Return to Home Mortality > Table

Death Rates Table

Data Options

Death Rate Report by State

Prostate, 2018-2022

All Races (includes Hispanic), Male, All Ages

Sorted by Ruralurban

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 19.0 (18.9, 19.1) N/A 32,351 falling falling trend -0.5 (-0.8, -0.1)
Alabama No 19.9 (19.2, 20.8) 23 (8, 38) 517 stable stable trend -1.9 (-3.1, 0.7)
Alaska No 21.8 (19.2, 24.7) 5 (2, 45) 58 falling falling trend -1.6 (-2.4, -0.6)
Arizona No 17.6 (17.1, 18.2) 47 (38, 47) 752 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.5, 0.7)
Arkansas No 19.8 (18.9, 20.9) 25 (7, 41) 321 stable stable trend 1.3 (-1.3, 5.4)
California No 20.2 (19.9, 20.5) 18 (11, 28) 3,767 stable stable trend 0.0 (-0.5, 1.1)
Colorado No 21.6 (20.7, 22.4) 6 (3, 18) 545 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.1, 0.7)
Connecticut No 19.0 (18.2, 19.9) 34 (17, 46) 373 stable stable trend 0.9 (-0.3, 3.0)
Delaware No 19.7 (18.1, 21.4) 29 (3, 47) 116 stable stable trend 5.0 (-2.2, 13.3)
Florida Yes 16.7 (16.4, 16.9) 48 (46, 50) 2,546 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.0, 0.5)
Georgia No 21.3 (20.7, 22.0) 7 (3, 18) 970 stable stable trend -1.0 (-1.7, 0.2)
Hawaii 8 Yes 15.5 (14.4, 16.7) 51 (46, 51) 146 stable stable trend 2.0 (-0.3, 7.0)
Idaho No 21.2 (19.9, 22.6) 8 (3, 33) 199 falling falling trend -2.4 (-2.7, -2.0)
Illinois No 19.0 (18.5, 19.5) 36 (25, 42) 1,215 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.8, -0.4)
Indiana No 20.4 (19.7, 21.1) 17 (6, 33) 674 stable stable trend -0.3 (-1.2, 1.2)
Iowa No 20.0 (19.1, 21.0) 22 (7, 39) 353 stable stable trend -0.3 (-1.8, 3.5)
Kansas No 17.9 (16.9, 18.9) 46 (30, 49) 272 stable stable trend -1.1 (-2.2, 2.7)
Kentucky No 18.2 (17.4, 19.0) 43 (29, 47) 406 stable stable trend -1.2 (-2.2, 0.8)
Louisiana No 19.8 (19.0, 20.7) 26 (9, 40) 442 stable stable trend -1.4 (-2.5, 1.2)
Maine No 20.0 (18.7, 21.4) 20 (4, 44) 179 stable stable trend 1.3 (-1.4, 7.1)
Maryland No 19.9 (19.2, 20.7) 24 (9, 37) 601 stable stable trend -0.1 (-1.2, 1.5)
Massachusetts No 18.3 (17.6, 18.9) 40 (31, 47) 661 stable stable trend -0.6 (-1.3, 0.3)
Michigan No 19.0 (18.5, 19.6) 35 (24, 43) 1,035 stable stable trend -0.2 (-0.9, 0.8)
Minnesota No 19.8 (19.0, 20.5) 28 (10, 38) 587 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.8, 2.4)
Mississippi No 24.5 (23.4, 25.7) 2 (2, 4) 354 stable stable trend -0.3 (-2.0, 3.1)
Missouri No 18.4 (17.8, 19.1) 39 (29, 47) 606 stable stable trend 0.4 (-0.7, 1.9)
Montana No 20.7 (19.2, 22.4) 12 (3, 41) 137 falling falling trend -2.4 (-2.9, -1.9)
Nebraska No 19.3 (18.1, 20.6) 32 (9, 47) 194 stable stable trend 0.6 (-2.2, 5.0)
Nevada No 20.4 (19.4, 21.4) 16 (4, 36) 322 stable stable trend 0.5 (-2.0, 4.7)
New Hampshire No 19.0 (17.6, 20.4) 37 (9, 47) 152 stable stable trend -0.5 (-2.7, 5.5)
New Jersey Yes 16.3 (15.8, 16.9) 49 (46, 51) 776 stable stable trend -2.0 (-3.1, 0.1)
New Mexico No 19.8 (18.6, 21.0) 27 (5, 44) 236 stable stable trend -0.2 (-2.1, 4.0)
New York Yes 15.6 (15.3, 15.9) 50 (49, 51) 1,657 falling falling trend -2.7 (-3.0, -2.1)
North Carolina No 20.2 (19.7, 20.8) 19 (9, 32) 1,045 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.4, 0.8)
North Dakota No 17.9 (16.1, 19.9) 45 (11, 51) 73 falling falling trend -3.5 (-4.0, -3.0)
Ohio No 19.3 (18.8, 19.8) 33 (19, 40) 1,216 falling falling trend -2.6 (-4.3, -0.2)
Oklahoma No 20.5 (19.6, 21.5) 13 (4, 33) 407 stable stable trend -0.1 (-1.1, 2.1)
Oregon No 21.0 (20.2, 21.9) 10 (3, 27) 494 stable stable trend 0.3 (-1.5, 3.3)
Pennsylvania No 18.5 (18.1, 19.0) 38 (31, 46) 1,401 stable stable trend -0.6 (-1.2, 0.1)
Rhode Island No 18.2 (16.7, 19.8) 42 (13, 50) 109 stable stable trend -0.3 (-2.5, 6.0)
South Carolina No 20.8 (20.0, 21.6) 11 (4, 30) 571 stable stable trend -1.4 (-2.4, 0.2)
South Dakota No 20.0 (18.2, 22.0) 21 (3, 47) 94 stable stable trend 0.8 (-2.2, 7.5)
Tennessee No 19.6 (19.0, 20.3) 30 (12, 39) 675 stable stable trend -0.3 (-1.3, 1.4)
Texas No 18.2 (17.9, 18.6) 41 (35, 47) 2,102 stable stable trend -0.3 (-0.7, 0.2)
Utah No 22.1 (20.9, 23.3) 3 (2, 20) 261 stable stable trend 0.8 (-2.2, 6.9)
Vermont No 22.0 (19.9, 24.2) 4 (2, 37) 87 stable stable trend 2.8 (-2.0, 13.3)
Virginia No 20.4 (19.8, 21.1) 15 (6, 32) 853 stable stable trend 0.7 (-0.3, 2.2)
Washington No 20.5 (19.8, 21.1) 14 (5, 30) 770 stable stable trend -0.3 (-1.4, 2.1)
West Virginia No 18.0 (16.9, 19.2) 44 (25, 49) 202 stable stable trend 1.4 (-1.9, 7.5)
Wisconsin No 21.2 (20.4, 21.9) 9 (3, 23) 681 stable stable trend 0.0 (-1.0, 1.7)
Wyoming No 19.6 (17.4, 22.0) 31 (3, 49) 62 stable stable trend 2.0 (-3.2, 13.7)
District of Columbia No 29.7 (26.8, 32.9) 1 (1, 1) 77 falling falling trend -3.0 (-3.6, -2.5)
Puerto Rico 8 No 19.3 (18.6, 20.2) N/A 461 stable stable trend -2.4 (-8.3, 3.9)
Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 12/09/2024 11:31 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.

Data for United States does not include Puerto Rico.
CI*Rank data for Puerto Rico is not available.

Return to Top