Return to Home Mortality > Table

Death Rates Table

Data Options

Death Rate Report by State

Breast, 2019

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 *** 19.4 (19.2, 19.6) N/A 42,280 falling falling trend -1.4 (-1.5, -1.3)
District of Columbia *** 24.4 (19.7, 30.0) 1 (1, 45) 97 falling falling trend -2.0 (-2.3, -1.6)
Nevada *** 23.8 (21.6, 26.2) 2 (1, 15) 440 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.4, -0.9)
Nebraska *** 22.3 (19.6, 25.2) 3 (1, 39) 276 stable stable trend 0.6 (-1.2, 2.5)
Kentucky *** 22.1 (20.4, 24.0) 4 (1, 27) 657 falling falling trend -1.5 (-1.7, -1.3)
Louisiana *** 21.9 (20.3, 23.7) 5 (1, 29) 667 falling falling trend -1.5 (-1.7, -1.4)
Mississippi *** 21.9 (19.8, 24.1) 6 (1, 36) 433 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.2, -0.8)
Oklahoma *** 21.4 (19.6, 23.4) 7 (1, 36) 539 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.3, -0.9)
Ohio *** 21.1 (20.1, 22.2) 8 (3, 27) 1,744 falling falling trend -1.8 (-1.9, -1.7)
New Mexico *** 20.9 (18.5, 23.7) 9 (1, 46) 288 falling falling trend -1.4 (-1.8, -1.0)
West Virginia *** 20.9 (18.4, 23.6) 10 (1, 46) 284 falling falling trend -1.3 (-1.5, -1.0)
Kansas *** 20.8 (18.8, 23.0) 11 (1, 42) 411 falling falling trend -1.6 (-1.9, -1.3)
Illinois *** 20.7 (19.7, 21.7) 12 (4, 30) 1,758 falling falling trend -1.3 (-1.7, -0.9)
Montana *** 20.7 (17.4, 24.4) 13 (1, 49) 156 falling falling trend -1.9 (-2.3, -1.4)
South Carolina *** 20.7 (19.2, 22.3) 14 (2, 38) 751 falling falling trend -1.5 (-1.7, -1.3)
Tennessee *** 20.6 (19.3, 21.9) 15 (3, 37) 968 falling falling trend -1.4 (-1.6, -1.3)
Delaware *** 20.5 (17.1, 24.5) 16 (1, 49) 141 stable stable trend -0.8 (-1.8, 0.1)
Alabama *** 20.4 (18.9, 22.0) 17 (3, 40) 711 falling falling trend -1.3 (-1.5, -1.1)
Georgia *** 20.1 (19.0, 21.3) 18 (6, 38) 1,302 falling falling trend -1.3 (-1.4, -1.2)
New Jersey *** 20.0 (18.9, 21.2) 19 (6, 39) 1,253 falling falling trend -2.3 (-2.4, -2.1)
Texas *** 19.9 (19.2, 20.7) 20 (9, 35) 3,145 stable stable trend 0.3 (-0.9, 1.5)
Virginia *** 19.9 (18.7, 21.1) 21 (6, 41) 1,111 falling falling trend -1.8 (-1.9, -1.7)
Michigan *** 19.9 (18.8, 21.0) 22 (7, 39) 1,389 falling falling trend -1.9 (-2.0, -1.7)
New Hampshire *** 19.6 (16.9, 22.8) 23 (1, 50) 201 falling falling trend -2.6 (-3.0, -2.3)
Oregon *** 19.6 (18.0, 21.3) 24 (5, 46) 573 falling falling trend -1.8 (-2.0, -1.5)
Hawaii 8 *** 19.5 (16.7, 22.7) 25 (1, 50) 193 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.7, -0.7)
Pennsylvania *** 19.5 (18.6, 20.5) 26 (11, 41) 1,879 falling falling trend -2.1 (-2.2, -2.0)
Maryland *** 19.3 (18.0, 20.8) 27 (7, 45) 789 falling falling trend -1.9 (-2.0, -1.8)
Indiana *** 19.2 (17.9, 20.6) 28 (9, 45) 847 falling falling trend -1.8 (-1.9, -1.6)
Washington *** 19.2 (18.0, 20.6) 29 (9, 46) 916 stable stable trend -0.2 (-1.2, 0.9)
North Carolina *** 19.2 (18.1, 20.3) 30 (12, 44) 1,355 falling falling trend -1.6 (-1.8, -1.5)
Florida *** 19.1 (18.4, 19.9) 31 (17, 42) 3,155 falling falling trend -1.4 (-1.7, -1.2)
Utah *** 19.1 (16.9, 21.5) 32 (4, 49) 285 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.4, -0.9)
Missouri *** 19.1 (17.7, 20.5) 33 (9, 47) 810 falling falling trend -1.6 (-1.8, -1.4)
California *** 18.6 (18.1, 19.2) 34 (24, 44) 4,527 falling falling trend -1.5 (-1.7, -1.3)
Idaho *** 18.5 (16.0, 21.3) 35 (3, 50) 202 falling falling trend -1.4 (-1.8, -1.0)
Arizona *** 18.4 (17.2, 19.7) 36 (15, 48) 900 falling falling trend -1.7 (-1.9, -1.6)
Alaska *** 18.4 (14.1, 23.5) 37 (1, 51) 68 falling falling trend -1.6 (-2.3, -1.0)
Rhode Island *** 18.2 (15.2, 21.7) 38 (2, 51) 142 falling falling trend -2.9 (-3.2, -2.6)
Arkansas *** 18.2 (16.3, 20.2) 39 (11, 50) 375 falling falling trend -1.4 (-1.6, -1.1)
New York *** 18.2 (17.4, 18.9) 40 (26, 47) 2,491 falling falling trend -1.8 (-2.3, -1.3)
Iowa *** 18.1 (16.3, 20.1) 41 (10, 50) 396 falling falling trend -2.1 (-2.4, -1.9)
South Dakota *** 18.0 (14.6, 22.0) 42 (2, 51) 107 falling falling trend -1.8 (-2.2, -1.3)
Colorado *** 17.6 (16.2, 19.1) 43 (19, 50) 605 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.5, 0.1)
Maine *** 17.6 (15.1, 20.6) 44 (6, 51) 192 falling falling trend -2.3 (-2.6, -2.0)
Wisconsin *** 17.6 (16.2, 19.0) 45 (23, 50) 695 falling falling trend -1.5 (-2.0, -1.0)
Wyoming *** 17.5 (13.3, 22.7) 46 (1, 51) 62 falling falling trend -2.1 (-2.5, -1.6)
Minnesota *** 17.3 (16.0, 18.7) 47 (25, 50) 650 falling falling trend -2.3 (-2.5, -2.1)
Puerto Rico 8 *** 16.9 (15.2, 18.7) N/A 419 stable stable trend -2.8 (-7.9, 2.5)
Connecticut *** 16.8 (15.2, 18.5) 48 (27, 51) 440 falling falling trend -2.5 (-2.6, -2.3)
Vermont *** 15.9 (12.5, 20.1) 49 (6, 51) 79 falling falling trend -2.5 (-2.9, -2.0)
Massachusetts *** 15.3 (14.2, 16.4) 50 (44, 51) 758 falling falling trend -3.0 (-3.2, -2.9)
North Dakota *** 14.7 (11.2, 19.0) 51 (9, 51) 67 falling falling trend -2.3 (-2.7, -1.9)
Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 12/03/2021 9:16 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 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.
‡ 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.
CI*Rank data for Puerto Rico is not available.

Return to Top