Return to Home Mortality > Table

Death Rates Table

Data Options

Death Rate Report by State

Melanoma of the Skin, 2016-2020

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

Sorted by Name
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 *** 2.1 (2.1, 2.1) N/A 8,150 falling falling trend -2.5 (-4.5, -0.5)
Wyoming *** 3.1 (2.5, 3.7) 1 (1, 27) 22 stable stable trend -0.3 (-1.2, 0.6)
Wisconsin *** 2.4 (2.2, 2.5) 19 (6, 30) 174 stable stable trend 0.0 (-0.4, 0.4)
West Virginia *** 2.8 (2.5, 3.1) 3 (1, 22) 69 stable stable trend 0.1 (-0.5, 0.6)
Washington *** 2.3 (2.2, 2.5) 20 (6, 30) 203 falling falling trend -3.4 (-5.4, -1.3)
Virginia *** 2.1 (1.9, 2.2) 32 (22, 41) 206 falling falling trend -4.3 (-5.6, -2.9)
Vermont *** 2.2 (1.8, 2.7) 26 (2, 48) 19 falling falling trend -1.6 (-2.3, -0.8)
Utah *** 2.8 (2.5, 3.1) 4 (1, 20) 75 falling falling trend -3.9 (-7.1, -0.5)
Texas *** 1.8 (1.7, 1.8) 46 (39, 48) 497 falling falling trend -4.3 (-5.3, -3.2)
Tennessee *** 2.5 (2.4, 2.7) 8 (2, 22) 205 falling falling trend -3.5 (-6.2, -0.9)
South Dakota *** 2.3 (1.9, 2.7) 23 (2, 47) 24 stable stable trend -0.8 (-1.9, 0.2)
South Carolina *** 1.9 (1.8, 2.1) 37 (26, 47) 124 falling falling trend -5.5 (-9.2, -1.6)
Rhode Island *** 2.2 (1.8, 2.6) 28 (4, 47) 31 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.5, 0.2)
Puerto Rico 8 *** 0.5 (0.4, 0.6) N/A 24 stable stable trend 1.1 (-7.7, 10.8)
Pennsylvania *** 2.3 (2.2, 2.4) 21 (12, 29) 398 falling falling trend -3.3 (-4.6, -1.9)
Oregon *** 2.3 (2.1, 2.5) 22 (7, 35) 120 falling falling trend -5.4 (-7.4, -3.4)
Oklahoma *** 2.5 (2.3, 2.7) 15 (3, 29) 111 falling falling trend -3.2 (-4.6, -1.8)
Ohio *** 2.5 (2.4, 2.6) 9 (3, 20) 370 falling falling trend -2.3 (-4.1, -0.5)
North Dakota *** 1.8 (1.4, 2.2) 45 (14, 50) 16
*
*
North Carolina *** 2.1 (2.0, 2.2) 31 (21, 38) 264 falling falling trend -3.9 (-5.3, -2.5)
New York *** 1.6 (1.5, 1.7) 48 (45, 49) 397 falling falling trend -5.0 (-6.3, -3.7)
New Mexico *** 2.0 (1.8, 2.3) 34 (15, 47) 53 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.6, -0.1)
New Jersey *** 1.9 (1.8, 2.0) 41 (31, 47) 212 falling falling trend -3.2 (-4.4, -1.9)
New Hampshire *** 2.6 (2.3, 3.0) 5 (1, 31) 47 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.2, 0.3)
Nevada *** 2.2 (2.0, 2.5) 25 (7, 40) 77 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.9, -0.6)
Nebraska *** 2.4 (2.1, 2.7) 16 (2, 36) 56 stable stable trend 0.1 (-0.6, 0.8)
Montana *** 2.5 (2.1, 2.9) 11 (1, 38) 35 stable stable trend -0.2 (-0.9, 0.4)
Missouri *** 2.5 (2.3, 2.6) 14 (3, 26) 187 falling falling trend -3.0 (-4.6, -1.4)
Mississippi *** 1.9 (1.7, 2.1) 38 (24, 48) 67 stable stable trend -0.2 (-0.8, 0.3)
Minnesota *** 2.0 (1.8, 2.2) 35 (23, 45) 136 stable stable trend -0.3 (-0.8, 0.1)
Michigan *** 2.0 (1.9, 2.1) 33 (25, 42) 255 falling falling trend -3.9 (-6.3, -1.4)
Massachusetts *** 2.2 (2.0, 2.3) 29 (16, 37) 190 falling falling trend -4.5 (-6.7, -2.3)
Maryland *** 1.8 (1.7, 2.0) 44 (31, 48) 129 falling falling trend -4.5 (-6.1, -2.9)
Maine *** 2.5 (2.2, 2.8) 13 (1, 34) 48 stable stable trend -0.1 (-0.6, 0.4)
Louisiana *** 1.5 (1.4, 1.7) 49 (44, 50) 82 falling falling trend -5.6 (-8.2, -2.9)
Kentucky *** 2.5 (2.3, 2.7) 10 (2, 25) 136 falling falling trend -5.6 (-8.8, -2.2)
Kansas *** 2.4 (2.2, 2.6) 18 (3, 33) 85 stable stable trend -0.4 (-0.9, 0.1)
Iowa *** 2.6 (2.4, 2.8) 6 (1, 24) 104 stable stable trend 0.3 (-0.1, 0.8)
Indiana *** 2.4 (2.2, 2.6) 17 (6, 28) 187 falling falling trend -3.1 (-5.0, -1.2)
Illinois *** 1.9 (1.8, 2.0) 39 (31, 46) 290 falling falling trend -5.2 (-7.7, -2.6)
Idaho *** 2.8 (2.5, 3.2) 2 (1, 23) 56 stable stable trend 2.5 (-11.0, 18.1)
Hawaii 8 *** 1.2 (1.0, 1.5) 50 (47, 51) 23 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.7, 0.3)
Georgia *** 1.9 (1.8, 2.0) 40 (30, 46) 212 falling falling trend -6.5 (-9.7, -3.1)
Florida *** 2.1 (2.1, 2.2) 30 (23, 35) 656 falling falling trend -5.1 (-6.3, -3.8)
District of Columbia *** 1.0 (0.7, 1.4) 51 (48, 51) 7
*
*
Delaware *** 2.6 (2.2, 3.0) 7 (1, 38) 33 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.7, -0.5)
Connecticut *** 1.9 (1.8, 2.1) 36 (24, 47) 91 falling falling trend -2.7 (-3.8, -1.6)
Colorado *** 2.5 (2.3, 2.7) 12 (3, 25) 153 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.1, 0.1)
California *** 1.8 (1.8, 1.9) 43 (37, 47) 807 falling falling trend -5.2 (-7.0, -3.4)
Arkansas *** 1.9 (1.7, 2.1) 42 (26, 48) 69 falling falling trend -5.6 (-8.7, -2.3)
Arizona *** 2.2 (2.1, 2.4) 24 (12, 34) 202 falling falling trend -4.9 (-7.4, -2.3)
Alaska *** 1.6 (1.2, 2.1) 47 (18, 51) 11
*
*
Alabama *** 2.2 (2.0, 2.4) 27 (13, 39) 129 falling falling trend -4.5 (-7.7, -1.1)
Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 03/19/2024 3:43 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