Return to Home Mortality > Table

Death Rates Table

Data Options

Death Rate Report by State

Prostate, 2013-2017

All Races (includes Hispanic), Male, All Ages

Sorted by Rate
State
 sort alphabetically by name ascending
Met Healthy People Objective of 21.8?
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 Yes 19.1 (19.0, 19.2) N/A 29,146 stable stable trend -0.2 (-1.3, 1.0)
District of Columbia No 28.1 (25.1, 31.2) 1 (1, 2) 69 falling falling trend -3.4 (-4.1, -2.8)
Mississippi No 24.7 (23.5, 25.9) 2 (1, 4) 328 stable stable trend 1.1 (-4.7, 7.1)
Puerto Rico 8 No 24.7 (23.7, 25.7) N/A 483
*
*
Idaho No 22.9 (21.4, 24.5) 3 (2, 13) 178 falling falling trend -2.6 (-2.9, -2.3)
Montana No 22.7 (21.0, 24.5) 4 (2, 20) 132 stable stable trend 5.4 (-7.2, 19.8)
Georgia No 22.0 (21.3, 22.7) 5 (3, 10) 838 stable stable trend -1.3 (-3.5, 1.0)
South Carolina No 21.8 (20.9, 22.7) 6 (3, 14) 507 stable stable trend -0.6 (-3.7, 2.6)
Colorado Yes 21.5 (20.6, 22.4) 7 (3, 17) 470 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.8, 0.3)
Alabama Yes 21.1 (20.3, 22.0) 8 (3, 22) 482 falling falling trend -3.9 (-4.2, -3.6)
Wisconsin Yes 20.8 (20.1, 21.6) 9 (5, 24) 609 stable stable trend -0.2 (-5.2, 5.0)
Louisiana Yes 20.8 (19.9, 21.7) 10 (4, 27) 421 falling falling trend -3.9 (-4.2, -3.5)
Oregon Yes 20.7 (19.8, 21.6) 11 (5, 28) 434 falling falling trend -2.7 (-3.0, -2.5)
Maine Yes 20.4 (19.0, 21.9) 12 (3, 38) 161 falling falling trend -3.0 (-3.4, -2.6)
Oklahoma Yes 20.3 (19.4, 21.3) 13 (6, 32) 373 stable stable trend 0.7 (-3.6, 5.3)
Washington Yes 20.2 (19.5, 20.9) 14 (8, 30) 658 stable stable trend 0.6 (-2.2, 3.4)
Illinois Yes 20.1 (19.6, 20.7) 15 (9, 28) 1,191 stable stable trend 0.9 (-1.6, 3.4)
Utah Yes 20.0 (18.8, 21.3) 16 (5, 39) 202 falling falling trend -3.1 (-3.5, -2.7)
Maryland Yes 20.0 (19.2, 20.8) 17 (8, 33) 531 stable stable trend 0.4 (-3.6, 4.6)
Minnesota Yes 19.9 (19.1, 20.7) 18 (8, 34) 531 stable stable trend 0.8 (-4.4, 6.3)
North Carolina Yes 19.9 (19.3, 20.5) 19 (10, 32) 895 falling falling trend -3.9 (-4.1, -3.6)
Virginia Yes 19.8 (19.2, 20.5) 20 (9, 33) 722 stable stable trend -0.1 (-4.4, 4.4)
Tennessee Yes 19.8 (19.1, 20.6) 21 (9, 34) 604 stable stable trend 1.6 (-1.8, 5.0)
Nevada Yes 19.8 (18.7, 20.9) 22 (7, 40) 259 falling falling trend -2.9 (-3.2, -2.5)
California Yes 19.8 (19.5, 20.1) 23 (14, 29) 3,349 stable stable trend 0.3 (-1.8, 2.5)
New Mexico Yes 19.6 (18.4, 20.8) 24 (7, 42) 204 falling falling trend -2.7 (-3.1, -2.3)
Kentucky Yes 19.5 (18.7, 20.5) 25 (9, 38) 391 stable stable trend 0.9 (-3.5, 5.5)
Iowa Yes 19.5 (18.6, 20.5) 26 (9, 40) 328 falling falling trend -2.9 (-3.2, -2.6)
Indiana Yes 19.5 (18.8, 20.2) 27 (11, 37) 586 falling falling trend -3.4 (-3.7, -3.1)
Vermont Yes 19.1 (17.0, 21.3) 28 (4, 50) 65 falling falling trend -3.5 (-4.1, -2.8)
Ohio Yes 19.1 (18.6, 19.6) 29 (19, 38) 1,124 stable stable trend 0.2 (-2.9, 3.5)
South Dakota Yes 19.0 (17.2, 20.9) 30 (5, 49) 84 falling falling trend -3.2 (-3.8, -2.7)
New Hampshire Yes 18.9 (17.4, 20.4) 31 (8, 49) 132 falling falling trend -3.1 (-3.5, -2.7)
Pennsylvania Yes 18.8 (18.3, 19.2) 32 (24, 40) 1,335 stable stable trend -0.2 (-2.8, 2.6)
Rhode Island Yes 18.7 (17.1, 20.4) 33 (8, 49) 103 falling falling trend -3.0 (-3.6, -2.5)
Michigan Yes 18.7 (18.2, 19.2) 34 (23, 43) 944 falling falling trend -1.5 (-2.7, -0.2)
Kansas Yes 18.6 (17.6, 19.6) 35 (15, 47) 265 falling falling trend -3.2 (-3.5, -2.8)
Arkansas Yes 18.5 (17.6, 19.6) 36 (16, 47) 275 falling falling trend -3.7 (-4.0, -3.4)
Massachusetts Yes 18.4 (17.8, 19.1) 37 (25, 46) 619 stable stable trend -0.3 (-3.6, 3.0)
Nebraska Yes 18.4 (17.1, 19.6) 38 (14, 49) 171 falling falling trend -2.5 (-2.8, -2.1)
New York Yes 18.0 (17.7, 18.4) 39 (33, 46) 1,726 stable stable trend -0.2 (-2.9, 2.6)
Alaska Yes 18.0 (15.4, 20.9) 40 (4, 51) 42 falling falling trend -2.6 (-3.6, -1.6)
Connecticut Yes 17.9 (17.1, 18.8) 41 (28, 49) 338 stable stable trend 0.5 (-7.1, 8.8)
Texas Yes 17.9 (17.5, 18.3) 42 (34, 47) 1,809 stable stable trend -1.1 (-2.3, 0.0)
New Jersey Yes 17.8 (17.2, 18.4) 43 (32, 48) 766 falling falling trend -2.7 (-3.5, -1.9)
North Dakota Yes 17.8 (15.9, 19.8) 44 (11, 50) 68 falling falling trend -3.8 (-4.4, -3.3)
Missouri Yes 17.5 (16.8, 18.2) 45 (34, 49) 535 falling falling trend -3.4 (-3.7, -3.1)
Arizona Yes 17.5 (16.9, 18.1) 46 (35, 50) 640 falling falling trend -3.0 (-3.2, -2.7)
West Virginia Yes 17.4 (16.3, 18.6) 47 (27, 50) 180 falling falling trend -3.3 (-3.7, -2.9)
Florida Yes 16.7 (16.4, 17.0) 48 (45, 50) 2,225 stable stable trend -0.9 (-3.2, 1.4)
Delaware Yes 16.6 (15.0, 18.3) 49 (29, 51) 84 falling falling trend -4.0 (-4.7, -3.3)
Wyoming Yes 15.9 (13.9, 18.2) 50 (26, 51) 45 falling falling trend -4.4 (-5.2, -3.6)
Hawaii 8 Yes 14.0 (12.9, 15.3) 51 (49, 51) 116 falling falling trend -2.8 (-3.3, -2.3)
Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 07/12/2020 5:58 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 1969-2017 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 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.

* Data has been suppressed to ensure confidentiality and stability of rate estimates. Counts are suppressed if fewer than 16 records were reported in a specific area-sex-race category. If an average count of 3 is shown, the total number of cases for the time period is 16 or more which exceeds suppression threshold (but is rounded to 3).


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.

Return to Top