Return to Home Mortality > Table

Death Rates Table

Data Options

Death Rate Report by State

Leukemia, 2016-2020

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

Sorted by CI*Rank
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 ascending
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 *** 6.0 (6.0, 6.1) N/A 23,447 falling falling trend -2.1 (-2.3, -1.8)
Hawaii 8 *** 4.5 (4.1, 5.0) 51 (48, 51) 86 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.4, -0.4)
District of Columbia *** 4.5 (3.8, 5.3) 50 (42, 51) 31 falling falling trend -1.9 (-2.5, -1.3)
New Mexico *** 4.9 (4.5, 5.3) 49 (47, 51) 127 falling falling trend -1.5 (-1.9, -1.1)
Alaska *** 5.5 (4.7, 6.4) 48 (4, 51) 35 falling falling trend -1.6 (-2.4, -0.7)
New Hampshire *** 5.5 (5.1, 6.1) 47 (19, 50) 100 falling falling trend -1.3 (-1.7, -0.8)
Colorado *** 5.6 (5.3, 5.8) 46 (29, 49) 328 falling falling trend -1.3 (-1.6, -1.1)
California *** 5.6 (5.5, 5.7) 45 (38, 48) 2,392 falling falling trend -2.7 (-3.3, -2.0)
Arizona *** 5.6 (5.4, 5.9) 44 (29, 48) 504 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.4, -0.8)
New York *** 5.6 (5.5, 5.8) 43 (33, 48) 1,378 falling falling trend -2.7 (-3.8, -1.7)
Nevada *** 5.7 (5.3, 6.1) 42 (22, 49) 191 falling falling trend -1.3 (-1.7, -0.8)
Massachusetts *** 5.7 (5.5, 5.9) 41 (26, 48) 494 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.3, -0.8)
Georgia *** 5.8 (5.5, 6.0) 40 (26, 48) 621 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.4, -1.0)
Maryland *** 5.8 (5.5, 6.0) 39 (23, 48) 408 falling falling trend -1.5 (-1.9, -1.2)
Montana *** 5.8 (5.2, 6.4) 38 (9, 49) 81 falling falling trend -1.6 (-2.0, -1.1)
Texas *** 5.8 (5.7, 5.9) 37 (28, 45) 1,586 falling falling trend -2.8 (-4.1, -1.6)
New Jersey *** 5.8 (5.6, 6.0) 36 (25, 47) 641 falling falling trend -1.5 (-1.7, -1.3)
Connecticut *** 5.8 (5.5, 6.2) 35 (18, 48) 274 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.3, -0.7)
Washington *** 5.9 (5.7, 6.2) 34 (20, 45) 500 falling falling trend -2.0 (-2.4, -1.5)
Vermont *** 5.9 (5.2, 6.7) 33 (2, 50) 51 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.7, -0.5)
North Carolina *** 5.9 (5.7, 6.1) 32 (21, 43) 726 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.1, -0.7)
Virginia *** 5.9 (5.7, 6.2) 31 (20, 44) 575 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.3, -0.9)
Florida *** 5.9 (5.8, 6.1) 30 (23, 40) 1,861 falling falling trend -1.3 (-1.5, -1.1)
Utah *** 6.0 (5.6, 6.4) 29 (8, 48) 158 falling falling trend -0.7 (-1.2, -0.2)
Maine *** 6.0 (5.5, 6.6) 28 (6, 48) 118 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.4, -0.4)
Wyoming *** 6.1 (5.3, 7.0) 27 (1, 49) 43 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.6, -0.2)
South Carolina *** 6.1 (5.8, 6.4) 26 (11, 42) 382 falling falling trend -0.8 (-1.1, -0.5)
Illinois *** 6.1 (5.9, 6.3) 25 (16, 35) 922 falling falling trend -2.7 (-3.9, -1.5)
Arkansas *** 6.2 (5.9, 6.6) 24 (6, 41) 232 falling falling trend -3.8 (-6.4, -1.2)
South Dakota *** 6.2 (5.6, 6.9) 23 (1, 48) 68 stable stable trend 6.9 (-9.5, 26.2)
Alabama *** 6.2 (6.0, 6.5) 22 (8, 37) 374 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.2, -0.6)
Oregon *** 6.3 (6.0, 6.6) 21 (7, 37) 325 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.4, -0.9)
Rhode Island *** 6.3 (5.7, 6.9) 20 (1, 48) 86 falling falling trend -0.5 (-1.0, -0.1)
Louisiana *** 6.3 (6.0, 6.6) 19 (6, 34) 333 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.4, -0.9)
Missouri *** 6.4 (6.1, 6.6) 18 (6, 30) 487 falling falling trend -1.9 (-2.5, -1.3)
Delaware *** 6.4 (5.7, 7.0) 17 (1, 47) 83 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.6, -0.7)
Pennsylvania *** 6.4 (6.2, 6.5) 16 (8, 28) 1,118 falling falling trend -1.9 (-2.6, -1.3)
Michigan *** 6.4 (6.2, 6.7) 15 (6, 26) 813 falling falling trend -1.6 (-2.1, -1.1)
Tennessee *** 6.5 (6.2, 6.7) 14 (4, 27) 522 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.2, -0.7)
Iowa *** 6.5 (6.2, 6.9) 13 (2, 30) 268 falling falling trend -1.7 (-2.2, -1.1)
Ohio *** 6.6 (6.4, 6.7) 12 (4, 22) 970 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.1, -0.7)
Indiana *** 6.6 (6.3, 6.8) 11 (3, 25) 513 falling falling trend -2.3 (-3.4, -1.3)
Idaho *** 6.6 (6.1, 7.1) 10 (1, 37) 129 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.4, -0.6)
Minnesota *** 6.6 (6.4, 6.9) 9 (2, 24) 449 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.3, -0.8)
Wisconsin *** 6.7 (6.4, 6.9) 8 (2, 23) 490 falling falling trend -2.4 (-3.4, -1.4)
Nebraska *** 6.7 (6.2, 7.2) 7 (1, 31) 154 falling falling trend -0.6 (-1.0, -0.2)
Mississippi *** 6.7 (6.3, 7.1) 6 (1, 27) 231 falling falling trend -0.6 (-0.9, -0.3)
Kansas *** 6.9 (6.5, 7.3) 5 (1, 21) 241 falling falling trend -0.5 (-0.8, -0.3)
North Dakota *** 6.9 (6.1, 7.7) 4 (1, 40) 63 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.5, -0.3)
West Virginia *** 7.1 (6.6, 7.6) 3 (1, 18) 179 falling falling trend -0.7 (-1.0, -0.3)
Kentucky *** 7.1 (6.8, 7.4) 2 (1, 11) 377 falling falling trend -0.4 (-0.7, -0.2)
Oklahoma *** 7.1 (6.8, 7.5) 1 (1, 11) 327 falling falling trend -0.5 (-0.8, -0.3)
Puerto Rico 8 *** 4.1 (3.9, 4.4) N/A 197 stable stable trend -1.2 (-7.9, 6.0)
Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 12/02/2022 1:58 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 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.

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.
CI*Rank data for Puerto Rico is not available.

Return to Top