Return to Home Mortality > Table

Death Rates Table

Data Options

Death Rate Report by State

Liver & Bile Duct, 2018-2022

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

Sorted by Ruralurban
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 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 *** 6.6 (6.6, 6.6) N/A 28,305 falling falling trend -0.5 (-0.8, -0.2)
District of Columbia *** 8.8 (7.8, 9.8) 1 (1, 11) 61 stable stable trend -2.0 (-7.2, 0.3)
Puerto Rico 8 *** 6.7 (6.4, 7.0) N/A 351 stable stable trend -0.1 (-5.9, 6.0)
Alabama *** 7.1 (6.8, 7.4) 12 (8, 20) 483 stable stable trend -2.0 (-5.8, 1.8)
Alaska *** 7.4 (6.5, 8.3) 11 (1, 36) 55 rising rising trend 1.7 (0.6, 3.2)
Arizona *** 6.4 (6.2, 6.6) 25 (17, 35) 620 stable stable trend -0.6 (-3.0, 0.8)
Arkansas *** 7.7 (7.3, 8.1) 6 (4, 13) 306 rising rising trend 2.0 (1.5, 3.2)
California *** 7.6 (7.5, 7.7) 10 (6, 11) 3,533 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.9, -0.6)
Colorado *** 5.7 (5.4, 5.9) 41 (33, 47) 385 stable stable trend -0.9 (-4.4, 1.5)
Connecticut *** 5.8 (5.5, 6.1) 37 (27, 46) 290 stable stable trend 0.5 (-3.2, 1.8)
Delaware *** 6.4 (5.8, 7.0) 26 (11, 44) 93 stable stable trend -3.4 (-10.1, 2.1)
Florida *** 6.1 (6.0, 6.3) 33 (26, 37) 2,073 falling falling trend -1.6 (-3.4, -0.4)
Georgia *** 6.6 (6.4, 6.8) 20 (15, 29) 818 stable stable trend 0.0 (-1.3, 1.0)
Hawaii 8 *** 7.6 (7.1, 8.2) 7 (3, 17) 158 rising rising trend 0.5 (0.2, 1.0)
Idaho *** 5.5 (5.1, 6.0) 44 (29, 50) 127 stable stable trend -0.8 (-6.6, 2.8)
Illinois *** 6.4 (6.3, 6.6) 23 (18, 32) 1,038 stable stable trend -0.2 (-1.3, 0.6)
Indiana *** 6.3 (6.0, 6.5) 27 (19, 37) 543 rising rising trend 2.0 (1.7, 2.4)
Iowa *** 5.5 (5.1, 5.8) 45 (35, 50) 234 stable stable trend -1.4 (-5.1, 1.7)
Kansas *** 6.0 (5.6, 6.3) 35 (22, 45) 224 stable stable trend -2.8 (-8.0, 2.8)
Kentucky *** 6.8 (6.5, 7.1) 18 (10, 26) 402 rising rising trend 2.1 (1.8, 2.5)
Louisiana *** 8.6 (8.3, 8.9) 2 (1, 6) 519 stable stable trend -0.9 (-4.8, 1.6)
Maine *** 5.2 (4.7, 5.6) 48 (36, 51) 113 stable stable trend 0.2 (-4.6, 1.7)
Maryland *** 6.1 (5.9, 6.4) 32 (21, 39) 488 falling falling trend -1.3 (-2.8, -0.2)
Massachusetts *** 6.2 (6.0, 6.5) 29 (21, 38) 583 stable stable trend -0.9 (-3.3, 0.5)
Michigan *** 6.1 (5.9, 6.3) 34 (24, 39) 842 stable stable trend 0.4 (-1.9, 1.5)
Minnesota *** 5.6 (5.4, 5.9) 42 (34, 48) 408 stable stable trend -3.1 (-6.2, 0.9)
Mississippi *** 8.3 (7.9, 8.7) 5 (1, 8) 316 rising rising trend 1.7 (1.3, 2.1)
Missouri *** 6.8 (6.5, 7.1) 17 (11, 25) 566 stable stable trend 1.3 (-0.5, 2.1)
Montana *** 5.8 (5.3, 6.4) 38 (20, 49) 93 rising rising trend 1.9 (1.4, 2.5)
Nebraska *** 4.7 (4.3, 5.1) 50 (46, 51) 115 rising rising trend 1.8 (1.3, 2.5)
Nevada *** 6.6 (6.2, 6.9) 21 (11, 35) 251 stable stable trend -4.0 (-8.4, 1.4)
New Hampshire *** 5.3 (4.9, 5.8) 46 (35, 51) 109 rising rising trend 1.5 (0.9, 2.2)
New Jersey *** 5.6 (5.4, 5.8) 43 (35, 47) 681 stable stable trend -1.4 (-3.9, 0.0)
New Mexico *** 8.4 (7.9, 8.9) 4 (1, 8) 243 stable stable trend -3.9 (-9.8, 2.3)
New York *** 5.3 (5.2, 5.4) 47 (43, 49) 1,407 falling falling trend -2.3 (-3.0, -1.7)
North Carolina *** 6.8 (6.6, 7.0) 16 (11, 23) 932 stable stable trend 0.0 (-1.3, 0.8)
North Dakota *** 4.7 (4.0, 5.3) 51 (41, 51) 44 rising rising trend 1.4 (0.6, 2.4)
Ohio *** 6.2 (6.0, 6.4) 31 (23, 37) 994 stable stable trend -1.0 (-3.6, 0.7)
Oklahoma *** 7.6 (7.2, 7.9) 9 (5, 12) 381 stable stable trend -1.5 (-5.8, 3.2)
Oregon *** 7.0 (6.7, 7.3) 13 (9, 23) 410 stable stable trend 0.4 (-1.3, 1.6)
Pennsylvania *** 6.4 (6.2, 6.6) 24 (19, 32) 1,195 stable stable trend -0.3 (-3.0, 1.8)
Rhode Island *** 7.6 (7.0, 8.3) 8 (2, 20) 113 rising rising trend 2.3 (1.8, 2.9)
South Carolina *** 6.8 (6.5, 7.0) 19 (11, 27) 485 stable stable trend -0.5 (-3.2, 1.9)
South Dakota *** 6.3 (5.6, 7.0) 28 (11, 46) 73 rising rising trend 3.0 (2.3, 3.9)
Tennessee *** 6.9 (6.7, 7.2) 14 (10, 22) 632 stable stable trend 0.0 (-3.6, 2.0)
Texas *** 8.5 (8.3, 8.6) 3 (1, 6) 2,620 stable stable trend 0.4 (-1.1, 1.2)
Utah *** 5.1 (4.8, 5.5) 49 (39, 51) 152 rising rising trend 2.3 (1.8, 2.9)
Vermont *** 5.7 (5.0, 6.4) 40 (17, 51) 56 rising rising trend 2.1 (1.2, 3.2)
Virginia *** 6.2 (6.0, 6.4) 30 (21, 37) 681 stable stable trend 0.9 (-0.4, 1.7)
Washington *** 6.9 (6.6, 7.1) 15 (10, 23) 661 stable stable trend 0.0 (-0.8, 0.7)
West Virginia *** 6.5 (6.1, 7.0) 22 (11, 37) 178 rising rising trend 2.3 (1.9, 2.9)
Wisconsin *** 5.8 (5.5, 6.0) 39 (31, 45) 466 stable stable trend 0.4 (-2.2, 1.5)
Wyoming *** 5.9 (5.1, 6.7) 36 (12, 50) 47 rising rising trend 1.7 (0.9, 2.8)
Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 10/10/2024 12:40 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 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.

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