Return to Home Mortality > Table

Death Rates Table

Data Options

Death Rate Report by State

Melanoma of the Skin, 2018-2022

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

Sorted by Ruralurban

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 descending
United States *** 2.0 (2.0, 2.0) N/A 8,194 stable stable trend -1.4 (-2.4, 0.1)
District of Columbia *** 1.1 (0.8, 1.6) 51 (41, 51) 8
*
*
Puerto Rico 8 *** 0.5 (0.4, 0.6) N/A 25 stable stable trend -2.1 (-9.7, 6.2)
Alabama *** 2.1 (2.0, 2.3) 30 (15, 38) 132 falling falling trend -2.8 (-6.4, -1.4)
Alaska *** 1.7 (1.2, 2.2) 47 (13, 51) 12
*
*
Arizona *** 2.3 (2.2, 2.5) 21 (7, 31) 213 falling falling trend -3.5 (-7.0, -1.9)
Arkansas *** 1.9 (1.7, 2.1) 37 (24, 48) 69 falling falling trend -4.9 (-8.7, -3.0)
California *** 1.8 (1.7, 1.9) 40 (36, 46) 807 stable stable trend -1.4 (-4.3, 1.5)
Colorado *** 2.4 (2.3, 2.6) 12 (3, 26) 154 falling falling trend -2.8 (-9.1, -1.0)
Connecticut *** 1.9 (1.7, 2.1) 36 (25, 47) 89 falling falling trend -2.7 (-6.1, -1.7)
Delaware *** 2.4 (2.0, 2.8) 16 (1, 38) 32 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.8, -0.5)
Florida *** 2.1 (2.0, 2.2) 29 (21, 35) 681 stable stable trend -1.2 (-4.0, 1.6)
Georgia *** 1.8 (1.7, 1.9) 43 (35, 47) 209 falling falling trend -4.9 (-8.8, -2.8)
Hawaii 8 *** 1.3 (1.0, 1.5) 50 (46, 51) 26 stable stable trend -0.8 (-1.8, 0.3)
Idaho *** 2.8 (2.5, 3.2) 1 (1, 19) 60 falling falling trend -3.0 (-8.0, -1.0)
Illinois *** 1.8 (1.7, 1.9) 39 (34, 47) 281 falling falling trend -4.5 (-8.1, -2.7)
Indiana *** 2.3 (2.2, 2.5) 20 (7, 32) 186 falling falling trend -2.9 (-6.4, -1.4)
Iowa *** 2.6 (2.3, 2.8) 6 (1, 24) 104 stable stable trend 0.2 (-0.2, 0.7)
Kansas *** 2.4 (2.2, 2.7) 15 (2, 31) 87 falling falling trend -3.2 (-11.7, -0.8)
Kentucky *** 2.5 (2.4, 2.7) 7 (1, 23) 138 falling falling trend -2.5 (-4.4, -1.4)
Louisiana *** 1.6 (1.4, 1.7) 48 (39, 50) 85 falling falling trend -4.3 (-9.1, -2.3)
Maine *** 2.3 (2.0, 2.6) 22 (2, 39) 47 falling falling trend -4.4 (-11.1, -1.8)
Maryland *** 1.8 (1.7, 1.9) 42 (33, 48) 133 stable stable trend -1.0 (-4.5, 4.4)
Massachusetts *** 2.1 (2.0, 2.3) 28 (17, 37) 192 falling falling trend -3.4 (-6.2, -2.2)
Michigan *** 2.0 (1.9, 2.1) 35 (24, 39) 259 falling falling trend -2.4 (-4.4, -1.3)
Minnesota *** 2.0 (1.9, 2.2) 34 (20, 41) 143 falling falling trend -3.0 (-7.9, -1.0)
Mississippi *** 1.8 (1.6, 2.0) 41 (29, 49) 65 falling falling trend -5.5 (-13.4, -1.9)
Missouri *** 2.3 (2.2, 2.5) 18 (5, 30) 180 falling falling trend -3.7 (-6.6, -2.3)
Montana *** 2.5 (2.1, 2.9) 10 (1, 37) 35 stable stable trend -0.3 (-0.9, 0.5)
Nebraska *** 2.5 (2.2, 2.8) 8 (1, 32) 59 falling falling trend -2.3 (-9.0, -0.5)
Nevada *** 2.1 (1.9, 2.3) 32 (15, 43) 75 falling falling trend -1.3 (-2.0, -0.4)
New Hampshire *** 2.6 (2.2, 2.9) 5 (1, 32) 49 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.1, 0.3)
New Jersey *** 1.7 (1.6, 1.8) 46 (37, 48) 201 falling falling trend -5.3 (-8.9, -3.5)
New Mexico *** 1.8 (1.6, 2.1) 38 (26, 49) 49 falling falling trend -6.8 (-16.9, -1.8)
New York *** 1.5 (1.4, 1.6) 49 (46, 50) 382 stable stable trend -2.5 (-4.9, 0.6)
North Carolina *** 2.1 (2.0, 2.2) 31 (20, 37) 266 falling falling trend -3.4 (-5.0, -2.4)
North Dakota *** 1.7 (1.3, 2.2) 44 (15, 51) 16
*
*
Ohio *** 2.4 (2.3, 2.6) 13 (4, 22) 366 falling falling trend -2.1 (-5.0, -1.0)
Oklahoma *** 2.5 (2.3, 2.7) 11 (2, 27) 114 falling falling trend -2.6 (-5.7, -1.5)
Oregon *** 2.4 (2.2, 2.5) 17 (4, 32) 127 stable stable trend 2.2 (-3.5, 6.6)
Pennsylvania *** 2.2 (2.1, 2.3) 24 (15, 33) 388 falling falling trend -3.2 (-4.5, -2.3)
Rhode Island *** 2.2 (1.9, 2.6) 25 (3, 45) 33 stable stable trend -0.8 (-1.7, 0.1)
South Carolina *** 2.1 (1.9, 2.2) 33 (19, 40) 136 falling falling trend -3.7 (-10.3, -1.3)
South Dakota *** 2.5 (2.1, 3.0) 9 (1, 38) 27 stable stable trend -0.6 (-1.7, 0.7)
Tennessee *** 2.4 (2.3, 2.6) 14 (4, 25) 201 falling falling trend -3.4 (-7.1, -1.7)
Texas *** 1.7 (1.6, 1.8) 45 (39, 48) 494 falling falling trend -3.9 (-5.5, -2.9)
Utah *** 2.7 (2.5, 3.0) 3 (1, 18) 79 falling falling trend -3.3 (-9.1, -1.2)
Vermont *** 2.1 (1.7, 2.6) 27 (2, 49) 19 falling falling trend -1.7 (-2.6, -0.8)
Virginia *** 2.1 (2.0, 2.3) 26 (17, 37) 219 falling falling trend -3.1 (-4.4, -2.2)
Washington *** 2.2 (2.1, 2.4) 23 (10, 33) 201 falling falling trend -3.2 (-5.6, -1.9)
West Virginia *** 2.7 (2.5, 3.1) 2 (1, 20) 69 falling falling trend -3.1 (-10.4, -0.4)
Wisconsin *** 2.3 (2.2, 2.5) 19 (6, 32) 178 falling falling trend -1.5 (-6.3, -0.3)
Wyoming *** 2.7 (2.2, 3.3) 4 (1, 37) 20 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.4, 0.6)
Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 11/03/2024 7:48 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 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.


* 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.

Data for United States does not include Puerto Rico.
CI*Rank data for Puerto Rico is not available.

Return to Top