Return to Home Mortality > Table

Death Rates Table

Data Options

Death Rate Report for Colorado by County

All Cancer Sites, 2016-2020

White Non-Hispanic, Both Sexes, All Ages

Sorted by Rate
County
 sort alphabetically by name ascending
Met Healthy People Objective of 122.7?
Age-Adjusted Death Rate
deaths per 100,000
(95% Confidence Interval)
 sort by rate ascending
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
Colorado No 130.4 (129.0, 131.9) N/A 6,552 falling falling trend -1.7 (-1.8, -1.5)
United States 6 No 154.4 (154.1, 154.6) N/A 464,265 falling falling trend -1.9 (-2.0, -1.7)
Cheyenne County No 261.9 (177.2, 381.3) 1 (1, 32) 7 stable stable trend 20.1 (-2.7, 48.2)
Baca County No 194.1 (144.7, 259.8) 2 (1, 43) 13 stable stable trend -0.3 (-1.6, 1.0)
Prowers County No 187.3 (153.3, 228.0) 3 (1, 27) 23 stable stable trend -0.8 (-1.7, 0.0)
Jackson County No 180.2 (108.4, 301.0) 4 (1, 59) 4
*
*
Morgan County No 176.0 (153.9, 200.9) 5 (1, 23) 51 stable stable trend -0.2 (-1.0, 0.5)
Sedgwick County No 174.2 (114.3, 264.0) 6 (1, 56) 7 stable stable trend -0.7 (-2.3, 0.9)
Delta County No 168.8 (151.5, 187.9) 7 (2, 23) 83 stable stable trend -0.2 (-0.7, 0.3)
Huerfano County No 168.4 (130.0, 221.5) 8 (1, 44) 17 stable stable trend -0.1 (-1.6, 1.4)
Conejos County No 161.4 (115.6, 221.6) 9 (1, 55) 9 stable stable trend -1.0 (-2.6, 0.6)
Crowley County No 159.3 (111.2, 226.0) 10 (1, 55) 7 stable stable trend -0.8 (-2.7, 1.1)
Rio Blanco County No 159.2 (118.5, 210.2) 11 (1, 52) 11 stable stable trend -0.2 (-1.5, 1.1)
Logan County No 157.5 (136.2, 181.7) 12 (3, 38) 42 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.0, 0.2)
Moffat County No 157.4 (127.8, 192.1) 13 (2, 46) 21 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.3, 0.6)
Yuma County No 157.4 (124.8, 196.8) 14 (2, 49) 18 stable stable trend 0.0 (-0.8, 0.8)
Otero County No 156.6 (130.9, 187.0) 15 (2, 43) 30 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.8, -0.3)
Bent County No 156.5 (114.5, 214.6) 16 (1, 55) 9 stable stable trend -0.8 (-2.2, 0.6)
Lincoln County No 155.1 (116.4, 204.9) 17 (1, 53) 11 stable stable trend -1.0 (-2.0, 0.1)
Fremont County No 153.5 (140.1, 168.1) 18 (5, 30) 105 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.4, -0.6)
Pueblo County No 153.3 (144.3, 162.9) 19 (7, 26) 235 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.2, -0.6)
Alamosa County No 152.8 (119.3, 193.4) 20 (2, 51) 15 stable stable trend 0.2 (-0.6, 1.1)
Adams County 8 No 149.7 (143.3, 156.3) 21 (10, 27) 435 falling falling trend -1.9 (-2.3, -1.5)
El Paso County No 143.6 (139.2, 148.2) 22 (14, 29) 831 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.4, -1.0)
Washington County No 142.8 (106.1, 191.0) 23 (2, 55) 11 stable stable trend -1.3 (-2.7, 0.1)
Kiowa County No 140.7 (78.6, 246.4) 24 (1, 60) 3
*
*
Rio Grande County No 140.4 (109.3, 180.1) 25 (3, 54) 16 stable stable trend -0.8 (-1.8, 0.1)
Mesa County No 139.7 (132.2, 147.7) 26 (15, 35) 275 falling falling trend -1.5 (-1.7, -1.2)
Weld County 8 No 136.0 (129.4, 142.9) 27 (17, 38) 331 falling falling trend -1.6 (-2.2, -1.1)
Montezuma County No 134.0 (116.1, 154.5) 28 (10, 48) 47 falling falling trend -1.3 (-1.8, -0.8)
Montrose County No 132.7 (119.5, 147.3) 29 (14, 46) 84 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.7, -0.6)
Las Animas County No 132.3 (106.9, 164.3) 30 (6, 54) 22 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.3, 0.4)
Denver County No 132.0 (127.1, 137.1) 31 (21, 40) 570 falling falling trend -2.8 (-4.0, -1.6)
Phillips County No 131.6 (88.0, 192.3) 32 (2, 59) 9 stable stable trend -1.1 (-2.5, 0.3)
Arapahoe County No 129.6 (125.1, 134.2) 33 (24, 41) 663 falling falling trend -1.3 (-1.5, -1.2)
Jefferson County 8 No 127.7 (123.7, 131.8) 34 (25, 42) 807 falling falling trend -1.7 (-2.0, -1.5)
Garfield County No 125.7 (112.0, 140.6) 35 (17, 50) 67 falling falling trend -1.8 (-2.3, -1.3)
Elbert County No 125.5 (106.4, 147.2) 36 (12, 53) 36 falling falling trend -2.0 (-2.8, -1.1)
Broomfield County 8 No 124.5 (112.4, 137.6) 37 (20, 49) 80 falling falling trend -4.9 (-6.7, -3.1)
San Miguel County No 123.4 (82.9, 176.1) 38 (3, 59) 8
*
*
Larimer County No 123.1 (118.0, 128.4) 39 (28, 46) 460 falling falling trend -1.4 (-1.7, -1.2)
Teller County Yes 122.6 (104.1, 143.9) 40 (14, 54) 41 falling falling trend -2.4 (-3.2, -1.5)
Boulder County 8 Yes 119.8 (114.3, 125.5) 41 (31, 48) 378 stable stable trend -0.6 (-1.6, 0.3)
Dolores County Yes 118.8 (72.5, 196.6) 42 (2, 60) 4 stable stable trend -1.5 (-3.5, 0.6)
Chaffee County Yes 118.7 (101.6, 138.6) 43 (20, 54) 38 falling falling trend -1.1 (-2.1, -0.1)
Custer County Yes 118.6 (82.2, 170.2) 44 (4, 60) 10 stable stable trend -1.7 (-3.4, 0.0)
Saguache County Yes 112.9 (80.9, 159.2) 45 (7, 60) 10 stable stable trend -1.0 (-3.0, 1.1)
Douglas County Yes 112.3 (106.7, 118.2) 46 (37, 52) 318 falling falling trend -1.9 (-2.3, -1.5)
La Plata County Yes 110.7 (98.6, 124.0) 47 (30, 55) 68 falling falling trend -1.8 (-2.4, -1.3)
Gunnison County Yes 108.3 (84.5, 136.7) 48 (17, 58) 16 falling falling trend -2.6 (-3.8, -1.4)
Clear Creek County Yes 102.5 (76.6, 135.5) 49 (18, 60) 13 falling falling trend -2.2 (-3.5, -0.9)
Gilpin County Yes 102.1 (64.8, 153.9) 50 (6, 60) 7
*
*
Kit Carson County Yes 100.4 (74.1, 135.3) 51 (19, 60) 10 falling falling trend -8.5 (-14.5, -2.1)
Routt County Yes 98.4 (80.9, 118.6) 52 (31, 58) 25 falling falling trend -2.4 (-3.4, -1.4)
Archuleta County Yes 97.7 (78.0, 122.5) 53 (30, 59) 21 stable stable trend -0.7 (-3.2, 1.9)
Lake County Yes 96.3 (61.7, 144.6) 54 (11, 60) 5 falling falling trend -2.1 (-3.8, -0.4)
Grand County Yes 95.6 (74.1, 121.8) 55 (28, 60) 16 stable stable trend -1.3 (-2.7, 0.2)
Park County Yes 90.6 (72.2, 112.9) 56 (36, 60) 23 falling falling trend -1.6 (-3.1, -0.1)
Ouray County Yes 84.3 (56.6, 126.2) 57 (27, 60) 7 falling falling trend -2.6 (-4.6, -0.6)
Eagle County Yes 69.6 (57.4, 83.5) 58 (52, 60) 28 falling falling trend -3.8 (-4.8, -2.7)
Pitkin County Yes 69.4 (54.5, 87.9) 59 (51, 60) 17 falling falling trend -2.6 (-3.9, -1.4)
Summit County Yes 65.4 (50.5, 83.4) 60 (53, 60) 17 falling falling trend -2.1 (-4.1, -0.1)
Costilla County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Hinsdale County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Mineral County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
San Juan County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 01/28/2023 8:21 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.

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

6 Hispanic mortality recent trend data for the United States has been excluded for the following states: Louisiana, New Hampshire, and Oklahoma. The data on Hispanic and non-Hispanic mortality for these states may be unreliable for the time period used in the generation of the recent trend (1990 - 2020) and has been excluded from the calculation of the United States recent trend. This was based on the NCHS Policy.
8 Due to data availability issues, the time period used in the calculation of the joinpoint regression model may differ for selected counties.

* 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