Return to Home Mortality > Table

Death Rates Table

Data Options

Death Rate Report for Indiana by County

All Cancer Sites, 2016-2020

All Races (includes Hispanic), Both Sexes, Ages <65

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
Indiana Yes 53.9 (53.1, 54.7) N/A 3,937 falling falling trend -1.4 (-1.5, -1.3)
United States Yes 47.3 (47.2, 47.4) N/A 168,038 falling falling trend -2.3 (-2.6, -2.0)
Pike County Yes 82.7 (62.4, 108.3) 1 (1, 66) 13 stable stable trend -0.8 (-2.1, 0.4)
Scott County Yes 81.5 (66.6, 98.9) 2 (1, 41) 23 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.8, -0.2)
Orange County Yes 75.7 (59.8, 95.0) 3 (1, 67) 18 stable stable trend -0.1 (-1.1, 1.0)
Wabash County Yes 72.6 (59.3, 88.3) 4 (1, 66) 24 stable stable trend -0.1 (-0.9, 0.7)
Fulton County Yes 71.8 (56.5, 90.4) 5 (1, 73) 17 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.5, 0.5)
Pulaski County Yes 70.2 (51.7, 94.0) 6 (1, 85) 11 stable stable trend -2.5 (-26.4, 29.2)
Howard County Yes 70.0 (62.1, 78.7) 7 (1, 46) 63 stable stable trend -0.3 (-0.8, 0.2)
Greene County Yes 69.5 (57.3, 83.6) 8 (1, 68) 26 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.2, 0.3)
Henry County Yes 68.9 (59.0, 80.2) 9 (1, 62) 37 stable stable trend 10.4 (-9.8, 35.1)
Vermillion County Yes 68.8 (51.7, 90.2) 10 (1, 86) 12 stable stable trend -0.9 (-2.2, 0.5)
Wayne County Yes 68.5 (60.0, 78.0) 11 (1, 54) 51 stable stable trend -0.3 (-0.9, 0.4)
Jefferson County Yes 67.6 (55.8, 81.4) 12 (1, 73) 25 falling falling trend -1.6 (-2.5, -0.7)
Grant County Yes 66.9 (58.3, 76.5) 13 (1, 59) 49 stable stable trend -0.4 (-0.9, 0.1)
Jennings County Yes 66.8 (54.3, 81.5) 14 (1, 77) 21 falling falling trend -1.2 (-2.2, -0.2)
Sullivan County Yes 66.3 (51.8, 83.9) 15 (1, 83) 15 stable stable trend -0.9 (-1.9, 0.2)
Blackford County Yes 66.1 (48.0, 89.7) 16 (1, 89) 10 falling falling trend -1.6 (-2.6, -0.6)
Crawford County Yes 65.9 (46.7, 91.4) 17 (1, 89) 9 falling falling trend -1.7 (-2.9, -0.4)
Fayette County Yes 65.3 (51.5, 81.9) 18 (1, 83) 17 stable stable trend -0.8 (-1.7, 0.1)
Franklin County Yes 64.7 (50.7, 81.5) 19 (1, 83) 17 stable stable trend -0.3 (-1.4, 0.9)
Starke County Yes 64.5 (51.9, 79.8) 20 (1, 80) 20 falling falling trend -1.2 (-2.1, -0.3)
Washington County Yes 64.3 (51.9, 79.0) 21 (1, 79) 20 stable stable trend -1.1 (-2.1, 0.0)
Fountain County Yes 64.0 (48.7, 83.3) 22 (1, 86) 13 stable stable trend -0.3 (-1.7, 1.1)
Madison County Yes 64.0 (58.0, 70.5) 23 (5, 53) 91 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.3, -0.5)
Parke County Yes 63.2 (47.5, 82.8) 24 (1, 89) 12 falling falling trend -1.7 (-3.0, -0.5)
Benton County Yes 62.8 (42.6, 90.6) 25 (1, 92) 7 stable stable trend -0.1 (-1.9, 1.6)
Vigo County Yes 62.8 (56.1, 70.1) 26 (5, 62) 70 falling falling trend -0.6 (-1.0, -0.1)
Noble County Yes 62.4 (52.9, 73.3) 27 (2, 76) 33 falling falling trend -1.5 (-2.2, -0.8)
Brown County Yes 62.1 (46.0, 83.0) 28 (1, 88) 12 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.8, 1.0)
Knox County Yes 62.0 (51.2, 74.6) 29 (2, 79) 26 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.4, 0.3)
Shelby County Yes 61.5 (52.2, 72.2) 30 (3, 76) 34 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.9, -0.1)
Harrison County Yes 61.1 (51.1, 72.8) 31 (2, 80) 29 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.5, -0.2)
Delaware County Yes 61.0 (54.5, 68.1) 32 (7, 67) 71 falling falling trend -0.7 (-1.2, -0.2)
Tipton County Yes 60.4 (43.9, 81.7) 33 (1, 90) 10 stable stable trend -0.6 (-1.8, 0.5)
Jackson County Yes 60.3 (50.8, 71.2) 34 (4, 80) 30 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.5, 0.1)
Cass County Yes 60.2 (50.1, 72.1) 35 (3, 80) 27 falling falling trend -1.2 (-2.0, -0.4)
Clinton County Yes 60.0 (48.8, 73.1) 36 (3, 84) 22 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.2, 0.4)
Putnam County Yes 59.7 (49.2, 71.9) 37 (3, 83) 25 stable stable trend -0.1 (-1.0, 0.7)
Decatur County Yes 59.1 (47.0, 73.5) 38 (2, 87) 18 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.5, 0.2)
Wells County Yes 58.6 (47.0, 72.5) 39 (2, 87) 20 stable stable trend -1.0 (-2.0, 0.1)
Marion County Yes 58.5 (56.4, 60.8) 40 (25, 55) 573 falling falling trend -1.6 (-1.8, -1.4)
Miami County Yes 58.3 (47.9, 70.4) 41 (4, 85) 23 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.7, -0.2)
Ripley County Yes 58.2 (46.7, 72.0) 42 (3, 87) 19 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.4, 0.6)
Clay County Yes 58.1 (46.0, 72.6) 43 (3, 88) 18 falling falling trend -1.2 (-2.1, -0.3)
Adams County Yes 58.0 (46.6, 71.4) 44 (3, 88) 20 stable stable trend -0.2 (-0.9, 0.6)
Rush County Yes 57.9 (42.8, 77.0) 45 (1, 90) 11 falling falling trend -1.3 (-2.4, -0.2)
Vanderburgh County Yes 57.8 (53.0, 63.0) 46 (17, 69) 118 falling falling trend -1.4 (-1.9, -1.0)
Huntington County Yes 57.7 (47.7, 69.5) 47 (6, 85) 26 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.7, -0.1)
Lawrence County Yes 57.7 (48.7, 68.1) 48 (7, 83) 32 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.6, -0.5)
Owen County Yes 57.1 (43.8, 73.7) 49 (2, 90) 14 stable stable trend -1.0 (-2.2, 0.1)
LaPorte County Yes 57.1 (51.1, 63.6) 50 (14, 74) 73 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.7, -0.7)
Daviess County Yes 56.9 (45.7, 70.2) 51 (3, 88) 19 stable stable trend 1.8 (-0.6, 4.2)
DeKalb County Yes 56.7 (47.5, 67.4) 52 (8, 85) 29 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.7, -0.2)
Floyd County Yes 56.1 (49.1, 63.9) 53 (12, 80) 51 falling falling trend -1.8 (-2.4, -1.1)
Randolph County Yes 56.1 (44.1, 70.7) 54 (3, 89) 17 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.7, 0.4)
Dearborn County Yes 55.6 (47.2, 65.3) 55 (9, 85) 34 falling falling trend -1.7 (-2.4, -1.0)
Switzerland County Yes 55.0 (37.2, 79.1) 56 (1, 92) 7 stable stable trend -1.0 (-2.4, 0.5)
White County Yes 54.8 (42.6, 69.8) 57 (4, 90) 16 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.9, 0.4)
Newton County Yes 54.2 (39.6, 73.4) 58 (2, 91) 10 falling falling trend -2.1 (-3.4, -0.8)
Union County Yes 54.0 (33.5, 84.2) 59 (1, 92) 5 stable stable trend -1.0 (-2.9, 1.0)
Montgomery County Yes 53.9 (44.5, 65.0) 60 (10, 88) 25 falling falling trend -1.2 (-2.2, -0.2)
Clark County Yes 53.8 (48.3, 59.9) 61 (25, 80) 73 falling falling trend -2.1 (-2.7, -1.4)
Lake County Yes 52.9 (50.1, 55.9) 62 (40, 74) 294 falling falling trend -2.4 (-2.8, -2.0)
Allen County Yes 52.6 (49.3, 56.0) 63 (38, 75) 207 falling falling trend -1.3 (-1.6, -1.1)
LaGrange County Yes 52.6 (42.2, 64.8) 64 (8, 90) 19 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.3, 0.5)
Jasper County Yes 52.4 (42.0, 64.7) 65 (10, 90) 20 falling falling trend -1.6 (-2.4, -0.9)
St. Joseph County Yes 52.2 (48.4, 56.3) 66 (36, 78) 150 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.6, -0.9)
Morgan County Yes 51.6 (44.8, 59.4) 67 (23, 87) 45 falling falling trend -1.3 (-2.0, -0.6)
Posey County Yes 51.0 (39.4, 65.1) 68 (7, 91) 15 falling falling trend -1.8 (-2.8, -0.8)
Elkhart County Yes 50.9 (46.5, 55.5) 69 (38, 82) 105 falling falling trend -1.4 (-1.8, -0.9)
Steuben County Yes 50.2 (40.2, 62.2) 70 (14, 91) 20 falling falling trend -1.7 (-2.4, -0.9)
Martin County Yes 50.1 (33.0, 74.0) 71 (2, 92) 6 falling falling trend -2.2 (-3.7, -0.6)
Porter County Yes 49.8 (45.3, 54.6) 72 (42, 84) 99 falling falling trend -1.4 (-1.9, -1.0)
Kosciusko County Yes 48.0 (41.4, 55.4) 73 (35, 89) 41 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.5, -0.5)
Johnson County Yes 47.4 (42.7, 52.6) 74 (48, 88) 77 falling falling trend -1.6 (-2.1, -1.0)
Marshall County Yes 46.7 (38.4, 56.4) 75 (30, 91) 25 falling falling trend -1.2 (-2.1, -0.3)
Gibson County Yes 46.5 (36.9, 58.1) 76 (24, 91) 18 falling falling trend -1.8 (-2.5, -1.0)
Tippecanoe County Yes 46.1 (41.4, 51.2) 77 (50, 89) 74 falling falling trend -1.8 (-2.4, -1.3)
Spencer County Yes 45.8 (33.7, 61.3) 78 (15, 92) 11 falling falling trend -2.0 (-3.0, -1.0)
Perry County Yes 45.3 (33.5, 60.3) 79 (15, 92) 11 falling falling trend -2.3 (-3.6, -0.9)
Hancock County Yes 45.1 (38.9, 52.2) 80 (47, 91) 40 falling falling trend -1.6 (-2.3, -1.0)
Ohio County Yes 44.9 (27.4, 73.8) 81 (3, 92) 4 stable stable trend -1.8 (-3.8, 0.2)
Bartholomew County Yes 44.7 (38.5, 51.6) 82 (50, 90) 39 falling falling trend -1.7 (-2.4, -1.0)
Jay County Yes 44.3 (32.3, 59.6) 83 (16, 92) 10 stable stable trend -0.6 (-2.0, 0.9)
Whitley County Yes 44.3 (35.5, 54.9) 84 (32, 92) 19 falling falling trend -1.5 (-2.3, -0.7)
Warrick County Yes 43.4 (36.7, 51.1) 85 (50, 91) 32 falling falling trend -2.0 (-2.7, -1.3)
Monroe County Yes 43.1 (38.0, 48.7) 86 (60, 91) 56 falling falling trend -2.0 (-2.6, -1.4)
Hendricks County Yes 41.5 (37.4, 46.1) 87 (67, 91) 74 falling falling trend -2.0 (-2.4, -1.5)
Boone County Yes 40.5 (34.1, 47.9) 88 (61, 92) 30 falling falling trend -2.1 (-2.7, -1.4)
Dubois County Yes 37.6 (30.1, 46.7) 89 (59, 92) 19 falling falling trend -1.8 (-2.5, -1.0)
Carroll County Yes 36.8 (26.2, 50.8) 90 (42, 92) 9 stable stable trend -15.3 (-32.8, 6.6)
Warren County Yes 35.0 (20.8, 57.4) 91 (22, 92) 4 falling falling trend -3.3 (-4.9, -1.8)
Hamilton County Yes 30.6 (28.0, 33.4) 92 (88, 92) 105 falling falling trend -2.6 (-3.2, -2.1)
Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 12/06/2022 11:34 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.



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