Return to Home Mortality > Table

Death Rates Table

Data Options

Death Rate Report by State

Melanoma of the Skin, 2015-2019

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 *** 2.2 (2.1, 2.2) N/A 8,284 falling falling trend -5.2 (-6.2, -4.2)
Minnesota *** 2.1 (2.0, 2.3) 35 (20, 44) 143 stable stable trend 1.5 (-11.5, 16.4)
Iowa *** 2.6 (2.3, 2.8) 11 (2, 32) 100 stable stable trend 0.4 (-0.1, 0.8)
Nebraska *** 2.5 (2.2, 2.8) 14 (2, 37) 57 stable stable trend 0.2 (-0.5, 0.9)
North Dakota *** 2.0 (1.6, 2.4) 40 (8, 50) 17 stable stable trend 0.1 (-0.8, 1.0)
West Virginia *** 2.9 (2.6, 3.2) 2 (1, 22) 70 stable stable trend 0.1 (-0.5, 0.7)
Mississippi *** 2.1 (1.9, 2.3) 36 (18, 47) 71 stable stable trend -0.1 (-0.7, 0.5)
Montana *** 2.5 (2.1, 2.9) 15 (1, 43) 34 stable stable trend -0.1 (-0.8, 0.6)
Wyoming *** 3.0 (2.5, 3.7) 1 (1, 33) 21 stable stable trend -0.2 (-1.2, 0.7)
Colorado *** 2.6 (2.4, 2.8) 10 (2, 25) 154 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.1, 0.2)
New Hampshire *** 2.7 (2.3, 3.1) 7 (1, 34) 47 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.2, 0.3)
Rhode Island *** 2.2 (1.9, 2.6) 28 (3, 47) 31 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.4, 0.4)
Alaska *** 1.7 (1.3, 2.3) 47 (13, 51) 11 stable stable trend -0.6 (-2.3, 1.1)
Hawaii 8 *** 1.3 (1.0, 1.5) 50 (48, 51) 24 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.8, 0.3)
New Mexico *** 2.3 (2.0, 2.5) 27 (7, 45) 58 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.4, 0.1)
Puerto Rico 8 *** 0.5 (0.4, 0.6) N/A 23 stable stable trend -0.7 (-20.0, 23.3)
South Dakota *** 2.4 (1.9, 2.8) 23 (1, 47) 24 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.9, 0.4)
Delaware *** 2.7 (2.3, 3.2) 5 (1, 36) 34 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.6, -0.4)
Connecticut *** 2.0 (1.8, 2.2) 39 (27, 47) 91 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.6, -0.6)
Nevada *** 2.4 (2.1, 2.6) 22 (4, 38) 79 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.8, -0.4)
Vermont *** 2.2 (1.8, 2.7) 32 (2, 49) 20 falling falling trend -1.7 (-2.5, -0.8)
Michigan *** 2.2 (2.0, 2.3) 34 (22, 40) 268 falling falling trend -2.3 (-4.2, -0.4)
Wisconsin *** 2.4 (2.2, 2.6) 21 (7, 33) 174 falling falling trend -2.6 (-5.0, -0.1)
Oklahoma *** 2.6 (2.4, 2.8) 9 (1, 26) 116 falling falling trend -3.0 (-4.5, -1.4)
Missouri *** 2.5 (2.4, 2.7) 12 (3, 26) 191 falling falling trend -3.1 (-5.0, -1.1)
Tennessee *** 2.7 (2.5, 2.9) 6 (1, 19) 215 stable stable trend -3.3 (-6.7, 0.1)
Washington *** 2.5 (2.3, 2.6) 16 (4, 29) 210 falling falling trend -3.3 (-5.8, -0.8)
Pennsylvania *** 2.3 (2.2, 2.4) 24 (14, 33) 398 falling falling trend -3.6 (-5.2, -2.0)
North Carolina *** 2.2 (2.1, 2.3) 31 (18, 38) 268 falling falling trend -3.9 (-5.5, -2.2)
Indiana *** 2.4 (2.3, 2.6) 19 (7, 33) 188 falling falling trend -4.2 (-6.8, -1.6)
Ohio *** 2.5 (2.4, 2.6) 13 (5, 25) 364 falling falling trend -4.3 (-7.9, -0.7)
Texas *** 1.8 (1.8, 1.9) 46 (40, 47) 500 falling falling trend -4.3 (-5.6, -3.0)
Virginia *** 2.2 (2.0, 2.3) 33 (20, 40) 211 falling falling trend -4.4 (-6.0, -2.8)
Utah *** 2.8 (2.5, 3.1) 4 (1, 21) 73 falling falling trend -4.5 (-8.5, -0.4)
Maryland *** 1.8 (1.7, 2.0) 45 (36, 48) 128 falling falling trend -4.6 (-6.5, -2.8)
Maine *** 2.4 (2.1, 2.8) 18 (2, 42) 45 stable stable trend -4.8 (-9.6, 0.3)
Alabama *** 2.2 (2.1, 2.4) 29 (13, 40) 132 falling falling trend -5.1 (-9.1, -1.0)
Arizona *** 2.3 (2.2, 2.5) 25 (11, 36) 201 falling falling trend -5.3 (-8.4, -2.0)
Idaho *** 2.8 (2.5, 3.2) 3 (1, 25) 55 falling falling trend -5.4 (-9.2, -1.4)
Massachusetts *** 2.2 (2.1, 2.4) 30 (17, 39) 191 falling falling trend -5.6 (-9.0, -2.1)
New York *** 1.6 (1.6, 1.7) 48 (46, 49) 398 falling falling trend -5.6 (-7.0, -4.2)
South Carolina *** 2.0 (1.9, 2.2) 38 (26, 47) 125 falling falling trend -5.7 (-10.5, -0.7)
Oregon *** 2.4 (2.2, 2.6) 20 (5, 35) 123 falling falling trend -5.8 (-8.2, -3.3)
Kentucky *** 2.7 (2.5, 2.9) 8 (1, 22) 141 falling falling trend -6.1 (-10.2, -1.8)
California *** 1.9 (1.9, 2.0) 41 (35, 46) 844 falling falling trend -6.2 (-9.2, -3.2)
Florida *** 2.3 (2.2, 2.3) 26 (20, 35) 671 falling falling trend -6.4 (-8.2, -4.4)
Illinois *** 1.9 (1.8, 2.0) 43 (35, 47) 290 falling falling trend -6.8 (-9.6, -4.0)
Kansas *** 2.5 (2.2, 2.7) 17 (3, 35) 87 falling falling trend -6.8 (-12.6, -0.5)
Louisiana *** 1.6 (1.4, 1.7) 49 (45, 50) 83 falling falling trend -7.4 (-11.4, -3.2)
New Jersey *** 1.9 (1.8, 2.0) 44 (35, 47) 212 falling falling trend -7.7 (-10.4, -4.9)
Georgia *** 2.0 (1.9, 2.2) 37 (29, 45) 220 falling falling trend -8.1 (-13.9, -1.8)
Arkansas *** 1.9 (1.7, 2.2) 42 (25, 48) 71 falling falling trend -8.6 (-12.9, -4.0)
District of Columbia *** 0.9 (0.6, 1.4) 51 (49, 51) 6
*
*
Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 09/21/2021 10:52 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 1969-2018 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.
CI*Rank data for Puerto Rico is not available.

Return to Top