Return to Home Mortality > Table

Death Rates Table

Data Options

Death Rate Report by State

Breast, 2013-2017

All Races (includes Hispanic), Female, All Ages

Sorted by Count
State
 sort alphabetically by name ascending
Met Healthy People Objective of 20.7?
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 ascending
Recent Trend
Recent 5-Year Trend in Death Rates
(95% Confidence Interval)
 sort by trend descending
United States Yes 20.3 (20.2, 20.4) N/A 41,416 falling falling trend -1.4 (-1.6, -1.3)
California Yes 19.6 (19.3, 19.8) 30 (26, 39) 4,438 falling falling trend -1.6 (-1.9, -1.3)
Florida Yes 19.1 (18.8, 19.5) 37 (30, 44) 2,880 falling falling trend -1.5 (-1.7, -1.4)
Texas Yes 19.9 (19.5, 20.2) 29 (24, 36) 2,858 stable stable trend -0.9 (-1.8, 0.0)
New York Yes 19.3 (18.9, 19.6) 35 (28, 42) 2,547 falling falling trend -2.4 (-2.6, -2.2)
Pennsylvania No 21.2 (20.8, 21.7) 19 (8, 25) 1,987 falling falling trend -2.2 (-2.3, -2.0)
Ohio No 22.3 (21.8, 22.8) 5 (3, 14) 1,762 falling falling trend -1.8 (-1.9, -1.7)
Illinois No 21.3 (20.8, 21.8) 18 (7, 25) 1,741 falling falling trend -1.6 (-2.0, -1.2)
Michigan No 20.7 (20.2, 21.2) 24 (13, 29) 1,385 falling falling trend -2.0 (-2.1, -1.8)
North Carolina No 20.9 (20.4, 21.4) 23 (10, 28) 1,346 falling falling trend -1.6 (-1.8, -1.5)
New Jersey No 21.3 (20.8, 21.9) 17 (6, 26) 1,287 falling falling trend -2.3 (-2.4, -2.2)
Georgia No 22.0 (21.5, 22.6) 6 (3, 19) 1,276 falling falling trend -1.3 (-1.4, -1.1)
Virginia No 21.5 (21.0, 22.1) 12 (4, 24) 1,119 falling falling trend -1.8 (-2.0, -1.7)
Tennessee No 21.8 (21.1, 22.4) 10 (3, 23) 934 falling falling trend -1.5 (-1.7, -1.4)
Indiana No 21.0 (20.3, 21.6) 22 (7, 28) 876 falling falling trend -1.8 (-2.0, -1.6)
Washington Yes 19.9 (19.3, 20.5) 28 (21, 39) 870 falling falling trend -1.9 (-2.1, -1.7)
Missouri No 21.5 (20.8, 22.1) 14 (4, 25) 869 falling falling trend -1.5 (-1.8, -1.3)
Maryland No 21.8 (21.1, 22.5) 9 (3, 23) 831 falling falling trend -1.9 (-2.1, -1.8)
Massachusetts Yes 17.8 (17.2, 18.4) 49 (41, 50) 828 falling falling trend -3.0 (-3.2, -2.8)
Arizona Yes 19.1 (18.6, 19.8) 36 (27, 45) 827 falling falling trend -1.8 (-2.0, -1.6)
Wisconsin Yes 19.0 (18.3, 19.6) 39 (28, 47) 726 falling falling trend -2.0 (-2.2, -1.7)
South Carolina No 21.5 (20.8, 22.3) 13 (4, 26) 691 falling falling trend -1.6 (-1.8, -1.3)
Alabama No 21.4 (20.7, 22.2) 15 (4, 26) 686 falling falling trend -1.3 (-1.5, -1.1)
Louisiana No 23.1 (22.3, 23.9) 3 (2, 10) 653 falling falling trend -1.6 (-1.8, -1.4)
Minnesota Yes 17.9 (17.3, 18.6) 47 (38, 50) 630 falling falling trend -2.4 (-2.7, -2.2)
Kentucky No 21.2 (20.4, 22.0) 20 (4, 29) 603 falling falling trend -1.6 (-1.8, -1.4)
Colorado Yes 18.9 (18.2, 19.6) 41 (28, 48) 582 stable stable trend -0.3 (-1.5, 1.0)
Oregon Yes 20.0 (19.3, 20.8) 27 (16, 41) 540 falling falling trend -1.8 (-2.0, -1.6)
Oklahoma No 22.4 (21.5, 23.3) 4 (2, 19) 538 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.4, -0.9)
Connecticut Yes 17.8 (17.1, 18.6) 48 (37, 51) 451 falling falling trend -2.5 (-2.7, -2.3)
Mississippi No 23.5 (22.5, 24.5) 2 (1, 9) 442 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.1, -0.7)
Puerto Rico 8 Yes 17.9 (17.1, 18.7) N/A 436
*
*
Arkansas No 21.1 (20.1, 22.0) 21 (4, 31) 406 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.5, -1.0)
Iowa Yes 18.7 (17.8, 19.5) 42 (28, 50) 395 falling falling trend -2.2 (-2.5, -2.0)
Kansas Yes 19.4 (18.5, 20.4) 33 (21, 46) 361 falling falling trend -1.8 (-2.1, -1.4)
Nevada No 21.9 (20.9, 22.9) 7 (2, 27) 360 falling falling trend -1.3 (-1.6, -1.1)
West Virginia No 21.8 (20.6, 23.0) 8 (2, 28) 289 falling falling trend -1.4 (-1.6, -1.1)
Utah Yes 20.1 (19.0, 21.2) 26 (9, 44) 265 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.5, -0.9)
New Mexico Yes 19.3 (18.2, 20.4) 34 (21, 49) 259 falling falling trend -1.6 (-2.0, -1.1)
Nebraska Yes 20.1 (19.0, 21.3) 25 (8, 45) 243 stable stable trend 0.2 (-2.0, 2.3)
Idaho No 21.6 (20.3, 23.0) 11 (2, 33) 208 falling falling trend -1.5 (-1.9, -1.0)
Maine Yes 18.6 (17.4, 19.9) 43 (25, 50) 191 falling falling trend -2.4 (-2.7, -2.0)
New Hampshire Yes 18.9 (17.6, 20.2) 40 (21, 50) 176 falling falling trend -2.8 (-3.1, -2.4)
Hawaii 8 Yes 16.1 (14.9, 17.3) 51 (46, 51) 154 falling falling trend -1.5 (-1.9, -1.0)
Delaware No 21.3 (19.7, 23.0) 16 (2, 40) 140 stable stable trend -0.9 (-2.2, 0.4)
Montana Yes 19.5 (18.0, 21.1) 31 (7, 50) 137 falling falling trend -2.0 (-2.5, -1.5)
Rhode Island Yes 18.0 (16.6, 19.5) 46 (26, 51) 135 falling falling trend -3.0 (-3.4, -2.7)
South Dakota Yes 19.1 (17.4, 20.9) 38 (9, 51) 106 falling falling trend -1.9 (-2.4, -1.3)
District of Columbia No 26.6 (24.3, 29.2) 1 (1, 3) 99 falling falling trend -2.0 (-2.5, -1.6)
North Dakota Yes 18.0 (16.2, 20.0) 45 (19, 51) 83 falling falling trend -2.3 (-2.7, -1.9)
Vermont Yes 17.7 (15.9, 19.6) 50 (24, 51) 79 falling falling trend -2.6 (-3.0, -2.2)
Alaska Yes 19.5 (17.3, 21.8) 32 (3, 51) 65 falling falling trend -1.6 (-2.3, -0.8)
Wyoming Yes 18.3 (16.3, 20.5) 44 (12, 51) 64 falling falling trend -2.2 (-2.7, -1.7)
Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 08/12/2020 10:48 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.

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.

* Data has been suppressed to ensure confidentiality and stability of rate estimates. Counts are suppressed if fewer than 16 records were reported in a specific area-sex-race category. If an average count of 3 is shown, the total number of cases for the time period is 16 or more which exceeds suppression threshold (but is rounded to 3).


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