Return to Home Mortality > Table

Death Rates Table

Data Options

Death Rate Report by State

Pancreas, 2018-2022

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

Sorted by Recentaapc

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 ascending
United States *** 11.2 (11.1, 11.2) N/A 46,760 rising rising trend 0.3 (0.2, 0.3)
West Virginia *** 11.6 (11.0, 12.3) 15 (2, 39) 306 rising rising trend 1.6 (0.8, 5.0)
Indiana *** 12.2 (11.9, 12.5) 6 (1, 16) 1,029 rising rising trend 1.2 (0.6, 3.1)
Nebraska *** 11.9 (11.3, 12.6) 8 (1, 35) 286 rising rising trend 1.1 (0.3, 4.0)
Puerto Rico 8 *** 6.6 (6.3, 6.9) N/A 344 stable stable trend 1.0 (-2.0, 4.2)
Utah *** 9.8 (9.3, 10.4) 51 (41, 51) 282 rising rising trend 0.8 (0.5, 1.1)
Delaware *** 12.5 (11.7, 13.4) 2 (1, 29) 178 rising rising trend 0.7 (0.4, 1.1)
North Carolina *** 11.4 (11.2, 11.7) 22 (10, 35) 1,517 rising rising trend 0.7 (0.2, 2.4)
Oklahoma *** 11.3 (10.8, 11.7) 28 (9, 43) 546 rising rising trend 0.7 (0.5, 1.4)
Arizona *** 10.4 (10.1, 10.7) 47 (36, 50) 1,005 rising rising trend 0.6 (0.4, 1.3)
Iowa *** 10.9 (10.4, 11.3) 38 (17, 48) 462 rising rising trend 0.6 (0.3, 0.8)
Michigan *** 12.4 (12.1, 12.7) 3 (1, 10) 1,675 rising rising trend 0.6 (0.5, 0.7)
Missouri *** 11.8 (11.5, 12.2) 11 (3, 27) 953 rising rising trend 0.6 (0.4, 0.8)
Idaho *** 10.6 (10.0, 11.2) 42 (20, 51) 238 rising rising trend 0.5 (0.1, 1.0)
Kentucky *** 11.8 (11.4, 12.2) 13 (3, 32) 680 rising rising trend 0.5 (0.3, 0.7)
South Dakota *** 11.5 (10.6, 12.4) 20 (1, 48) 132 rising rising trend 0.5 (0.2, 0.9)
Vermont *** 11.8 (10.8, 12.8) 12 (1, 46) 114 stable stable trend 0.5 (-0.1, 1.3)
Wisconsin *** 11.9 (11.5, 12.2) 10 (3, 27) 942 rising rising trend 0.5 (0.3, 0.6)
Florida *** 10.7 (10.5, 10.8) 40 (35, 46) 3,603 rising rising trend 0.4 (0.3, 0.8)
Kansas *** 11.4 (10.9, 11.9) 25 (6, 41) 417 rising rising trend 0.4 (0.2, 0.7)
Massachusetts *** 11.5 (11.2, 11.8) 19 (8, 35) 1,056 stable stable trend 0.4 (-0.2, 1.8)
Mississippi *** 12.3 (11.8, 12.9) 4 (1, 21) 458 rising rising trend 0.4 (0.2, 0.7)
Montana *** 10.5 (9.7, 11.2) 45 (16, 51) 158 stable stable trend 0.4 (-3.5, 4.1)
Texas *** 10.7 (10.6, 10.9) 39 (34, 46) 3,168 rising rising trend 0.4 (0.2, 0.7)
Alabama *** 11.5 (11.1, 11.9) 18 (7, 37) 764 rising rising trend 0.3 (0.2, 0.5)
Minnesota *** 10.9 (10.6, 11.3) 36 (19, 46) 791 rising rising trend 0.3 (0.1, 0.4)
North Dakota *** 10.6 (9.6, 11.6) 43 (8, 51) 100 stable stable trend 0.3 (-0.3, 0.9)
Oregon *** 11.3 (10.9, 11.7) 27 (8, 40) 643 rising rising trend 0.3 (0.1, 0.6)
Wyoming *** 11.2 (10.1, 12.4) 31 (1, 51) 83 stable stable trend 0.3 (-0.1, 0.8)
Arkansas *** 11.3 (10.8, 11.7) 29 (8, 43) 440 stable stable trend 0.2 (-0.1, 0.4)
Georgia *** 11.2 (10.9, 11.5) 33 (15, 39) 1,345 rising rising trend 0.2 (0.1, 0.4)
Illinois *** 11.7 (11.5, 12.0) 14 (6, 25) 1,881 rising rising trend 0.2 (0.1, 0.3)
Maine *** 11.5 (10.9, 12.2) 17 (2, 43) 248 stable stable trend 0.2 (0.0, 0.5)
Tennessee *** 11.4 (11.1, 11.8) 24 (9, 37) 1,002 stable stable trend 0.2 (0.0, 0.3)
Virginia *** 11.2 (11.0, 11.5) 30 (14, 39) 1,196 stable stable trend 0.2 (0.0, 0.4)
Washington *** 11.3 (11.0, 11.7) 26 (11, 39) 1,049 stable stable trend 0.2 (0.0, 0.4)
Connecticut *** 11.4 (11.0, 11.9) 23 (6, 39) 558 stable stable trend 0.1 (-0.1, 0.4)
Hawaii 8 *** 10.5 (9.9, 11.2) 44 (18, 51) 217 stable stable trend 0.1 (-0.2, 0.5)
Nevada *** 10.9 (10.5, 11.4) 37 (13, 48) 411 stable stable trend 0.1 (-0.2, 0.3)
New Hampshire *** 11.5 (10.9, 12.2) 16 (2, 44) 229 stable stable trend 0.1 (-0.3, 0.5)
Rhode Island *** 11.0 (10.3, 11.8) 35 (6, 50) 166 stable stable trend 0.1 (-0.3, 0.6)
South Carolina *** 11.4 (11.1, 11.8) 21 (8, 37) 795 stable stable trend 0.1 (-0.1, 0.3)
California *** 10.4 (10.3, 10.6) 46 (40, 49) 4,745 stable stable trend 0.0 (-0.4, 0.1)
Louisiana *** 12.3 (11.9, 12.7) 5 (1, 17) 702 stable stable trend 0.0 (-0.3, 0.2)
New Jersey *** 11.2 (11.0, 11.5) 32 (15, 40) 1,347 stable stable trend -0.1 (-0.2, 0.1)
New Mexico *** 9.9 (9.4, 10.4) 50 (40, 51) 281 stable stable trend -0.1 (-0.4, 0.4)
Alaska *** 10.0 (8.9, 11.1) 48 (15, 51) 75 stable stable trend -0.2 (-0.7, 0.6)
Colorado *** 9.9 (9.5, 10.2) 49 (44, 51) 639 stable stable trend -0.2 (-0.4, 0.1)
District of Columbia *** 12.9 (11.7, 14.2) 1 (1, 34) 87 stable stable trend -0.2 (-0.7, 0.3)
New York *** 10.6 (10.5, 10.8) 41 (35, 47) 2,805 falling falling trend -0.6 (-1.9, -0.2)
Maryland *** 11.1 (10.8, 11.5) 34 (16, 43) 856 stable stable trend -0.8 (-3.0, 0.0)
Pennsylvania *** 11.9 (11.6, 12.1) 9 (5, 21) 2,188 stable stable trend -0.8 (-2.3, 0.4)
Ohio *** 12.1 (11.9, 12.4) 7 (1, 15) 1,912 stable stable trend -1.2 (-2.9, 0.6)
Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 10/22/2024 4:01 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.

*** 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