Return to Home Mortality > Table

Death Rates Table

Data Options

Death Rate Report by State

Ovary, 2016-2020

All Races (includes Hispanic), Female, All Ages

Sorted by CI*Rank
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 ascending
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 *** 6.3 (6.3, 6.4) N/A 13,809 falling falling trend -3.4 (-4.6, -2.2)
Hawaii 8 *** 4.6 (4.0, 5.3) 51 (45, 51) 48 falling falling trend -1.6 (-2.3, -0.8)
North Dakota *** 5.0 (4.1, 6.0) 50 (16, 51) 24 falling falling trend -2.7 (-3.4, -2.0)
Alaska *** 5.0 (4.0, 6.2) 49 (9, 51) 18 falling falling trend -2.3 (-3.5, -1.2)
South Carolina *** 5.5 (5.1, 5.8) 48 (35, 50) 196 falling falling trend -4.4 (-5.7, -3.0)
Rhode Island *** 5.6 (4.9, 6.5) 47 (6, 51) 44 falling falling trend -1.8 (-2.4, -1.2)
North Carolina *** 5.7 (5.4, 5.9) 46 (32, 49) 401 falling falling trend -3.0 (-3.7, -2.3)
Kentucky *** 5.7 (5.4, 6.2) 45 (21, 50) 173 falling falling trend -3.3 (-4.4, -2.1)
Vermont *** 5.8 (4.8, 6.9) 44 (2, 51) 28 falling falling trend -2.0 (-2.7, -1.3)
Minnesota *** 5.9 (5.6, 6.3) 43 (17, 49) 220 falling falling trend -2.9 (-3.6, -2.2)
Louisiana *** 5.9 (5.6, 6.4) 42 (13, 49) 182 falling falling trend -2.5 (-3.2, -1.8)
Texas *** 6.0 (5.8, 6.1) 41 (26, 46) 932 falling falling trend -2.4 (-3.0, -1.9)
Missouri *** 6.0 (5.6, 6.3) 40 (16, 48) 258 falling falling trend -2.4 (-2.8, -1.9)
Mississippi *** 6.0 (5.5, 6.5) 39 (9, 49) 120 falling falling trend -2.0 (-2.5, -1.5)
Delaware *** 6.0 (5.2, 6.9) 38 (2, 50) 44 falling falling trend -1.7 (-2.3, -1.1)
Nebraska *** 6.0 (5.4, 6.7) 37 (4, 50) 75 falling falling trend -1.4 (-1.9, -0.9)
District of Columbia *** 6.0 (5.0, 7.3) 36 (1, 51) 23 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.8, -0.2)
Florida *** 6.0 (5.9, 6.2) 35 (22, 44) 1,027 falling falling trend -2.0 (-2.3, -1.7)
Montana *** 6.0 (5.3, 6.9) 34 (2, 50) 47 falling falling trend -4.8 (-6.6, -2.8)
Arkansas *** 6.1 (5.6, 6.6) 33 (7, 49) 126 falling falling trend -4.5 (-7.1, -1.8)
Colorado *** 6.1 (5.7, 6.5) 32 (10, 47) 203 falling falling trend -2.9 (-3.5, -2.2)
New Jersey *** 6.2 (5.9, 6.4) 31 (13, 44) 390 falling falling trend -3.5 (-4.4, -2.6)
New Hampshire *** 6.2 (5.5, 6.9) 30 (2, 49) 62 falling falling trend -1.9 (-2.4, -1.4)
Wisconsin *** 6.2 (5.8, 6.5) 29 (9, 46) 252 falling falling trend -3.6 (-4.5, -2.7)
Connecticut *** 6.2 (5.8, 6.6) 28 (6, 47) 164 falling falling trend -2.6 (-3.6, -1.6)
Arizona *** 6.2 (5.9, 6.6) 27 (8, 43) 303 falling falling trend -2.4 (-3.2, -1.5)
Wyoming *** 6.3 (5.1, 7.6) 26 (1, 51) 23 falling falling trend -1.2 (-2.3, -0.2)
Maine *** 6.3 (5.6, 7.0) 25 (2, 49) 69 falling falling trend -2.2 (-2.8, -1.5)
Ohio *** 6.3 (6.0, 6.5) 24 (10, 40) 526 falling falling trend -3.4 (-4.9, -2.0)
Indiana *** 6.3 (5.9, 6.6) 23 (7, 44) 279 falling falling trend -3.0 (-3.7, -2.3)
Maryland *** 6.3 (6.0, 6.7) 22 (6, 44) 259 falling falling trend -1.4 (-1.8, -1.1)
New York *** 6.3 (6.2, 6.5) 21 (11, 36) 882 falling falling trend -2.4 (-2.8, -1.9)
Massachusetts *** 6.4 (6.0, 6.7) 20 (5, 41) 310 falling falling trend -2.6 (-3.5, -1.6)
Utah *** 6.4 (5.8, 7.0) 19 (2, 48) 93 falling falling trend -1.4 (-1.9, -0.9)
Georgia *** 6.5 (6.2, 6.7) 18 (5, 36) 410 falling falling trend -2.4 (-2.9, -2.0)
Virginia *** 6.5 (6.2, 6.8) 17 (5, 37) 362 falling falling trend -2.7 (-3.3, -2.1)
Alabama *** 6.5 (6.1, 6.9) 16 (3, 41) 224 falling falling trend -3.4 (-4.3, -2.5)
New Mexico *** 6.5 (5.9, 7.2) 15 (1, 46) 94 stable stable trend -8.9 (-17.8, 1.1)
Idaho *** 6.6 (5.9, 7.3) 14 (1, 46) 72 falling falling trend -1.8 (-2.4, -1.2)
Michigan *** 6.6 (6.3, 6.8) 13 (4, 32) 463 falling falling trend -2.3 (-2.9, -1.7)
California *** 6.6 (6.4, 6.7) 12 (6, 24) 1,583 falling falling trend -2.2 (-2.5, -1.9)
Kansas *** 6.6 (6.1, 7.2) 11 (1, 42) 127 falling falling trend -2.6 (-3.7, -1.5)
Illinois *** 6.7 (6.4, 6.9) 10 (3, 28) 571 falling falling trend -2.1 (-2.6, -1.7)
Nevada *** 6.7 (6.2, 7.3) 9 (1, 40) 125 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.8, 1.0)
Pennsylvania *** 6.7 (6.5, 7.0) 8 (3, 24) 651 falling falling trend -2.5 (-3.1, -2.0)
Tennessee *** 6.7 (6.4, 7.1) 7 (2, 30) 310 falling falling trend -2.6 (-3.7, -1.5)
West Virginia *** 6.9 (6.2, 7.5) 6 (1, 40) 96 falling falling trend -2.3 (-3.1, -1.5)
Washington *** 6.9 (6.5, 7.2) 5 (1, 23) 325 falling falling trend -3.3 (-4.2, -2.5)
Iowa *** 6.9 (6.4, 7.4) 4 (1, 29) 154 falling falling trend -2.6 (-3.9, -1.4)
Oklahoma *** 7.3 (6.8, 7.8) 3 (1, 16) 182 falling falling trend -0.5 (-0.8, -0.1)
South Dakota *** 7.3 (6.3, 8.4) 2 (1, 43) 42 falling falling trend -1.2 (-2.1, -0.4)
Oregon *** 7.3 (6.9, 7.8) 1 (1, 13) 214 falling falling trend -6.5 (-10.3, -2.5)
Puerto Rico 8 *** 3.9 (3.6, 4.3) N/A 101 stable stable trend -1.8 (-11.2, 8.7)
Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 03/19/2024 6:32 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 2030 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 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 2030 Objective for this cancer.
Healthy People 2030 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.
Data for United States does not include Puerto Rico.
CI*Rank data for Puerto Rico is not available.

Return to Top