Return to Home Mortality > Table

Death Rates Table

Data Options

Death Rate Report by State

Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma, 2016-2020

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

Sorted by Recentaapc
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 *** 5.1 (5.1, 5.2) N/A 20,291 falling falling trend -2.2 (-2.3, -2.1)
New Jersey *** 4.9 (4.7, 5.1) 38 (25, 48) 548 falling falling trend -4.9 (-8.3, -1.5)
New York *** 4.8 (4.7, 5.0) 42 (29, 47) 1,200 falling falling trend -4.9 (-8.1, -1.7)
Colorado *** 4.5 (4.3, 4.7) 48 (37, 51) 265 falling falling trend -3.0 (-3.4, -2.6)
Alabama *** 4.9 (4.6, 5.1) 41 (22, 49) 298 falling falling trend -2.9 (-3.4, -2.4)
Arizona *** 4.4 (4.3, 4.6) 49 (42, 51) 410 falling falling trend -2.9 (-3.2, -2.6)
District of Columbia *** 4.1 (3.4, 4.9) 51 (23, 51) 28 falling falling trend -2.7 (-3.4, -1.9)
Florida *** 4.8 (4.7, 4.9) 45 (33, 47) 1,542 falling falling trend -2.7 (-2.9, -2.5)
Kansas *** 5.6 (5.2, 6.0) 16 (1, 31) 198 falling falling trend -2.6 (-3.2, -2.1)
Maryland *** 4.8 (4.6, 5.0) 44 (25, 50) 340 falling falling trend -2.6 (-3.0, -2.2)
Minnesota *** 5.7 (5.4, 6.0) 8 (1, 23) 391 falling falling trend -2.6 (-3.0, -2.2)
North Dakota *** 4.9 (4.2, 5.6) 40 (5, 51) 45 falling falling trend -2.6 (-3.1, -2.0)
Washington *** 5.4 (5.1, 5.6) 20 (9, 32) 460 falling falling trend -2.6 (-2.9, -2.4)
Arkansas *** 5.2 (4.8, 5.5) 26 (11, 46) 195 falling falling trend -2.5 (-2.9, -2.1)
Illinois *** 5.2 (5.1, 5.4) 24 (16, 33) 798 falling falling trend -2.5 (-2.7, -2.4)
New Hampshire *** 5.1 (4.7, 5.6) 28 (5, 49) 93 falling falling trend -2.5 (-3.1, -1.9)
Ohio *** 5.7 (5.5, 5.8) 9 (4, 21) 849 falling falling trend -2.5 (-2.8, -2.2)
Oregon *** 5.7 (5.4, 6.0) 10 (1, 25) 298 falling falling trend -2.5 (-3.1, -2.0)
Indiana *** 5.8 (5.6, 6.1) 5 (1, 19) 461 falling falling trend -2.4 (-2.7, -2.0)
Louisiana *** 5.3 (5.0, 5.6) 22 (8, 38) 284 falling falling trend -2.4 (-2.8, -2.1)
Montana *** 4.9 (4.4, 5.5) 34 (9, 51) 71 falling falling trend -2.4 (-2.9, -1.9)
North Carolina *** 4.9 (4.7, 5.1) 37 (25, 47) 605 falling falling trend -2.4 (-2.7, -2.1)
Pennsylvania *** 5.6 (5.5, 5.8) 11 (4, 21) 1,001 falling falling trend -2.4 (-2.6, -2.3)
Texas *** 5.0 (4.9, 5.2) 29 (22, 39) 1,382 falling falling trend -2.4 (-2.6, -2.3)
Virginia *** 5.0 (4.8, 5.2) 30 (20, 44) 493 falling falling trend -2.4 (-2.6, -2.1)
Wisconsin *** 5.6 (5.4, 5.9) 12 (2, 24) 418 falling falling trend -2.4 (-2.8, -2.1)
Georgia *** 4.7 (4.5, 4.9) 46 (32, 50) 511 falling falling trend -2.3 (-2.6, -2.0)
Maine *** 5.6 (5.1, 6.0) 17 (1, 37) 112 falling falling trend -2.3 (-2.8, -1.9)
South Carolina *** 4.8 (4.6, 5.1) 43 (25, 49) 307 falling falling trend -2.3 (-2.7, -2.0)
Tennessee *** 5.6 (5.4, 5.8) 15 (3, 25) 459 falling falling trend -2.3 (-2.6, -2.1)
California *** 4.9 (4.8, 5.0) 33 (27, 42) 2,152 falling falling trend -2.2 (-2.4, -2.0)
Michigan *** 5.9 (5.7, 6.1) 4 (1, 14) 754 falling falling trend -2.2 (-2.5, -1.9)
Puerto Rico 8 *** 3.3 (3.1, 3.6) N/A 157 stable stable trend -2.2 (-12.7, 9.5)
Utah *** 4.9 (4.5, 5.3) 39 (16, 50) 128 falling falling trend -2.2 (-2.7, -1.7)
Vermont *** 5.7 (5.0, 6.5) 6 (1, 45) 49 falling falling trend -2.2 (-2.8, -1.6)
Mississippi *** 4.9 (4.6, 5.2) 36 (18, 50) 172 falling falling trend -2.1 (-2.4, -1.8)
West Virginia *** 5.9 (5.5, 6.4) 3 (1, 23) 155 falling falling trend -2.1 (-2.5, -1.7)
Iowa *** 5.6 (5.3, 5.9) 14 (1, 29) 233 falling falling trend -2.0 (-2.2, -1.7)
Kentucky *** 6.0 (5.7, 6.3) 2 (1, 17) 324 falling falling trend -2.0 (-2.2, -1.7)
Massachusetts *** 5.0 (4.8, 5.2) 32 (21, 46) 430 falling falling trend -2.0 (-3.0, -1.0)
Nebraska *** 5.2 (4.8, 5.6) 25 (5, 48) 120 falling falling trend -2.0 (-2.4, -1.6)
New Mexico *** 4.4 (4.1, 4.8) 50 (32, 51) 118 falling falling trend -2.0 (-2.4, -1.6)
Hawaii 8 *** 4.6 (4.2, 5.1) 47 (22, 51) 90 falling falling trend -1.9 (-2.5, -1.3)
Missouri *** 5.3 (5.1, 5.6) 21 (9, 33) 419 falling falling trend -1.9 (-2.6, -1.2)
Nevada *** 5.2 (4.8, 5.5) 27 (9, 46) 177 falling falling trend -1.9 (-2.3, -1.5)
Oklahoma *** 6.0 (5.7, 6.4) 1 (1, 16) 280 falling falling trend -1.9 (-2.2, -1.6)
Connecticut *** 4.9 (4.6, 5.2) 35 (20, 49) 236 falling falling trend -1.8 (-2.6, -1.0)
Delaware *** 5.5 (4.9, 6.1) 18 (1, 46) 72 falling falling trend -1.8 (-2.4, -1.3)
Idaho *** 5.6 (5.2, 6.1) 13 (1, 35) 113 falling falling trend -1.8 (-2.2, -1.3)
Wyoming *** 5.0 (4.2, 5.8) 31 (1, 51) 34 falling falling trend -1.5 (-2.3, -0.7)
Alaska *** 5.4 (4.6, 6.3) 19 (1, 51) 34 falling falling trend -1.4 (-2.4, -0.4)
South Dakota *** 5.7 (5.1, 6.4) 7 (1, 43) 63 falling falling trend -1.4 (-2.7, -0.1)
Rhode Island *** 5.2 (4.7, 5.8) 23 (2, 49) 75 stable stable trend -0.8 (-2.8, 1.3)
Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 03/19/2024 12:34 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.

*** No Healthy People 2030 Objective for this cancer.
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