Return to Home Mortality > Table

Death Rates Table

Data Options

Death Rate Report by State

Pancreas, 2015-2019

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 *** 11.1 (11.0, 11.1) N/A 43,836 rising rising trend 0.3 (0.2, 0.3)
District of Columbia *** 13.5 (12.3, 14.9) 1 (1, 12) 92 stable stable trend -0.1 (-0.5, 0.4)
Mississippi *** 12.8 (12.2, 13.3) 2 (1, 9) 456 rising rising trend 0.5 (0.2, 0.7)
Louisiana *** 12.6 (12.1, 13.0) 3 (1, 9) 687 stable stable trend 0.0 (-0.2, 0.2)
Michigan *** 12.3 (12.0, 12.6) 4 (2, 10) 1,595 stable stable trend 0.4 (-0.1, 0.8)
Ohio *** 12.2 (12.0, 12.5) 5 (2, 10) 1,851 rising rising trend 1.7 (0.7, 2.7)
Delaware *** 12.2 (11.3, 13.1) 6 (1, 35) 159 rising rising trend 0.6 (0.3, 1.0)
Pennsylvania *** 12.1 (11.8, 12.3) 7 (3, 12) 2,147 rising rising trend 0.6 (0.5, 0.7)
Rhode Island *** 12.0 (11.2, 12.9) 8 (1, 38) 167 stable stable trend 0.3 (-0.1, 0.8)
Alabama *** 11.8 (11.4, 12.2) 9 (4, 25) 728 rising rising trend 0.4 (0.2, 0.6)
Indiana *** 11.7 (11.4, 12.0) 10 (5, 25) 940 rising rising trend 0.3 (0.2, 0.5)
Oregon *** 11.6 (11.2, 12.1) 11 (5, 30) 620 rising rising trend 0.3 (0.1, 0.6)
Kentucky *** 11.5 (11.1, 12.0) 12 (6, 34) 642 rising rising trend 0.5 (0.2, 0.7)
Maine *** 11.5 (10.9, 12.2) 13 (3, 42) 232 stable stable trend 0.2 (-0.1, 0.5)
Wisconsin *** 11.5 (11.2, 11.9) 14 (7, 32) 866 rising rising trend 0.4 (0.3, 0.6)
South Carolina *** 11.5 (11.1, 11.9) 15 (7, 35) 742 stable stable trend 0.0 (-0.2, 0.3)
Massachusetts *** 11.5 (11.2, 11.8) 16 (7, 31) 999 stable stable trend -0.1 (-0.4, 0.2)
Illinois *** 11.4 (11.2, 11.7) 17 (8, 29) 1,763 stable stable trend 0.1 (0.0, 0.2)
Maryland *** 11.4 (11.0, 11.8) 18 (8, 36) 818 stable stable trend 0.2 (0.0, 0.3)
Missouri *** 11.4 (11.0, 11.7) 19 (8, 38) 890 rising rising trend 0.6 (0.4, 0.8)
Nebraska *** 11.3 (10.7, 12.0) 20 (4, 44) 258 rising rising trend 0.6 (0.2, 1.0)
New Jersey *** 11.3 (11.0, 11.6) 21 (10, 37) 1,267 stable stable trend 0.0 (-0.2, 0.1)
South Dakota *** 11.3 (10.4, 12.2) 22 (3, 48) 124 stable stable trend 0.4 (0.0, 0.9)
Iowa *** 11.3 (10.8, 11.7) 23 (7, 41) 461 rising rising trend 0.7 (0.4, 0.9)
Kansas *** 11.1 (10.7, 11.7) 24 (8, 43) 396 rising rising trend 0.4 (0.2, 0.6)
Oklahoma *** 11.1 (10.6, 11.5) 25 (10, 43) 521 rising rising trend 0.7 (0.4, 1.0)
Tennessee *** 11.1 (10.7, 11.4) 26 (13, 41) 921 stable stable trend 0.1 (-0.1, 0.2)
Virginia *** 11.0 (10.8, 11.3) 27 (14, 41) 1,103 stable stable trend 0.1 (-0.1, 0.3)
Vermont *** 11.0 (10.0, 12.1) 28 (3, 50) 99 stable stable trend 0.5 (-0.1, 1.1)
West Virginia *** 11.0 (10.4, 11.6) 29 (8, 47) 287 rising rising trend 0.6 (0.3, 1.0)
Arkansas *** 11.0 (10.5, 11.5) 30 (10, 46) 417 stable stable trend 0.1 (-0.1, 0.3)
Minnesota *** 11.0 (10.7, 11.4) 31 (14, 43) 744 stable stable trend 0.2 (0.0, 0.4)
New York *** 11.0 (10.8, 11.1) 32 (22, 41) 2,721 stable stable trend -0.1 (-0.2, 0.0)
Connecticut *** 10.9 (10.5, 11.4) 33 (14, 45) 527 stable stable trend -0.6 (-1.3, 0.1)
North Carolina *** 10.9 (10.7, 11.2) 34 (20, 42) 1,373 stable stable trend 0.0 (-0.1, 0.2)
Idaho *** 10.9 (10.3, 11.6) 35 (8, 48) 219 rising rising trend 0.7 (0.2, 1.1)
Georgia *** 10.9 (10.6, 11.2) 36 (19, 43) 1,214 stable stable trend 0.2 (0.0, 0.3)
Hawaii 8 *** 10.8 (10.2, 11.5) 37 (8, 49) 208 stable stable trend 0.2 (-0.1, 0.5)
New Hampshire *** 10.8 (10.1, 11.5) 38 (9, 49) 199 stable stable trend 0.1 (-0.3, 0.5)
Washington *** 10.7 (10.4, 11.1) 39 (23, 46) 930 stable stable trend 0.1 (-0.1, 0.3)
North Dakota *** 10.7 (9.7, 11.7) 40 (6, 51) 96 stable stable trend 0.2 (-0.3, 0.8)
Montana *** 10.5 (9.8, 11.3) 41 (10, 50) 151 stable stable trend -0.2 (-0.6, 0.3)
Nevada *** 10.5 (10.0, 11.0) 42 (21, 49) 367 stable stable trend -0.1 (-0.4, 0.1)
Florida *** 10.5 (10.3, 10.7) 43 (35, 47) 3,318 stable stable trend 0.1 (0.0, 0.3)
Wyoming *** 10.5 (9.4, 11.7) 44 (5, 51) 74 stable stable trend 0.1 (-0.4, 0.7)
Arizona *** 10.3 (10.0, 10.6) 45 (36, 49) 935 rising rising trend 0.7 (0.4, 1.0)
California *** 10.3 (10.2, 10.5) 46 (39, 49) 4,490 stable stable trend -0.1 (-0.3, 0.0)
Texas *** 10.3 (10.1, 10.5) 47 (39, 49) 2,865 stable stable trend 0.1 (0.0, 0.2)
Alaska *** 10.2 (9.1, 11.4) 48 (8, 51) 70 stable stable trend -0.1 (-0.7, 0.6)
New Mexico *** 9.7 (9.2, 10.3) 49 (40, 51) 262 stable stable trend -0.2 (-0.6, 0.2)
Colorado *** 9.5 (9.1, 9.8) 50 (47, 51) 576 falling falling trend -0.3 (-0.5, -0.1)
Utah *** 9.3 (8.8, 9.9) 51 (46, 51) 248 rising rising trend 0.8 (0.5, 1.1)
Puerto Rico 8 *** 6.6 (6.2, 6.9) N/A 316 stable stable trend 0.1 (-8.0, 8.9)
Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 10/27/2021 2:59 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 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 1969-2018 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.
CI*Rank data for Puerto Rico is not available.

Return to Top