Return to Home Mortality > Table

Death Rates Table

Data Options

Death Rate Report by State

Prostate, 2019

All Races (includes Hispanic), Male, 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 *** 18.4 (18.2, 18.6) N/A 31,636 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.1, 0.2)
Mississippi *** 24.3 (21.8, 27.0) 1 (1, 14) 363 stable stable trend 0.6 (-3.1, 4.3)
Alaska *** 24.3 (18.3, 31.3) 2 (1, 50) 65 falling falling trend -2.1 (-3.0, -1.2)
Utah *** 23.3 (20.6, 26.3) 3 (1, 25) 276 stable stable trend 4.1 (-2.5, 11.2)
New Hampshire *** 22.7 (19.4, 26.4) 4 (1, 40) 174 falling falling trend -2.9 (-3.3, -2.5)
District of Columbia *** 22.1 (16.9, 28.5) 5 (1, 50) 61 falling falling trend -3.4 (-3.9, -2.8)
Georgia *** 21.0 (19.6, 22.4) 6 (2, 27) 960 stable stable trend -1.3 (-2.5, 0.0)
Maryland *** 20.9 (19.3, 22.6) 7 (2, 33) 622 stable stable trend 0.3 (-1.8, 2.4)
Montana *** 20.9 (17.5, 24.8) 8 (1, 48) 138 falling falling trend -2.7 (-3.1, -2.2)
Wisconsin *** 20.7 (19.2, 22.4) 9 (3, 34) 672 stable stable trend 0.4 (-2.6, 3.5)
Arkansas *** 20.7 (18.5, 23.0) 10 (2, 41) 341 stable stable trend 2.0 (-4.9, 9.5)
Colorado *** 20.3 (18.6, 22.2) 11 (3, 38) 528 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.7, -0.4)
Nevada *** 20.3 (18.1, 22.7) 12 (2, 43) 318 falling falling trend -2.7 (-3.0, -2.3)
Oklahoma *** 20.1 (18.2, 22.2) 13 (3, 42) 414 stable stable trend 0.7 (-1.9, 3.3)
Iowa *** 20.1 (18.0, 22.3) 14 (2, 43) 361 stable stable trend 1.9 (-2.3, 6.2)
South Carolina *** 20.1 (18.4, 21.8) 15 (3, 40) 569 stable stable trend -1.6 (-3.2, 0.1)
Oregon *** 20.0 (18.2, 21.9) 16 (3, 41) 470 stable stable trend -0.7 (-3.0, 1.7)
North Carolina *** 19.8 (18.6, 21.1) 17 (5, 37) 1,033 stable stable trend -0.9 (-2.5, 0.8)
Idaho *** 19.6 (16.8, 22.7) 18 (2, 49) 182 falling falling trend -2.5 (-2.8, -2.2)
Minnesota *** 19.6 (18.0, 21.2) 19 (4, 42) 592 stable stable trend 0.2 (-2.4, 3.0)
Tennessee *** 19.5 (18.1, 21.1) 20 (4, 41) 685 stable stable trend -0.6 (-2.6, 1.5)
Indiana *** 19.5 (18.0, 21.1) 21 (5, 42) 655 falling falling trend -1.4 (-2.4, -0.4)
Alabama *** 19.5 (17.8, 21.3) 22 (4, 44) 507 falling falling trend -3.7 (-4.0, -3.5)
Washington *** 19.5 (18.0, 20.9) 23 (5, 41) 727 stable stable trend 0.1 (-1.4, 1.7)
Virginia *** 19.2 (17.9, 20.6) 24 (6, 42) 796 stable stable trend 0.4 (-2.2, 3.2)
California *** 19.1 (18.5, 19.7) 25 (13, 36) 3,623 stable stable trend -0.3 (-1.2, 0.5)
Louisiana *** 18.9 (17.1, 20.9) 26 (5, 46) 431 falling falling trend -3.7 (-4.0, -3.4)
Ohio *** 18.8 (17.7, 19.9) 27 (11, 43) 1,213 stable stable trend 0.6 (-1.3, 2.6)
Connecticut *** 18.8 (16.9, 20.8) 28 (5, 47) 385 stable stable trend 0.7 (-1.3, 2.6)
Illinois *** 18.7 (17.7, 19.8) 29 (12, 43) 1,208 stable stable trend -0.8 (-2.2, 0.7)
Vermont *** 18.7 (14.6, 23.7) 30 (1, 51) 72 falling falling trend -3.2 (-3.8, -2.6)
Missouri *** 18.6 (17.2, 20.2) 31 (8, 45) 623 stable stable trend 0.3 (-1.8, 2.6)
New Mexico *** 18.6 (16.2, 21.3) 32 (4, 50) 222 falling falling trend -2.6 (-2.9, -2.3)
Kansas *** 18.3 (16.3, 20.6) 33 (6, 50) 286 stable stable trend 0.2 (-2.4, 2.9)
Delaware *** 18.2 (14.9, 22.2) 34 (2, 51) 108 falling falling trend -3.7 (-4.4, -3.1)
Puerto Rico 8 *** 18.1 (16.4, 20.0) N/A 404 falling falling trend -5.2 (-6.5, -3.8)
Massachusetts *** 18.0 (16.6, 19.5) 35 (14, 47) 653 stable stable trend -0.4 (-2.0, 1.3)
Maine *** 17.9 (15.2, 21.0) 36 (5, 50) 162 falling falling trend -3.0 (-3.3, -2.6)
Wyoming *** 17.8 (13.4, 23.3) 37 (1, 51) 57 falling falling trend -3.9 (-4.7, -3.2)
Michigan *** 17.8 (16.7, 19.0) 38 (20, 47) 985 falling falling trend -1.3 (-2.2, -0.5)
Pennsylvania *** 17.6 (16.7, 18.6) 39 (24, 46) 1,350 stable stable trend -1.1 (-2.1, 0.0)
Rhode Island *** 17.6 (14.3, 21.4) 40 (3, 51) 105 falling falling trend -3.0 (-3.4, -2.5)
South Dakota *** 17.6 (14.0, 21.8) 41 (2, 51) 86 falling falling trend -3.1 (-3.6, -2.7)
Texas *** 17.6 (16.8, 18.4) 42 (27, 46) 2,063 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.3, 0.4)
Nebraska *** 17.4 (14.9, 20.2) 43 (7, 50) 179 falling falling trend -2.4 (-2.7, -2.1)
West Virginia *** 17.2 (14.8, 19.8) 44 (7, 50) 198 falling falling trend -3.2 (-3.6, -2.8)
Arizona *** 16.8 (15.6, 18.1) 45 (26, 50) 735 falling falling trend -2.9 (-3.1, -2.6)
North Dakota *** 16.5 (12.8, 21.0) 46 (4, 51) 68 falling falling trend -3.7 (-4.2, -3.2)
Kentucky *** 16.1 (14.4, 17.8) 47 (29, 51) 365 stable stable trend -5.3 (-10.5, 0.2)
Florida *** 15.9 (15.3, 16.5) 48 (41, 50) 2,446 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.9, 0.5)
New York *** 15.8 (15.0, 16.6) 49 (40, 50) 1,660 falling falling trend -2.6 (-3.1, -2.2)
New Jersey *** 15.6 (14.5, 16.8) 50 (39, 51) 735 falling falling trend -2.7 (-3.3, -2.1)
Hawaii 8 *** 12.1 (9.9, 14.6) 51 (47, 51) 109 falling falling trend -2.6 (-3.1, -2.1)
Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 09/23/2021 11:32 pm.

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 1969-2018 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.



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