Return to Home Mortality > Table

Death Rates Table

Data Options

Death Rate Report by State

Oral Cavity & Pharynx, 2018-2022

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 *** 2.6 (2.6, 2.6) N/A 10,952 rising rising trend 1.8 (0.7, 2.5)
District of Columbia *** 2.5 (2.0, 3.1) 34 (2, 50) 17 falling falling trend -4.1 (-5.1, -3.2)
Rhode Island *** 1.8 (1.5, 2.2) 49 (40, 51) 29 falling falling trend -2.1 (-2.7, -1.4)
Alaska *** 2.9 (2.3, 3.5) 15 (1, 45) 22 falling falling trend -2.0 (-3.4, -0.2)
Hawaii 8 *** 2.8 (2.5, 3.2) 21 (3, 41) 55 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.7, -0.5)
New Jersey *** 1.9 (1.8, 2.0) 47 (44, 50) 229 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.6, 1.2)
Idaho *** 2.4 (2.1, 2.7) 37 (16, 46) 55 stable stable trend -0.6 (-1.2, 0.1)
Mississippi *** 3.4 (3.2, 3.7) 1 (1, 10) 129 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.0, 0.1)
Puerto Rico 8 *** 2.3 (2.1, 2.5) N/A 118 stable stable trend -0.5 (-4.1, 3.1)
Tennessee *** 3.1 (2.9, 3.2) 6 (2, 19) 271 falling falling trend -0.5 (-0.7, -0.1)
Wyoming *** 2.0 (1.6, 2.5) 45 (20, 51) 15 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.8, 1.0)
South Dakota *** 2.2 (1.8, 2.7) 42 (17, 51) 25 stable stable trend -0.3 (-1.3, 0.7)
California *** 2.4 (2.4, 2.5) 36 (30, 41) 1,118 stable stable trend -0.2 (-0.5, 0.3)
Massachusetts *** 2.4 (2.3, 2.5) 38 (28, 43) 222 stable stable trend -0.2 (-1.1, 3.6)
Washington *** 2.9 (2.7, 3.0) 14 (6, 28) 267 stable stable trend -0.2 (-0.5, 0.2)
Florida *** 2.7 (2.6, 2.8) 27 (18, 33) 884 stable stable trend -0.1 (-0.6, 0.5)
Nevada *** 2.8 (2.6, 3.1) 19 (5, 36) 106 stable stable trend -0.1 (-0.8, 0.7)
South Carolina *** 3.0 (2.8, 3.2) 11 (3, 27) 207 stable stable trend -0.1 (-1.2, 4.0)
Utah *** 1.7 (1.4, 1.9) 51 (45, 51) 48 stable stable trend -0.1 (-0.7, 0.6)
Colorado *** 2.0 (1.9, 2.2) 46 (41, 50) 132 stable stable trend 0.0 (-0.5, 1.7)
Connecticut *** 1.9 (1.7, 2.1) 48 (43, 51) 94 stable stable trend 0.0 (-1.3, 3.1)
New York *** 2.2 (2.1, 2.2) 44 (39, 46) 565 stable stable trend 0.0 (-0.5, 0.8)
Delaware *** 2.6 (2.3, 3.1) 29 (4, 45) 37 stable stable trend 0.1 (-1.2, 3.3)
Arkansas *** 3.1 (2.8, 3.3) 9 (1, 25) 121 stable stable trend 0.2 (-0.3, 0.7)
Vermont *** 3.0 (2.5, 3.6) 10 (1, 41) 29 stable stable trend 0.3 (-0.8, 1.6)
Maryland *** 2.4 (2.3, 2.6) 35 (25, 43) 188 stable stable trend 0.4 (-0.9, 4.1)
Michigan *** 2.7 (2.6, 2.8) 25 (14, 34) 365 stable stable trend 0.4 (0.0, 1.0)
Iowa *** 2.6 (2.3, 2.8) 32 (15, 42) 107 stable stable trend 0.5 (0.0, 2.2)
Oklahoma *** 3.1 (2.9, 3.4) 4 (1, 20) 152 rising rising trend 0.5 (0.1, 1.0)
Virginia *** 2.4 (2.3, 2.5) 40 (29, 44) 257 stable stable trend 0.5 (-0.1, 1.4)
Georgia *** 2.7 (2.6, 2.9) 23 (11, 32) 338 rising rising trend 0.7 (0.1, 1.7)
Texas *** 2.7 (2.6, 2.8) 24 (16, 32) 823 rising rising trend 0.7 (0.2, 1.4)
New Mexico *** 2.2 (2.0, 2.5) 41 (28, 49) 62 stable stable trend 0.8 (-0.3, 4.0)
Illinois *** 2.7 (2.5, 2.8) 28 (16, 35) 431 rising rising trend 0.9 (0.1, 2.5)
Kentucky *** 3.1 (2.9, 3.3) 5 (1, 21) 181 stable stable trend 1.0 (0.0, 4.4)
North Carolina *** 2.9 (2.7, 3.0) 17 (7, 28) 382 rising rising trend 1.1 (0.1, 3.2)
West Virginia *** 3.1 (2.8, 3.4) 8 (1, 30) 83 rising rising trend 1.1 (0.2, 5.6)
Wisconsin *** 2.7 (2.5, 2.8) 26 (13, 37) 212 rising rising trend 1.1 (0.1, 3.9)
Indiana *** 2.8 (2.7, 3.0) 18 (7, 31) 238 rising rising trend 1.6 (0.8, 3.2)
Nebraska *** 2.8 (2.5, 3.1) 22 (4, 40) 66 rising rising trend 1.6 (0.4, 7.2)
Minnesota *** 2.4 (2.2, 2.6) 39 (26, 44) 176 rising rising trend 1.7 (0.6, 3.6)
Oregon *** 2.8 (2.6, 3.0) 20 (6, 34) 159 stable stable trend 1.7 (0.0, 7.4)
Alabama *** 3.1 (2.9, 3.3) 7 (2, 20) 203 stable stable trend 1.8 (-0.4, 7.3)
Arizona *** 2.2 (2.0, 2.3) 43 (37, 47) 207 rising rising trend 1.8 (0.1, 6.2)
Missouri *** 2.9 (2.7, 3.1) 13 (4, 28) 237 rising rising trend 1.9 (0.7, 5.6)
Ohio *** 2.9 (2.8, 3.1) 12 (5, 23) 464 stable stable trend 1.9 (-0.6, 4.8)
Pennsylvania *** 2.5 (2.4, 2.7) 33 (23, 39) 465 rising rising trend 2.2 (0.3, 5.9)
Maine *** 3.3 (2.9, 3.6) 3 (1, 22) 73 rising rising trend 2.4 (0.6, 7.3)
New Hampshire *** 2.6 (2.3, 2.9) 31 (7, 44) 53 stable stable trend 2.9 (-1.2, 14.0)
Kansas *** 2.6 (2.4, 2.9) 30 (10, 41) 97 rising rising trend 3.2 (1.7, 5.6)
Montana *** 2.9 (2.5, 3.3) 16 (1, 40) 44 rising rising trend 3.5 (1.5, 8.2)
Louisiana *** 3.4 (3.2, 3.6) 2 (1, 10) 193 rising rising trend 6.4 (0.6, 10.4)
North Dakota *** 1.7 (1.4, 2.2) 50 (39, 51) 16
*
*
Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 10/04/2024 12:58 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.

8 Due to data availability issues, the time period used in the calculation of the joinpoint regression model may differ for selected counties.


* 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.

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

Return to Top