Return to Home Mortality > Table

Death Rates Table

Data Options

Death Rate Report by State

Breast, 2022

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 18.7 (18.5, 18.9) N/A 42,211 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.3, -1.1)
Delaware No 25.9 (22.2, 30.0) 1 (1, 14) 198 stable stable trend 5.3 (-0.2, 8.6)
District of Columbia No 23.5 (18.8, 29.1) 2 (1, 43) 88 falling falling trend -2.0 (-2.4, -1.6)
Mississippi No 23.1 (21.0, 25.4) 3 (1, 18) 461 falling falling trend -0.8 (-1.0, -0.6)
Kentucky No 21.6 (19.9, 23.4) 4 (1, 25) 658 stable stable trend 0.2 (-1.0, 3.0)
Louisiana No 21.3 (19.6, 23.1) 5 (2, 29) 642 falling falling trend -1.5 (-1.6, -1.3)
Tennessee No 21.2 (19.8, 22.5) 6 (2, 25) 1,012 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.1, 1.6)
Missouri No 21.1 (19.7, 22.6) 7 (2, 27) 921 falling falling trend -1.5 (-1.7, -1.3)
Nevada No 20.9 (18.9, 23.1) 8 (1, 36) 412 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.3, -0.8)
South Carolina No 20.7 (19.2, 22.3) 9 (2, 32) 777 falling falling trend -1.4 (-1.6, -1.1)
Utah No 20.7 (18.5, 23.1) 10 (1, 39) 325 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.2, -0.7)
West Virginia No 20.7 (18.3, 23.3) 11 (1, 40) 297 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.5, -1.0)
Oklahoma No 20.7 (18.9, 22.6) 12 (2, 35) 532 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.2, -0.8)
Idaho No 20.6 (18.1, 23.5) 13 (1, 41) 247 falling falling trend -1.3 (-1.7, -0.9)
Arkansas No 20.6 (18.6, 22.8) 14 (2, 38) 417 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.4, -1.0)
Indiana No 20.4 (19.1, 21.8) 15 (3, 34) 921 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.4, 1.7)
Wyoming No 20.3 (16.0, 25.5) 16 (1, 51) 80 stable stable trend 1.6 (-1.4, 8.2)
Alabama No 20.3 (18.8, 21.9) 17 (3, 36) 720 falling falling trend -1.3 (-1.5, -1.1)
Georgia No 20.2 (19.1, 21.3) 18 (4, 31) 1,356 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.4, -1.1)
Michigan No 19.6 (18.5, 20.7) 19 (7, 36) 1,391 falling falling trend -1.4 (-1.7, -0.1)
Illinois No 19.5 (18.6, 20.5) 20 (8, 35) 1,676 falling falling trend -1.3 (-1.6, -0.7)
Kansas No 19.4 (17.4, 21.6) 21 (3, 43) 373 falling falling trend -1.5 (-1.8, -1.2)
Virginia No 19.4 (18.2, 20.6) 22 (8, 38) 1,117 stable stable trend -1.1 (-1.8, 0.8)
Maryland No 19.3 (18.0, 20.7) 23 (6, 40) 833 falling falling trend -1.9 (-2.0, -1.7)
Pennsylvania No 19.3 (18.4, 20.3) 24 (10, 36) 1,895 falling falling trend -1.6 (-1.9, -0.3)
Texas No 18.9 (18.3, 19.6) 25 (15, 37) 3,133 stable stable trend -0.6 (-1.0, 0.2)
Arizona No 18.9 (17.7, 20.2) 26 (10, 40) 966 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.0, 1.0)
North Carolina No 18.9 (17.9, 19.9) 27 (12, 40) 1,372 falling falling trend -1.5 (-1.7, -1.3)
California No 18.8 (18.2, 19.3) 28 (18, 38) 4,661 falling falling trend -1.3 (-1.5, -1.0)
Florida No 18.6 (17.9, 19.3) 29 (18, 39) 3,219 falling falling trend -1.3 (-1.5, -1.0)
Oregon No 18.6 (17.0, 20.2) 30 (7, 44) 563 stable stable trend -0.9 (-1.6, 1.5)
Hawaii 8 No 18.6 (15.9, 21.6) 31 (3, 49) 196 stable stable trend 1.1 (-1.0, 7.0)
Ohio No 18.5 (17.5, 19.5) 32 (16, 42) 1,552 falling falling trend -1.8 (-1.9, -1.7)
New Jersey No 18.2 (17.2, 19.3) 33 (16, 42) 1,200 falling falling trend -2.3 (-2.4, -2.2)
Colorado No 18.1 (16.7, 19.6) 34 (13, 45) 641 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.1, 2.1)
New Mexico No 17.7 (15.6, 20.0) 35 (8, 49) 270 falling falling trend -1.3 (-1.7, -1.0)
Vermont No 17.7 (13.9, 22.2) 36 (2, 51) 88 falling falling trend -2.4 (-2.8, -2.0)
Maine No 17.5 (15.1, 20.3) 37 (7, 50) 205 falling falling trend -2.2 (-2.6, -1.9)
Iowa No 17.4 (15.6, 19.3) 38 (15, 49) 388 stable stable trend -1.5 (-1.9, 0.5)
Wisconsin No 17.2 (15.9, 18.6) 39 (22, 48) 712 falling falling trend -1.5 (-1.9, -0.8)
South Dakota No 17.0 (13.7, 20.9) 40 (3, 51) 102 falling falling trend -1.7 (-2.1, -1.3)
Washington No 16.7 (15.6, 17.9) 41 (29, 49) 846 falling falling trend -1.4 (-1.7, -0.2)
Montana No 16.6 (13.8, 19.9) 42 (7, 51) 133 falling falling trend -1.9 (-2.3, -1.4)
North Dakota No 16.6 (12.9, 21.0) 43 (3, 51) 78 falling falling trend -2.3 (-2.7, -1.9)
Connecticut No 16.2 (14.7, 17.8) 44 (29, 51) 446 falling falling trend -2.3 (-2.5, -2.1)
Alaska No 16.2 (12.2, 21.0) 45 (3, 51) 61 falling falling trend -1.7 (-2.2, -1.0)
Minnesota No 15.7 (14.4, 17.1) 46 (34, 51) 615 stable stable trend -1.6 (-2.2, 0.9)
New York No 15.7 (15.0, 16.4) 47 (39, 50) 2,217 falling falling trend -2.3 (-2.5, -0.9)
New Hampshire Yes 15.3 (12.9, 18.0) 48 (25, 51) 167 falling falling trend -2.1 (-2.5, -0.4)
Rhode Island Yes 14.7 (12.1, 17.9) 49 (21, 51) 118 stable stable trend -2.3 (-2.9, 0.9)
Nebraska Yes 14.7 (12.7, 17.1) 50 (33, 51) 192 falling falling trend -6.8 (-12.7, -0.1)
Massachusetts Yes 14.1 (13.1, 15.2) 51 (44, 51) 721 falling falling trend -3.0 (-3.2, -2.9)
Puerto Rico 8 Yes 14.0 (12.5, 15.6) N/A 396 stable stable trend -3.8 (-9.0, 1.7)
Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 07/02/2025 7:23 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.

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

Return to Top