Return to Home Mortality > Table

Death Rates Table

Data Options

Death Rate Report by State

Breast, 2018

All Races (includes Hispanic), Female, All Ages

Sorted by Rate
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 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 *** 19.7 (19.5, 19.9) N/A 42,465 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.5, -0.6)
District of Columbia *** 27.1 (22.1, 33.0) 1 (1, 28) 106 falling falling trend -2.0 (-2.4, -1.6)
Oklahoma *** 24.2 (22.3, 26.3) 2 (1, 13) 610 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.3, -0.8)
Tennessee *** 23.2 (21.8, 24.8) 3 (1, 15) 1,034 falling falling trend -1.4 (-1.6, -1.3)
Louisiana *** 22.6 (20.9, 24.4) 4 (1, 26) 677 falling falling trend -1.5 (-1.7, -1.4)
West Virginia *** 22.4 (19.8, 25.3) 5 (1, 36) 298 falling falling trend -1.3 (-1.6, -1.0)
Idaho *** 22.1 (19.3, 25.2) 6 (1, 41) 239 falling falling trend -1.4 (-1.8, -0.9)
Alabama *** 21.9 (20.3, 23.6) 7 (2, 31) 731 falling falling trend -1.3 (-1.5, -1.1)
Delaware *** 21.8 (18.3, 25.8) 8 (1, 47) 149 stable stable trend -0.8 (-1.9, 0.3)
South Carolina *** 21.7 (20.2, 23.4) 9 (2, 30) 758 falling falling trend -1.5 (-1.7, -1.3)
Michigan *** 21.7 (20.5, 22.8) 10 (3, 26) 1,490 falling falling trend -1.9 (-2.1, -1.7)
Mississippi *** 21.5 (19.4, 23.7) 11 (1, 38) 413 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.2, -0.7)
Nevada *** 21.2 (19.1, 23.5) 12 (2, 39) 381 falling falling trend -1.3 (-1.5, -1.1)
Maryland *** 21.2 (19.7, 22.7) 13 (3, 35) 838 falling falling trend -1.9 (-2.0, -1.8)
Ohio *** 20.9 (19.8, 21.9) 14 (5, 31) 1,700 falling falling trend -1.8 (-1.9, -1.7)
Indiana *** 20.8 (19.5, 22.3) 15 (4, 36) 914 falling falling trend -1.8 (-1.9, -1.6)
Illinois *** 20.7 (19.7, 21.7) 16 (6, 32) 1,754 falling falling trend -1.5 (-1.9, -1.2)
New Jersey *** 20.7 (19.5, 21.9) 17 (6, 35) 1,290 falling falling trend -2.3 (-2.4, -2.1)
Virginia *** 20.7 (19.5, 22.0) 18 (5, 36) 1,132 falling falling trend -1.8 (-1.9, -1.7)
Georgia *** 20.6 (19.5, 21.8) 19 (6, 34) 1,293 falling falling trend -1.3 (-1.4, -1.1)
Pennsylvania *** 20.4 (19.5, 21.4) 20 (8, 34) 1,963 falling falling trend -2.1 (-2.3, -2.0)
Kansas *** 20.3 (18.2, 22.6) 21 (3, 44) 381 falling falling trend -1.7 (-2.0, -1.4)
North Carolina *** 20.3 (19.2, 21.4) 22 (8, 36) 1,405 falling falling trend -1.6 (-1.8, -1.4)
Utah *** 20.2 (17.9, 22.7) 23 (2, 47) 287 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.4, -0.9)
Wyoming *** 20.1 (15.6, 25.7) 24 (1, 51) 71 falling falling trend -2.1 (-2.6, -1.6)
Vermont *** 20.1 (16.2, 24.8) 25 (1, 51) 97 falling falling trend -2.4 (-2.9, -2.0)
Texas *** 20.0 (19.3, 20.8) 26 (12, 35) 3,117 stable stable trend 0.3 (-1.4, 2.0)
Kentucky *** 19.8 (18.2, 21.5) 27 (6, 44) 592 falling falling trend -1.6 (-1.8, -1.4)
South Dakota *** 19.8 (16.1, 24.1) 28 (1, 51) 112 falling falling trend -1.8 (-2.3, -1.3)
Wisconsin *** 19.6 (18.2, 21.1) 29 (9, 43) 775 falling falling trend -1.3 (-2.0, -0.5)
New Mexico *** 19.5 (17.1, 22.0) 30 (4, 48) 275 falling falling trend -1.5 (-1.9, -1.1)
Washington *** 19.4 (18.1, 20.7) 31 (11, 43) 913 stable stable trend -0.1 (-1.4, 1.3)
New York *** 19.3 (18.6, 20.1) 32 (17, 40) 2,639 falling falling trend -1.8 (-2.4, -1.2)
Missouri *** 19.3 (17.9, 20.7) 33 (11, 44) 814 falling falling trend -1.6 (-1.8, -1.4)
California *** 19.0 (18.4, 19.5) 34 (24, 40) 4,572 falling falling trend -1.5 (-1.8, -1.2)
Oregon *** 18.5 (16.9, 20.2) 35 (13, 48) 525 falling falling trend -1.8 (-2.0, -1.6)
Minnesota *** 18.4 (16.9, 19.9) 36 (17, 48) 670 falling falling trend -2.4 (-2.6, -2.2)
Iowa *** 18.3 (16.4, 20.3) 37 (13, 50) 394 falling falling trend -2.2 (-2.4, -2.0)
Colorado *** 18.2 (16.7, 19.7) 38 (19, 48) 599 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.5, 0.6)
Nebraska *** 18.1 (15.7, 20.8) 39 (7, 51) 222 falling falling trend -2.0 (-2.3, -1.7)
Florida *** 18.0 (17.3, 18.7) 40 (31, 46) 2,962 falling falling trend -1.5 (-1.7, -1.4)
Arkansas *** 17.8 (16.0, 19.8) 41 (15, 50) 368 falling falling trend -1.3 (-1.5, -1.1)
North Dakota *** 17.3 (13.5, 21.9) 42 (3, 51) 77 falling falling trend -2.3 (-2.7, -1.9)
Rhode Island *** 17.2 (14.3, 20.5) 43 (8, 51) 135 falling falling trend -3.0 (-3.3, -2.7)
Arizona *** 17.1 (15.9, 18.4) 44 (31, 50) 805 falling falling trend -1.8 (-2.0, -1.6)
Montana *** 16.7 (13.9, 20.1) 45 (10, 51) 126 falling falling trend -2.0 (-2.5, -1.6)
New Hampshire *** 16.6 (14.2, 19.5) 46 (15, 51) 171 falling falling trend -2.8 (-3.1, -2.4)
Connecticut *** 16.4 (14.8, 18.2) 47 (33, 51) 430 falling falling trend -2.5 (-2.7, -2.3)
Alaska *** 16.1 (12.1, 21.1) 48 (4, 51) 58 falling falling trend -1.7 (-2.4, -1.0)
Maine *** 16.0 (13.6, 18.7) 49 (25, 51) 177 falling falling trend -2.4 (-2.7, -2.1)
Massachusetts *** 15.8 (14.6, 17.0) 50 (41, 51) 773 falling falling trend -3.0 (-3.2, -2.9)
Puerto Rico 8 *** 15.7 (14.2, 17.4) N/A 409 stable stable trend -2.8 (-7.9, 2.5)
Hawaii 8 *** 15.1 (12.6, 17.8) 51 (31, 51) 153 falling falling trend -1.5 (-1.9, -1.0)
Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 09/19/2020 6:14 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 1969-2017 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.



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.

Return to Top