Return to Home Mortality > Table

Death Rates Table

Data Options

Death Rate Report by State

Esophagus, 2015-2019

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 *** 3.9 (3.8, 3.9) N/A 15,474 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.2, -1.0)
North Dakota *** 4.6 (4.0, 5.3) 12 (1, 38) 41 rising rising trend 1.3 (0.6, 2.1)
West Virginia *** 5.3 (4.9, 5.7) 4 (1, 11) 140 rising rising trend 1.3 (0.9, 1.7)
South Dakota *** 4.6 (4.0, 5.2) 13 (2, 35) 51 rising rising trend 1.1 (0.4, 1.8)
Kansas *** 4.3 (4.0, 4.6) 21 (8, 32) 154 rising rising trend 1.0 (0.6, 1.4)
Idaho *** 4.7 (4.3, 5.2) 9 (2, 27) 95 rising rising trend 0.9 (0.2, 1.6)
Arkansas *** 3.9 (3.6, 4.2) 29 (19, 42) 152 rising rising trend 0.8 (0.3, 1.3)
Utah *** 2.7 (2.5, 3.0) 51 (47, 51) 74 stable stable trend 0.8 (0.0, 1.5)
Nebraska *** 4.6 (4.2, 5.0) 11 (3, 27) 106 rising rising trend 0.7 (0.2, 1.1)
Indiana *** 4.9 (4.7, 5.1) 7 (3, 15) 397 rising rising trend 0.6 (0.3, 0.8)
Maine *** 5.6 (5.1, 6.1) 1 (1, 9) 113 stable stable trend 0.6 (-0.1, 1.2)
Missouri *** 4.5 (4.3, 4.7) 17 (8, 25) 352 rising rising trend 0.5 (0.2, 0.8)
Vermont *** 5.0 (4.3, 5.7) 6 (1, 29) 45 stable stable trend 0.5 (-0.1, 1.1)
Kentucky *** 4.4 (4.2, 4.7) 18 (7, 27) 250 rising rising trend 0.4 (0.1, 0.7)
Montana *** 4.5 (4.0, 5.1) 15 (3, 36) 64 stable stable trend 0.4 (-0.4, 1.2)
Tennessee *** 4.1 (3.9, 4.3) 25 (18, 35) 347 stable stable trend 0.3 (0.0, 0.5)
Alaska *** 5.4 (4.6, 6.4) 2 (1, 23) 37 stable stable trend 0.1 (-0.9, 1.2)
Michigan *** 4.7 (4.6, 4.9) 8 (5, 16) 620 stable stable trend 0.1 (-0.1, 0.3)
Nevada *** 4.1 (3.8, 4.4) 26 (13, 38) 147 stable stable trend 0.0 (-0.6, 0.5)
New Hampshire *** 5.3 (4.9, 5.8) 3 (1, 13) 99 stable stable trend 0.0 (-0.6, 0.6)
New Mexico *** 3.3 (3.0, 3.6) 46 (35, 50) 89 stable stable trend 0.0 (-0.7, 0.6)
Alabama *** 3.8 (3.6, 4.0) 34 (23, 41) 241 stable stable trend -0.1 (-0.4, 0.2)
Wyoming *** 3.9 (3.3, 4.7) 30 (6, 49) 28 stable stable trend -0.1 (-1.3, 1.0)
Iowa *** 4.5 (4.2, 4.8) 14 (5, 27) 184 stable stable trend -0.2 (-1.0, 0.6)
Ohio *** 5.0 (4.9, 5.2) 5 (2, 10) 765 stable stable trend -0.2 (-0.6, 0.3)
Minnesota *** 4.2 (4.0, 4.4) 23 (13, 33) 288 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.1, 0.2)
Rhode Island *** 4.1 (3.7, 4.7) 24 (7, 44) 58 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.2, 0.2)
Connecticut *** 3.8 (3.5, 4.1) 35 (22, 44) 183 falling falling trend -0.7 (-1.1, -0.4)
Hawaii 8 *** 2.8 (2.4, 3.1) 50 (46, 51) 53 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.4, 0.0)
Louisiana *** 3.8 (3.6, 4.1) 32 (22, 42) 215 falling falling trend -0.7 (-1.0, -0.5)
North Carolina *** 3.4 (3.3, 3.6) 44 (37, 48) 438 falling falling trend -0.8 (-1.1, -0.5)
Wisconsin *** 4.7 (4.4, 4.9) 10 (5, 21) 348 falling falling trend -0.8 (-1.3, -0.2)
Oregon *** 4.4 (4.1, 4.6) 20 (8, 29) 236 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.4, -0.4)
Virginia *** 3.8 (3.6, 4.0) 36 (26, 42) 386 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.2, -0.7)
New Jersey *** 3.4 (3.3, 3.6) 43 (37, 48) 387 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.4, -0.9)
Pennsylvania *** 4.5 (4.3, 4.6) 16 (9, 22) 797 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.5, -0.7)
Texas *** 3.2 (3.1, 3.3) 47 (43, 49) 920 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.4, -0.8)
Oklahoma *** 4.0 (3.8, 4.3) 27 (16, 38) 192 stable stable trend -1.2 (-2.7, 0.3)
Illinois *** 4.0 (3.9, 4.2) 28 (21, 35) 628 falling falling trend -1.4 (-2.0, -0.8)
California *** 3.1 (3.0, 3.1) 48 (46, 50) 1,347 falling falling trend -1.5 (-1.7, -1.3)
Washington *** 4.3 (4.1, 4.5) 22 (12, 28) 376 falling falling trend -1.5 (-2.6, -0.5)
Delaware *** 3.9 (3.4, 4.4) 31 (10, 47) 50 falling falling trend -1.6 (-2.4, -0.7)
Georgia *** 3.4 (3.3, 3.6) 42 (36, 48) 396 falling falling trend -1.6 (-1.9, -1.3)
Maryland *** 3.7 (3.5, 3.9) 37 (27, 45) 269 falling falling trend -1.6 (-1.8, -1.3)
Massachusetts *** 4.4 (4.2, 4.6) 19 (9, 27) 386 falling falling trend -1.7 (-2.3, -1.1)
South Carolina *** 3.8 (3.6, 4.0) 33 (23, 41) 255 falling falling trend -1.8 (-2.3, -1.2)
Florida *** 3.6 (3.5, 3.7) 39 (34, 44) 1,123 falling falling trend -2.0 (-2.8, -1.2)
New York *** 3.4 (3.3, 3.5) 45 (39, 47) 851 falling falling trend -2.3 (-2.9, -1.8)
Arizona *** 3.6 (3.4, 3.8) 40 (31, 46) 323 falling falling trend -2.6 (-4.6, -0.7)
Mississippi *** 3.6 (3.3, 3.9) 41 (27, 48) 132 stable stable trend -2.6 (-5.1, 0.0)
Puerto Rico 8 *** 2.1 (1.9, 2.3) N/A 103 stable stable trend -4.7 (-9.2, 0.0)
District of Columbia *** 3.0 (2.4, 3.6) 49 (31, 51) 20 falling falling trend -4.9 (-5.5, -4.2)
Colorado *** 3.7 (3.4, 3.9) 38 (28, 46) 225 stable stable trend -6.0 (-12.4, 1.0)
Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 11/27/2021 6:11 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 2020 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 1969-2018 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.

*** No Healthy People 2020 Objective for this cancer.
Healthy People 2020 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.

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