Return to Home Mortality > Table

Death Rates Table

Data Options

Death Rate Report by State

Breast, 2014-2018

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 *** 20.1 (20.0, 20.2) N/A 41,737 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.5, -0.6)
District of Columbia *** 26.2 (23.9, 28.7) 1 (1, 4) 98 falling falling trend -2.0 (-2.4, -1.6)
Mississippi *** 23.2 (22.2, 24.2) 2 (1, 11) 441 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.2, -0.7)
Louisiana *** 22.8 (22.0, 23.6) 3 (1, 11) 658 falling falling trend -1.5 (-1.7, -1.4)
Oklahoma *** 22.7 (21.8, 23.5) 4 (1, 13) 551 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.3, -0.8)
Tennessee *** 22.0 (21.3, 22.6) 5 (3, 19) 955 falling falling trend -1.4 (-1.6, -1.3)
West Virginia *** 21.9 (20.8, 23.1) 6 (2, 26) 293 falling falling trend -1.3 (-1.6, -1.0)
Ohio *** 21.9 (21.4, 22.4) 7 (3, 16) 1,746 falling falling trend -1.8 (-1.9, -1.7)
Maryland *** 21.7 (21.1, 22.4) 8 (3, 22) 842 falling falling trend -1.9 (-2.0, -1.8)
South Carolina *** 21.6 (20.9, 22.4) 9 (3, 24) 715 falling falling trend -1.5 (-1.7, -1.3)
Georgia *** 21.6 (21.1, 22.1) 10 (4, 22) 1,285 falling falling trend -1.3 (-1.4, -1.1)
Nevada *** 21.6 (20.6, 22.6) 11 (2, 26) 365 falling falling trend -1.3 (-1.5, -1.1)
Idaho *** 21.5 (20.2, 22.9) 12 (2, 32) 215 falling falling trend -1.4 (-1.8, -0.9)
Alabama *** 21.5 (20.8, 22.3) 13 (3, 24) 700 falling falling trend -1.3 (-1.5, -1.1)
Virginia *** 21.5 (20.9, 22.0) 14 (4, 23) 1,136 falling falling trend -1.8 (-1.9, -1.7)
Delaware *** 21.4 (19.9, 23.1) 15 (2, 37) 144 stable stable trend -0.8 (-1.9, 0.3)
Illinois *** 21.0 (20.6, 21.5) 16 (8, 25) 1,740 falling falling trend -1.5 (-1.9, -1.2)
Pennsylvania *** 21.0 (20.6, 21.4) 17 (9, 26) 1,980 falling falling trend -2.1 (-2.3, -2.0)
Kentucky *** 21.0 (20.2, 21.7) 18 (5, 29) 604 falling falling trend -1.6 (-1.8, -1.4)
Missouri *** 20.9 (20.3, 21.6) 19 (7, 28) 860 falling falling trend -1.6 (-1.8, -1.4)
North Carolina *** 20.9 (20.4, 21.4) 20 (9, 27) 1,376 falling falling trend -1.6 (-1.8, -1.4)
New Jersey *** 20.9 (20.3, 21.4) 21 (10, 27) 1,274 falling falling trend -2.3 (-2.4, -2.1)
Michigan *** 20.8 (20.3, 21.3) 22 (10, 27) 1,406 falling falling trend -1.9 (-2.1, -1.7)
Indiana *** 20.8 (20.1, 21.4) 23 (8, 29) 882 falling falling trend -1.8 (-1.9, -1.6)
Arkansas *** 20.3 (19.4, 21.3) 24 (9, 37) 400 falling falling trend -1.3 (-1.5, -1.1)
Utah *** 20.1 (19.0, 21.2) 25 (10, 43) 272 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.4, -0.9)
Texas *** 19.8 (19.5, 20.2) 26 (23, 34) 2,932 stable stable trend 0.3 (-1.4, 2.0)
Kansas *** 19.8 (18.9, 20.8) 27 (15, 43) 370 falling falling trend -1.7 (-2.0, -1.4)
Oregon *** 19.7 (19.0, 20.5) 28 (19, 41) 541 falling falling trend -1.8 (-2.0, -1.6)
New Mexico *** 19.7 (18.6, 20.8) 29 (12, 44) 269 falling falling trend -1.5 (-1.9, -1.1)
Washington *** 19.7 (19.1, 20.3) 30 (22, 39) 882 stable stable trend -0.1 (-1.4, 1.3)
Nebraska *** 19.6 (18.4, 20.8) 31 (13, 46) 239 falling falling trend -2.0 (-2.3, -1.7)
California *** 19.3 (19.1, 19.6) 32 (27, 38) 4,478 falling falling trend -1.5 (-1.8, -1.2)
New York *** 19.1 (18.7, 19.4) 33 (29, 42) 2,548 falling falling trend -1.8 (-2.4, -1.2)
South Dakota *** 18.9 (17.3, 20.7) 34 (10, 51) 106 falling falling trend -1.8 (-2.3, -1.3)
Montana *** 18.9 (17.5, 20.5) 35 (14, 50) 135 falling falling trend -2.0 (-2.5, -1.6)
Colorado *** 18.9 (18.2, 19.6) 36 (26, 46) 595 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.5, 0.6)
Wisconsin *** 18.8 (18.2, 19.5) 37 (27, 46) 729 falling falling trend -1.3 (-2.0, -0.5)
Florida *** 18.8 (18.5, 19.1) 38 (31, 44) 2,916 falling falling trend -1.5 (-1.7, -1.4)
Alaska *** 18.8 (16.7, 21.1) 39 (5, 51) 64 falling falling trend -1.7 (-2.4, -1.0)
Iowa *** 18.6 (17.7, 19.5) 40 (27, 49) 397 falling falling trend -2.2 (-2.4, -2.0)
Arizona *** 18.5 (17.9, 19.1) 41 (31, 48) 820 falling falling trend -1.8 (-2.0, -1.6)
New Hampshire *** 18.3 (17.1, 19.6) 42 (24, 51) 175 falling falling trend -2.8 (-3.1, -2.4)
Wyoming *** 18.2 (16.2, 20.4) 43 (12, 51) 64 falling falling trend -2.1 (-2.6, -1.6)
Vermont *** 18.0 (16.3, 20.0) 44 (17, 51) 83 falling falling trend -2.4 (-2.9, -2.0)
Maine *** 18.0 (16.8, 19.2) 45 (28, 51) 189 falling falling trend -2.4 (-2.7, -2.1)
North Dakota *** 18.0 (16.2, 19.9) 46 (19, 51) 82 falling falling trend -2.3 (-2.7, -1.9)
Minnesota *** 17.7 (17.0, 18.3) 47 (38, 51) 631 falling falling trend -2.4 (-2.6, -2.2)
Rhode Island *** 17.6 (16.2, 19.1) 48 (28, 51) 133 falling falling trend -3.0 (-3.3, -2.7)
Puerto Rico 8 *** 17.6 (16.8, 18.4) N/A 435 stable stable trend -2.8 (-7.9, 2.5)
Connecticut *** 17.4 (16.7, 18.2) 49 (39, 51) 446 falling falling trend -2.5 (-2.7, -2.3)
Massachusetts *** 17.3 (16.7, 17.8) 50 (42, 51) 816 falling falling trend -3.0 (-3.2, -2.9)
Hawaii 8 *** 16.1 (14.9, 17.3) 51 (44, 51) 157 falling falling trend -1.5 (-1.9, -1.0)
Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 06/18/2021 4:15 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 1969-2017 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.
CI*Rank data for Puerto Rico is not available.

Return to Top