Return to Home Mortality > Table

Death Rates Table

Data Options

Death Rate Report by State

Colon & Rectum, 2018

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

Sorted by Rate
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 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 *** 13.1 (13.0, 13.2) N/A 52,163 falling falling trend -1.8 (-2.1, -1.6)
West Virginia *** 17.8 (16.2, 19.6) 1 (1, 7) 451 falling falling trend -1.5 (-1.8, -1.3)
Mississippi *** 17.2 (15.9, 18.7) 2 (1, 8) 620 falling falling trend -1.3 (-1.7, -0.9)
Kentucky *** 16.3 (15.3, 17.5) 3 (1, 12) 898 falling falling trend -2.0 (-2.2, -1.8)
Oklahoma *** 15.8 (14.6, 17.0) 4 (1, 18) 733 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.3, -1.0)
Louisiana *** 15.4 (14.3, 16.5) 5 (2, 20) 847 falling falling trend -2.4 (-2.7, -2.1)
Nebraska *** 15.2 (13.6, 16.9) 6 (1, 31) 356 falling falling trend -2.3 (-2.5, -2.0)
Alabama *** 15.1 (14.1, 16.1) 7 (3, 24) 926 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.3, -0.9)
South Dakota *** 14.9 (12.6, 17.5) 8 (1, 45) 166 falling falling trend -2.0 (-2.4, -1.6)
Missouri *** 14.7 (13.8, 15.6) 9 (3, 26) 1,133 falling falling trend -2.1 (-2.3, -2.0)
Puerto Rico 8 *** 14.7 (13.6, 15.8) N/A 699 stable stable trend -2.4 (-7.9, 3.4)
Kansas *** 14.6 (13.4, 16.0) 10 (2, 33) 514 falling falling trend -1.8 (-2.0, -1.6)
Ohio *** 14.6 (14.0, 15.3) 11 (5, 23) 2,183 falling falling trend -1.6 (-2.4, -0.9)
Tennessee *** 14.4 (13.6, 15.3) 12 (4, 27) 1,196 falling falling trend -2.2 (-2.5, -1.8)
Iowa *** 14.4 (13.2, 15.6) 13 (3, 34) 597 falling falling trend -2.3 (-2.4, -2.1)
Alaska *** 14.3 (11.3, 17.7) 14 (1, 51) 90 falling falling trend -2.2 (-2.7, -1.6)
Indiana *** 14.2 (13.3, 15.0) 15 (5, 31) 1,137 falling falling trend -1.4 (-2.3, -0.6)
Georgia *** 14.1 (13.4, 14.8) 16 (7, 30) 1,591 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.8, -0.4)
Illinois *** 14.0 (13.4, 14.7) 17 (7, 28) 2,177 falling falling trend -2.8 (-3.1, -2.5)
Pennsylvania *** 14.0 (13.4, 14.5) 18 (8, 29) 2,466 falling falling trend -2.5 (-2.7, -2.2)
Arkansas *** 13.7 (12.6, 15.0) 19 (5, 42) 520 falling falling trend -3.7 (-5.9, -1.4)
Texas *** 13.6 (13.2, 14.1) 20 (13, 31) 3,901 stable stable trend -0.8 (-1.9, 0.4)
Maryland *** 13.6 (12.7, 14.5) 21 (8, 38) 982 falling falling trend -1.3 (-2.2, -0.5)
Nevada *** 13.3 (12.1, 14.7) 22 (6, 45) 461 falling falling trend -1.7 (-2.1, -1.3)
Idaho *** 13.3 (11.8, 15.1) 23 (4, 47) 272 falling falling trend -1.8 (-2.1, -1.5)
Virginia *** 13.3 (12.5, 14.0) 24 (12, 40) 1,328 stable stable trend -1.1 (-2.3, 0.0)
Vermont *** 13.1 (10.8, 15.9) 25 (2, 51) 114 falling falling trend -2.4 (-2.9, -2.0)
North Dakota *** 13.1 (10.8, 15.8) 26 (2, 51) 116 falling falling trend -2.4 (-2.8, -2.0)
Wyoming *** 13.1 (10.4, 16.2) 27 (2, 51) 90 falling falling trend -3.3 (-4.0, -2.6)
Michigan *** 13.0 (12.4, 13.7) 28 (16, 41) 1,671 falling falling trend -2.4 (-2.5, -2.3)
Delaware *** 13.0 (11.0, 15.2) 29 (4, 50) 167 falling falling trend -3.0 (-3.4, -2.6)
South Carolina *** 13.0 (12.1, 13.9) 30 (13, 45) 828 falling falling trend -2.6 (-3.0, -2.2)
New Jersey *** 12.9 (12.3, 13.6) 31 (17, 42) 1,470 falling falling trend -3.0 (-3.1, -2.9)
New Mexico *** 12.9 (11.5, 14.4) 32 (8, 49) 334 falling falling trend -1.4 (-1.7, -1.2)
Maine *** 12.7 (11.2, 14.5) 33 (7, 49) 252 falling falling trend -3.1 (-3.4, -2.9)
Florida *** 12.6 (12.2, 13.0) 34 (24, 42) 3,976 stable stable trend -0.7 (-2.3, 0.9)
North Carolina *** 12.6 (12.0, 13.2) 35 (21, 44) 1,577 falling falling trend -2.5 (-2.7, -2.3)
Wisconsin *** 12.5 (11.7, 13.3) 36 (20, 46) 933 falling falling trend -2.0 (-2.5, -1.5)
District of Columbia *** 12.5 (9.9, 15.4) 37 (3, 51) 86 falling falling trend -2.8 (-3.3, -2.3)
Arizona *** 12.4 (11.7, 13.2) 38 (22, 47) 1,120 falling falling trend -1.9 (-2.1, -1.7)
Oregon *** 12.3 (11.4, 13.3) 39 (18, 48) 656 falling falling trend -2.0 (-2.2, -1.8)
New Hampshire *** 12.3 (10.7, 14.1) 40 (8, 51) 227 falling falling trend -3.1 (-3.5, -2.8)
Rhode Island *** 12.3 (10.5, 14.4) 41 (6, 51) 175 falling falling trend -3.3 (-3.5, -3.0)
California *** 12.1 (11.8, 12.5) 42 (31, 45) 5,387 falling falling trend -2.2 (-2.2, -2.1)
Minnesota *** 11.9 (11.1, 12.8) 43 (25, 49) 815 falling falling trend -2.5 (-2.7, -2.3)
Montana *** 11.8 (10.0, 13.9) 44 (10, 51) 164 falling falling trend -2.2 (-2.6, -1.8)
New York *** 11.6 (11.2, 12.0) 45 (36, 49) 2,855 falling falling trend -2.9 (-3.2, -2.6)
Washington *** 11.4 (10.7, 12.1) 46 (32, 50) 996 falling falling trend -2.2 (-2.4, -2.1)
Massachusetts *** 11.1 (10.4, 11.9) 47 (38, 51) 984 falling falling trend -4.0 (-4.2, -3.7)
Colorado *** 11.0 (10.2, 11.9) 48 (35, 51) 666 falling falling trend -2.1 (-2.6, -1.6)
Hawaii 8 *** 10.9 (9.4, 12.5) 49 (25, 51) 210 falling falling trend -1.9 (-2.2, -1.5)
Connecticut *** 10.0 (9.1, 11.0) 50 (43, 51) 482 falling falling trend -2.7 (-3.7, -1.7)
Utah *** 9.8 (8.6, 11.0) 51 (43, 51) 267 falling falling trend -2.2 (-2.6, -1.9)
Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 09/19/2020 5:11 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.

*** No Healthy People 2020 Objective for this cancer.
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.



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