Return to Home Mortality > Table

Death Rates Table

Data Options

Death Rate Report by State

Pancreas, 2016-2020

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

Sorted by CI*Rank
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 ascending
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 *** 11.1 (11.0, 11.1) N/A 44,868 stable stable trend 0.1 (0.0, 0.2)
Utah *** 9.6 (9.0, 10.1) 51 (44, 51) 262 rising rising trend 0.8 (0.5, 1.1)
Colorado *** 9.6 (9.3, 10.0) 50 (46, 51) 604 stable stable trend -0.3 (-0.5, 0.0)
New Mexico *** 9.7 (9.2, 10.3) 49 (41, 51) 268 stable stable trend -0.2 (-0.5, 0.2)
Arizona *** 10.2 (9.9, 10.5) 48 (38, 50) 962 rising rising trend 0.6 (0.3, 0.8)
Montana *** 10.2 (9.5, 11.0) 47 (17, 51) 150 stable stable trend -0.2 (-0.6, 0.2)
California *** 10.3 (10.2, 10.4) 46 (40, 49) 4,573 stable stable trend -0.2 (-0.3, 0.0)
Texas *** 10.4 (10.2, 10.6) 45 (38, 48) 2,971 stable stable trend 0.1 (0.0, 0.2)
Florida *** 10.4 (10.3, 10.6) 44 (37, 48) 3,397 stable stable trend 0.1 (0.0, 0.2)
Alaska *** 10.5 (9.4, 11.7) 43 (3, 51) 74 stable stable trend 0.0 (-0.6, 0.6)
Nevada *** 10.5 (10.0, 11.0) 42 (23, 49) 381 stable stable trend -0.1 (-0.4, 0.1)
North Dakota *** 10.5 (9.6, 11.5) 41 (6, 51) 96 stable stable trend 0.3 (-0.2, 0.8)
Wyoming *** 10.6 (9.5, 11.7) 40 (5, 51) 77 stable stable trend 0.1 (-0.4, 0.6)
Hawaii 8 *** 10.7 (10.1, 11.4) 39 (12, 49) 210 stable stable trend 0.2 (-0.1, 0.5)
Washington *** 10.8 (10.5, 11.2) 38 (20, 44) 963 stable stable trend 0.1 (-0.1, 0.3)
Connecticut *** 10.9 (10.4, 11.3) 37 (16, 46) 531 falling falling trend -0.7 (-1.3, -0.1)
Idaho *** 10.9 (10.3, 11.6) 36 (9, 48) 227 rising rising trend 0.6 (0.2, 1.0)
North Carolina *** 10.9 (10.6, 11.2) 35 (20, 43) 1,414 stable stable trend 0.0 (-0.1, 0.2)
Georgia *** 10.9 (10.7, 11.2) 34 (20, 42) 1,259 stable stable trend 0.2 (0.0, 0.3)
New York *** 11.0 (10.8, 11.2) 33 (20, 41) 2,768 stable stable trend -0.1 (-0.2, 0.0)
Minnesota *** 11.0 (10.6, 11.3) 32 (14, 43) 761 rising rising trend 0.2 (0.1, 0.4)
West Virginia *** 11.0 (10.4, 11.6) 31 (9, 47) 289 rising rising trend 0.6 (0.3, 1.0)
Kansas *** 11.0 (10.5, 11.5) 30 (11, 45) 398 rising rising trend 0.4 (0.2, 0.6)
Vermont *** 11.0 (10.1, 12.1) 29 (2, 50) 101 stable stable trend 0.4 (-0.2, 1.0)
Iowa *** 11.1 (10.6, 11.6) 28 (10, 43) 461 rising rising trend 0.6 (0.4, 0.8)
Arkansas *** 11.1 (10.6, 11.6) 27 (10, 44) 429 stable stable trend 0.1 (-0.1, 0.3)
New Hampshire *** 11.1 (10.4, 11.8) 26 (5, 48) 211 stable stable trend 0.1 (-0.3, 0.5)
Oklahoma *** 11.1 (10.7, 11.6) 25 (10, 43) 533 rising rising trend 0.4 (0.2, 0.6)
Virginia *** 11.1 (10.8, 11.4) 24 (13, 40) 1,141 stable stable trend 0.1 (-0.1, 0.3)
Tennessee *** 11.2 (10.8, 11.5) 23 (12, 40) 949 stable stable trend 0.1 (0.0, 0.2)
Oregon *** 11.3 (10.9, 11.7) 22 (8, 40) 618 stable stable trend 0.3 (0.0, 0.5)
Maryland *** 11.3 (11.0, 11.7) 21 (9, 39) 832 stable stable trend 0.1 (0.0, 0.3)
New Jersey *** 11.3 (11.0, 11.6) 20 (11, 36) 1,296 stable stable trend 0.0 (-0.1, 0.1)
South Dakota *** 11.3 (10.5, 12.3) 19 (1, 48) 127 stable stable trend 0.4 (0.0, 0.8)
Maine *** 11.3 (10.7, 12.0) 18 (2, 44) 234 stable stable trend 0.2 (-0.1, 0.5)
Missouri *** 11.4 (11.1, 11.8) 17 (8, 35) 909 rising rising trend 0.6 (0.4, 0.7)
South Carolina *** 11.4 (11.1, 11.8) 16 (7, 36) 769 stable stable trend 0.0 (-0.2, 0.2)
Massachusetts *** 11.5 (11.1, 11.8) 15 (8, 33) 1,017 stable stable trend -0.1 (-0.3, 0.2)
Kentucky *** 11.5 (11.1, 11.9) 14 (5, 35) 652 rising rising trend 0.4 (0.2, 0.7)
Illinois *** 11.6 (11.4, 11.9) 13 (7, 23) 1,823 rising rising trend 1.4 (0.5, 2.4)
Wisconsin *** 11.7 (11.3, 12.0) 12 (4, 26) 895 rising rising trend 0.5 (0.3, 0.6)
Rhode Island *** 11.7 (10.9, 12.5) 11 (1, 42) 167 stable stable trend 0.2 (-0.2, 0.7)
Nebraska *** 11.8 (11.2, 12.5) 10 (1, 35) 274 rising rising trend 0.7 (0.3, 1.0)
Alabama *** 11.8 (11.5, 12.2) 9 (2, 22) 749 rising rising trend 0.4 (0.3, 0.6)
Indiana *** 12.0 (11.6, 12.3) 8 (2, 18) 979 rising rising trend 0.4 (0.3, 0.5)
Pennsylvania *** 12.0 (11.8, 12.3) 7 (2, 13) 2,167 rising rising trend 0.6 (0.5, 0.7)
Ohio *** 12.1 (11.9, 12.4) 6 (2, 12) 1,870 rising rising trend 0.7 (0.6, 0.8)
Louisiana *** 12.2 (11.8, 12.6) 5 (1, 15) 682 stable stable trend -0.1 (-0.3, 0.1)
Delaware *** 12.3 (11.5, 13.2) 4 (1, 27) 168 rising rising trend 0.7 (0.4, 1.0)
Michigan *** 12.3 (12.1, 12.6) 3 (1, 10) 1,632 rising rising trend 0.6 (0.4, 0.7)
Mississippi *** 12.6 (12.0, 13.1) 2 (1, 11) 459 rising rising trend 0.5 (0.2, 0.7)
District of Columbia *** 13.0 (11.8, 14.3) 1 (1, 27) 89 stable stable trend -0.2 (-0.6, 0.3)
Puerto Rico 8 *** 6.4 (6.1, 6.8) N/A 319 stable stable trend 0.9 (-6.6, 9.0)
Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 11/27/2022 11:32 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.

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.
CI*Rank data for Puerto Rico is not available.

Return to Top