Return to Home Mortality > Table

Death Rates Table

Data Options

Death Rate Report by State

Pancreas, 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 *** 11.0 (11.0, 11.1) N/A 42,743 rising rising trend 0.3 (0.2, 0.3)
District of Columbia *** 13.7 (12.4, 15.0) 1 (1, 10) 91 stable stable trend -0.1 (-0.5, 0.4)
Mississippi *** 12.9 (12.4, 13.4) 2 (1, 7) 453 rising rising trend 0.5 (0.2, 0.8)
Louisiana *** 12.6 (12.2, 13.0) 3 (1, 8) 673 stable stable trend -3.1 (-6.8, 0.8)
Delaware *** 12.2 (11.4, 13.1) 4 (1, 31) 155 rising rising trend 0.6 (0.3, 1.0)
Michigan *** 12.2 (11.9, 12.4) 5 (2, 11) 1,551 rising rising trend 0.7 (0.5, 0.9)
Pennsylvania *** 12.1 (11.9, 12.4) 6 (3, 10) 2,132 rising rising trend 0.7 (0.5, 0.8)
Ohio *** 12.0 (11.8, 12.3) 7 (3, 13) 1,789 rising rising trend 0.6 (0.1, 1.1)
Oregon *** 11.8 (11.4, 12.3) 8 (3, 24) 613 rising rising trend 0.4 (0.1, 0.7)
Alabama *** 11.8 (11.4, 12.2) 9 (4, 27) 714 rising rising trend 0.4 (0.3, 0.6)
Indiana *** 11.6 (11.3, 12.0) 10 (5, 26) 915 rising rising trend 0.3 (0.2, 0.5)
Kentucky *** 11.6 (11.2, 12.0) 11 (4, 32) 630 rising rising trend 0.5 (0.3, 0.8)
Wisconsin *** 11.6 (11.2, 11.9) 12 (5, 30) 850 rising rising trend 0.4 (0.3, 0.6)
Rhode Island *** 11.5 (10.7, 12.4) 13 (2, 44) 159 stable stable trend 0.2 (-0.2, 0.7)
South Carolina *** 11.5 (11.1, 11.9) 14 (6, 34) 716 stable stable trend 0.1 (-0.2, 0.3)
Maryland *** 11.4 (11.0, 11.8) 15 (7, 35) 799 stable stable trend 0.2 (0.0, 0.4)
Missouri *** 11.4 (11.0, 11.7) 16 (7, 35) 874 rising rising trend 0.6 (0.4, 0.8)
Massachusetts *** 11.3 (11.0, 11.7) 17 (8, 36) 970 stable stable trend -0.2 (-0.5, 0.2)
Illinois *** 11.3 (11.1, 11.6) 18 (10, 33) 1,718 rising rising trend 2.4 (0.1, 4.8)
New Jersey *** 11.3 (11.0, 11.6) 19 (9, 36) 1,247 stable stable trend 0.0 (-0.2, 0.2)
Maine *** 11.3 (10.6, 12.0) 20 (4, 45) 223 stable stable trend 0.2 (-0.1, 0.6)
Iowa *** 11.2 (10.8, 11.7) 21 (7, 41) 454 rising rising trend 0.7 (0.4, 0.9)
Tennessee *** 11.2 (10.9, 11.6) 22 (9, 38) 916 stable stable trend 0.1 (-0.1, 0.2)
Kansas *** 11.2 (10.7, 11.7) 23 (7, 42) 389 rising rising trend 0.4 (0.1, 0.7)
Nebraska *** 11.2 (10.5, 11.8) 24 (5, 46) 250 rising rising trend 0.6 (0.2, 1.0)
Idaho *** 11.1 (10.5, 11.8) 25 (5, 47) 215 rising rising trend 0.8 (0.3, 1.2)
Virginia *** 11.1 (10.8, 11.4) 26 (12, 40) 1,075 stable stable trend 0.2 (-0.1, 0.4)
Arkansas *** 11.1 (10.6, 11.6) 27 (8, 43) 411 stable stable trend 0.1 (-0.1, 0.3)
South Dakota *** 11.0 (10.2, 12.0) 28 (4, 49) 119 stable stable trend 0.3 (-0.1, 0.8)
New York *** 11.0 (10.9, 11.2) 29 (17, 38) 2,697 stable stable trend -0.1 (-0.2, 0.0)
Connecticut *** 11.0 (10.6, 11.5) 30 (9, 43) 522 stable stable trend 2.2 (-0.3, 4.7)
Oklahoma *** 11.0 (10.6, 11.5) 31 (10, 43) 508 rising rising trend 0.8 (0.5, 1.1)
North Carolina *** 11.0 (10.7, 11.2) 32 (17, 41) 1,338 stable stable trend 0.0 (-0.1, 0.2)
Hawaii 8 *** 10.9 (10.3, 11.7) 33 (7, 48) 207 stable stable trend 0.2 (-0.1, 0.6)
Minnesota *** 10.9 (10.6, 11.3) 34 (14, 43) 722 stable stable trend 0.2 (0.0, 0.4)
Georgia *** 10.9 (10.6, 11.1) 35 (20, 43) 1,171 stable stable trend 0.1 (-0.1, 0.3)
Washington *** 10.8 (10.5, 11.2) 36 (18, 44) 907 stable stable trend 0.1 (-0.1, 0.3)
Vermont *** 10.7 (9.7, 11.8) 37 (5, 51) 94 stable stable trend 0.4 (-0.3, 1.1)
West Virginia *** 10.7 (10.1, 11.3) 38 (12, 48) 276 rising rising trend 0.5 (0.1, 0.9)
North Dakota *** 10.7 (9.7, 11.7) 39 (4, 51) 94 stable stable trend 0.4 (-0.2, 0.9)
Nevada *** 10.5 (10.0, 11.0) 40 (19, 48) 353 stable stable trend -0.1 (-0.4, 0.2)
Florida *** 10.5 (10.3, 10.7) 41 (35, 46) 3,215 stable stable trend 0.1 (0.0, 0.3)
Alaska *** 10.4 (9.2, 11.6) 42 (4, 51) 68 stable stable trend 0.1 (-0.6, 0.7)
New Hampshire *** 10.4 (9.7, 11.1) 43 (16, 50) 187 stable stable trend -0.1 (-0.5, 0.3)
Wyoming *** 10.3 (9.2, 11.5) 44 (7, 51) 71 stable stable trend 0.0 (-0.5, 0.6)
Montana *** 10.3 (9.5, 11.1) 45 (14, 51) 144 stable stable trend -0.3 (-0.7, 0.2)
California *** 10.3 (10.1, 10.4) 46 (38, 48) 4,376 stable stable trend -0.2 (-0.4, 0.0)
Texas *** 10.2 (10.0, 10.4) 47 (39, 48) 2,753 stable stable trend 0.0 (-0.1, 0.1)
Arizona *** 10.2 (9.9, 10.5) 48 (37, 49) 893 rising rising trend 0.7 (0.3, 1.0)
New Mexico *** 9.5 (8.9, 10.0) 49 (43, 51) 250 stable stable trend -0.2 (-0.6, 0.1)
Colorado *** 9.4 (9.1, 9.8) 50 (46, 51) 556 stable stable trend -0.3 (-0.5, 0.0)
Utah *** 9.3 (8.8, 9.9) 51 (46, 51) 240 rising rising trend 0.8 (0.5, 1.2)
Puerto Rico 8 *** 6.5 (6.2, 6.9) N/A 309 stable stable trend 0.1 (-8.0, 8.9)
Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 07/24/2021 12:46 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 1969-2017 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.
CI*Rank data for Puerto Rico is not available.

Return to Top