Return to Home Mortality > Table

Death Rates Table

Data Options

Death Rate Report by State

Esophagus, 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 ascending
United States *** 3.7 (3.7, 3.8) N/A 15,762 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.6, -0.8)
West Virginia *** 5.4 (5.0, 5.8) 2 (1, 5) 145 rising rising trend 1.3 (0.9, 1.8)
North Dakota *** 4.3 (3.7, 4.9) 20 (3, 41) 41 rising rising trend 1.1 (0.4, 1.9)
Arkansas *** 4.1 (3.9, 4.4) 21 (8, 33) 165 rising rising trend 0.9 (0.4, 1.4)
Kansas *** 4.3 (4.0, 4.6) 19 (5, 31) 159 rising rising trend 0.9 (0.5, 1.3)
South Dakota *** 4.5 (3.9, 5.1) 11 (2, 34) 52 rising rising trend 0.9 (0.3, 1.6)
Nebraska *** 4.5 (4.1, 4.9) 9 (3, 29) 109 rising rising trend 0.6 (0.1, 1.0)
Maine *** 5.8 (5.3, 6.2) 1 (1, 4) 124 stable stable trend 0.5 (-0.1, 1.2)
Missouri *** 4.3 (4.1, 4.5) 18 (7, 27) 354 rising rising trend 0.5 (0.2, 0.8)
Vermont *** 5.0 (4.3, 5.7) 3 (1, 28) 48 stable stable trend 0.4 (-0.2, 1.0)
Wyoming *** 4.7 (4.1, 5.5) 6 (1, 34) 36 stable stable trend 0.1 (-0.8, 1.1)
New Mexico *** 3.4 (3.1, 3.8) 39 (28, 48) 98 stable stable trend 0.0 (-0.5, 0.6)
Kentucky *** 4.4 (4.2, 4.7) 13 (4, 25) 256 stable stable trend -0.1 (-3.8, 0.4)
Mississippi *** 3.9 (3.6, 4.1) 31 (17, 40) 147 stable stable trend -0.1 (-0.5, 0.3)
Alaska *** 4.4 (3.7, 5.1) 16 (2, 43) 32 stable stable trend -0.3 (-1.2, 0.8)
Indiana *** 4.8 (4.6, 5.0) 4 (2, 13) 408 stable stable trend -0.3 (-3.1, 0.4)
Iowa *** 4.5 (4.2, 4.8) 12 (4, 27) 190 stable stable trend -0.3 (-2.0, 0.4)
Oklahoma *** 4.4 (4.1, 4.7) 15 (5, 27) 215 stable stable trend -0.3 (-4.4, 0.7)
Michigan *** 4.6 (4.4, 4.8) 8 (3, 17) 634 falling falling trend -0.5 (-1.6, -0.1)
Montana *** 4.1 (3.7, 4.6) 22 (4, 40) 63 stable stable trend -0.5 (-5.7, 0.4)
Minnesota *** 4.1 (3.9, 4.3) 23 (13, 32) 295 falling falling trend -0.6 (-1.3, -0.1)
Ohio *** 4.8 (4.6, 4.9) 5 (3, 11) 753 falling falling trend -0.7 (-1.5, -0.1)
Oregon *** 4.4 (4.2, 4.7) 14 (4, 26) 252 falling falling trend -0.7 (-1.6, -0.3)
North Carolina *** 3.4 (3.2, 3.5) 42 (34, 46) 460 falling falling trend -0.8 (-1.1, -0.5)
Wisconsin *** 4.5 (4.3, 4.7) 10 (4, 22) 356 falling falling trend -0.8 (-1.3, -0.4)
Connecticut *** 3.7 (3.4, 3.9) 33 (26, 44) 181 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.2, -0.5)
Hawaii 8 *** 2.6 (2.3, 2.9) 51 (47, 51) 53 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.6, -0.1)
Illinois *** 4.0 (3.9, 4.2) 28 (18, 32) 651 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.5, -0.7)
Texas *** 3.3 (3.2, 3.4) 44 (39, 46) 994 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.4, -0.7)
South Carolina *** 3.9 (3.7, 4.2) 30 (18, 35) 278 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.3, -0.6)
Virginia *** 3.5 (3.4, 3.7) 36 (30, 44) 381 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.3, -0.8)
Pennsylvania *** 4.3 (4.2, 4.5) 17 (8, 23) 804 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.4, -0.8)
Georgia *** 3.4 (3.3, 3.6) 41 (33, 46) 421 falling falling trend -1.4 (-2.2, -1.1)
Utah *** 2.7 (2.4, 2.9) 50 (47, 51) 79 stable stable trend -1.4 (-5.3, 0.0)
California *** 2.9 (2.9, 3.0) 49 (46, 50) 1,354 falling falling trend -1.5 (-1.7, -1.3)
Delaware *** 3.6 (3.2, 4.1) 35 (17, 48) 52 falling falling trend -1.6 (-2.2, -0.8)
Washington *** 4.0 (3.8, 4.2) 29 (17, 33) 377 falling falling trend -1.6 (-3.1, -0.8)
Maryland *** 3.4 (3.2, 3.6) 43 (33, 47) 262 falling falling trend -1.7 (-2.0, -1.5)
Nevada *** 4.0 (3.8, 4.3) 26 (11, 35) 157 falling falling trend -1.7 (-5.4, -0.5)
New Hampshire *** 4.7 (4.3, 5.2) 7 (2, 25) 96 falling falling trend -1.7 (-7.9, -0.5)
Alabama *** 3.5 (3.3, 3.7) 37 (31, 45) 235 falling falling trend -1.8 (-6.5, -0.4)
Florida *** 3.4 (3.3, 3.5) 40 (35, 45) 1,142 falling falling trend -1.8 (-2.5, -1.4)
Massachusetts *** 4.0 (3.9, 4.2) 25 (16, 33) 374 falling falling trend -2.0 (-2.8, -1.5)
Arizona *** 3.5 (3.3, 3.7) 38 (31, 45) 336 falling falling trend -2.1 (-4.6, -1.0)
Louisiana *** 3.6 (3.4, 3.9) 34 (26, 44) 210 falling falling trend -2.2 (-5.4, -1.0)
New York *** 3.1 (3.0, 3.2) 46 (44, 49) 818 falling falling trend -2.5 (-3.1, -2.1)
Rhode Island *** 3.8 (3.4, 4.3) 32 (10, 46) 57 falling falling trend -2.6 (-6.5, -1.3)
New Jersey *** 3.0 (2.9, 3.2) 47 (45, 50) 366 falling falling trend -2.9 (-5.2, -1.9)
Tennessee *** 4.0 (3.8, 4.2) 27 (17, 33) 363 stable stable trend -3.5 (-6.8, 0.1)
Colorado *** 3.3 (3.1, 3.5) 45 (35, 48) 219 falling falling trend -3.9 (-7.8, -1.8)
District of Columbia *** 3.0 (2.4, 3.7) 48 (26, 51) 20 falling falling trend -4.5 (-5.4, -3.9)
Puerto Rico 8 *** 1.8 (1.7, 2.0) N/A 96 stable stable trend -5.0 (-10.2, 0.5)
Idaho *** 4.1 (3.7, 4.5) 24 (7, 38) 92 falling falling trend -7.5 (-12.7, -0.6)
Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 12/13/2024 11:39 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.



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