Return to Home Mortality > Table

Death Rates Table

Data Options

Death Rate Report by State

Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma, 2018-2022

All Races (includes Hispanic), Both Sexes, All Ages

Sorted by Count

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 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 *** 5.0 (4.9, 5.0) N/A 20,108 falling falling trend -2.1 (-2.2, -2.1)
District of Columbia *** 4.0 (3.4, 4.8) 51 (21, 51) 27 falling falling trend -2.4 (-3.2, -1.8)
Wyoming *** 4.9 (4.2, 5.7) 31 (1, 51) 35 falling falling trend -1.6 (-2.4, -0.8)
Alaska *** 5.5 (4.7, 6.4) 12 (1, 50) 36 falling falling trend -1.4 (-2.3, -0.2)
North Dakota *** 4.5 (3.9, 5.2) 43 (10, 51) 42 falling falling trend -2.6 (-3.2, -2.1)
Vermont *** 5.2 (4.5, 5.9) 21 (1, 50) 48 falling falling trend -2.3 (-2.9, -1.6)
South Dakota *** 5.1 (4.5, 5.7) 23 (1, 50) 57 falling falling trend -2.9 (-10.2, -2.1)
Montana *** 4.4 (3.9, 4.9) 49 (21, 51) 65 falling falling trend -2.4 (-2.9, -1.8)
Delaware *** 5.4 (4.8, 6.0) 15 (1, 43) 73 falling falling trend -1.7 (-2.2, -1.1)
Rhode Island *** 5.0 (4.5, 5.5) 26 (3, 50) 74 stable stable trend -1.1 (-2.5, 3.7)
New Hampshire *** 4.7 (4.3, 5.2) 36 (14, 51) 90 falling falling trend -2.5 (-3.1, -1.9)
Hawaii 8 *** 4.6 (4.2, 5.1) 39 (16, 51) 97 falling falling trend -1.8 (-2.4, -1.3)
Idaho *** 5.3 (4.9, 5.8) 19 (1, 39) 114 falling falling trend -1.7 (-2.2, -1.2)
Maine *** 5.4 (4.9, 5.8) 16 (1, 37) 114 falling falling trend -2.3 (-3.5, -1.9)
Nebraska *** 5.0 (4.6, 5.4) 24 (7, 47) 120 falling falling trend -2.4 (-6.8, -1.9)
New Mexico *** 4.4 (4.1, 4.8) 46 (25, 51) 121 falling falling trend -1.9 (-2.3, -1.4)
Utah *** 4.7 (4.3, 5.1) 38 (19, 51) 128 falling falling trend -2.5 (-6.3, -2.0)
West Virginia *** 5.7 (5.3, 6.2) 4 (1, 24) 148 falling falling trend -2.1 (-2.5, -1.7)
Puerto Rico 8 *** 3.2 (3.0, 3.5) N/A 164 stable stable trend -1.4 (-11.3, 9.7)
Mississippi *** 4.9 (4.6, 5.2) 30 (13, 47) 173 falling falling trend -2.0 (-2.3, -1.7)
Nevada *** 4.9 (4.6, 5.2) 28 (14, 47) 177 falling falling trend -1.9 (-2.2, -1.4)
Arkansas *** 5.1 (4.8, 5.5) 22 (5, 37) 197 falling falling trend -2.4 (-3.5, -2.0)
Kansas *** 5.6 (5.3, 6.0) 5 (1, 24) 201 falling falling trend -2.4 (-4.7, -1.9)
Connecticut *** 4.9 (4.6, 5.1) 32 (17, 47) 230 falling falling trend -1.5 (-2.1, -0.4)
Iowa *** 5.5 (5.2, 5.9) 9 (1, 25) 235 falling falling trend -2.2 (-3.9, -1.9)
Colorado *** 4.4 (4.2, 4.7) 48 (33, 51) 270 falling falling trend -2.8 (-3.3, -2.5)
Oklahoma *** 5.8 (5.5, 6.2) 2 (1, 16) 274 falling falling trend -1.8 (-2.3, -1.6)
Louisiana *** 5.2 (5.0, 5.5) 20 (6, 32) 285 falling falling trend -2.4 (-2.8, -2.0)
Alabama *** 4.5 (4.3, 4.8) 44 (28, 51) 289 falling falling trend -2.9 (-3.8, -2.3)
Oregon *** 5.6 (5.3, 5.9) 7 (1, 22) 305 falling falling trend -2.4 (-3.5, -2.0)
South Carolina *** 4.7 (4.5, 5.0) 35 (22, 48) 312 falling falling trend -2.1 (-2.5, -1.8)
Kentucky *** 5.8 (5.5, 6.1) 1 (1, 15) 321 falling falling trend -1.9 (-2.1, -1.6)
Maryland *** 4.6 (4.4, 4.8) 41 (26, 50) 340 falling falling trend -2.5 (-3.3, -2.2)
Minnesota *** 5.6 (5.3, 5.8) 8 (1, 22) 391 stable stable trend -1.8 (-4.3, 1.5)
Wisconsin *** 5.4 (5.2, 5.7) 13 (3, 24) 412 falling falling trend -2.0 (-2.5, -0.2)
Massachusetts *** 4.7 (4.5, 4.9) 37 (25, 48) 420 stable stable trend -2.0 (-2.7, 0.4)
Missouri *** 5.4 (5.2, 5.6) 14 (3, 25) 426 falling falling trend -1.6 (-2.0, -0.7)
Arizona *** 4.6 (4.4, 4.8) 40 (27, 50) 434 stable stable trend 0.8 (-2.6, 3.2)
Tennessee *** 5.3 (5.1, 5.5) 18 (6, 28) 446 falling falling trend -2.3 (-2.5, -2.1)
Indiana *** 5.6 (5.4, 5.8) 6 (1, 20) 456 falling falling trend -2.3 (-2.7, -2.0)
Washington *** 5.5 (5.3, 5.7) 11 (2, 23) 488 stable stable trend 1.4 (-1.6, 3.1)
Virginia *** 4.9 (4.7, 5.1) 29 (20, 40) 500 falling falling trend -2.3 (-2.6, -2.1)
Georgia *** 4.5 (4.3, 4.7) 45 (32, 50) 513 falling falling trend -2.3 (-2.5, -2.0)
New Jersey *** 4.4 (4.2, 4.6) 47 (37, 51) 519 falling falling trend -3.2 (-3.5, -3.0)
North Carolina *** 4.8 (4.6, 5.0) 33 (22, 43) 609 falling falling trend -2.3 (-2.6, -2.1)
Michigan *** 5.8 (5.6, 6.0) 3 (1, 12) 756 falling falling trend -2.2 (-2.6, -1.9)
Illinois *** 5.0 (4.8, 5.2) 25 (18, 35) 778 falling falling trend -2.5 (-2.7, -2.4)
Ohio *** 5.5 (5.3, 5.7) 10 (3, 21) 837 falling falling trend -1.9 (-2.3, -1.0)
Pennsylvania *** 5.3 (5.2, 5.5) 17 (8, 24) 967 falling falling trend -2.4 (-2.6, -2.3)
New York *** 4.3 (4.2, 4.4) 50 (42, 51) 1,115 falling falling trend -4.7 (-6.9, -2.9)
Texas *** 4.9 (4.8, 5.1) 27 (20, 35) 1,396 falling falling trend -2.3 (-2.5, -2.2)
Florida *** 4.6 (4.5, 4.7) 42 (34, 48) 1,524 falling falling trend -2.6 (-2.8, -2.4)
California *** 4.8 (4.7, 4.9) 34 (26, 41) 2,123 falling falling trend -2.1 (-2.3, -1.4)
Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 12/02/2024 6:17 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.

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