Return to Home Mortality > Table

Death Rates Table

Data Options

Death Rate Report by State

Uterus (Corpus & Uterus, NOS), 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 *** 4.9 (4.9, 5.0) N/A 10,558 rising rising trend 1.9 (1.7, 2.2)
District of Columbia *** 9.6 (8.3, 11.1) 1 (1, 1) 38 rising rising trend 1.6 (0.5, 2.8)
Maryland *** 6.0 (5.6, 6.3) 2 (2, 10) 239 rising rising trend 1.6 (1.1, 2.0)
New York *** 6.0 (5.8, 6.2) 3 (2, 7) 822 rising rising trend 1.5 (1.1, 1.8)
New Jersey *** 5.9 (5.6, 6.2) 4 (2, 10) 366 rising rising trend 0.7 (0.5, 1.0)
Pennsylvania *** 5.7 (5.5, 5.9) 5 (2, 11) 553 rising rising trend 0.7 (0.4, 1.0)
Delaware *** 5.6 (4.9, 6.5) 6 (2, 34) 41 rising rising trend 1.1 (0.1, 2.0)
Illinois *** 5.6 (5.4, 5.9) 7 (3, 12) 479 rising rising trend 1.9 (1.3, 2.6)
Michigan *** 5.5 (5.3, 5.8) 8 (3, 15) 389 rising rising trend 1.0 (0.6, 1.3)
Vermont *** 5.4 (4.5, 6.5) 9 (2, 47) 25 stable stable trend 0.6 (-0.4, 1.7)
New Hampshire *** 5.3 (4.7, 6.1) 10 (2, 38) 52 rising rising trend 1.2 (0.3, 2.0)
Ohio *** 5.3 (5.0, 5.5) 11 (7, 21) 439 rising rising trend 1.3 (0.6, 2.0)
Wisconsin *** 5.1 (4.8, 5.5) 12 (7, 29) 205 stable stable trend 0.5 (0.0, 1.0)
Indiana *** 5.1 (4.8, 5.4) 13 (7, 29) 225 rising rising trend 0.6 (0.2, 1.0)
Iowa *** 5.0 (4.6, 5.5) 14 (6, 37) 112 stable stable trend 0.5 (0.0, 1.0)
Idaho *** 5.0 (4.4, 5.7) 15 (3, 45) 53 rising rising trend 1.5 (0.6, 2.3)
Rhode Island *** 5.0 (4.3, 5.8) 16 (2, 47) 40 rising rising trend 1.1 (0.2, 2.0)
California *** 5.0 (4.9, 5.1) 17 (11, 26) 1,178 rising rising trend 2.3 (1.7, 2.8)
Maine *** 5.0 (4.4, 5.7) 18 (3, 45) 54 stable stable trend 0.8 (0.0, 1.5)
Georgia *** 4.9 (4.7, 5.2) 19 (9, 33) 308 rising rising trend 3.0 (1.9, 4.1)
Oregon *** 4.9 (4.5, 5.3) 20 (8, 39) 137 rising rising trend 2.9 (1.3, 4.4)
South Carolina *** 4.9 (4.5, 5.2) 21 (9, 40) 170 stable stable trend 0.6 (0.0, 1.2)
Missouri *** 4.8 (4.5, 5.1) 22 (10, 38) 206 rising rising trend 6.5 (0.3, 13.1)
Puerto Rico 8 *** 4.8 (4.4, 5.2) N/A 121 stable stable trend -1.0 (-14.8, 14.9)
Nebraska *** 4.8 (4.2, 5.4) 23 (6, 47) 59 stable stable trend -0.3 (-1.5, 0.8)
North Carolina *** 4.8 (4.5, 5.0) 24 (13, 37) 329 rising rising trend 0.7 (0.3, 1.1)
Hawaii 8 *** 4.7 (4.1, 5.4) 25 (5, 49) 44 rising rising trend 1.8 (0.9, 2.6)
West Virginia *** 4.7 (4.2, 5.3) 26 (7, 47) 67 stable stable trend 0.6 (0.0, 1.2)
Minnesota *** 4.7 (4.4, 5.0) 27 (12, 43) 169 rising rising trend 0.7 (0.2, 1.2)
Louisiana *** 4.7 (4.3, 5.0) 28 (12, 44) 141 rising rising trend 4.4 (2.2, 6.6)
Virginia *** 4.7 (4.4, 4.9) 29 (14, 41) 257 rising rising trend 0.6 (0.3, 1.0)
Oklahoma *** 4.7 (4.3, 5.1) 30 (11, 45) 117 rising rising trend 1.0 (0.5, 1.5)
Massachusetts *** 4.7 (4.4, 5.0) 31 (13, 42) 226 rising rising trend 0.5 (0.2, 0.8)
Kansas *** 4.6 (4.2, 5.1) 32 (10, 48) 89 stable stable trend 0.3 (-0.4, 1.0)
Florida *** 4.5 (4.3, 4.6) 33 (24, 43) 735 rising rising trend 2.1 (1.6, 2.7)
Washington *** 4.4 (4.2, 4.7) 34 (20, 47) 204 rising rising trend 0.7 (0.4, 1.1)
North Dakota *** 4.4 (3.6, 5.4) 35 (5, 51) 20
*
*
Arkansas *** 4.4 (4.0, 4.8) 36 (15, 49) 89 rising rising trend 4.9 (1.1, 8.7)
Tennessee *** 4.4 (4.1, 4.7) 37 (22, 48) 199 rising rising trend 2.6 (0.7, 4.5)
Mississippi *** 4.3 (3.9, 4.8) 38 (16, 49) 86 rising rising trend 1.0 (0.5, 1.5)
Texas *** 4.3 (4.2, 4.5) 39 (31, 47) 650 rising rising trend 2.6 (1.3, 3.9)
Connecticut *** 4.3 (3.9, 4.7) 40 (21, 49) 113 stable stable trend 0.5 (-0.1, 1.0)
South Dakota *** 4.3 (3.5, 5.2) 41 (7, 51) 24 stable stable trend 0.6 (-0.4, 1.7)
New Mexico *** 4.2 (3.7, 4.8) 42 (16, 50) 60 stable stable trend 0.4 (-0.4, 1.1)
Kentucky *** 4.2 (3.9, 4.6) 43 (25, 49) 126 rising rising trend 1.9 (0.6, 3.2)
Utah *** 4.2 (3.7, 4.7) 44 (17, 50) 58 stable stable trend 0.2 (-0.7, 1.0)
Colorado *** 4.1 (3.8, 4.5) 45 (28, 50) 134 rising rising trend 2.6 (1.0, 4.3)
Wyoming *** 4.1 (3.2, 5.2) 46 (6, 51) 15 stable stable trend -0.1 (-1.6, 1.4)
Nevada *** 4.1 (3.7, 4.5) 47 (24, 50) 72 stable stable trend 1.0 (0.0, 1.9)
Arizona *** 4.0 (3.7, 4.2) 48 (37, 50) 183 rising rising trend 2.4 (1.3, 3.6)
Montana *** 3.9 (3.3, 4.6) 49 (19, 51) 29 stable stable trend -0.3 (-1.1, 0.4)
Alabama *** 3.6 (3.3, 3.9) 50 (45, 51) 122 stable stable trend 0.1 (-0.4, 0.5)
Alaska *** 3.0 (2.2, 4.0) 51 (37, 51) 11
*
*
Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 09/19/2020 5:19 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.

*** 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.

Return to Top