Return to Home Mortality > Table

Death Rates Table

Data Options
Comparison Options

Death Rate Report by State

Leukemia, 2019-2023

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 *** 5.8 (5.8, 5.9) N/A 23,489 falling falling trend -1.8 (-2.0, -1.7)
District of Columbia *** 5.0 (4.3, 5.8) 49 (16, 51) 32 falling falling trend -1.7 (-2.5, -0.8)
Alaska *** 5.5 (4.7, 6.4) 41 (4, 51) 36 falling falling trend -1.6 (-2.9, -0.2)
Wyoming *** 6.2 (5.3, 7.1) 21 (1, 49) 43 falling falling trend -3.3 (-8.5, -1.5)
Vermont *** 5.3 (4.7, 6.1) 45 (12, 51) 50 falling falling trend -2.0 (-3.3, -0.8)
North Dakota *** 6.5 (5.8, 7.3) 8 (1, 44) 59 stable stable trend -1.0 (-1.9, 0.0)
South Dakota *** 7.4 (6.6, 8.1) 1 (1, 16) 81 stable stable trend -0.6 (-1.5, 0.3)
Rhode Island *** 5.6 (5.1, 6.2) 38 (9, 50) 81 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.8, -0.3)
Montana *** 5.6 (5.0, 6.2) 39 (11, 50) 82 falling falling trend -2.0 (-2.7, -1.3)
Delaware *** 6.0 (5.5, 6.7) 25 (3, 47) 82 falling falling trend -1.5 (-2.1, -0.8)
Hawaii *** 4.3 (3.9, 4.8) 51 (49, 51) 89 falling falling trend -1.4 (-2.2, -0.7)
New Hampshire *** 5.4 (4.9, 5.9) 44 (21, 50) 101 falling falling trend -1.6 (-2.3, -1.0)
Maine *** 6.1 (5.6, 6.6) 24 (4, 44) 124 falling falling trend -1.2 (-2.0, -0.3)
New Mexico *** 5.0 (4.6, 5.4) 50 (39, 51) 134 falling falling trend -1.6 (-2.2, -0.9)
Idaho *** 6.3 (5.8, 6.8) 15 (2, 40) 137 falling falling trend -1.4 (-2.0, -0.7)
Nebraska *** 6.3 (5.8, 6.8) 14 (3, 39) 147 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.6, -0.3)
Utah *** 6.3 (5.9, 6.7) 16 (3, 39) 174 stable stable trend -0.8 (-1.9, 0.5)
West Virginia *** 6.9 (6.4, 7.4) 4 (1, 19) 176 falling falling trend -0.7 (-1.3, -0.1)
Nevada *** 5.5 (5.2, 5.9) 42 (23, 49) 195 falling falling trend -1.6 (-2.2, -0.9)
Puerto Rico *** 4.1 (3.8, 4.3) N/A 206 stable stable trend -1.1 (-7.5, 5.7)
Arkansas *** 6.1 (5.8, 6.5) 22 (6, 39) 228 falling falling trend -1.5 (-1.9, -1.0)
Mississippi *** 6.8 (6.4, 7.2) 5 (1, 19) 239 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.4, -0.5)
Kansas *** 7.0 (6.6, 7.4) 3 (1, 14) 245 falling falling trend -0.7 (-1.1, -0.3)
Iowa *** 6.3 (5.9, 6.6) 18 (4, 34) 261 falling falling trend -1.4 (-1.9, -1.0)
Connecticut *** 5.8 (5.5, 6.1) 32 (17, 45) 275 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.6, -0.8)
Oklahoma *** 6.8 (6.4, 7.1) 6 (1, 18) 313 falling falling trend -2.6 (-7.7, -0.8)
Louisiana *** 6.2 (5.9, 6.5) 20 (6, 36) 329 falling falling trend -1.3 (-1.8, -0.8)
Oregon *** 6.3 (6.0, 6.6) 17 (5, 33) 337 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.3, -0.6)
Colorado *** 5.8 (5.5, 6.0) 33 (19, 45) 356 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.6, -0.8)
Alabama *** 5.9 (5.6, 6.2) 30 (13, 42) 367 falling falling trend -2.4 (-8.7, -1.4)
Kentucky *** 7.0 (6.7, 7.3) 2 (1, 9) 376 falling falling trend -0.5 (-1.0, -0.1)
South Carolina *** 6.0 (5.7, 6.3) 27 (11, 40) 392 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.4, -0.7)
Maryland *** 5.5 (5.3, 5.8) 40 (29, 48) 406 falling falling trend -1.6 (-1.9, -1.2)
Minnesota *** 6.3 (6.1, 6.6) 13 (5, 30) 442 falling falling trend -1.3 (-1.7, -0.9)
Massachusetts *** 5.3 (5.1, 5.5) 46 (38, 50) 472 falling falling trend -2.7 (-6.6, -1.6)
Missouri *** 6.2 (6.0, 6.5) 19 (7, 32) 482 falling falling trend -1.3 (-1.6, -1.0)
Wisconsin *** 6.7 (6.4, 6.9) 7 (2, 18) 502 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.6, -0.8)
Indiana *** 6.4 (6.2, 6.7) 10 (4, 26) 515 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.5, -0.9)
Washington *** 5.9 (5.6, 6.1) 31 (17, 42) 517 falling falling trend -1.5 (-1.8, -1.2)
Tennessee *** 6.3 (6.1, 6.6) 11 (6, 28) 519 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.5, -0.8)
Arizona *** 5.7 (5.5, 5.9) 35 (24, 44) 535 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.4, -0.5)
New Jersey *** 5.2 (5.1, 5.4) 47 (39, 50) 604 falling falling trend -4.9 (-7.5, -1.9)
Virginia *** 6.0 (5.8, 6.2) 28 (14, 38) 606 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.4, -0.8)
Georgia *** 5.7 (5.5, 5.9) 34 (23, 43) 649 falling falling trend -1.3 (-1.6, -1.1)
North Carolina *** 6.0 (5.8, 6.2) 29 (15, 38) 748 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.4, -0.8)
Michigan *** 6.3 (6.1, 6.5) 12 (6, 26) 814 falling falling trend -1.3 (-1.6, -1.0)
Illinois *** 6.0 (5.8, 6.2) 26 (15, 36) 919 falling falling trend -1.6 (-1.9, -1.3)
Ohio *** 6.4 (6.3, 6.6) 9 (5, 21) 965 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.4, -0.8)
Pennsylvania *** 6.1 (6.0, 6.3) 23 (12, 31) 1,091 falling falling trend -1.7 (-2.2, -1.4)
New York *** 5.0 (4.9, 5.2) 48 (44, 50) 1,279 falling falling trend -3.4 (-4.4, -2.8)
Texas *** 5.7 (5.5, 5.8) 37 (30, 43) 1,621 falling falling trend -2.0 (-2.7, -1.6)
Florida *** 5.7 (5.6, 5.8) 36 (29, 43) 1,876 falling falling trend -3.2 (-5.3, -1.3)
California *** 5.4 (5.3, 5.5) 43 (38, 48) 2,368 falling falling trend -2.2 (-2.7, -1.9)

Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 02/19/2026 4:59 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 (20 age groups: <1, 1-4, 5-9, ... , 80-84, 85-89, 90+).

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.

When displaying county information, the CI*Rank for the state is not shown because it's not comparable. To see the state CI*Rank please view the statistics at the US By State level.

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

Healthy People 2030 Objectives provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Data for United States does not include Puerto Rico.

CI*Rank data for Puerto Rico is not available.

Return to Top