Return to Home Mortality > Table

Death Rates Table

Data Options

Death Rate Report by State

Colon & Rectum, 2016-2020

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

Sorted by Count
State
 sort alphabetically by name ascending
Met Healthy People Objective of 8.9?
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 ascending
Recent Trend
Recent 5-Year Trend in Death Rates
(95% Confidence Interval)
 sort by trend descending
United States No 13.1 (13.1, 13.2) N/A 52,152 falling falling trend -1.9 (-2.1, -1.8)
California No 12.1 (11.9, 12.2) 41 (35, 45) 5,333 falling falling trend -2.1 (-2.2, -2.1)
Texas No 13.7 (13.5, 13.9) 21 (15, 26) 3,927 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.6, -0.7)
Florida No 12.4 (12.2, 12.6) 35 (31, 41) 3,892 falling falling trend -2.2 (-2.3, -2.1)
New York No 11.9 (11.7, 12.1) 44 (37, 47) 2,948 falling falling trend -2.9 (-3.2, -2.7)
Pennsylvania No 13.7 (13.5, 14.0) 22 (15, 27) 2,431 falling falling trend -2.5 (-2.7, -2.3)
Ohio No 14.5 (14.2, 14.8) 12 (6, 17) 2,178 falling falling trend -2.1 (-2.4, -1.7)
Illinois No 14.0 (13.7, 14.2) 18 (12, 24) 2,158 falling falling trend -2.7 (-2.9, -2.5)
Michigan No 13.4 (13.1, 13.7) 25 (18, 31) 1,719 stable stable trend -0.1 (-2.8, 2.7)
Georgia No 14.1 (13.7, 14.4) 17 (11, 24) 1,593 falling falling trend -3.1 (-4.5, -1.6)
North Carolina No 12.6 (12.3, 12.9) 33 (28, 40) 1,578 falling falling trend -2.4 (-2.6, -2.3)
New Jersey No 13.0 (12.7, 13.3) 30 (24, 35) 1,470 falling falling trend -3.0 (-3.1, -2.9)
Virginia No 13.2 (12.8, 13.5) 27 (21, 33) 1,318 falling falling trend -1.3 (-2.0, -0.5)
Tennessee No 14.8 (14.4, 15.1) 8 (6, 16) 1,219 falling falling trend -2.1 (-2.4, -1.8)
Indiana No 14.6 (14.3, 15.0) 10 (6, 17) 1,171 falling falling trend -1.4 (-1.9, -0.8)
Arizona No 12.2 (11.8, 12.5) 38 (32, 46) 1,105 falling falling trend -1.9 (-2.1, -1.8)
Missouri No 13.8 (13.4, 14.1) 20 (13, 28) 1,073 falling falling trend -2.5 (-2.8, -2.2)
Washington No 11.9 (11.5, 12.2) 43 (35, 48) 1,029 falling falling trend -2.2 (-2.4, -2.1)
Massachusetts No 11.0 (10.7, 11.3) 49 (46, 51) 960 falling falling trend -2.9 (-3.6, -2.1)
Maryland No 13.2 (12.9, 13.6) 26 (19, 33) 958 falling falling trend -1.5 (-2.1, -1.0)
Alabama No 14.7 (14.3, 15.1) 9 (6, 17) 902 falling falling trend -2.0 (-2.5, -1.5)
Wisconsin No 12.1 (11.8, 12.5) 39 (31, 47) 901 falling falling trend -2.2 (-2.6, -1.8)
Kentucky No 16.2 (15.7, 16.7) 4 (2, 6) 884 falling falling trend -1.9 (-2.1, -1.8)
South Carolina No 13.4 (13.0, 13.9) 24 (15, 32) 867 falling falling trend -2.5 (-2.8, -2.2)
Louisiana No 15.6 (15.2, 16.1) 5 (3, 8) 860 falling falling trend -2.4 (-2.6, -2.1)
Minnesota No 11.8 (11.4, 12.2) 46 (35, 48) 803 falling falling trend -2.5 (-2.6, -2.3)
Oklahoma No 16.3 (15.7, 16.8) 3 (2, 6) 754 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.3, -1.0)
Colorado No 11.3 (11.0, 11.7) 48 (41, 50) 688 falling falling trend -2.0 (-2.4, -1.6)
Puerto Rico 8 No 13.8 (13.3, 14.3) N/A 669 stable stable trend -3.9 (-9.4, 2.1)
Oregon No 12.3 (11.8, 12.7) 37 (29, 47) 647 falling falling trend -2.0 (-2.2, -1.9)
Mississippi No 17.6 (16.9, 18.2) 1 (1, 2) 632 falling falling trend -1.3 (-1.6, -0.9)
Iowa No 13.6 (13.1, 14.2) 23 (12, 31) 564 falling falling trend -2.3 (-2.4, -2.1)
Arkansas No 14.9 (14.3, 15.5) 7 (5, 17) 562 falling falling trend -3.0 (-4.2, -1.7)
Nevada No 14.6 (14.1, 15.2) 11 (5, 21) 511 falling falling trend -1.9 (-2.2, -1.5)
Kansas No 14.2 (13.6, 14.7) 15 (6, 26) 499 falling falling trend -1.8 (-2.0, -1.6)
Connecticut No 10.3 (9.9, 10.7) 51 (49, 51) 498 falling falling trend -1.8 (-2.8, -0.7)
West Virginia No 16.6 (15.9, 17.3) 2 (1, 6) 430 falling falling trend -1.6 (-1.8, -1.3)
Nebraska No 14.3 (13.6, 15.1) 13 (6, 26) 333 falling falling trend -2.2 (-2.4, -1.9)
New Mexico No 12.6 (11.9, 13.2) 34 (23, 46) 327 falling falling trend -1.6 (-1.8, -1.3)
Utah No 10.6 (10.1, 11.2) 50 (46, 51) 288 falling falling trend -2.1 (-2.4, -1.8)
Maine No 13.0 (12.3, 13.8) 29 (16, 43) 257 stable stable trend -0.6 (-3.5, 2.5)
Idaho No 12.6 (11.9, 13.3) 32 (22, 47) 252 falling falling trend -1.8 (-2.1, -1.6)
Hawaii 8 No 11.8 (11.1, 12.5) 45 (30, 50) 229 falling falling trend -1.8 (-2.1, -1.5)
New Hampshire No 12.1 (11.4, 12.9) 40 (26, 49) 221 falling falling trend -3.1 (-3.4, -2.8)
Montana No 12.0 (11.2, 12.9) 42 (25, 49) 171 falling falling trend -2.2 (-2.6, -1.9)
Delaware No 12.9 (12.0, 13.9) 31 (14, 46) 167 falling falling trend -2.9 (-3.3, -2.6)
Rhode Island No 11.6 (10.8, 12.5) 47 (30, 50) 165 falling falling trend -3.2 (-3.5, -3.0)
South Dakota No 14.3 (13.3, 15.4) 14 (5, 31) 159 falling falling trend -2.0 (-2.4, -1.7)
Vermont No 14.1 (13.0, 15.4) 16 (5, 35) 122 falling falling trend -2.4 (-2.8, -2.0)
North Dakota No 13.2 (12.1, 14.3) 28 (7, 47) 119 falling falling trend -2.3 (-2.7, -2.0)
Alaska No 14.9 (13.6, 16.4) 6 (2, 31) 99 falling falling trend -2.0 (-2.5, -1.5)
District of Columbia No 13.9 (12.7, 15.2) 19 (5, 41) 95 falling falling trend -2.8 (-3.2, -2.4)
Wyoming No 12.3 (11.1, 13.5) 36 (15, 50) 87 falling falling trend -3.0 (-3.6, -2.3)
Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 12/08/2022 5:17 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.

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