Return to Home Mortality > Table

Death Rates Table

Data Options

Death Rate Report by State

Prostate, 2020

All Races (includes Hispanic), Male, All Ages

Sorted by Recentaapc
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 18.5 (18.3, 18.8) N/A 32,707 stable stable trend -0.5 (-0.9, 0.0)
Puerto Rico 8 No 20.0 (18.2, 21.9) N/A 473 stable stable trend -5.8 (-11.3, 0.1)
Wyoming No 20.0 (15.4, 25.6) 16 (1, 51) 66 falling falling trend -3.7 (-4.4, -3.0)
Delaware No 18.4 (15.0, 22.3) 35 (3, 51) 110 falling falling trend -3.6 (-4.2, -3.0)
North Dakota No 16.9 (13.2, 21.4) 48 (3, 51) 73 falling falling trend -3.6 (-4.1, -3.2)
District of Columbia No 28.4 (22.4, 35.5) 1 (1, 27) 79 falling falling trend -3.3 (-3.8, -2.7)
Kentucky No 17.9 (16.2, 19.8) 38 (10, 50) 413 falling falling trend -3.2 (-3.5, -2.9)
West Virginia No 17.2 (14.8, 19.8) 47 (9, 51) 199 falling falling trend -3.1 (-3.5, -2.8)
South Dakota No 19.6 (15.8, 24.0) 23 (1, 51) 95 falling falling trend -3.0 (-3.5, -2.6)
Maine No 19.1 (16.3, 22.3) 25 (3, 51) 171 falling falling trend -2.9 (-3.2, -2.5)
Rhode Island No 18.8 (15.4, 22.7) 31 (2, 51) 113 falling falling trend -2.9 (-3.3, -2.4)
New Hampshire No 19.1 (16.1, 22.4) 26 (3, 51) 158 falling falling trend -2.8 (-3.2, -2.4)
New York Yes 15.5 (14.7, 16.3) 50 (44, 51) 1,658 falling falling trend -2.7 (-3.1, -2.3)
Montana No 21.5 (18.1, 25.4) 5 (1, 47) 144 falling falling trend -2.6 (-3.0, -2.1)
New Jersey Yes 16.2 (15.0, 17.4) 49 (36, 51) 776 falling falling trend -2.6 (-3.2, -2.1)
Idaho No 20.4 (17.5, 23.5) 12 (2, 48) 191 falling falling trend -2.5 (-2.8, -2.2)
New Mexico No 20.4 (18.0, 23.1) 11 (2, 46) 254 falling falling trend -2.5 (-2.8, -2.2)
Nebraska No 18.8 (16.3, 21.7) 30 (3, 51) 193 falling falling trend -2.3 (-2.6, -2.0)
Alaska No 17.5 (12.7, 23.5) 42 (1, 51) 49 falling falling trend -2.1 (-3.0, -1.3)
Oklahoma No 18.7 (16.8, 20.6) 33 (6, 48) 389 falling falling trend -1.6 (-2.2, -1.1)
Georgia No 20.0 (18.7, 21.4) 15 (4, 38) 954 falling falling trend -1.5 (-2.4, -0.5)
South Carolina No 20.6 (18.9, 22.4) 8 (3, 37) 600 falling falling trend -1.4 (-2.7, -0.1)
Florida Yes 15.4 (14.8, 16.1) 51 (45, 51) 2,454 falling falling trend -1.3 (-2.0, -0.6)
Louisiana No 19.8 (18.0, 21.8) 19 (4, 45) 463 stable stable trend -1.3 (-3.2, 0.7)
Oregon No 19.0 (17.3, 20.9) 28 (6, 47) 465 stable stable trend -1.0 (-2.8, 0.8)
Pennsylvania No 18.0 (17.0, 19.0) 37 (21, 47) 1,405 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.8, -0.2)
Alabama No 20.0 (18.3, 21.9) 14 (3, 42) 534 stable stable trend -0.8 (-4.7, 3.3)
Illinois No 19.0 (18.0, 20.1) 27 (10, 43) 1,261 stable stable trend -0.8 (-1.9, 0.4)
Arizona No 17.3 (16.1, 18.6) 46 (24, 50) 795 stable stable trend -0.7 (-2.4, 1.0)
Tennessee No 18.9 (17.5, 20.4) 29 (8, 46) 677 stable stable trend -0.7 (-2.3, 0.9)
Minnesota No 18.6 (17.0, 20.2) 34 (10, 48) 569 stable stable trend -0.6 (-2.3, 1.1)
North Carolina No 20.0 (18.8, 21.2) 17 (5, 36) 1,084 stable stable trend -0.6 (-1.9, 0.6)
Massachusetts No 17.9 (16.5, 19.3) 39 (17, 49) 668 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.7, 0.9)
Texas No 17.5 (16.8, 18.3) 43 (29, 48) 2,124 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.1, 0.3)
California No 19.7 (19.1, 20.3) 21 (9, 32) 3,824 stable stable trend -0.3 (-0.9, 0.4)
Michigan No 19.7 (18.5, 20.9) 22 (6, 39) 1,106 stable stable trend -0.3 (-1.4, 0.8)
Mississippi No 22.5 (20.1, 25.1) 4 (1, 31) 337 stable stable trend -0.3 (-3.0, 2.5)
Colorado No 23.9 (22.0, 25.9) 2 (1, 10) 625 stable stable trend -0.1 (-1.0, 0.9)
Kansas No 17.5 (15.4, 19.7) 44 (10, 51) 279 stable stable trend -0.1 (-2.2, 2.0)
Washington No 19.8 (18.4, 21.3) 20 (5, 41) 770 stable stable trend 0.0 (-1.2, 1.3)
Indiana No 19.9 (18.4, 21.5) 18 (4, 41) 681 stable stable trend 0.1 (-1.6, 1.8)
Maryland No 20.0 (18.5, 21.7) 13 (4, 41) 622 stable stable trend 0.2 (-1.4, 1.8)
Missouri No 17.8 (16.4, 19.3) 40 (16, 49) 607 stable stable trend 0.3 (-1.4, 2.0)
Ohio No 18.7 (17.6, 19.8) 32 (13, 45) 1,218 stable stable trend 0.3 (-1.2, 1.8)
Connecticut No 17.6 (15.8, 19.6) 41 (12, 51) 367 stable stable trend 0.4 (-1.2, 2.0)
Wisconsin No 20.8 (19.3, 22.4) 7 (3, 34) 690 stable stable trend 0.4 (-1.8, 2.7)
Iowa No 19.3 (17.3, 21.4) 24 (4, 48) 349 stable stable trend 0.5 (-2.0, 3.0)
Virginia No 20.5 (19.1, 21.9) 9 (3, 34) 880 stable stable trend 0.7 (-1.3, 2.7)
Arkansas No 18.3 (16.3, 20.5) 36 (6, 51) 311 stable stable trend 1.6 (-4.0, 7.6)
Nevada No 20.4 (18.3, 22.8) 10 (2, 44) 338 stable stable trend 2.3 (-3.2, 8.2)
Hawaii 8 No 17.3 (14.7, 20.3) 45 (7, 51) 164 stable stable trend 2.4 (-1.3, 6.2)
Utah No 21.3 (18.8, 24.1) 6 (1, 41) 262 stable stable trend 2.9 (-1.9, 7.8)
Vermont No 23.3 (18.7, 28.8) 3 (1, 48) 93 stable stable trend 4.7 (-3.8, 13.9)
Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 03/29/2024 4:09 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