Return to Home Mortality > Table

Death Rates Table

Data Options

Death Rate Report by State

Colon & Rectum, 2018-2022

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

Sorted by Rate

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 ascending
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 No 12.9 (12.8, 12.9) N/A 52,325 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.7, -0.8)
Mississippi No 17.6 (16.9, 18.2) 1 (1, 2) 634 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.6, -0.9)
West Virginia No 16.7 (16.0, 17.4) 2 (1, 4) 431 falling falling trend -1.5 (-1.8, -1.2)
Oklahoma No 16.2 (15.7, 16.7) 3 (2, 5) 757 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.2, -0.9)
Kentucky No 16.1 (15.6, 16.6) 4 (2, 5) 897 stable stable trend -0.8 (-1.5, 1.2)
Louisiana No 15.2 (14.7, 15.6) 5 (4, 11) 842 falling falling trend -2.2 (-2.6, -2.0)
Arkansas No 15.0 (14.5, 15.6) 6 (4, 13) 573 falling falling trend -1.4 (-1.6, -1.2)
Nebraska No 14.7 (14.0, 15.5) 7 (4, 20) 348 stable stable trend 0.4 (-2.1, 3.4)
Tennessee No 14.7 (14.4, 15.1) 8 (5, 13) 1,243 falling falling trend -1.7 (-1.8, -1.5)
Indiana No 14.6 (14.2, 15.0) 9 (5, 14) 1,189 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.5, -0.4)
Wyoming No 14.4 (13.1, 15.8) 10 (3, 32) 102 rising rising trend 7.2 (0.3, 14.3)
Alabama No 14.4 (14.0, 14.8) 11 (6, 19) 913 falling falling trend -1.8 (-3.4, -1.4)
Missouri No 14.1 (13.8, 14.5) 12 (8, 21) 1,106 stable stable trend 1.6 (-1.7, 3.4)
Alaska No 14.0 (12.7, 15.4) 13 (4, 37) 95 falling falling trend -2.1 (-2.5, -1.5)
Kansas No 14.0 (13.4, 14.5) 14 (7, 25) 497 falling falling trend -1.7 (-1.9, -1.5)
Ohio No 13.9 (13.6, 14.2) 15 (10, 23) 2,118 falling falling trend -2.0 (-2.3, -0.9)
Texas No 13.9 (13.7, 14.0) 16 (11, 22) 4,085 stable stable trend -0.4 (-0.8, 0.1)
Georgia No 13.8 (13.5, 14.1) 17 (11, 24) 1,623 falling falling trend -1.7 (-3.5, -1.4)
Nevada No 13.7 (13.2, 14.3) 18 (9, 28) 497 falling falling trend -1.8 (-2.1, -1.5)
South Carolina No 13.7 (13.3, 14.1) 19 (10, 25) 901 stable stable trend 1.3 (-1.6, 3.2)
District of Columbia No 13.7 (12.4, 15.0) 20 (5, 42) 90 falling falling trend -2.7 (-3.1, -2.3)
South Dakota No 13.6 (12.6, 14.6) 21 (6, 36) 154 falling falling trend -2.0 (-2.4, -1.7)
Iowa No 13.5 (13.0, 14.1) 22 (11, 29) 562 falling falling trend -2.2 (-2.4, -2.1)
Illinois No 13.5 (13.2, 13.8) 23 (15, 26) 2,114 falling falling trend -1.9 (-2.5, -0.4)
Michigan No 13.4 (13.1, 13.7) 24 (15, 27) 1,738 stable stable trend -0.3 (-1.3, 1.4)
Pennsylvania No 13.1 (12.8, 13.3) 25 (21, 30) 2,346 falling falling trend -2.5 (-2.6, -2.3)
Virginia No 12.9 (12.6, 13.2) 26 (21, 34) 1,335 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.7, -0.5)
Puerto Rico 8 No 12.8 (12.3, 13.3) N/A 648 stable stable trend -3.7 (-10.9, 4.0)
Vermont No 12.8 (11.7, 13.9) 27 (10, 46) 116 falling falling trend -2.4 (-2.9, -2.0)
Maryland No 12.7 (12.4, 13.1) 28 (23, 36) 962 falling falling trend -1.6 (-2.2, -0.8)
North Carolina No 12.7 (12.4, 13.0) 29 (24, 35) 1,619 falling falling trend -1.4 (-1.9, -0.2)
Maine No 12.6 (11.9, 13.3) 30 (18, 43) 258 stable stable trend -0.8 (-2.6, 3.0)
Idaho No 12.4 (11.8, 13.1) 31 (21, 45) 267 falling falling trend -1.7 (-2.0, -1.4)
North Dakota No 12.4 (11.4, 13.5) 32 (13, 48) 116 falling falling trend -2.4 (-2.8, -2.1)
Arizona No 12.4 (12.1, 12.7) 33 (26, 40) 1,138 falling falling trend -0.8 (-1.2, -0.1)
Delaware No 12.4 (11.5, 13.3) 34 (19, 46) 169 falling falling trend -2.8 (-3.2, -2.5)
New Mexico No 12.3 (11.7, 13.0) 35 (23, 45) 332 falling falling trend -1.8 (-3.8, -1.5)
Oregon No 12.2 (11.7, 12.6) 36 (28, 44) 659 falling falling trend -2.0 (-2.2, -1.8)
Montana No 12.1 (11.3, 13.0) 37 (21, 48) 177 falling falling trend -2.1 (-2.4, -1.7)
Florida No 12.1 (11.9, 12.2) 38 (32, 42) 3,896 falling falling trend -1.7 (-2.4, -0.5)
California No 12.0 (11.9, 12.1) 39 (33, 43) 5,404 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.7, -0.3)
Washington No 11.9 (11.6, 12.2) 40 (32, 45) 1,065 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.5, 1.6)
Hawaii 8 No 11.9 (11.2, 12.6) 41 (26, 48) 239 falling falling trend -1.7 (-2.1, -1.3)
New Jersey No 11.8 (11.5, 12.1) 42 (33, 45) 1,396 falling falling trend -3.3 (-4.5, -3.1)
Wisconsin No 11.7 (11.3, 12.1) 43 (34, 47) 887 falling falling trend -2.1 (-2.5, -1.6)
Minnesota No 11.4 (11.1, 11.8) 44 (38, 48) 802 falling falling trend -2.4 (-2.6, -2.2)
Colorado No 11.3 (11.0, 11.7) 45 (38, 48) 713 stable stable trend -1.2 (-1.7, 0.0)
New Hampshire No 11.1 (10.4, 11.8) 46 (36, 51) 213 falling falling trend -3.1 (-3.4, -2.8)
Rhode Island No 11.0 (10.3, 11.8) 47 (34, 51) 163 falling falling trend -3.3 (-3.5, -3.0)
New York No 11.0 (10.8, 11.2) 48 (45, 49) 2,824 falling falling trend -3.0 (-3.2, -2.7)
Utah No 10.5 (10.0, 11.0) 49 (45, 51) 298 falling falling trend -2.0 (-2.3, -1.6)
Connecticut No 10.4 (10.0, 10.8) 50 (46, 51) 500 falling falling trend -1.5 (-2.5, -0.1)
Massachusetts No 10.3 (10.0, 10.6) 51 (48, 51) 922 falling falling trend -3.1 (-3.6, -1.6)
Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 10/22/2024 3:59 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.

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.



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