Return to Home Mortality > Table

Death Rates Table

Data Options

Death Rate Report for California by County

Liver & Bile Duct, 2013-2017

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

Sorted by Name
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 *** 7.8 (7.6, 7.9) N/A 3,318 stable stable trend 0.0 (-1.5, 1.6)
United States *** 6.6 (6.5, 6.6) N/A 25,633 rising rising trend 0.7 (0.1, 1.3)
Yuba County *** 9.2 (6.3, 12.9) 8 (1, 44) 7
*
*
Yolo County *** 8.3 (6.6, 10.3) 13 (1, 39) 17 rising rising trend 3.2 (1.4, 4.9)
Ventura County *** 6.4 (5.7, 7.1) 37 (21, 42) 63 rising rising trend 2.4 (1.6, 3.3)
Tuolumne County *** 6.3 (4.2, 9.5) 38 (2, 46) 6 stable stable trend 0.0 (-2.1, 2.2)
Tulare County *** 7.3 (6.2, 8.6) 23 (6, 40) 31 rising rising trend 2.2 (1.1, 3.3)
Trinity County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Tehama County *** 4.7 (3.0, 7.3) 44 (16, 46) 4 stable stable trend 0.1 (-2.2, 2.5)
Sutter County *** 8.2 (6.0, 11.0) 14 (1, 44) 9 rising rising trend 3.2 (1.4, 5.0)
Stanislaus County *** 8.6 (7.5, 9.7) 11 (2, 31) 48 rising rising trend 4.3 (2.9, 5.7)
Sonoma County *** 7.3 (6.4, 8.3) 24 (11, 39) 52 rising rising trend 3.1 (2.1, 4.2)
Solano County *** 10.3 (9.1, 11.7) 1 (1, 14) 54 rising rising trend 4.8 (3.7, 6.0)
Siskiyou County *** 7.0 (4.5, 10.6) 32 (1, 46) 6
*
*
Sierra County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Shasta County *** 8.5 (7.0, 10.3) 12 (1, 37) 23 rising rising trend 3.3 (1.7, 4.9)
Santa Cruz County *** 5.8 (4.7, 7.2) 39 (19, 46) 20 stable stable trend -4.8 (-12.9, 4.1)
Santa Clara County *** 7.7 (7.2, 8.3) 18 (11, 31) 155 rising rising trend 2.2 (1.4, 2.9)
Santa Barbara County *** 7.2 (6.1, 8.3) 26 (10, 41) 36 rising rising trend 2.8 (1.8, 3.9)
San Mateo County *** 7.2 (6.5, 8.1) 25 (12, 38) 69 rising rising trend 1.9 (1.0, 2.9)
San Luis Obispo County *** 5.0 (4.1, 6.2) 43 (32, 46) 20 rising rising trend 2.2 (1.0, 3.5)
San Joaquin County *** 9.4 (8.5, 10.5) 5 (1, 17) 69 stable stable trend -4.4 (-14.5, 6.8)
San Francisco County *** 10.0 (9.2, 11.0) 2 (1, 12) 105 stable stable trend 0.4 (-0.3, 1.2)
San Diego County *** 7.6 (7.2, 8.1) 20 (12, 30) 273 rising rising trend 2.7 (2.3, 3.0)
San Bernardino County *** 8.9 (8.3, 9.5) 10 (3, 18) 173 rising rising trend 3.6 (2.9, 4.2)
San Benito County *** 8.1 (5.2, 12.0) 16 (1, 46) 5
*
*
Sacramento County *** 9.4 (8.7, 10.1) 6 (1, 15) 153 rising rising trend 3.3 (2.9, 3.8)
Riverside County *** 7.0 (6.5, 7.4) 31 (19, 38) 178 stable stable trend 0.7 (-0.7, 2.0)
Plumas County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Placer County *** 5.5 (4.6, 6.5) 42 (30, 46) 29 rising rising trend 2.2 (0.8, 3.6)
Orange County *** 7.2 (6.8, 7.6) 27 (17, 36) 252 rising rising trend 2.3 (1.9, 2.7)
Nevada County *** 5.7 (4.2, 7.7) 41 (14, 46) 11 rising rising trend 1.7 (0.1, 3.2)
Napa County *** 6.6 (5.1, 8.5) 35 (8, 45) 13 rising rising trend 2.8 (0.8, 4.8)
Monterey County *** 6.7 (5.7, 7.9) 33 (12, 42) 31 stable stable trend -9.3 (-18.8, 1.3)
Mono County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Modoc County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Merced County *** 9.7 (8.0, 11.7) 3 (1, 29) 23 rising rising trend 3.3 (1.9, 4.7)
Mendocino County *** 9.1 (6.8, 12.0) 9 (1, 41) 11 stable stable trend 2.1 (0.0, 4.3)
Mariposa County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Marin County *** 4.5 (3.6, 5.6) 46 (37, 46) 18 stable stable trend 0.9 (-0.7, 2.5)
Madera County *** 7.9 (6.1, 10.1) 17 (1, 42) 13 rising rising trend 3.6 (1.9, 5.3)
Los Angeles County *** 8.2 (7.9, 8.4) 15 (10, 22) 863 stable stable trend -0.6 (-2.3, 1.1)
Lassen County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Lake County *** 6.4 (4.3, 9.3) 36 (4, 46) 7 stable stable trend -11.8 (-23.3, 1.4)
Kings County *** 7.1 (5.1, 9.6) 28 (1, 46) 9
*
*
Kern County *** 7.7 (6.8, 8.7) 19 (8, 36) 61 rising rising trend 4.2 (3.2, 5.2)
Inyo County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Imperial County *** 9.3 (7.4, 11.5) 7 (1, 35) 17 stable stable trend 0.8 (-0.8, 2.4)
Humboldt County *** 7.6 (5.9, 9.8) 21 (2, 43) 15 rising rising trend 2.6 (0.5, 4.8)
Glenn County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Fresno County *** 9.5 (8.6, 10.5) 4 (1, 16) 87 rising rising trend 2.5 (2.0, 3.1)
El Dorado County *** 4.6 (3.6, 6.0) 45 (34, 46) 14 stable stable trend 0.3 (-1.4, 2.0)
Del Norte County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Contra Costa County *** 6.7 (6.1, 7.3) 34 (19, 40) 89 rising rising trend 2.3 (1.6, 3.1)
Colusa County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Calaveras County *** 5.8 (3.8, 9.0) 40 (6, 46) 5
*
*
Butte County *** 7.0 (5.7, 8.5) 30 (8, 43) 21 rising rising trend 2.8 (1.5, 4.2)
Amador County *** 7.0 (4.5, 11.0) 29 (1, 46) 5
*
*
Alpine County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Alameda County *** 7.5 (7.0, 8.2) 22 (12, 34) 133 rising rising trend 1.5 (0.8, 2.1)
Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 08/07/2020 4:32 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 2020 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 1969-2017 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 2020 Objective for this cancer.
Healthy People 2020 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.

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.

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