Return to Home Mortality > Table

Death Rates Table

Data Options

Death Rate Report for Indiana by County

All Cancer Sites, 2013-2017

All Races (includes Hispanic), Female, All Ages

Sorted by Rate
County
 sort alphabetically by name ascending
Met Healthy People Objective of 161.4?
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 148.1 (146.5, 149.8) N/A 6,291 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.4, -1.1)
United States Yes 135.7 (135.4, 135.9) N/A 281,450 falling falling trend -1.4 (-1.5, -1.4)
Scott County No 198.0 (167.5, 232.9) 1 (1, 46) 31 stable stable trend 0.1 (-1.1, 1.4)
Putnam County No 187.8 (163.2, 215.5) 2 (1, 48) 44 stable stable trend 0.2 (-0.6, 1.0)
Blackford County No 186.9 (149.4, 232.4) 3 (1, 81) 19 stable stable trend -0.1 (-1.3, 1.1)
Henry County No 179.7 (160.3, 201.1) 4 (1, 48) 66 stable stable trend 0.0 (-0.5, 0.6)
Clay County No 174.2 (148.3, 203.8) 5 (1, 76) 33 stable stable trend 0.2 (-0.8, 1.3)
Orange County No 173.1 (143.3, 208.1) 6 (1, 83) 25 stable stable trend 0.3 (-0.7, 1.3)
Jay County No 172.3 (143.1, 206.1) 7 (1, 83) 26 stable stable trend 0.1 (-0.9, 1.0)
Martin County No 172.1 (132.3, 221.9) 8 (1, 91) 13 stable stable trend 0.0 (-1.7, 1.7)
Sullivan County No 171.4 (140.6, 207.7) 9 (1, 86) 23 stable stable trend -0.8 (-1.7, 0.0)
Jefferson County No 169.7 (146.1, 196.5) 10 (1, 75) 38 stable stable trend -0.6 (-1.3, 0.2)
Washington County No 168.8 (142.1, 199.4) 11 (1, 84) 29 stable stable trend 0.0 (-0.8, 0.8)
Fountain County No 168.5 (137.1, 205.8) 12 (1, 88) 21 stable stable trend -0.1 (-1.0, 0.7)
Union County No 167.5 (121.7, 227.5) 13 (1, 92) 9 stable stable trend 0.3 (-1.1, 1.8)
Jackson County No 167.4 (147.0, 190.1) 14 (1, 74) 50 stable stable trend 0.2 (-0.5, 0.9)
Vermillion County No 166.5 (134.9, 204.3) 15 (1, 89) 20 falling falling trend -1.2 (-2.0, -0.3)
Starke County No 164.9 (137.3, 196.9) 16 (1, 86) 26 stable stable trend 0.1 (-1.0, 1.3)
Grant County No 164.6 (148.9, 181.7) 17 (2, 67) 85 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.1, 0.3)
Harrison County No 163.4 (141.8, 187.6) 18 (1, 81) 43 stable stable trend -0.6 (-1.3, 0.1)
Vigo County No 162.6 (149.1, 177.1) 19 (4, 65) 115 falling falling trend -0.7 (-1.1, -0.3)
Perry County No 162.4 (132.7, 197.6) 20 (1, 89) 22 stable stable trend -0.3 (-1.6, 1.1)
Switzerland County No 161.8 (122.0, 211.5) 21 (1, 92) 11 stable stable trend -0.1 (-1.7, 1.6)
Fayette County Yes 159.9 (133.6, 190.4) 22 (1, 88) 28 stable stable trend -0.8 (-1.8, 0.1)
Greene County Yes 159.7 (137.3, 185.2) 23 (2, 84) 38 stable stable trend 0.6 (-0.4, 1.5)
Clinton County Yes 159.5 (136.4, 185.8) 24 (2, 86) 36 stable stable trend -0.3 (-0.9, 0.3)
Howard County Yes 158.3 (144.1, 173.6) 25 (5, 72) 99 falling falling trend -0.5 (-0.9, -0.1)
Fulton County Yes 157.4 (129.9, 189.7) 26 (1, 88) 24 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.1, 0.4)
Marion County Yes 157.3 (152.4, 162.3) 27 (15, 48) 827 falling falling trend -1.4 (-1.7, -1.1)
Knox County Yes 157.1 (136.1, 180.8) 28 (2, 87) 43 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.7, -0.2)
Madison County Yes 157.0 (145.5, 169.3) 29 (7, 69) 145 falling falling trend -0.6 (-1.1, -0.2)
Dearborn County Yes 156.9 (138.1, 177.7) 30 (3, 82) 53 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.4, 0.1)
DeKalb County Yes 156.2 (135.8, 179.1) 31 (2, 85) 44 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.3, 0.3)
Lake County Yes 156.2 (150.1, 162.5) 32 (15, 54) 522 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.2, -0.7)
Morgan County Yes 154.6 (138.6, 172.1) 33 (5, 81) 70 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.0, 0.2)
Pike County Yes 153.4 (119.0, 196.1) 34 (1, 92) 14 stable stable trend 0.1 (-1.3, 1.4)
Jennings County Yes 152.9 (127.2, 182.4) 35 (2, 90) 26 stable stable trend -0.8 (-1.9, 0.3)
Warren County Yes 152.4 (111.6, 205.6) 36 (1, 92) 10 stable stable trend -0.3 (-1.6, 1.1)
Franklin County Yes 152.3 (125.7, 183.4) 37 (2, 90) 24 stable stable trend -0.1 (-1.1, 0.9)
Noble County Yes 152.1 (132.3, 174.2) 38 (4, 86) 45 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.2, 0.4)
Newton County Yes 152.1 (118.7, 193.0) 39 (1, 92) 15 stable stable trend -0.6 (-1.7, 0.6)
Hancock County Yes 151.9 (136.2, 169.1) 40 (8, 82) 71 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.5, -0.2)
Steuben County Yes 151.5 (130.2, 175.8) 41 (4, 87) 38 falling falling trend -1.2 (-2.0, -0.3)
Delaware County Yes 150.1 (137.8, 163.2) 42 (10, 79) 117 falling falling trend -1.9 (-2.9, -0.9)
Jasper County Yes 150.0 (127.8, 175.2) 43 (3, 90) 34 stable stable trend -0.9 (-1.9, 0.0)
Johnson County Yes 149.7 (138.5, 161.6) 44 (14, 78) 135 falling falling trend -0.7 (-1.2, -0.2)
Daviess County Yes 149.7 (126.3, 176.3) 45 (4, 90) 31 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.2, 0.3)
Boone County Yes 149.3 (131.6, 168.8) 46 (6, 88) 53 falling falling trend -0.8 (-1.3, -0.3)
Wayne County Yes 149.2 (134.3, 165.6) 47 (10, 84) 78 stable stable trend -0.6 (-1.2, 0.0)
Cass County Yes 148.6 (128.0, 171.9) 48 (5, 89) 40 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.5, -0.4)
Porter County Yes 148.1 (137.7, 159.0) 49 (16, 78) 160 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.3, -0.5)
St. Joseph County Yes 148.0 (139.9, 156.6) 50 (21, 74) 265 falling falling trend -0.8 (-1.0, -0.6)
Kosciusko County Yes 147.7 (132.9, 163.9) 51 (10, 85) 75 stable stable trend -0.6 (-1.2, 0.0)
Allen County Yes 146.0 (138.8, 153.4) 52 (27, 75) 327 falling falling trend -1.4 (-1.8, -1.1)
Montgomery County Yes 145.9 (126.0, 168.4) 53 (6, 89) 40 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.5, 0.1)
Shelby County Yes 145.2 (126.1, 166.6) 54 (8, 89) 44 stable stable trend -0.6 (-1.3, 0.2)
Pulaski County Yes 145.1 (112.5, 185.6) 55 (1, 92) 14 stable stable trend -0.8 (-2.0, 0.3)
Marshall County Yes 145.0 (126.6, 165.6) 56 (8, 89) 48 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.2, 0.2)
LaPorte County Yes 144.8 (132.7, 157.8) 57 (16, 84) 113 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.7, -0.5)
Wabash County Yes 144.5 (122.9, 169.2) 58 (5, 91) 37 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.9, -0.4)
White County Yes 143.8 (119.4, 172.2) 59 (4, 92) 27 stable stable trend -0.6 (-1.4, 0.2)
Tipton County Yes 143.7 (113.3, 180.8) 60 (2, 92) 17 stable stable trend -0.6 (-1.8, 0.5)
Floyd County Yes 143.6 (128.8, 159.7) 61 (14, 87) 72 falling falling trend -1.2 (-2.0, -0.5)
Vanderburgh County Yes 143.4 (134.0, 153.3) 62 (26, 82) 186 stable stable trend 1.6 (-2.1, 5.4)
Bartholomew County Yes 143.1 (128.8, 158.8) 63 (16, 87) 76 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.6, -0.3)
Ripley County Yes 142.2 (118.5, 169.5) 64 (5, 92) 27 stable stable trend -0.1 (-1.1, 0.9)
Rush County Yes 142.0 (112.8, 177.2) 65 (2, 92) 18 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.6, 0.8)
Elkhart County Yes 141.2 (131.7, 151.2) 66 (29, 85) 173 falling falling trend -0.7 (-1.0, -0.4)
Clark County Yes 140.9 (128.9, 153.8) 67 (21, 87) 106 falling falling trend -1.7 (-2.1, -1.2)
Lawrence County Yes 140.7 (122.7, 160.7) 68 (12, 90) 48 falling falling trend -0.8 (-1.5, -0.1)
Hendricks County Yes 139.7 (128.7, 151.4) 69 (27, 87) 123 stable stable trend -5.5 (-14.1, 3.9)
Randolph County Yes 139.7 (117.0, 166.1) 70 (8, 92) 29 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.9, -0.2)
Tippecanoe County Yes 138.6 (127.6, 150.3) 71 (28, 87) 123 falling falling trend -1.4 (-1.9, -0.9)
Decatur County Yes 138.0 (114.1, 165.7) 72 (6, 92) 25 stable stable trend -0.8 (-1.9, 0.3)
Huntington County Yes 138.0 (118.1, 160.5) 73 (12, 91) 37 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.7, -0.1)
Owen County Yes 137.0 (111.6, 167.4) 74 (7, 92) 21 falling falling trend -5.6 (-9.7, -1.4)
Benton County Yes 135.8 (97.4, 186.3) 75 (1, 92) 9 stable stable trend 0.2 (-1.3, 1.7)
Gibson County Yes 135.8 (114.7, 160.0) 76 (11, 92) 32 falling falling trend -0.8 (-1.5, -0.2)
Carroll County Yes 133.8 (107.2, 165.5) 77 (6, 92) 19 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.7, 0.7)
Whitley County Yes 133.4 (113.2, 156.4) 78 (16, 92) 33 stable stable trend -0.8 (-1.6, 0.1)
LaGrange County Yes 131.8 (110.1, 156.7) 79 (13, 92) 27 stable stable trend -0.8 (-2.0, 0.4)
Wells County Yes 131.4 (109.1, 157.3) 80 (14, 92) 27 stable stable trend -0.6 (-1.6, 0.4)
Adams County Yes 131.0 (109.9, 155.1) 81 (17, 92) 29 stable stable trend -0.8 (-1.8, 0.2)
Crawford County Yes 130.8 (97.7, 173.4) 82 (3, 92) 11 falling falling trend -1.7 (-3.0, -0.4)
Warrick County Yes 130.2 (114.7, 147.4) 83 (30, 92) 54 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.8, -0.3)
Miami County Yes 128.7 (108.8, 151.5) 84 (21, 92) 31 falling falling trend -2.1 (-3.2, -1.0)
Monroe County Yes 128.5 (117.0, 140.8) 85 (45, 91) 97 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.9, -0.6)
Posey County Yes 127.0 (103.8, 154.2) 86 (14, 92) 23 falling falling trend -1.1 (-2.0, -0.2)
Brown County Yes 126.1 (96.6, 163.2) 87 (6, 92) 14 falling falling trend -2.0 (-3.4, -0.5)
Spencer County Yes 121.9 (97.5, 151.3) 88 (17, 92) 18 falling falling trend -1.2 (-2.1, -0.3)
Dubois County Yes 120.8 (103.5, 140.3) 89 (39, 92) 37 stable stable trend -0.2 (-1.0, 0.7)
Ohio County Yes 117.4 (78.8, 173.3) 90 (4, 92) 6 stable stable trend -1.6 (-3.7, 0.6)
Parke County Yes 115.3 (90.0, 146.3) 91 (27, 92) 15 falling falling trend -1.4 (-2.6, -0.2)
Hamilton County Yes 110.9 (103.4, 118.8) 92 (81, 92) 169 falling falling trend -1.7 (-2.1, -1.3)
Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 08/12/2020 11:48 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 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.

Healthy People 2020 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