Return to Home Mortality > Table

Death Rates Table

Data Options

Death Rate Report by State

Breast, 2016-2020

All Races (includes Hispanic), Female, All Ages

Sorted by Rate
State
 sort alphabetically by name ascending
Met Healthy People Objective of 15.3?
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 No 19.6 (19.5, 19.7) N/A 42,101 falling falling trend -1.3 (-1.4, -1.1)
District of Columbia No 23.5 (21.3, 25.8) 1 (1, 21) 92 falling falling trend -2.1 (-2.5, -1.7)
Mississippi No 23.5 (22.5, 24.5) 2 (1, 5) 455 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.1, -0.7)
Oklahoma No 22.4 (21.6, 23.3) 3 (1, 10) 562 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.3, -0.9)
Louisiana No 22.4 (21.6, 23.1) 4 (1, 10) 670 falling falling trend -1.5 (-1.7, -1.4)
Nevada No 21.8 (20.8, 22.8) 5 (1, 21) 392 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.4, -0.9)
Tennessee No 21.6 (21.0, 22.2) 6 (2, 16) 978 falling falling trend -1.4 (-1.6, -1.2)
Kentucky No 21.6 (20.8, 22.4) 7 (2, 18) 639 stable stable trend 2.7 (-2.6, 8.4)
South Carolina No 21.5 (20.8, 22.2) 8 (2, 18) 748 falling falling trend -1.4 (-1.6, -1.2)
West Virginia No 21.2 (20.0, 22.4) 9 (2, 30) 286 falling falling trend -1.3 (-1.6, -1.1)
Ohio No 21.0 (20.6, 21.5) 10 (5, 20) 1,712 falling falling trend -1.8 (-1.9, -1.7)
Maryland No 21.0 (20.3, 21.6) 11 (5, 25) 838 falling falling trend -1.9 (-2.0, -1.7)
Alabama No 20.9 (20.2, 21.6) 12 (5, 26) 702 falling falling trend -1.3 (-1.5, -1.1)
Georgia No 20.8 (20.3, 21.3) 13 (6, 24) 1,303 falling falling trend -1.3 (-1.4, -1.2)
Delaware No 20.8 (19.3, 22.5) 14 (2, 38) 146 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.9, -0.2)
Virginia No 20.6 (20.0, 21.1) 15 (7, 27) 1,130 falling falling trend -1.8 (-1.9, -1.7)
Illinois No 20.5 (20.1, 21.0) 16 (8, 26) 1,726 falling falling trend -1.3 (-1.7, -0.9)
Indiana No 20.4 (19.8, 21.1) 17 (7, 29) 892 falling falling trend -1.7 (-1.9, -1.6)
Nebraska No 20.4 (19.2, 21.6) 18 (4, 36) 252 stable stable trend 0.8 (-0.8, 2.3)
Pennsylvania No 20.3 (19.9, 20.7) 19 (11, 28) 1,943 falling falling trend -2.1 (-2.2, -2.0)
New Jersey No 20.3 (19.8, 20.8) 20 (10, 30) 1,264 falling falling trend -2.2 (-2.4, -2.1)
Michigan No 20.2 (19.7, 20.7) 21 (11, 29) 1,395 falling falling trend -1.8 (-2.0, -1.7)
North Carolina No 20.0 (19.6, 20.5) 22 (13, 31) 1,384 falling falling trend -1.6 (-1.8, -1.5)
Idaho No 20.0 (18.8, 21.3) 23 (5, 41) 213 falling falling trend -1.5 (-1.8, -1.1)
New Mexico No 19.9 (18.8, 21.0) 24 (7, 40) 279 falling falling trend -1.4 (-1.8, -1.0)
Kansas No 19.8 (18.9, 20.8) 25 (9, 38) 377 falling falling trend -1.6 (-1.9, -1.4)
Missouri No 19.8 (19.2, 20.5) 26 (12, 33) 835 falling falling trend -1.6 (-1.8, -1.5)
Utah No 19.8 (18.7, 20.8) 27 (8, 40) 283 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.3, -0.9)
Texas No 19.7 (19.4, 20.0) 28 (20, 33) 3,043 falling falling trend -0.7 (-1.2, -0.2)
Arkansas No 19.5 (18.6, 20.4) 29 (12, 41) 393 falling falling trend -1.3 (-1.5, -1.1)
Oregon No 19.3 (18.5, 20.0) 30 (18, 41) 548 falling falling trend -1.7 (-1.9, -1.5)
Washington No 19.2 (18.7, 19.8) 31 (21, 39) 902 stable stable trend -0.3 (-1.2, 0.5)
South Dakota No 18.9 (17.3, 20.7) 32 (6, 49) 110 falling falling trend -1.7 (-2.2, -1.3)
California No 18.8 (18.6, 19.1) 33 (29, 39) 4,503 falling falling trend -1.5 (-1.7, -1.3)
Colorado No 18.7 (18.1, 19.4) 34 (26, 44) 621 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.3, 0.3)
Wyoming No 18.6 (16.6, 20.8) 35 (6, 51) 67 falling falling trend -2.0 (-2.4, -1.6)
New York No 18.6 (18.2, 18.9) 36 (30, 42) 2,530 falling falling trend -1.9 (-2.2, -1.6)
Florida No 18.5 (18.2, 18.8) 37 (32, 43) 2,999 falling falling trend -1.4 (-1.7, -1.2)
Wisconsin No 18.4 (17.8, 19.0) 38 (29, 46) 722 falling falling trend -1.5 (-1.9, -1.0)
Montana No 18.3 (16.9, 19.8) 39 (15, 50) 137 falling falling trend -1.9 (-2.3, -1.5)
Iowa No 18.1 (17.3, 19.0) 40 (29, 48) 398 falling falling trend -2.1 (-2.3, -1.9)
New Hampshire No 18.0 (16.8, 19.3) 41 (22, 50) 178 falling falling trend -2.6 (-2.9, -2.2)
Arizona No 18.0 (17.5, 18.6) 42 (33, 48) 854 falling falling trend -1.7 (-1.9, -1.5)
Maine No 17.7 (16.5, 18.9) 43 (28, 51) 190 falling falling trend -2.3 (-2.6, -2.0)
Connecticut No 17.5 (16.8, 18.3) 44 (34, 50) 457 falling falling trend -2.4 (-2.6, -2.2)
Minnesota No 17.4 (16.7, 18.0) 45 (38, 50) 636 falling falling trend -2.3 (-2.5, -2.1)
Rhode Island No 17.3 (15.9, 18.7) 46 (29, 51) 134 falling falling trend -2.8 (-3.1, -2.6)
North Dakota No 17.2 (15.4, 19.0) 47 (25, 51) 81 falling falling trend -2.3 (-2.7, -1.9)
Alaska No 17.1 (15.2, 19.2) 48 (19, 51) 63 falling falling trend -1.8 (-2.4, -1.2)
Puerto Rico 8 No 17.0 (16.2, 17.8) N/A 430 stable stable trend -2.8 (-7.8, 2.4)
Massachusetts No 16.5 (16.0, 17.0) 49 (44, 51) 802 falling falling trend -3.0 (-3.2, -2.8)
Vermont No 16.4 (14.8, 18.2) 50 (31, 51) 79 falling falling trend -2.5 (-2.9, -2.1)
Hawaii 8 No 15.9 (14.8, 17.1) 51 (43, 51) 159 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.7, -0.8)
Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 12/08/2022 11:03 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.

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.



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