Return to Home Mortality > Table

Death Rates Table

Data Options

Death Rate Report by State

Melanoma of the Skin, 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 *** 2.3 (2.2, 2.3) N/A 8,530 falling falling trend -5.7 (-6.9, -4.4)
Wyoming *** 3.2 (2.7, 3.9) 1 (1, 28) 22 stable stable trend -0.1 (-1.0, 0.9)
West Virginia *** 3.0 (2.7, 3.3) 2 (1, 21) 72 stable stable trend 0.2 (-0.3, 0.8)
Utah *** 2.9 (2.6, 3.2) 3 (1, 24) 74 stable stable trend -5.2 (-10.2, 0.1)
Idaho *** 2.9 (2.6, 3.3) 4 (1, 28) 55 falling falling trend -10.8 (-17.6, -3.5)
Kentucky *** 2.9 (2.7, 3.1) 5 (1, 19) 150 falling falling trend -2.5 (-4.5, -0.4)
Delaware *** 2.8 (2.4, 3.2) 6 (1, 38) 34 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.5, -0.3)
Oklahoma *** 2.8 (2.5, 3.0) 7 (1, 25) 123 falling falling trend -2.7 (-4.4, -1.0)
New Hampshire *** 2.8 (2.4, 3.2) 8 (1, 35) 47 stable stable trend -0.3 (-1.1, 0.5)
Tennessee *** 2.7 (2.6, 2.9) 9 (2, 21) 214 stable stable trend -5.8 (-12.8, 1.8)
South Dakota *** 2.7 (2.2, 3.2) 10 (1, 44) 27 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.7, 0.7)
Kansas *** 2.7 (2.4, 2.9) 11 (2, 33) 91 stable stable trend -0.3 (-0.8, 0.3)
Ohio *** 2.7 (2.5, 2.8) 12 (4, 24) 378 stable stable trend -4.5 (-9.5, 0.7)
Montana *** 2.7 (2.3, 3.1) 13 (1, 43) 35 stable stable trend 0.1 (-0.6, 0.7)
Colorado *** 2.6 (2.4, 2.8) 14 (3, 30) 153 stable stable trend -9.6 (-18.8, 0.6)
Iowa *** 2.6 (2.4, 2.9) 15 (3, 34) 101 stable stable trend 0.4 (-0.1, 0.9)
Washington *** 2.6 (2.4, 2.7) 16 (5, 29) 213 stable stable trend -6.8 (-14.3, 1.4)
Missouri *** 2.6 (2.4, 2.8) 17 (5, 30) 192 falling falling trend -4.8 (-8.3, -1.2)
Nevada *** 2.6 (2.3, 2.8) 18 (3, 37) 83 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.6, -0.2)
Maine *** 2.6 (2.2, 2.9) 19 (2, 43) 47 stable stable trend 0.0 (-0.6, 0.6)
Nebraska *** 2.5 (2.2, 2.8) 20 (3, 43) 56 stable stable trend 0.3 (-0.4, 1.1)
Indiana *** 2.5 (2.3, 2.7) 21 (7, 33) 192 falling falling trend -4.3 (-7.5, -1.0)
Oregon *** 2.5 (2.3, 2.7) 22 (6, 38) 124 falling falling trend -5.4 (-8.3, -2.4)
Arizona *** 2.5 (2.3, 2.6) 23 (9, 34) 207 falling falling trend -5.7 (-9.9, -1.3)
Pennsylvania *** 2.5 (2.3, 2.6) 24 (13, 33) 412 falling falling trend -3.7 (-5.6, -1.6)
Wisconsin *** 2.4 (2.3, 2.6) 25 (11, 38) 172 stable stable trend 0.1 (-0.4, 0.5)
Alabama *** 2.4 (2.2, 2.6) 26 (12, 40) 138 stable stable trend -0.3 (-0.9, 0.3)
Florida *** 2.4 (2.3, 2.5) 27 (18, 35) 691 falling falling trend -6.9 (-9.3, -4.3)
Vermont *** 2.4 (1.9, 2.9) 28 (1, 49) 21 falling falling trend -1.6 (-2.5, -0.8)
Rhode Island *** 2.3 (2.0, 2.8) 29 (4, 47) 32 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.5, 0.5)
Massachusetts *** 2.3 (2.2, 2.5) 30 (16, 41) 197 falling falling trend -6.7 (-11.0, -2.1)
North Carolina *** 2.3 (2.2, 2.4) 31 (19, 41) 272 falling falling trend -9.2 (-14.3, -3.9)
Virginia *** 2.3 (2.2, 2.5) 32 (18, 40) 218 falling falling trend -4.5 (-6.5, -2.5)
New Mexico *** 2.2 (2.0, 2.5) 33 (11, 47) 57 stable stable trend -0.6 (-1.3, 0.2)
Michigan *** 2.2 (2.1, 2.3) 34 (26, 44) 269 falling falling trend -4.2 (-7.9, -0.4)
Mississippi *** 2.2 (2.0, 2.4) 35 (16, 47) 73 stable stable trend 0.0 (-0.6, 0.6)
Alaska *** 2.2 (1.7, 2.8) 36 (2, 50) 13 stable stable trend -0.4 (-2.2, 1.4)
Georgia *** 2.2 (2.1, 2.3) 37 (26, 45) 229 stable stable trend -7.1 (-15.9, 2.7)
South Carolina *** 2.2 (2.0, 2.3) 38 (23, 46) 130 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.0, 0.2)
Minnesota *** 2.2 (2.0, 2.3) 39 (24, 46) 142 stable stable trend -4.6 (-9.4, 0.5)
Arkansas *** 2.1 (1.9, 2.4) 40 (21, 47) 76 falling falling trend -8.1 (-13.9, -2.0)
North Dakota *** 2.1 (1.7, 2.6) 41 (6, 50) 18 stable stable trend 0.2 (-0.8, 1.2)
New Jersey *** 2.1 (2.0, 2.2) 42 (32, 47) 227 falling falling trend -8.2 (-12.0, -4.2)
Illinois *** 2.1 (2.0, 2.2) 43 (32, 46) 306 falling falling trend -6.9 (-10.6, -3.1)
Connecticut *** 2.1 (1.9, 2.3) 44 (27, 47) 95 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.5, -0.5)
California *** 2.1 (2.0, 2.1) 45 (36, 46) 875 falling falling trend -7.4 (-11.4, -3.2)
Texas *** 1.9 (1.8, 2.0) 46 (42, 48) 512 falling falling trend -4.2 (-5.8, -2.6)
Maryland *** 1.9 (1.7, 2.0) 47 (38, 49) 128 falling falling trend -8.2 (-11.9, -4.4)
New York *** 1.7 (1.7, 1.8) 48 (46, 50) 417 falling falling trend -5.5 (-7.3, -3.7)
Louisiana *** 1.7 (1.5, 1.9) 49 (45, 50) 88 falling falling trend -8.5 (-13.7, -2.9)
Hawaii 8 *** 1.4 (1.2, 1.7) 50 (47, 51) 26 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.5, 0.6)
District of Columbia *** 1.0 (0.7, 1.5) 51 (49, 51) 6
*
*
Puerto Rico 8 *** 0.5 (0.4, 0.6) N/A 24 stable stable trend -0.7 (-20.0, 23.3)
Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 09/19/2020 6:12 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.

* Data has been suppressed to ensure confidentiality and stability of rate estimates. Counts are suppressed if fewer than 16 records were reported in a specific area-sex-race category. If an average count of 3 is shown, the total number of cases for the time period is 16 or more which exceeds suppression threshold (but is rounded to 3).


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