Return to Home Mortality > Table

Death Rates Table

Data Options

Death Rate Report by State

Liver & Bile Duct, 2014-2018

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 *** 6.6 (6.6, 6.7) N/A 26,363 rising rising trend 0.6 (0.1, 1.0)
District of Columbia *** 8.7 (7.8, 9.8) 1 (1, 8) 61 rising rising trend 1.7 (1.0, 2.5)
Louisiana *** 8.7 (8.4, 9.1) 2 (1, 4) 499 rising rising trend 2.2 (1.9, 2.6)
Texas *** 8.3 (8.1, 8.4) 3 (1, 6) 2,352 rising rising trend 1.8 (1.6, 2.0)
Hawaii 8 *** 8.2 (7.6, 8.8) 4 (1, 8) 155 rising rising trend 0.7 (0.3, 1.2)
New Mexico *** 8.1 (7.6, 8.6) 5 (1, 8) 217 rising rising trend 2.3 (1.8, 2.8)
Mississippi *** 8.1 (7.7, 8.5) 6 (1, 8) 294 rising rising trend 1.8 (1.4, 2.2)
California *** 7.7 (7.6, 7.9) 7 (4, 8) 3,394 stable stable trend 0.0 (-1.1, 1.0)
Rhode Island *** 7.2 (6.6, 7.9) 8 (4, 27) 101 rising rising trend 2.5 (1.9, 3.1)
Alabama *** 7.1 (6.8, 7.4) 9 (7, 18) 446 rising rising trend 2.1 (1.7, 2.4)
Oklahoma *** 7.1 (6.7, 7.4) 10 (7, 20) 338 rising rising trend 3.3 (2.9, 3.7)
Tennessee *** 6.9 (6.7, 7.2) 11 (8, 21) 588 rising rising trend 2.8 (2.4, 3.1)
Washington *** 6.9 (6.7, 7.2) 12 (8, 20) 610 stable stable trend 0.7 (-0.8, 2.1)
Arkansas *** 6.9 (6.5, 7.2) 13 (8, 26) 261 rising rising trend 1.8 (1.0, 2.5)
Kentucky *** 6.8 (6.5, 7.2) 14 (8, 25) 379 rising rising trend 3.5 (2.2, 4.8)
Oregon *** 6.8 (6.5, 7.1) 15 (8, 26) 376 rising rising trend 4.0 (3.6, 4.4)
South Carolina *** 6.7 (6.4, 7.0) 16 (9, 28) 435 rising rising trend 2.4 (2.0, 2.7)
Puerto Rico 8 *** 6.7 (6.4, 7.0) N/A 322 stable stable trend -2.1 (-9.2, 5.6)
Delaware *** 6.6 (6.0, 7.3) 17 (8, 40) 87 rising rising trend 3.0 (2.2, 3.7)
North Carolina *** 6.6 (6.4, 6.8) 18 (11, 27) 836 stable stable trend -0.6 (-3.8, 2.6)
West Virginia *** 6.6 (6.1, 7.0) 19 (8, 36) 174 rising rising trend 2.4 (1.9, 2.9)
Maryland *** 6.5 (6.2, 6.8) 20 (12, 32) 478 stable stable trend -1.1 (-4.1, 2.0)
Georgia *** 6.5 (6.3, 6.7) 21 (14, 30) 734 rising rising trend 3.1 (2.6, 3.6)
Nevada *** 6.5 (6.1, 6.9) 22 (10, 37) 223 rising rising trend 1.8 (1.3, 2.3)
Illinois *** 6.4 (6.2, 6.6) 23 (15, 31) 990 rising rising trend 2.0 (1.7, 2.4)
Massachusetts *** 6.4 (6.1, 6.6) 24 (15, 34) 558 stable stable trend -1.2 (-4.7, 2.3)
Pennsylvania *** 6.4 (6.2, 6.5) 25 (17, 32) 1,131 rising rising trend 2.4 (2.1, 2.6)
Alaska *** 6.3 (5.5, 7.3) 26 (7, 47) 45 rising rising trend 1.4 (0.1, 2.6)
Missouri *** 6.3 (6.1, 6.6) 27 (16, 35) 499 stable stable trend 3.0 (-1.2, 7.4)
Arizona *** 6.3 (6.0, 6.5) 28 (17, 36) 556 stable stable trend -1.9 (-5.6, 2.0)
Florida *** 6.3 (6.1, 6.4) 29 (21, 33) 1,911 stable stable trend -0.4 (-3.0, 2.2)
Ohio *** 6.1 (6.0, 6.3) 30 (22, 37) 938 rising rising trend 2.7 (2.5, 2.9)
Virginia *** 6.1 (5.9, 6.3) 31 (22, 39) 617 rising rising trend 2.6 (2.1, 3.1)
Michigan *** 6.1 (5.9, 6.3) 32 (23, 39) 795 rising rising trend 1.9 (1.6, 2.1)
Indiana *** 6.0 (5.7, 6.2) 33 (24, 42) 490 stable stable trend 0.7 (-0.9, 2.4)
Idaho *** 6.0 (5.5, 6.5) 34 (16, 46) 120 rising rising trend 3.5 (2.9, 4.1)
New York *** 5.9 (5.8, 6.1) 35 (30, 41) 1,463 falling falling trend -1.9 (-3.4, -0.4)
New Jersey *** 5.9 (5.7, 6.1) 36 (27, 42) 665 rising rising trend 1.4 (1.2, 1.7)
Kansas *** 5.8 (5.5, 6.2) 37 (24, 46) 209 rising rising trend 3.2 (2.7, 3.7)
Connecticut *** 5.7 (5.4, 6.0) 38 (28, 47) 273 rising rising trend 2.2 (1.8, 2.6)
Minnesota *** 5.7 (5.4, 5.9) 39 (32, 47) 385 rising rising trend 2.6 (2.3, 2.9)
Wyoming *** 5.6 (4.9, 6.5) 40 (13, 50) 43 rising rising trend 1.7 (0.7, 2.7)
Wisconsin *** 5.6 (5.4, 5.9) 41 (33, 47) 419 rising rising trend 1.9 (1.6, 2.1)
Colorado *** 5.6 (5.3, 5.8) 42 (33, 48) 347 rising rising trend 2.4 (2.0, 2.8)
South Dakota *** 5.6 (4.9, 6.2) 43 (19, 50) 60 rising rising trend 2.7 (1.9, 3.5)
Iowa *** 5.5 (5.2, 5.8) 44 (33, 49) 222 rising rising trend 3.2 (2.8, 3.5)
Maine *** 5.3 (4.9, 5.8) 45 (32, 50) 107 rising rising trend 2.6 (2.0, 3.2)
Montana *** 5.3 (4.8, 5.9) 46 (28, 50) 77 rising rising trend 1.7 (1.0, 2.3)
New Hampshire *** 5.2 (4.8, 5.8) 47 (34, 50) 95 rising rising trend 1.7 (1.1, 2.3)
Vermont *** 5.0 (4.3, 5.7) 48 (31, 51) 44 rising rising trend 2.1 (1.0, 3.2)
Utah *** 4.9 (4.5, 5.3) 49 (43, 51) 128 rising rising trend 2.5 (1.9, 3.1)
North Dakota *** 4.6 (4.0, 5.3) 50 (41, 51) 41 rising rising trend 1.4 (0.5, 2.2)
Nebraska *** 4.4 (4.0, 4.8) 51 (48, 51) 100 rising rising trend 1.9 (1.3, 2.6)
Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 12/01/2020 10:56 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