.7 (173.4, 178.1) 23 (19, 28) 4,405 falling falling trend -2.0 (-2.1, -1.8)
North Carolina No 176.2 (173.7, 178.7) 22 (18, 28) 4,074 falling falling trend -1.9 (-2.0, -1.8)
Texas No 178.1 (175.8, 180.4) 21 (17, 26) 5,187 falling falling trend -2.3 (-2.5, -2.1)
South Carolina No 179.0 (175.8, 182.2) 20 (15, 26) 2,600 falling falling trend -1.9 (-2.1, -1.7)
Alabama No 180.3 (177.0, 183.7) 19 (14, 25) 2,389 falling falling trend -2.2 (-2.5, -2.0)
Kentucky No 183.8 (177.1, 190.6) 18 (8, 26) 623 falling falling trend -2.6 (-3.2, -2.0)
Kansas No 183.8 (173.9, 194.0) 17 (4, 28) 281 falling falling trend -2.1 (-2.6, -1.6)
Michigan No 184.0 (180.8, 187.3) 16 (12, 20) 2,646 falling falling trend -2.3 (-2.7, -1.9)
Indiana No 184.3 (179.2, 189.6) 15 (10, 23) 1,032 falling falling trend -2.3 (-2.6, -2.0)
Ohio No 185.5 (182.3, 188.7) 14 (11, 20) 2,769 falling falling trend -2.2 (-2.5, -1.9)
Tennessee No 190.2 (186.2, 194.2) 13 (5, 17) 1,978 falling falling trend -2.6 (-2.9, -2.3)
Missouri No 192.0 (187.3, 196.8) 12 (3, 16) 1,320 falling falling trend -1.7 (-1.9, -1.6)
West Virginia No 192.7 (177.8, 208.6) 11 (2, 27) 133 falling falling trend -1.5 (-1.8, -1.2)
Pennsylvania No 193.0 (189.7, 196.4) 10 (3, 14) 2,707 falling falling trend -1.8 (-1.9, -1.7)
Arkansas No 193.9 (187.9, 200.1) 9 (2, 16) 849 falling falling trend -2.3 (-2.9, -1.7)
Louisiana No 194.4 (191.1, 197.8) 8 (3, 13) 2,841 falling falling trend -1.6 (-2.0, -1.2)
District of Columbia No 194.5 (188.2, 201.0) 7 (2, 16) 754 falling falling trend -1.8 (-2.0, -1.6)
Oklahoma No 194.5 (186.8, 202.5) 6 (2, 17) 523 falling falling trend -1.6 (-1.9, -1.3)
Illinois No 196.0 (193.2, 198.9) 5 (2, 12) 3,718 falling falling trend -1.7 (-1.7, -1.6)
Nebraska No 196.3 (180.9, 212.6) 4 (1, 26) 132 falling falling trend -1.4 (-1.7, -1.0)
Iowa No 201.5 (185.2, 218.8) 3 (1, 23) 132 falling falling trend -1.8 (-2.2, -1.5)
Mississippi No 201.8 (197.8, 205.8) 2 (2, 7) 2,149 falling falling trend -1.6 (-1.8, -1.4)
Wisconsin No 219.5 (211.2, 228.0) 1 (1, 3) 598 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.3, -0.8)
Montana ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Puerto Rico 8 ***
¶¶¶
N/A
¶¶¶
¶¶¶
¶¶¶
Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 12/03/2023 1:34 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