Return to Home Mortality > Table

Death Rates Table

Data Options

Death Rate Report for California by County

Esophagus, 2018-2022

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

Sorted by Recentaapc

County
 sort alphabetically by name ascending
2023 Rural-Urban Continuum Codes Φ
 sort by rural urban descending
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 ascending
California N/A *** 2.9 (2.9, 3.0) N/A 1,354 falling falling trend -1.5 (-1.7, -1.3)
United States N/A *** 3.7 (3.7, 3.8) N/A 15,762 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.6, -0.8)
Shasta County Urban *** 5.9 (4.6, 7.5) 2 (1, 12) 16 stable stable trend 0.9 (-0.3, 2.4)
Tehama County Rural *** 6.3 (4.2, 9.3) 1 (1, 28) 6 stable stable trend 0.6 (-1.1, 2.8)
Stanislaus County Urban *** 4.1 (3.4, 4.9) 9 (3, 29) 24 stable stable trend 0.4 (-0.3, 1.2)
San Luis Obispo County Urban *** 4.2 (3.4, 5.2) 8 (2, 33) 18 stable stable trend 0.3 (-0.9, 1.8)
Tulare County Urban *** 3.3 (2.5, 4.1) 27 (6, 41) 14 stable stable trend 0.0 (-1.4, 1.7)
Humboldt County Rural *** 5.2 (3.7, 7.0) 4 (1, 29) 9 stable stable trend -0.1 (-1.6, 1.6)
Santa Barbara County Urban *** 3.4 (2.7, 4.2) 21 (6, 40) 18 stable stable trend -0.2 (-1.3, 1.1)
Placer County Urban *** 3.5 (2.9, 4.3) 14 (5, 37) 21 stable stable trend -0.3 (-1.1, 0.7)
Sonoma County Urban *** 4.2 (3.6, 5.0) 6 (3, 25) 31 stable stable trend -0.3 (-1.2, 0.8)
Ventura County Urban *** 3.5 (3.0, 4.0) 17 (7, 35) 37 stable stable trend -0.3 (-0.9, 0.4)
Sutter County Urban *** 3.5 (2.2, 5.3) 18 (2, 43) 4 stable stable trend -0.4 (-2.4, 2.1)
Fresno County Urban *** 2.9 (2.4, 3.4) 35 (15, 42) 29 stable stable trend -0.6 (-1.6, 0.6)
Kern County Urban *** 3.5 (2.9, 4.1) 15 (6, 36) 29 stable stable trend -0.6 (-1.3, 0.3)
Riverside County Urban *** 3.4 (3.1, 3.7) 20 (11, 32) 94 stable stable trend -0.6 (-4.0, 0.1)
Monterey County Urban *** 3.8 (3.0, 4.7) 13 (4, 36) 18 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.8, 0.4)
Santa Cruz County Urban *** 3.3 (2.5, 4.3) 24 (5, 42) 12 stable stable trend -0.8 (-1.7, 0.3)
Solano County Urban *** 3.1 (2.5, 3.8) 31 (9, 42) 19 stable stable trend -1.0 (-1.9, 0.1)
Nevada County Rural *** 3.5 (2.4, 5.0) 16 (3, 43) 7 stable stable trend -1.1 (-2.7, 0.9)
San Diego County Urban *** 3.4 (3.1, 3.6) 22 (12, 32) 127 falling falling trend -1.1 (-3.0, -0.7)
Sacramento County Urban *** 3.1 (2.8, 3.5) 30 (13, 37) 56 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.9, -0.4)
Yolo County Urban *** 2.9 (1.9, 4.1) 36 (6, 43) 6 stable stable trend -1.3 (-2.8, 0.5)
El Dorado County Urban *** 3.3 (2.4, 4.4) 26 (5, 43) 11 stable stable trend -1.4 (-2.9, 0.4)
Butte County Urban *** 4.0 (3.0, 5.3) 12 (2, 38) 12 falling falling trend -1.6 (-4.0, -0.2)
Imperial County Urban *** 2.1 (1.2, 3.2) 43 (16, 43) 4 stable stable trend -1.6 (-3.4, 0.4)
Contra Costa County Urban *** 3.1 (2.7, 3.5) 32 (13, 38) 46 falling falling trend -1.7 (-2.4, -1.1)
San Francisco County Urban *** 3.0 (2.6, 3.5) 33 (13, 40) 33 falling falling trend -1.7 (-2.3, -1.0)
Orange County Urban *** 2.7 (2.5, 2.9) 37 (27, 40) 104 falling falling trend -1.8 (-3.3, -1.2)
San Joaquin County Urban *** 3.1 (2.6, 3.8) 28 (9, 40) 25 falling falling trend -1.8 (-4.9, -0.9)
Marin County Urban *** 2.9 (2.2, 3.8) 34 (9, 43) 13 falling falling trend -1.9 (-2.8, -0.9)
San Mateo County Urban *** 2.4 (2.0, 2.9) 38 (26, 43) 24 falling falling trend -1.9 (-2.7, -1.2)
Alameda County Urban *** 2.4 (2.1, 2.7) 39 (31, 43) 45 falling falling trend -2.0 (-2.7, -1.3)
Los Angeles County Urban *** 2.3 (2.1, 2.4) 41 (36, 43) 257 falling falling trend -2.0 (-2.3, -1.9)
Merced County Urban *** 2.2 (1.5, 3.2) 42 (16, 43) 5 falling falling trend -2.0 (-3.4, -0.4)
San Bernardino County Urban *** 3.3 (3.0, 3.7) 25 (11, 35) 70 falling falling trend -2.0 (-7.8, -1.1)
Napa County Urban *** 3.1 (2.1, 4.5) 29 (5, 43) 6 falling falling trend -2.1 (-3.7, -0.4)
Santa Clara County Urban *** 2.3 (2.1, 2.7) 40 (32, 43) 50 falling falling trend -2.2 (-6.5, -1.4)
Amador County Rural *** 4.2 (2.4, 7.5) 7 (1, 43) 3
*
*
Calaveras County Rural *** 3.3 (1.9, 6.0) 23 (2, 43) 3
*
*
Kings County Urban *** 4.1 (2.7, 6.0) 11 (1, 43) 5
*
*
Lake County Rural *** 5.6 (3.6, 8.5) 3 (1, 37) 6
*
*
Madera County Urban *** 4.1 (2.8, 5.8) 10 (1, 41) 7
*
*
Mendocino County Rural *** 3.4 (2.2, 5.2) 19 (2, 43) 5
*
*
Tuolumne County Rural *** 4.7 (3.0, 7.5) 5 (1, 42) 5
*
*
Alpine County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Colusa County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Del Norte County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Glenn County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Inyo County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Lassen County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Mariposa County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Modoc County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Mono County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Plumas County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
San Benito County Urban ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Sierra County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Siskiyou County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Trinity County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Yuba County Urban ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 12/12/2024 3:19 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.

Φ Rural-Urban Continuum Codes provided by the USDA.

* 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