Return to Home Mortality > Table

Death Rates Table

Data Options

Death Rate Report by State

Breast, 2015-2019

All Races (includes Hispanic), Female, All Ages

Sorted by CI*Rank
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 *** 19.9 (19.8, 20.0) N/A 41,951 falling falling trend -1.4 (-1.5, -1.3)
District of Columbia *** 25.4 (23.1, 27.8) 1 (1, 7) 97 falling falling trend -2.0 (-2.3, -1.6)
Mississippi *** 22.8 (21.9, 23.9) 2 (1, 10) 440 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.2, -0.8)
Oklahoma *** 22.5 (21.7, 23.4) 3 (1, 12) 555 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.3, -0.9)
Louisiana *** 22.4 (21.6, 23.2) 4 (1, 13) 657 falling falling trend -1.5 (-1.7, -1.4)
Nevada *** 22.0 (21.0, 23.0) 5 (2, 23) 383 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.4, -0.9)
Tennessee *** 21.8 (21.1, 22.4) 6 (2, 17) 967 falling falling trend -1.4 (-1.6, -1.3)
West Virginia *** 21.6 (20.5, 22.9) 7 (2, 27) 290 falling falling trend -1.3 (-1.5, -1.0)
Ohio *** 21.6 (21.2, 22.1) 8 (3, 16) 1,743 falling falling trend -1.8 (-1.9, -1.7)
Alabama *** 21.4 (20.7, 22.2) 9 (3, 23) 709 falling falling trend -1.3 (-1.5, -1.1)
Delaware *** 21.3 (19.7, 22.9) 10 (2, 36) 145 stable stable trend -0.8 (-1.8, 0.1)
South Carolina *** 21.2 (20.5, 22.0) 11 (4, 26) 720 falling falling trend -1.5 (-1.7, -1.3)
Kentucky *** 21.2 (20.5, 22.0) 12 (3, 27) 620 falling falling trend -1.5 (-1.7, -1.3)
Georgia *** 21.1 (20.6, 21.6) 13 (5, 24) 1,289 falling falling trend -1.3 (-1.4, -1.2)
Idaho *** 21.1 (19.8, 22.4) 14 (2, 33) 217 falling falling trend -1.4 (-1.8, -1.0)
Maryland *** 21.0 (20.4, 21.7) 15 (5, 27) 828 falling falling trend -1.9 (-2.0, -1.8)
Virginia *** 20.9 (20.3, 21.5) 16 (6, 26) 1,129 falling falling trend -1.8 (-1.9, -1.7)
Illinois *** 20.9 (20.4, 21.3) 17 (8, 26) 1,740 falling falling trend -1.3 (-1.7, -0.9)
Pennsylvania *** 20.8 (20.3, 21.2) 18 (9, 26) 1,969 falling falling trend -2.1 (-2.2, -2.0)
New Jersey *** 20.5 (20.0, 21.1) 19 (9, 29) 1,269 falling falling trend -2.3 (-2.4, -2.1)
North Carolina *** 20.5 (20.0, 21.0) 20 (10, 29) 1,385 falling falling trend -1.6 (-1.8, -1.5)
Indiana *** 20.4 (19.8, 21.0) 21 (10, 32) 879 falling falling trend -1.8 (-1.9, -1.6)
Michigan *** 20.4 (19.9, 20.9) 22 (11, 30) 1,390 falling falling trend -1.9 (-2.0, -1.7)
Missouri *** 20.3 (19.7, 21.0) 23 (10, 32) 846 falling falling trend -1.6 (-1.8, -1.4)
Kansas *** 20.2 (19.3, 21.2) 24 (7, 37) 381 falling falling trend -1.6 (-1.9, -1.3)
New Mexico *** 20.2 (19.1, 21.3) 25 (7, 40) 277 falling falling trend -1.4 (-1.8, -1.0)
Texas *** 19.9 (19.6, 20.2) 26 (21, 33) 3,004 stable stable trend 0.3 (-0.9, 1.5)
Utah *** 19.8 (18.8, 20.9) 27 (8, 43) 276 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.4, -0.9)
Nebraska *** 19.8 (18.7, 21.0) 28 (8, 44) 244 stable stable trend 0.6 (-1.2, 2.5)
Oregon *** 19.6 (18.8, 20.4) 29 (15, 41) 548 falling falling trend -1.8 (-2.0, -1.5)
Arkansas *** 19.5 (18.6, 20.4) 30 (15, 43) 390 falling falling trend -1.4 (-1.6, -1.1)
Washington *** 19.5 (18.9, 20.1) 31 (22, 40) 892 stable stable trend -0.2 (-1.2, 0.9)
Montana *** 19.3 (17.9, 20.9) 32 (6, 49) 139 falling falling trend -1.9 (-2.3, -1.4)
California *** 19.1 (18.8, 19.3) 33 (29, 40) 4,493 falling falling trend -1.5 (-1.7, -1.3)
New York *** 18.9 (18.5, 19.2) 34 (29, 43) 2,547 falling falling trend -1.8 (-2.3, -1.3)
Wyoming *** 18.9 (16.8, 21.1) 35 (5, 51) 66 falling falling trend -2.1 (-2.5, -1.6)
South Dakota *** 18.8 (17.2, 20.6) 36 (9, 51) 107 falling falling trend -1.8 (-2.2, -1.3)
Colorado *** 18.7 (18.1, 19.4) 37 (27, 47) 606 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.5, 0.1)
Florida *** 18.7 (18.4, 19.1) 38 (31, 44) 2,967 falling falling trend -1.4 (-1.7, -1.2)
Wisconsin *** 18.5 (17.9, 19.2) 39 (29, 47) 720 falling falling trend -1.5 (-2.0, -1.0)
Iowa *** 18.4 (17.5, 19.2) 40 (27, 49) 396 falling falling trend -2.1 (-2.4, -1.9)
Arizona *** 18.3 (17.8, 18.9) 41 (32, 48) 842 falling falling trend -1.7 (-1.9, -1.6)
Maine *** 18.1 (17.0, 19.4) 42 (25, 51) 193 falling falling trend -2.3 (-2.6, -2.0)
New Hampshire *** 18.1 (16.9, 19.4) 43 (24, 51) 176 falling falling trend -2.6 (-3.0, -2.3)
North Dakota *** 18.1 (16.3, 20.0) 44 (12, 51) 83 falling falling trend -2.3 (-2.7, -1.9)
Alaska *** 17.8 (15.8, 20.0) 45 (13, 51) 63 falling falling trend -1.6 (-2.3, -1.0)
Minnesota *** 17.7 (17.1, 18.4) 46 (37, 50) 642 falling falling trend -2.3 (-2.5, -2.1)
Vermont *** 17.6 (15.8, 19.4) 47 (19, 51) 83 falling falling trend -2.5 (-2.9, -2.0)
Rhode Island *** 17.6 (16.2, 19.0) 48 (28, 51) 135 falling falling trend -2.9 (-3.2, -2.6)
Connecticut *** 17.3 (16.6, 18.1) 49 (39, 51) 447 falling falling trend -2.5 (-2.6, -2.3)
Massachusetts *** 16.8 (16.3, 17.3) 50 (44, 51) 804 falling falling trend -3.0 (-3.2, -2.9)
Hawaii 8 *** 16.7 (15.5, 17.9) 51 (38, 51) 164 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.7, -0.7)
Puerto Rico 8 *** 17.3 (16.5, 18.0) N/A 428 stable stable trend -2.8 (-7.9, 2.5)
Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 09/27/2021 12:31 pm.

State Cancer Registries may provide more current or more local data.

Data for the following has been suppressed to ensure confidentiality and stability of estimates:
Puerto Rico

† 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.
⋔ 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.



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