Return to Home Mortality > Table

Death Rates Table

Data Options

Death Rate Report by State

Prostate, 2016-2020

All Races (includes Hispanic), Male, All Ages

Sorted by Name
State
 sort alphabetically by name ascending
Met Healthy People Objective of 16.9?
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 No 18.8 (18.7, 18.9) N/A 31,337 stable stable trend -0.5 (-0.9, 0.0)
Wyoming No 18.4 (16.3, 20.7) 35 (5, 51) 58 falling falling trend -3.7 (-4.4, -3.0)
Wisconsin No 20.8 (20.1, 21.5) 10 (4, 23) 655 stable stable trend 0.4 (-1.8, 2.7)
West Virginia No 17.0 (15.9, 18.2) 47 (31, 51) 191 falling falling trend -3.1 (-3.5, -2.8)
Washington No 20.0 (19.3, 20.6) 17 (7, 31) 723 stable stable trend 0.0 (-1.2, 1.3)
Virginia No 20.0 (19.4, 20.6) 16 (7, 31) 806 stable stable trend 0.7 (-1.3, 2.7)
Vermont No 21.1 (19.0, 23.3) 8 (2, 41) 79 stable stable trend 4.7 (-3.8, 13.9)
Utah No 21.8 (20.6, 23.1) 5 (2, 17) 247 stable stable trend 2.9 (-1.9, 7.8)
Texas No 17.6 (17.3, 18.0) 45 (36, 47) 1,988 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.1, 0.3)
Tennessee No 19.5 (18.8, 20.2) 24 (10, 36) 655 stable stable trend -0.7 (-2.3, 0.9)
South Dakota No 19.1 (17.3, 21.0) 30 (4, 49) 90 falling falling trend -3.0 (-3.5, -2.6)
South Carolina No 20.8 (20.0, 21.6) 9 (3, 24) 558 falling falling trend -1.4 (-2.7, -0.1)
Rhode Island No 18.4 (16.8, 20.0) 36 (9, 50) 106 falling falling trend -2.9 (-3.3, -2.4)
Puerto Rico 8 No 21.4 (20.5, 22.3) N/A 459 stable stable trend -5.8 (-11.3, 0.1)
Pennsylvania No 18.4 (17.9, 18.8) 34 (28, 43) 1,379 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.8, -0.2)
Oregon No 20.3 (19.4, 21.1) 11 (5, 30) 465 stable stable trend -1.0 (-2.8, 0.8)
Oklahoma No 20.0 (19.1, 20.9) 15 (5, 34) 396 falling falling trend -1.6 (-2.2, -1.1)
Ohio No 19.3 (18.8, 19.8) 27 (14, 35) 1,214 stable stable trend 0.3 (-1.2, 1.8)
North Dakota No 17.7 (15.9, 19.7) 43 (9, 51) 72 falling falling trend -3.6 (-4.1, -3.2)
North Carolina No 19.7 (19.1, 20.2) 20 (10, 32) 993 stable stable trend -0.6 (-1.9, 0.6)
New York Yes 16.8 (16.5, 17.2) 48 (43, 50) 1,732 falling falling trend -2.7 (-3.1, -2.3)
New Mexico No 19.3 (18.1, 20.5) 28 (8, 44) 224 falling falling trend -2.5 (-2.8, -2.2)
New Jersey Yes 16.7 (16.2, 17.2) 49 (43, 50) 767 falling falling trend -2.6 (-3.2, -2.1)
New Hampshire No 19.2 (17.8, 20.7) 29 (6, 46) 148 falling falling trend -2.8 (-3.2, -2.4)
Nevada No 19.4 (18.4, 20.4) 26 (8, 42) 296 stable stable trend 2.3 (-3.2, 8.2)
Nebraska No 18.1 (16.9, 19.3) 41 (16, 49) 180 falling falling trend -2.3 (-2.6, -2.0)
Montana No 22.3 (20.7, 24.1) 3 (2, 21) 142 falling falling trend -2.6 (-3.0, -2.1)
Missouri No 17.8 (17.1, 18.4) 42 (31, 48) 582 stable stable trend 0.3 (-1.4, 2.0)
Mississippi No 24.3 (23.1, 25.5) 2 (1, 4) 349 stable stable trend -0.3 (-3.0, 2.5)
Minnesota No 19.6 (18.9, 20.3) 21 (9, 36) 571 stable stable trend -0.6 (-2.3, 1.1)
Michigan No 18.6 (18.1, 19.1) 33 (25, 42) 1,001 stable stable trend -0.3 (-1.4, 0.8)
Massachusetts No 18.2 (17.6, 18.9) 38 (27, 46) 649 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.7, 0.9)
Maryland No 20.1 (19.4, 20.8) 14 (7, 31) 583 stable stable trend 0.2 (-1.4, 1.8)
Maine No 19.0 (17.7, 20.4) 31 (7, 46) 165 falling falling trend -2.9 (-3.2, -2.5)
Louisiana No 19.9 (19.1, 20.8) 18 (6, 35) 441 stable stable trend -1.3 (-3.2, 0.7)
Kentucky No 18.3 (17.5, 19.1) 37 (21, 47) 399 falling falling trend -3.2 (-3.5, -2.9)
Kansas No 18.1 (17.2, 19.1) 40 (21, 48) 275 stable stable trend -0.1 (-2.2, 2.0)
Iowa No 20.3 (19.3, 21.2) 12 (5, 32) 357 stable stable trend 0.5 (-2.0, 3.0)
Indiana No 19.5 (18.9, 20.3) 23 (10, 36) 636 stable stable trend 0.1 (-1.6, 1.8)
Illinois No 19.5 (19.0, 20.0) 25 (13, 33) 1,231 stable stable trend -0.8 (-1.9, 0.4)
Idaho No 21.1 (19.8, 22.6) 7 (3, 30) 185 falling falling trend -2.5 (-2.8, -2.2)
Hawaii 8 Yes 14.9 (13.8, 16.1) 51 (47, 51) 134 stable stable trend 2.4 (-1.3, 6.2)
Georgia No 21.2 (20.6, 21.8) 6 (3, 15) 924 falling falling trend -1.5 (-2.4, -0.5)
Florida Yes 16.1 (15.8, 16.4) 50 (47, 51) 2,399 falling falling trend -1.3 (-2.0, -0.6)
District of Columbia No 26.9 (24.2, 29.9) 1 (1, 3) 72 falling falling trend -3.3 (-3.8, -2.7)
Delaware No 17.7 (16.1, 19.3) 44 (16, 51) 100 falling falling trend -3.6 (-4.2, -3.0)
Connecticut No 18.1 (17.3, 19.0) 39 (24, 47) 362 stable stable trend 0.4 (-1.2, 2.0)
Colorado No 21.9 (21.0, 22.7) 4 (3, 12) 535 stable stable trend -0.1 (-1.0, 0.9)
California No 19.8 (19.5, 20.1) 19 (12, 28) 3,649 stable stable trend -0.3 (-0.9, 0.4)
Arkansas No 18.6 (17.7, 19.6) 32 (14, 46) 299 stable stable trend 1.6 (-4.0, 7.6)
Arizona No 17.1 (16.5, 17.7) 46 (39, 50) 718 stable stable trend -0.7 (-2.4, 1.0)
Alaska No 19.6 (17.0, 22.3) 22 (3, 50) 49 falling falling trend -2.1 (-3.0, -1.3)
Alabama No 20.2 (19.4, 21.1) 13 (5, 31) 508 stable stable trend -0.8 (-4.7, 3.3)
Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 11/26/2022 10:14 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.

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.

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