Return to Home Mortality > Table

Death Rates Table

Data Options

Death Rate Report for California by County

Esophagus, 2016-2020

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

Sorted by Rate
County
 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
California *** 3.0 (2.9, 3.1) N/A 1,342 falling falling trend -1.5 (-1.7, -1.3)
United States *** 3.8 (3.8, 3.8) N/A 15,567 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.3, -1.1)
Los Angeles County *** 2.3 (2.2, 2.4) 44 (38, 44) 255 falling falling trend -3.5 (-4.9, -2.1)
Imperial County *** 2.4 (1.4, 3.6) 43 (13, 44) 4 stable stable trend -1.9 (-3.6, 0.0)
Alameda County *** 2.4 (2.1, 2.7) 42 (33, 44) 43 falling falling trend -2.0 (-2.7, -1.4)
Merced County *** 2.5 (1.7, 3.5) 41 (14, 44) 6 falling falling trend -1.8 (-3.4, -0.2)
Santa Clara County *** 2.6 (2.3, 3.0) 40 (28, 44) 55 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.7, -0.5)
San Mateo County *** 2.7 (2.3, 3.3) 39 (21, 44) 27 stable stable trend -17.2 (-33.6, 3.2)
Orange County *** 2.8 (2.6, 3.0) 38 (27, 42) 105 falling falling trend -1.8 (-2.5, -1.1)
Yolo County *** 2.8 (1.9, 4.0) 37 (8, 44) 6 stable stable trend -1.1 (-2.5, 0.4)
Marin County *** 2.8 (2.2, 3.7) 36 (12, 44) 13 falling falling trend -1.8 (-2.8, -0.7)
San Francisco County *** 2.8 (2.4, 3.4) 35 (19, 44) 31 falling falling trend -1.8 (-2.4, -1.1)
Fresno County *** 2.9 (2.4, 3.4) 34 (17, 43) 28 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.5, 0.5)
Contra Costa County *** 2.9 (2.5, 3.4) 33 (18, 42) 43 falling falling trend -1.9 (-2.5, -1.3)
Madera County *** 3.1 (2.0, 4.6) 32 (6, 44) 5
*
*
San Diego County *** 3.2 (2.9, 3.5) 31 (17, 37) 119 falling falling trend -1.4 (-1.9, -0.9)
San Bernardino County *** 3.2 (2.9, 3.6) 30 (14, 39) 67 falling falling trend -2.1 (-3.0, -1.1)
Sacramento County *** 3.2 (2.9, 3.7) 29 (14, 39) 56 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.6, -0.4)
Tulare County *** 3.3 (2.5, 4.2) 28 (8, 44) 14 stable stable trend 0.1 (-1.5, 1.7)
Napa County *** 3.4 (2.3, 4.8) 27 (5, 44) 7 falling falling trend -1.9 (-3.5, -0.3)
San Joaquin County *** 3.4 (2.8, 4.0) 26 (9, 40) 27 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.0, 0.1)
Kern County *** 3.4 (2.9, 4.0) 25 (9, 40) 28 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.4, 0.4)
Solano County *** 3.4 (2.7, 4.2) 24 (9, 41) 19 stable stable trend -1.0 (-1.9, 0.0)
Riverside County *** 3.4 (3.1, 3.8) 23 (12, 33) 95 stable stable trend -0.8 (-1.6, 0.0)
Santa Barbara County *** 3.5 (2.8, 4.3) 22 (7, 41) 19 stable stable trend -0.1 (-1.1, 1.0)
Ventura County *** 3.5 (3.0, 4.0) 21 (10, 38) 36 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.0, 0.2)
Santa Cruz County *** 3.5 (2.7, 4.6) 20 (6, 43) 12 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.7, 0.3)
El Dorado County *** 3.6 (2.7, 4.7) 19 (5, 43) 11 stable stable trend -1.4 (-2.9, 0.1)
San Luis Obispo County *** 3.6 (2.8, 4.6) 18 (6, 42) 15 stable stable trend 0.0 (-1.4, 1.3)
Mendocino County *** 3.7 (2.4, 5.6) 17 (2, 44) 5
*
*
Placer County *** 3.7 (3.0, 4.5) 16 (6, 38) 21 stable stable trend -0.2 (-1.1, 0.8)
Kings County *** 3.8 (2.4, 5.6) 15 (2, 44) 5
*
*
Sonoma County *** 3.8 (3.2, 4.6) 14 (6, 35) 28 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.4, 0.6)
Stanislaus County *** 3.9 (3.2, 4.7) 13 (5, 37) 22 stable stable trend 0.5 (-0.3, 1.2)
Monterey County *** 4.1 (3.3, 5.1) 12 (4, 35) 18 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.7, 0.3)
Butte County *** 4.4 (3.4, 5.7) 11 (2, 35) 13 stable stable trend -1.5 (-3.2, 0.2)
Yuba County *** 4.8 (2.8, 7.6) 10 (1, 44) 4
*
*
Sutter County *** 4.8 (3.2, 7.0) 9 (1, 43) 6 stable stable trend 0.3 (-1.9, 2.4)
Nevada County *** 4.9 (3.5, 6.7) 8 (1, 35) 10 stable stable trend -0.6 (-2.3, 1.1)
Tuolumne County *** 5.0 (3.3, 7.6) 7 (1, 40) 5
*
*
Humboldt County *** 5.1 (3.6, 7.0) 6 (1, 36) 9 stable stable trend -0.2 (-1.9, 1.5)
Amador County *** 5.3 (3.2, 8.9) 5 (1, 43) 4
*
*
Shasta County *** 5.4 (4.2, 6.9) 4 (1, 19) 14 stable stable trend 1.2 (-0.3, 2.6)
Tehama County *** 5.5 (3.5, 8.4) 3 (1, 41) 5 stable stable trend 0.1 (-1.6, 1.7)
Siskiyou County *** 5.8 (3.4, 9.6) 2 (1, 43) 4
*
*
Lake County *** 6.0 (4.0, 8.9) 1 (1, 32) 6
*
*
Alpine County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Calaveras County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Colusa County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Del Norte County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Glenn County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Inyo County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Lassen County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Mariposa County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Modoc County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Mono County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Plumas County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
San Benito County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Sierra County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Trinity County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 03/28/2024 7:54 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.

* Data has been suppressed to ensure confidentiality and stability of rate estimates. Counts are suppressed if fewer than 16 records were reported in a specific area-sex-race category. If an average count of 3 is shown, the total number of cases for the time period is 16 or more which exceeds suppression threshold (but is rounded to 3).

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.

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.

Return to Top