Return to Home Mortality > Table

Death Rates Table

Data Options

Death Rate Report by State

Stomach, 2016-2020

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 *** 2.8 (2.8, 2.9) N/A 11,192 falling falling trend -2.1 (-2.3, -1.9)
Hawaii 8 *** 3.7 (3.3, 4.1) 3 (1, 11) 74 falling falling trend -4.4 (-4.8, -4.1)
Rhode Island *** 2.6 (2.2, 3.0) 25 (10, 47) 36 falling falling trend -4.0 (-4.6, -3.4)
Maine *** 2.1 (1.8, 2.4) 42 (24, 51) 43 falling falling trend -3.9 (-4.6, -3.2)
North Dakota *** 2.1 (1.7, 2.6) 44 (18, 51) 18 falling falling trend -3.9 (-4.5, -3.3)
New Hampshire *** 2.1 (1.8, 2.4) 45 (25, 51) 37 falling falling trend -3.8 (-4.3, -3.3)
District of Columbia *** 3.5 (2.9, 4.2) 4 (1, 25) 24 falling falling trend -3.6 (-4.5, -2.8)
Montana *** 2.0 (1.6, 2.3) 47 (27, 51) 28 falling falling trend -3.5 (-4.1, -2.9)
South Dakota *** 2.0 (1.6, 2.4) 48 (25, 51) 20 falling falling trend -3.5 (-4.3, -2.8)
New Jersey *** 3.1 (3.0, 3.3) 11 (6, 17) 347 falling falling trend -3.4 (-3.6, -3.1)
Connecticut *** 2.9 (2.7, 3.1) 16 (9, 25) 137 falling falling trend -3.3 (-3.6, -2.9)
New York *** 3.3 (3.2, 3.4) 9 (4, 12) 800 falling falling trend -3.1 (-3.3, -2.9)
Ohio *** 2.3 (2.2, 2.5) 34 (27, 43) 349 falling falling trend -3.1 (-3.3, -2.9)
Colorado *** 2.4 (2.2, 2.5) 33 (22, 45) 143 falling falling trend -3.0 (-3.4, -2.6)
Michigan *** 2.5 (2.3, 2.6) 30 (22, 38) 317 falling falling trend -3.0 (-3.1, -2.8)
West Virginia *** 2.0 (1.7, 2.2) 49 (34, 51) 51 falling falling trend -3.0 (-3.6, -2.4)
Maryland *** 2.9 (2.7, 3.1) 15 (10, 24) 208 falling falling trend -2.9 (-3.3, -2.6)
Minnesota *** 2.2 (2.1, 2.4) 38 (28, 48) 152 falling falling trend -2.9 (-3.2, -2.5)
Utah *** 2.1 (1.9, 2.4) 41 (27, 51) 57 falling falling trend -2.8 (-3.4, -2.2)
Idaho *** 2.0 (1.7, 2.3) 46 (31, 51) 40 falling falling trend -2.7 (-3.4, -2.0)
Kansas *** 2.3 (2.1, 2.6) 35 (20, 47) 80 falling falling trend -2.7 (-3.1, -2.2)
Missouri *** 2.2 (2.0, 2.3) 40 (31, 48) 168 falling falling trend -2.7 (-3.0, -2.5)
Nevada *** 2.4 (2.2, 2.6) 32 (20, 46) 83 falling falling trend -2.7 (-3.2, -2.3)
Arkansas *** 2.7 (2.5, 3.0) 21 (11, 34) 104 falling falling trend -2.6 (-3.0, -2.3)
Illinois *** 3.0 (2.9, 3.1) 13 (9, 20) 455 falling falling trend -2.6 (-2.8, -2.5)
Iowa *** 1.9 (1.7, 2.2) 50 (37, 51) 78 falling falling trend -2.6 (-3.0, -2.2)
Louisiana *** 3.3 (3.0, 3.5) 10 (3, 15) 179 falling falling trend -2.6 (-3.0, -2.3)
Nebraska *** 2.2 (1.9, 2.5) 39 (22, 50) 50 falling falling trend -2.6 (-3.3, -2.0)
Washington *** 2.6 (2.4, 2.7) 24 (17, 35) 223 falling falling trend -2.6 (-2.9, -2.3)
Arizona *** 2.5 (2.3, 2.6) 28 (21, 39) 222 falling falling trend -2.5 (-2.7, -2.3)
Oregon *** 2.3 (2.1, 2.5) 37 (25, 47) 120 falling falling trend -2.5 (-2.9, -2.1)
Pennsylvania *** 2.5 (2.4, 2.6) 29 (22, 37) 437 falling falling trend -2.4 (-3.5, -1.2)
South Carolina *** 3.1 (2.9, 3.3) 12 (5, 20) 199 falling falling trend -2.4 (-2.7, -2.1)
Tennessee *** 2.5 (2.4, 2.7) 27 (19, 37) 210 falling falling trend -2.4 (-2.7, -2.1)
Alaska *** 3.7 (3.1, 4.4) 2 (1, 22) 26 falling falling trend -2.3 (-3.3, -1.2)
Georgia *** 2.9 (2.7, 3.0) 17 (11, 24) 327 falling falling trend -2.3 (-2.6, -2.1)
Kentucky *** 2.7 (2.5, 2.9) 22 (13, 34) 145 falling falling trend -2.3 (-2.7, -1.9)
Alabama *** 2.9 (2.7, 3.1) 14 (9, 24) 180 falling falling trend -2.2 (-2.4, -1.9)
Delaware *** 3.3 (2.9, 3.8) 7 (1, 23) 42 falling falling trend -2.2 (-2.9, -1.5)
Indiana *** 2.3 (2.2, 2.5) 36 (25, 45) 183 falling falling trend -2.2 (-2.5, -2.0)
New Mexico *** 3.5 (3.1, 3.8) 5 (1, 14) 90 falling falling trend -2.2 (-2.6, -1.8)
Puerto Rico 8 *** 3.5 (3.3, 3.8) N/A 171 stable stable trend -2.2 (-7.6, 3.4)
Texas *** 3.3 (3.2, 3.4) 8 (3, 11) 936 falling falling trend -2.2 (-2.4, -2.1)
Mississippi *** 3.4 (3.1, 3.7) 6 (2, 13) 122 falling falling trend -2.1 (-2.5, -1.7)
Wisconsin *** 2.4 (2.3, 2.6) 31 (22, 42) 178 falling falling trend -2.1 (-2.8, -1.4)
Florida *** 2.6 (2.5, 2.6) 26 (21, 32) 785 falling falling trend -2.0 (-2.7, -1.4)
Massachusetts *** 2.9 (2.7, 3.0) 18 (11, 24) 246 falling falling trend -2.0 (-2.7, -1.3)
Virginia *** 2.8 (2.6, 2.9) 20 (13, 26) 277 falling falling trend -1.7 (-2.5, -1.0)
North Carolina *** 2.8 (2.7, 2.9) 19 (12, 25) 347 falling falling trend -1.6 (-2.3, -1.0)
Oklahoma *** 2.6 (2.4, 2.8) 23 (14, 37) 120 falling falling trend -1.4 (-2.1, -0.6)
California *** 3.8 (3.7, 3.9) 1 (1, 4) 1,669 falling falling trend -1.3 (-1.7, -0.8)
Vermont *** 2.1 (1.6, 2.6) 43 (19, 51) 18
*
*
Wyoming *** 1.7 (1.3, 2.2) 51 (30, 51) 12
*
*
Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 03/19/2024 6:47 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.

*** No Healthy People 2030 Objective for this cancer.
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 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