Return to Home Mortality > Table

Death Rates Table

Data Options

Death Rate Report by State

Breast, 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 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 No 19.1 (18.9, 19.2) N/A 42,273 falling falling trend -1.3 (-1.4, -1.1)
Alaska Yes 15.0 (11.3, 19.6) 51 (8, 51) 59 falling falling trend -1.8 (-2.4, -1.2)
Hawaii 8 Yes 15.1 (12.7, 17.9) 50 (21, 51) 155 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.7, -0.8)
Vermont No 15.3 (11.9, 19.6) 49 (7, 51) 75 falling falling trend -2.5 (-2.9, -2.1)
Massachusetts No 16.0 (14.9, 17.2) 48 (37, 51) 810 falling falling trend -3.0 (-3.2, -2.8)
Puerto Rico 8 No 16.1 (14.6, 17.8) N/A 441 stable stable trend -2.8 (-7.8, 2.4)
Rhode Island No 16.3 (13.5, 19.6) 47 (9, 51) 129 falling falling trend -2.8 (-3.1, -2.6)
Montana No 16.7 (13.9, 20.0) 46 (7, 51) 136 falling falling trend -1.9 (-2.3, -1.5)
Idaho No 16.8 (14.4, 19.5) 45 (10, 51) 188 falling falling trend -1.5 (-1.8, -1.1)
North Dakota No 16.9 (13.2, 21.2) 44 (2, 51) 82 falling falling trend -2.3 (-2.7, -1.9)
Minnesota No 17.3 (16.0, 18.8) 43 (18, 50) 648 falling falling trend -2.3 (-2.5, -2.1)
Iowa No 17.3 (15.6, 19.3) 42 (13, 51) 398 falling falling trend -2.1 (-2.3, -1.9)
Maine No 17.5 (15.0, 20.3) 41 (7, 51) 196 falling falling trend -2.3 (-2.6, -2.0)
Arizona No 17.6 (16.4, 18.8) 40 (20, 49) 883 falling falling trend -1.7 (-1.9, -1.5)
New York No 17.6 (16.9, 18.4) 39 (27, 47) 2,441 falling falling trend -1.9 (-2.2, -1.6)
Florida No 17.8 (17.1, 18.5) 38 (26, 46) 3,018 falling falling trend -1.4 (-1.7, -1.2)
Connecticut No 18.0 (16.4, 19.8) 37 (10, 49) 485 falling falling trend -2.4 (-2.6, -2.2)
Wisconsin No 18.0 (16.7, 19.4) 36 (14, 48) 726 falling falling trend -1.5 (-1.9, -1.0)
Kansas No 18.2 (16.3, 20.4) 35 (7, 50) 346 falling falling trend -1.6 (-1.9, -1.4)
California No 18.4 (17.9, 19.0) 34 (21, 41) 4,520 falling falling trend -1.5 (-1.7, -1.3)
New Hampshire No 18.5 (15.7, 21.6) 33 (3, 51) 181 falling falling trend -2.6 (-2.9, -2.2)
Oregon No 18.5 (16.9, 20.2) 32 (8, 48) 552 falling falling trend -1.7 (-1.9, -1.5)
New Mexico No 18.5 (16.3, 20.9) 31 (5, 50) 274 falling falling trend -1.4 (-1.8, -1.0)
Wyoming No 18.7 (14.5, 23.8) 30 (1, 51) 72 falling falling trend -2.0 (-2.4, -1.6)
West Virginia No 18.7 (16.4, 21.3) 29 (3, 49) 259 falling falling trend -1.3 (-1.6, -1.1)
Texas No 18.7 (18.1, 19.4) 28 (16, 39) 3,052 falling falling trend -0.7 (-1.2, -0.2)
District of Columbia No 18.8 (14.7, 23.6) 27 (1, 51) 75 falling falling trend -2.1 (-2.5, -1.7)
Washington No 18.8 (17.5, 20.1) 26 (10, 44) 923 stable stable trend -0.3 (-1.2, 0.5)
Delaware No 18.9 (15.9, 22.4) 25 (2, 50) 146 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.9, -0.2)
Missouri No 18.9 (17.6, 20.3) 24 (9, 45) 812 falling falling trend -1.6 (-1.8, -1.5)
Colorado No 18.9 (17.5, 20.5) 23 (8, 45) 658 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.3, 0.3)
North Carolina No 19.2 (18.2, 20.3) 22 (9, 39) 1,390 falling falling trend -1.6 (-1.8, -1.5)
South Dakota No 19.3 (15.8, 23.4) 21 (1, 51) 115 falling falling trend -1.7 (-2.2, -1.3)
Pennsylvania No 19.5 (18.6, 20.4) 20 (8, 36) 1,905 falling falling trend -2.1 (-2.2, -2.0)
New Jersey No 19.5 (18.4, 20.7) 19 (7, 39) 1,249 falling falling trend -2.2 (-2.4, -2.1)
Virginia No 19.7 (18.5, 20.9) 18 (6, 37) 1,122 falling falling trend -1.8 (-1.9, -1.7)
Ohio No 19.8 (18.8, 20.8) 17 (7, 34) 1,647 falling falling trend -1.8 (-1.9, -1.7)
Michigan No 19.8 (18.8, 20.9) 16 (6, 34) 1,403 falling falling trend -1.8 (-2.0, -1.7)
Alabama No 19.9 (18.4, 21.5) 15 (3, 39) 695 falling falling trend -1.3 (-1.5, -1.1)
Utah No 20.0 (17.8, 22.4) 14 (2, 45) 304 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.3, -0.9)
Illinois No 20.0 (19.1, 21.0) 13 (6, 32) 1,711 falling falling trend -1.3 (-1.7, -0.9)
Georgia No 20.0 (19.0, 21.2) 12 (5, 33) 1,311 falling falling trend -1.3 (-1.4, -1.2)
Arkansas No 20.2 (18.2, 22.3) 11 (2, 43) 410 falling falling trend -1.3 (-1.5, -1.1)
Indiana No 20.6 (19.2, 22.0) 10 (3, 32) 925 falling falling trend -1.7 (-1.9, -1.6)
Nevada No 20.8 (18.8, 23.0) 9 (1, 39) 400 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.4, -0.9)
Tennessee No 21.3 (20.0, 22.7) 8 (2, 25) 998 falling falling trend -1.4 (-1.6, -1.2)
Maryland No 21.4 (20.0, 23.0) 7 (1, 24) 876 falling falling trend -1.9 (-2.0, -1.7)
Nebraska No 21.5 (18.9, 24.3) 6 (1, 39) 274 stable stable trend 0.8 (-0.8, 2.3)
Louisiana No 21.7 (20.1, 23.5) 5 (1, 25) 678 falling falling trend -1.5 (-1.7, -1.4)
South Carolina No 21.9 (20.3, 23.6) 4 (1, 21) 796 falling falling trend -1.4 (-1.6, -1.2)
Oklahoma No 22.3 (20.4, 24.2) 3 (1, 21) 576 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.3, -0.9)
Kentucky No 22.8 (21.1, 24.6) 2 (1, 16) 688 stable stable trend 2.7 (-2.6, 8.4)
Mississippi No 24.9 (22.7, 27.3) 1 (1, 7) 501 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.1, -0.7)
Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 03/28/2024 12:38 pm.

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

Return to Top