Return to Home Mortality > Table

Death Rates Table

Data Options

Death Rate Report by State

Prostate, 2022

All Races (includes Hispanic), Male, All Ages

Sorted by Count

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 ascending
Recent Trend
Recent 5-Year Trend in Death Rates
(95% Confidence Interval)
 sort by trend descending
United States No 18.7 (18.5, 18.9) N/A 33,363 falling falling trend -0.5 (-0.8, -0.1)
California No 20.1 (19.4, 20.7) 15 (8, 28) 3,896 stable stable trend 0.0 (-0.5, 1.1)
Florida Yes 16.9 (16.2, 17.5) 45 (36, 49) 2,735 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.0, 0.5)
Texas No 18.3 (17.6, 19.1) 35 (20, 45) 2,232 stable stable trend -0.3 (-0.7, 0.2)
New York Yes 15.1 (14.3, 15.8) 50 (46, 51) 1,660 falling falling trend -2.7 (-3.0, -2.1)
Pennsylvania No 18.1 (17.1, 19.1) 38 (20, 47) 1,397 stable stable trend -0.6 (-1.2, 0.1)
Illinois No 19.0 (17.9, 20.1) 30 (11, 43) 1,262 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.8, -0.4)
Ohio No 17.8 (16.8, 18.9) 40 (21, 48) 1,155 falling falling trend -2.6 (-4.3, -0.2)
North Carolina No 19.2 (18.1, 20.5) 25 (8, 42) 1,071 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.4, 0.8)
Georgia No 21.0 (19.7, 22.4) 11 (2, 30) 1,019 stable stable trend -1.0 (-1.7, 0.2)
Michigan No 18.0 (16.8, 19.1) 39 (20, 48) 1,016 stable stable trend -0.2 (-0.9, 0.8)
Virginia No 21.1 (19.7, 22.5) 9 (2, 28) 944 stable stable trend 0.7 (-0.3, 2.2)
New Jersey Yes 16.7 (15.6, 17.9) 48 (32, 50) 832 stable stable trend -2.0 (-3.1, 0.1)
Washington No 19.9 (18.5, 21.4) 18 (4, 39) 803 stable stable trend -0.3 (-1.4, 2.1)
Arizona Yes 16.7 (15.5, 18.0) 47 (31, 51) 757 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.5, 0.7)
Tennessee No 19.9 (18.5, 21.5) 17 (4, 41) 729 stable stable trend -0.3 (-1.3, 1.4)
Wisconsin No 21.6 (20.0, 23.3) 5 (2, 26) 727 stable stable trend 0.0 (-1.0, 1.7)
Indiana No 20.2 (18.7, 21.8) 13 (3, 39) 692 stable stable trend -0.3 (-1.2, 1.2)
Massachusetts No 17.5 (16.2, 18.9) 43 (22, 50) 662 stable stable trend -0.6 (-1.3, 0.3)
Maryland No 20.0 (18.4, 21.6) 16 (3, 40) 635 stable stable trend -0.1 (-1.2, 1.5)
Missouri No 18.4 (17.0, 19.9) 33 (11, 48) 632 stable stable trend 0.4 (-0.7, 1.9)
Minnesota No 19.1 (17.6, 20.7) 28 (6, 46) 593 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.8, 2.4)
South Carolina No 19.5 (17.9, 21.2) 21 (5, 44) 580 stable stable trend -1.4 (-2.4, 0.2)
Oregon No 22.1 (20.3, 24.1) 2 (1, 25) 551 stable stable trend 0.3 (-1.5, 3.3)
Colorado No 19.7 (18.0, 21.5) 20 (3, 44) 540 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.1, 0.7)
Alabama No 18.4 (16.7, 20.1) 34 (9, 49) 488 stable stable trend -1.9 (-3.1, 0.7)
Puerto Rico 8 No 18.8 (17.2, 20.6) N/A 486 stable stable trend -2.4 (-8.3, 3.9)
Louisiana No 19.4 (17.6, 21.4) 24 (4, 46) 450 stable stable trend -1.4 (-2.5, 1.2)
Oklahoma No 21.9 (19.9, 24.1) 4 (1, 28) 447 stable stable trend -0.1 (-1.1, 2.1)
Kentucky No 18.6 (16.8, 20.5) 32 (8, 49) 432 stable stable trend -1.2 (-2.2, 0.8)
Connecticut No 19.5 (17.6, 21.6) 22 (3, 46) 394 stable stable trend 0.9 (-0.3, 3.0)
Iowa No 19.0 (17.0, 21.2) 29 (5, 49) 343 stable stable trend -0.3 (-1.8, 3.5)
Nevada No 19.9 (17.7, 22.2) 19 (2, 47) 339 stable stable trend 0.5 (-2.0, 4.7)
Arkansas No 19.5 (17.4, 21.7) 23 (3, 48) 330 stable stable trend 1.3 (-1.3, 5.4)
Mississippi No 22.1 (19.7, 24.7) 3 (1, 33) 330 stable stable trend -0.3 (-2.0, 3.1)
Kansas No 17.7 (15.6, 20.0) 41 (9, 51) 278 stable stable trend -1.1 (-2.2, 2.7)
Utah No 20.2 (17.7, 22.9) 14 (2, 47) 257 stable stable trend 0.8 (-2.2, 6.9)
New Mexico No 18.9 (16.5, 21.6) 31 (3, 49) 237 stable stable trend -0.2 (-2.1, 4.0)
Idaho No 21.1 (18.3, 24.3) 8 (2, 45) 212 falling falling trend -2.4 (-2.7, -2.0)
West Virginia No 17.6 (15.2, 20.3) 42 (7, 51) 199 stable stable trend 1.4 (-1.9, 7.5)
Maine No 21.0 (18.1, 24.3) 10 (1, 46) 194 stable stable trend 1.3 (-1.4, 7.1)
Nebraska No 18.3 (15.7, 21.1) 37 (4, 51) 189 stable stable trend 0.6 (-2.2, 5.0)
Hawaii 8 Yes 16.0 (13.6, 18.7) 49 (18, 51) 160 stable stable trend 2.0 (-0.3, 7.0)
Montana No 21.6 (18.2, 25.5) 6 (1, 46) 151 falling falling trend -2.4 (-2.9, -1.9)
New Hampshire Yes 15.0 (12.4, 17.9) 51 (24, 51) 127 stable stable trend -0.5 (-2.7, 5.5)
Rhode Island No 19.2 (15.8, 23.1) 26 (2, 51) 119 stable stable trend -0.3 (-2.5, 6.0)
Delaware No 18.3 (15.1, 22.1) 36 (2, 51) 118 stable stable trend 5.0 (-2.2, 13.3)
South Dakota No 19.2 (15.3, 23.6) 27 (2, 51) 92 stable stable trend 0.8 (-2.2, 7.5)
Vermont No 20.2 (16.1, 25.3) 12 (1, 51) 85 stable stable trend 2.8 (-2.0, 13.3)
District of Columbia No 31.0 (24.5, 38.5) 1 (1, 11) 81 falling falling trend -3.0 (-3.6, -2.5)
North Dakota Yes 16.8 (13.0, 21.4) 46 (3, 51) 68 falling falling trend -3.5 (-4.0, -3.0)
Alaska No 21.3 (16.0, 27.6) 7 (1, 51) 65 falling falling trend -1.6 (-2.4, -0.6)
Wyoming No 17.1 (12.9, 22.4) 44 (2, 51) 58 stable stable trend 2.0 (-3.2, 13.7)
Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 07/03/2025 12:16 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