Return to Home Mortality > Table

Death Rates Table

Data Options
Comparison Options

Death Rate Report by State

Stomach, 2019-2023

All Races (includes Hispanic), Both Sexes, All Ages

Sorted by Name

State
 sort alphabetically by name descending
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 *** 2.7 (2.7, 2.7) N/A 11,007 falling falling trend -2.1 (-2.2, -1.9)
Alabama *** 2.9 (2.7, 3.1) 12 (6, 21) 183 falling falling trend -2.0 (-2.5, -1.5)
Alaska *** 3.9 (3.2, 4.6) 1 (1, 12) 29 stable stable trend -1.4 (-2.7, 0.1)
Arizona *** 2.4 (2.3, 2.6) 26 (19, 39) 225 falling falling trend -1.9 (-2.2, -1.5)
Arkansas *** 2.6 (2.4, 2.8) 22 (11, 37) 99 falling falling trend -2.1 (-2.7, -1.5)
California *** 3.7 (3.6, 3.8) 2 (1, 4) 1,662 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.5, -0.5)
Colorado *** 2.1 (2.0, 2.3) 39 (29, 46) 135 falling falling trend -2.2 (-2.8, -1.7)
Connecticut *** 2.6 (2.4, 2.8) 21 (11, 36) 124 falling falling trend -3.3 (-3.9, -2.8)
Delaware *** 3.2 (2.7, 3.6) 7 (1, 24) 41 falling falling trend -1.6 (-2.9, -0.2)
District of Columbia *** 3.4 (2.8, 4.1) 4 (1, 24) 23 falling falling trend -2.9 (-4.2, -1.7)
Florida *** 2.4 (2.3, 2.5) 29 (23, 37) 773 falling falling trend -2.1 (-2.5, -0.5)
Georgia *** 2.9 (2.8, 3.1) 11 (7, 18) 348 falling falling trend -1.8 (-2.2, -1.5)
Hawaii *** 3.3 (2.9, 3.7) 5 (1, 16) 68 falling falling trend -4.7 (-5.5, -4.1)
Idaho *** 1.8 (1.5, 2.1) 47 (37, 51) 37 falling falling trend -2.5 (-3.9, -1.1)
Illinois *** 2.8 (2.7, 3.0) 15 (9, 20) 435 falling falling trend -2.5 (-2.9, -2.2)
Indiana *** 2.1 (2.0, 2.3) 40 (31, 46) 174 falling falling trend -2.1 (-2.7, -1.5)
Iowa *** 1.8 (1.6, 2.0) 48 (41, 51) 72 falling falling trend -2.6 (-3.5, -1.9)
Kansas *** 2.2 (2.0, 2.5) 37 (20, 45) 80 stable stable trend -0.2 (-2.4, 6.6)
Kentucky *** 2.7 (2.5, 2.9) 18 (9, 30) 147 falling falling trend -1.5 (-2.1, -1.0)
Louisiana *** 3.2 (3.0, 3.4) 6 (3, 13) 176 falling falling trend -2.7 (-3.3, -2.1)
Maine *** 2.4 (2.1, 2.7) 28 (11, 45) 50 stable stable trend 2.3 (-1.5, 13.2)
Maryland *** 2.8 (2.7, 3.0) 14 (7, 22) 214 falling falling trend -2.1 (-2.7, -1.5)
Massachusetts *** 2.5 (2.3, 2.6) 24 (16, 36) 224 falling falling trend -2.4 (-3.0, -1.5)
Michigan *** 2.3 (2.2, 2.4) 35 (24, 41) 302 falling falling trend -2.7 (-3.0, -2.4)
Minnesota *** 2.3 (2.2, 2.5) 33 (21, 42) 165 falling falling trend -2.3 (-2.9, -1.6)
Mississippi *** 3.6 (3.3, 3.9) 3 (1, 7) 132 falling falling trend -1.5 (-2.0, -0.9)
Missouri *** 2.1 (1.9, 2.2) 42 (32, 47) 164 falling falling trend -2.5 (-3.0, -2.0)
Montana *** 1.9 (1.6, 2.2) 46 (28, 51) 27 falling falling trend -3.0 (-4.1, -2.0)
Nebraska *** 2.1 (1.8, 2.4) 41 (23, 49) 48 falling falling trend -1.5 (-2.6, -0.3)
Nevada *** 2.4 (2.2, 2.7) 25 (15, 42) 88 falling falling trend -2.6 (-3.4, -1.7)
New Hampshire *** 2.0 (1.7, 2.3) 43 (25, 51) 37 stable stable trend 0.0 (-3.3, 9.0)
New Jersey *** 2.7 (2.6, 2.9) 17 (10, 24) 317 falling falling trend -3.1 (-3.5, -2.8)
New Mexico *** 3.0 (2.7, 3.4) 9 (3, 21) 84 falling falling trend -2.3 (-3.0, -1.6)
New York *** 3.0 (2.9, 3.1) 10 (6, 15) 756 falling falling trend -2.8 (-3.2, -2.5)
North Carolina *** 2.6 (2.5, 2.7) 19 (14, 28) 337 falling falling trend -1.9 (-2.4, -1.5)
North Dakota *** 1.6 (1.3, 2.1) 50 (36, 51) 15
*
*
Ohio *** 2.3 (2.2, 2.4) 36 (26, 42) 344 falling falling trend -2.6 (-3.0, -2.2)
Oklahoma *** 2.6 (2.3, 2.8) 23 (12, 37) 118 falling falling trend -1.3 (-2.1, -0.5)
Oregon *** 2.2 (2.1, 2.4) 38 (23, 44) 122 falling falling trend -1.9 (-2.6, -1.1)
Pennsylvania *** 2.3 (2.2, 2.4) 32 (23, 40) 415 falling falling trend -3.0 (-3.4, -2.7)
Puerto Rico *** 3.0 (2.8, 3.2) N/A 164 stable stable trend -8.6 (-18.5, 2.5)
Rhode Island *** 2.7 (2.4, 3.2) 16 (4, 39) 39 falling falling trend -3.6 (-5.0, -2.5)
South Carolina *** 2.9 (2.7, 3.1) 13 (6, 22) 194 falling falling trend -2.6 (-3.3, -1.9)
South Dakota *** 1.9 (1.5, 2.3) 44 (24, 51) 20 falling falling trend -3.3 (-5.1, -1.7)
Tennessee *** 2.4 (2.3, 2.6) 27 (18, 39) 206 falling falling trend -2.3 (-2.9, -1.8)
Texas *** 3.2 (3.1, 3.2) 8 (4, 10) 948 falling falling trend -1.5 (-1.9, -0.2)
Utah *** 1.9 (1.7, 2.1) 45 (36, 51) 54 falling falling trend -2.3 (-3.6, -0.9)
Vermont *** 2.4 (1.9, 2.9) 31 (7, 50) 20 stable stable trend -0.1 (-13.3, 12.8)
Virginia *** 2.6 (2.5, 2.7) 20 (14, 30) 269 falling falling trend -1.7 (-2.1, -1.0)
Washington *** 2.4 (2.2, 2.5) 30 (20, 40) 214 falling falling trend -2.3 (-2.9, -1.7)
West Virginia *** 1.7 (1.5, 2.0) 49 (40, 51) 44 falling falling trend -6.5 (-20.9, -3.6)
Wisconsin *** 2.3 (2.1, 2.5) 34 (22, 42) 177 falling falling trend -2.3 (-2.9, -1.8)
Wyoming *** 1.6 (1.2, 2.1) 51 (32, 51) 12
*
*

Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 02/18/2026 7:11 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 (20 age groups: <1, 1-4, 5-9, ... , 80-84, 85-89, 90+).

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.

When displaying county information, the CI*Rank for the state is not shown because it's not comparable. To see the state CI*Rank please view the statistics at the US By State level.

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

Healthy People 2030 Objectives provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

* 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).

Data for United States does not include Puerto Rico.

CI*Rank data for Puerto Rico is not available.

Return to Top