Return to Home Mortality > Table

Death Rates Table

Data Options

Death Rate Report by State

Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma, 2014-2018

All Races (includes Hispanic), Both Sexes, 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 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 *** 5.4 (5.3, 5.4) N/A 20,311 falling falling trend -2.2 (-2.3, -2.1)
Puerto Rico 8 *** 3.4 (3.2, 3.6) N/A 154 stable stable trend -1.2 (-5.7, 3.5)
Hawaii 8 *** 4.5 (4.0, 4.9) 51 (36, 51) 85 falling falling trend -2.0 (-2.7, -1.4)
District of Columbia *** 4.5 (3.8, 5.3) 50 (17, 51) 29 falling falling trend -2.5 (-3.3, -1.7)
Colorado *** 4.6 (4.3, 4.9) 49 (42, 51) 254 falling falling trend -3.1 (-3.5, -2.6)
Arizona *** 4.7 (4.5, 4.9) 48 (42, 51) 399 falling falling trend -3.1 (-3.5, -2.7)
New Mexico *** 4.8 (4.4, 5.2) 47 (24, 51) 123 falling falling trend -1.9 (-2.3, -1.4)
Nevada *** 4.9 (4.6, 5.3) 46 (22, 51) 156 falling falling trend -2.1 (-2.5, -1.7)
Mississippi *** 5.0 (4.7, 5.4) 45 (20, 50) 170 falling falling trend -2.1 (-2.5, -1.8)
Alabama *** 5.0 (4.8, 5.3) 44 (23, 49) 295 falling falling trend -2.9 (-3.5, -2.3)
Florida *** 5.0 (4.9, 5.1) 43 (31, 47) 1,523 falling falling trend -2.7 (-2.9, -2.5)
Georgia *** 5.1 (4.9, 5.3) 42 (24, 48) 520 falling falling trend -2.2 (-2.6, -1.9)
South Carolina *** 5.1 (4.9, 5.4) 41 (20, 48) 305 falling falling trend -2.3 (-2.7, -1.8)
North Carolina *** 5.1 (4.9, 5.3) 40 (24, 47) 601 falling falling trend -2.5 (-2.8, -2.1)
Maryland *** 5.2 (4.9, 5.4) 39 (20, 47) 351 falling falling trend -2.6 (-3.1, -2.2)
California *** 5.2 (5.1, 5.3) 38 (26, 44) 2,155 falling falling trend -2.5 (-2.7, -2.4)
New York *** 5.2 (5.0, 5.3) 37 (24, 45) 1,242 falling falling trend -2.0 (-2.4, -1.6)
Texas *** 5.2 (5.1, 5.3) 36 (24, 45) 1,340 falling falling trend -2.5 (-2.7, -2.3)
Virginia *** 5.2 (5.0, 5.4) 35 (20, 47) 484 falling falling trend -2.4 (-2.7, -2.1)
Wyoming *** 5.2 (4.4, 6.1) 34 (1, 51) 34 falling falling trend -1.6 (-2.4, -0.7)
Connecticut *** 5.2 (4.9, 5.5) 33 (17, 48) 243 falling falling trend -1.6 (-2.6, -0.6)
Rhode Island *** 5.2 (4.7, 5.8) 32 (4, 51) 73 falling falling trend -3.4 (-4.2, -2.6)
New Hampshire *** 5.2 (4.8, 5.8) 31 (7, 50) 90 falling falling trend -2.6 (-3.3, -2.0)
Utah *** 5.3 (4.8, 5.7) 30 (11, 49) 129 falling falling trend -2.2 (-2.7, -1.6)
Massachusetts *** 5.3 (5.1, 5.5) 29 (18, 46) 443 stable stable trend -0.1 (-2.4, 2.2)
New Jersey *** 5.3 (5.1, 5.5) 28 (18, 44) 574 falling falling trend -1.5 (-2.7, -0.3)
Arkansas *** 5.3 (5.0, 5.7) 27 (12, 47) 193 falling falling trend -2.5 (-3.0, -2.0)
South Dakota *** 5.4 (4.7, 6.0) 26 (1, 51) 57 falling falling trend -3.3 (-4.3, -2.4)
Illinois *** 5.4 (5.2, 5.6) 25 (16, 36) 804 falling falling trend -2.6 (-2.8, -2.4)
Montana *** 5.4 (4.9, 6.0) 24 (1, 49) 74 falling falling trend -2.2 (-2.7, -1.6)
Missouri *** 5.4 (5.2, 5.7) 23 (13, 40) 412 falling falling trend -2.9 (-3.4, -2.4)
Nebraska *** 5.5 (5.0, 5.9) 22 (3, 47) 123 falling falling trend -2.0 (-2.4, -1.5)
Alaska *** 5.5 (4.6, 6.5) 21 (1, 51) 33 falling falling trend -1.4 (-2.5, -0.2)
Washington *** 5.6 (5.4, 5.8) 20 (9, 31) 453 falling falling trend -2.8 (-3.1, -2.4)
North Dakota *** 5.6 (4.9, 6.4) 19 (1, 50) 50 falling falling trend -2.4 (-3.0, -1.8)
Kansas *** 5.6 (5.3, 6.0) 18 (2, 38) 194 falling falling trend -2.8 (-3.4, -2.2)
Delaware *** 5.7 (5.1, 6.3) 17 (1, 47) 69 falling falling trend -1.8 (-2.4, -1.1)
Wisconsin *** 5.7 (5.5, 6.0) 16 (5, 28) 410 falling falling trend -2.5 (-2.9, -2.2)
Louisiana *** 5.7 (5.5, 6.1) 15 (2, 30) 294 falling falling trend -2.4 (-2.7, -2.0)
Minnesota *** 5.8 (5.5, 6.0) 14 (2, 26) 376 falling falling trend -2.7 (-3.1, -2.3)
Vermont *** 5.8 (5.1, 6.6) 13 (1, 47) 48 falling falling trend -2.3 (-2.9, -1.7)
Pennsylvania *** 5.9 (5.7, 6.0) 12 (3, 21) 1,019 falling falling trend -2.5 (-2.6, -2.3)
Maine *** 5.9 (5.4, 6.4) 11 (1, 36) 113 falling falling trend -2.3 (-2.8, -1.8)
West Virginia *** 5.9 (5.5, 6.4) 10 (1, 28) 153 falling falling trend -2.3 (-2.7, -1.9)
Oregon *** 5.9 (5.6, 6.3) 9 (1, 23) 299 falling falling trend -2.5 (-3.1, -1.9)
Tennessee *** 6.0 (5.8, 6.3) 8 (1, 20) 470 falling falling trend -2.3 (-2.6, -2.0)
Iowa *** 6.0 (5.7, 6.4) 7 (1, 23) 244 falling falling trend -1.9 (-2.2, -1.7)
Ohio *** 6.0 (5.9, 6.2) 6 (1, 16) 879 falling falling trend -2.6 (-2.9, -2.2)
Idaho *** 6.1 (5.6, 6.6) 5 (1, 28) 114 falling falling trend -1.6 (-2.1, -1.1)
Indiana *** 6.1 (5.8, 6.3) 4 (1, 18) 466 falling falling trend -2.5 (-2.9, -2.1)
Kentucky *** 6.1 (5.8, 6.4) 3 (1, 19) 318 falling falling trend -2.0 (-2.3, -1.6)
Michigan *** 6.1 (5.9, 6.3) 2 (1, 15) 753 falling falling trend -2.3 (-2.6, -2.0)
Oklahoma *** 6.1 (5.8, 6.4) 1 (1, 20) 274 falling falling trend -1.9 (-2.3, -1.6)
Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 12/01/2020 10:04 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 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.

*** 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.

Return to Top