Return to Home Mortality > Table

Death Rates Table

Data Options

Death Rate Report by State

Colon & Rectum, 2013-2017

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

Sorted by Rate
State
 sort alphabetically by name ascending
Met Healthy People Objective of 14.5?
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 Yes 13.9 (13.9, 14.0) N/A 52,139 falling falling trend -1.8 (-2.1, -1.4)
Connecticut Yes 11.0 (10.6, 11.5) 51 (48, 51) 514 falling falling trend -2.7 (-4.1, -1.2)
Utah Yes 11.2 (10.6, 11.8) 50 (46, 51) 272 falling falling trend -2.2 (-2.6, -1.8)
Wyoming Yes 11.8 (10.7, 13.1) 49 (29, 51) 78 falling falling trend -3.5 (-4.2, -2.7)
Massachusetts Yes 11.9 (11.6, 12.3) 48 (43, 50) 999 falling falling trend -4.1 (-4.4, -3.8)
Colorado Yes 12.0 (11.6, 12.4) 47 (41, 50) 669 falling falling trend -2.0 (-2.6, -1.3)
Washington Yes 12.4 (12.0, 12.7) 46 (37, 49) 993 falling falling trend -2.4 (-2.7, -2.2)
Minnesota Yes 12.4 (12.0, 12.8) 45 (36, 49) 797 falling falling trend -2.5 (-2.7, -2.3)
Hawaii 8 Yes 12.4 (11.7, 13.2) 44 (31, 50) 227 falling falling trend -1.8 (-2.2, -1.4)
Rhode Island Yes 12.5 (11.6, 13.4) 43 (28, 50) 172 falling falling trend -3.3 (-3.6, -3.0)
New Hampshire Yes 12.6 (11.9, 13.4) 42 (27, 49) 216 falling falling trend -3.2 (-3.5, -2.8)
California Yes 12.7 (12.5, 12.9) 41 (36, 45) 5,269 falling falling trend -2.2 (-2.2, -2.1)
Arizona Yes 12.8 (12.4, 13.1) 40 (32, 46) 1,043 falling falling trend -2.0 (-2.2, -1.8)
Maine Yes 12.8 (12.1, 13.6) 39 (26, 49) 243 falling falling trend -3.2 (-3.5, -2.9)
Idaho Yes 13.0 (12.2, 13.8) 38 (24, 48) 237 falling falling trend -1.9 (-2.1, -1.6)
New York Yes 13.0 (12.8, 13.2) 37 (31, 42) 3,120 falling falling trend -2.8 (-3.2, -2.4)
Florida Yes 13.1 (12.9, 13.3) 36 (31, 41) 3,789 stable stable trend -0.9 (-3.2, 1.5)
Wisconsin Yes 13.1 (12.7, 13.5) 35 (28, 44) 931 falling falling trend -2.0 (-2.6, -1.4)
Oregon Yes 13.1 (12.7, 13.6) 34 (27, 45) 647 falling falling trend -2.0 (-2.2, -1.8)
Montana Yes 13.3 (12.4, 14.2) 33 (19, 48) 178 falling falling trend -2.2 (-2.6, -1.8)
North Carolina Yes 13.4 (13.1, 13.7) 32 (26, 38) 1,561 falling falling trend -2.5 (-2.7, -2.3)
Delaware Yes 13.5 (12.5, 14.4) 31 (16, 47) 159 falling falling trend -3.0 (-3.4, -2.6)
North Dakota Yes 13.5 (12.4, 14.7) 30 (13, 48) 118 falling falling trend -2.4 (-2.8, -2.0)
New Mexico Yes 13.6 (12.9, 14.2) 29 (20, 43) 335 falling falling trend -1.4 (-1.7, -1.2)
Virginia Yes 13.7 (13.4, 14.1) 28 (23, 34) 1,274 stable stable trend -1.1 (-2.6, 0.4)
Maryland Yes 13.8 (13.4, 14.2) 27 (21, 35) 937 falling falling trend -1.5 (-2.6, -0.5)
Michigan Yes 14.0 (13.7, 14.3) 26 (21, 31) 1,725 falling falling trend -2.4 (-2.5, -2.3)
New Jersey Yes 14.1 (13.7, 14.4) 25 (20, 31) 1,531 falling falling trend -3.0 (-3.2, -2.9)
Texas Yes 14.1 (13.9, 14.3) 24 (20, 29) 3,705 stable stable trend -1.0 (-2.3, 0.4)
South Carolina Yes 14.3 (13.9, 14.8) 23 (16, 29) 848 falling falling trend -2.1 (-2.3, -1.8)
Iowa No 14.6 (14.1, 15.2) 22 (11, 29) 582 falling falling trend -2.3 (-2.5, -2.1)
Missouri No 14.6 (14.3, 15.1) 21 (13, 26) 1,091 falling falling trend -2.6 (-2.9, -2.2)
Nebraska No 14.7 (14.0, 15.4) 20 (9, 31) 325 falling falling trend -2.3 (-2.6, -2.0)
Kansas No 14.8 (14.2, 15.4) 19 (10, 27) 501 falling falling trend -1.8 (-2.0, -1.6)
Vermont No 14.8 (13.7, 16.1) 18 (5, 36) 122 stable stable trend 3.0 (-1.9, 8.1)
Pennsylvania No 14.9 (14.7, 15.2) 17 (12, 22) 2,560 falling falling trend -2.5 (-2.7, -2.3)
Puerto Rico 8 No 15.0 (14.5, 15.5) N/A 693
*
*
Illinois No 15.0 (14.8, 15.3) 16 (11, 21) 2,233 falling falling trend -2.8 (-3.1, -2.5)
Georgia No 15.1 (14.7, 15.4) 15 (10, 22) 1,557 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.8, -0.1)
Indiana No 15.3 (14.9, 15.7) 14 (8, 20) 1,170 falling falling trend -1.2 (-2.2, -0.2)
Ohio No 15.4 (15.2, 15.7) 13 (8, 17) 2,228 falling falling trend -2.6 (-2.8, -2.4)
Tennessee No 15.5 (15.1, 15.9) 12 (8, 19) 1,200 falling falling trend -2.1 (-2.5, -1.8)
District of Columbia No 15.5 (14.1, 16.9) 11 (2, 32) 101 falling falling trend -2.7 (-3.2, -2.2)
Alaska No 15.5 (14.1, 17.1) 10 (2, 33) 94 falling falling trend -2.2 (-2.8, -1.6)
Alabama No 15.9 (15.5, 16.4) 9 (5, 14) 925 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.3, -0.8)
South Dakota No 16.1 (15.0, 17.2) 8 (2, 22) 169 falling falling trend -2.0 (-2.4, -1.6)
Arkansas No 16.4 (15.8, 17.0) 7 (3, 12) 590 falling falling trend -2.8 (-5.0, -0.6)
Nevada No 16.6 (16.0, 17.3) 6 (2, 11) 518 falling falling trend -1.6 (-1.9, -1.2)
Kentucky No 16.7 (16.2, 17.2) 5 (3, 10) 866 falling falling trend -2.0 (-2.2, -1.8)
Louisiana No 16.9 (16.4, 17.5) 4 (2, 9) 885 falling falling trend -2.4 (-2.7, -2.0)
Oklahoma No 17.0 (16.5, 17.6) 3 (2, 8) 757 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.3, -0.9)
West Virginia No 17.8 (17.1, 18.6) 2 (1, 6) 449 falling falling trend -1.6 (-1.8, -1.3)
Mississippi No 18.3 (17.7, 19.0) 1 (1, 3) 628 falling falling trend -1.3 (-1.7, -0.8)
Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 08/12/2020 2:57 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 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 1969-2017 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.

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.

* 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.

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.

Return to Top