Return to Home Mortality > Table

Death Rates Table

Data Options

Death Rate Report by State

Uterus (Corpus & Uterus, NOS), 2015-2019

All Races (includes Hispanic), Female, All Ages

Sorted by Count
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 descending
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 *** 5.0 (4.9, 5.0) N/A 10,923 rising rising trend 1.0 (0.3, 1.7)
Alaska *** 3.2 (2.4, 4.3) 51 (30, 51) 11
*
*
Wyoming *** 4.0 (3.2, 5.1) 47 (9, 51) 15 stable stable trend 0.3 (-1.1, 1.7)
North Dakota *** 4.6 (3.8, 5.6) 31 (2, 51) 22 stable stable trend -0.9 (-2.9, 1.2)
South Dakota *** 4.4 (3.6, 5.3) 40 (7, 51) 26 stable stable trend 0.6 (-0.3, 1.6)
Vermont *** 5.7 (4.8, 6.8) 7 (2, 44) 27 stable stable trend 0.8 (-0.2, 1.7)
Montana *** 4.0 (3.3, 4.7) 48 (20, 51) 31 stable stable trend -0.3 (-0.9, 0.4)
District of Columbia *** 9.8 (8.4, 11.3) 1 (1, 1) 38 rising rising trend 1.6 (0.5, 2.6)
Rhode Island *** 5.2 (4.5, 6.0) 13 (2, 45) 41 rising rising trend 1.1 (0.3, 2.0)
Delaware *** 6.0 (5.2, 6.8) 4 (2, 29) 44 rising rising trend 1.3 (0.4, 2.2)
Hawaii 8 *** 5.2 (4.5, 5.9) 14 (2, 45) 49 rising rising trend 1.9 (1.1, 2.7)
New Hampshire *** 5.3 (4.7, 6.0) 10 (2, 42) 53 rising rising trend 1.1 (0.4, 1.9)
Idaho *** 5.0 (4.4, 5.6) 21 (5, 47) 54 rising rising trend 1.3 (0.5, 2.1)
Maine *** 5.0 (4.4, 5.6) 20 (4, 45) 57 rising rising trend 0.9 (0.2, 1.5)
New Mexico *** 4.2 (3.7, 4.7) 45 (20, 50) 60 stable stable trend 0.3 (-0.4, 1.0)
Nebraska *** 5.0 (4.5, 5.6) 17 (4, 45) 62 stable stable trend 7.6 (-2.1, 18.3)
Utah *** 4.5 (4.0, 5.0) 36 (12, 49) 65 stable stable trend 0.4 (-0.4, 1.2)
West Virginia *** 4.6 (4.1, 5.1) 34 (11, 49) 65 stable stable trend 0.5 (-0.1, 1.1)
Nevada *** 4.3 (3.9, 4.8) 43 (18, 50) 80 rising rising trend 1.0 (0.2, 1.9)
Kansas *** 4.4 (4.0, 4.9) 39 (16, 49) 87 stable stable trend 0.3 (-0.4, 0.9)
Arkansas *** 4.3 (3.9, 4.8) 42 (20, 49) 89 rising rising trend 4.1 (0.9, 7.4)
Mississippi *** 4.6 (4.2, 5.1) 32 (12, 47) 93 rising rising trend 1.1 (0.7, 1.6)
Iowa *** 5.0 (4.6, 5.4) 18 (7, 41) 112 rising rising trend 0.5 (0.1, 1.0)
Connecticut *** 4.4 (4.0, 4.8) 41 (20, 49) 117 stable stable trend 0.4 (-0.1, 1.0)
Kentucky *** 4.1 (3.7, 4.4) 46 (32, 51) 123 stable stable trend 0.1 (-0.3, 0.6)
Oklahoma *** 4.8 (4.4, 5.2) 26 (10, 45) 123 rising rising trend 1.0 (0.5, 1.5)
Alabama *** 3.6 (3.3, 3.9) 50 (46, 51) 124 stable stable trend 0.1 (-0.3, 0.5)
Puerto Rico 8 *** 5.0 (4.6, 5.4) N/A 126 stable stable trend -1.0 (-14.8, 14.9)
Oregon *** 4.8 (4.4, 5.2) 28 (11, 44) 137 stable stable trend -3.9 (-10.5, 3.2)
Colorado *** 4.3 (4.0, 4.6) 44 (26, 49) 143 rising rising trend 2.4 (1.0, 3.9)
Louisiana *** 4.7 (4.3, 5.0) 30 (13, 46) 144 rising rising trend 3.1 (1.4, 4.9)
Minnesota *** 4.8 (4.5, 5.2) 24 (11, 41) 179 rising rising trend 0.8 (0.3, 1.2)
South Carolina *** 5.0 (4.7, 5.3) 19 (9, 36) 180 rising rising trend 0.6 (0.1, 1.2)
Arizona *** 3.9 (3.6, 4.2) 49 (41, 51) 187 rising rising trend 2.3 (1.2, 3.3)
Tennessee *** 4.5 (4.2, 4.8) 37 (22, 47) 207 rising rising trend 2.5 (0.9, 4.0)
Wisconsin *** 5.3 (5.0, 5.6) 11 (5, 27) 212 rising rising trend 0.6 (0.1, 1.0)
Missouri *** 4.9 (4.6, 5.3) 22 (10, 37) 214 rising rising trend 2.1 (0.5, 3.7)
Washington *** 4.5 (4.3, 4.8) 35 (19, 46) 214 rising rising trend 0.8 (0.4, 1.1)
Indiana *** 5.1 (4.8, 5.4) 16 (9, 34) 228 rising rising trend 0.6 (0.2, 0.9)
Massachusetts *** 4.8 (4.6, 5.1) 25 (12, 40) 238 rising rising trend 0.6 (0.3, 0.9)
Maryland *** 6.0 (5.7, 6.4) 3 (2, 10) 244 rising rising trend 1.5 (1.1, 2.0)
Virginia *** 4.7 (4.4, 5.0) 29 (16, 43) 264 rising rising trend 0.7 (0.4, 1.0)
Georgia *** 4.9 (4.7, 5.2) 23 (12, 36) 316 stable stable trend -2.1 (-7.4, 3.6)
North Carolina *** 4.8 (4.6, 5.1) 27 (13, 38) 342 rising rising trend 2.3 (1.0, 3.7)
New Jersey *** 5.7 (5.5, 6.0) 6 (2, 13) 364 rising rising trend 0.7 (0.5, 1.0)
Michigan *** 5.7 (5.4, 5.9) 8 (3, 13) 407 rising rising trend 1.0 (0.7, 1.4)
Ohio *** 5.3 (5.1, 5.5) 12 (7, 22) 446 rising rising trend 1.2 (0.6, 1.8)
Illinois *** 5.7 (5.5, 6.0) 5 (2, 12) 493 rising rising trend 1.9 (1.3, 2.5)
Pennsylvania *** 5.7 (5.5, 5.9) 9 (3, 13) 559 rising rising trend 0.7 (0.5, 1.0)
Texas *** 4.4 (4.3, 4.6) 38 (29, 45) 688 rising rising trend 2.8 (1.7, 3.8)
Florida *** 4.6 (4.4, 4.7) 33 (24, 42) 771 rising rising trend 2.0 (1.5, 2.5)
New York *** 6.0 (5.9, 6.2) 2 (2, 7) 841 rising rising trend 1.5 (1.2, 1.8)
California *** 5.1 (5.0, 5.3) 15 (10, 23) 1,238 rising rising trend 2.3 (1.8, 2.7)
Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 11/29/2021 4:35 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 1969-2018 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.

* 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.
CI*Rank data for Puerto Rico is not available.

Return to Top