Return to Home Mortality > Table

Death Rates Table

Data Options

Death Rate Report for Indiana by County

Breast, 2018-2022

All Races (includes Hispanic), Female, All Ages

Sorted by Name

County
 sort alphabetically by name ascending
2023 Rural-Urban Continuum Codes Φ
 sort by rural urban descending
Met Healthy People Objective of 15.3?
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
Indiana N/A No 20.3 (19.7, 21.0) N/A 901 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.4, 1.7)
United States N/A No 19.3 (19.2, 19.4) N/A 42,308 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.3, -1.1)
Whitley County Urban No 24.8 (16.7, 36.0) 10 (1, 70) 6 stable stable trend -1.6 (-3.3, 0.1)
Wells County Urban No 20.3 (12.5, 31.8) 43 (1, 72) 5 stable stable trend -1.4 (-3.4, 0.6)
Wayne County Rural No 20.8 (15.1, 28.1) 34 (3, 70) 10 falling falling trend -1.7 (-2.8, -0.8)
Warrick County Urban No 16.9 (12.0, 23.5) 63 (10, 72) 8 falling falling trend -1.5 (-2.7, -0.2)
Wabash County Rural No 21.5 (13.2, 33.5) 29 (1, 72) 6 stable stable trend -1.8 (-4.0, 0.2)
Vigo County Urban No 26.6 (21.2, 33.0) 8 (1, 49) 19 falling falling trend -1.2 (-2.1, -0.3)
Vanderburgh County Urban No 22.4 (18.6, 26.8) 19 (5, 59) 27 falling falling trend -1.2 (-2.2, -0.3)
Tipton County Urban No 29.1 (17.1, 48.2) 1 (1, 71) 4
*
*
Tippecanoe County Urban No 17.1 (13.5, 21.3) 62 (19, 71) 16 falling falling trend -2.2 (-3.3, -1.2)
Steuben County Rural No 16.5 (9.5, 27.2) 67 (3, 72) 4
*
*
Starke County Rural No 20.1 (11.8, 33.1) 45 (1, 72) 4
*
*
St. Joseph County Urban No 22.6 (19.5, 26.2) 17 (6, 53) 40 stable stable trend 1.1 (-1.4, 10.1)
Shelby County Urban No 21.8 (14.8, 31.3) 25 (1, 71) 7 falling falling trend -1.7 (-3.4, -0.1)
Scott County Rural No 21.6 (12.4, 35.6) 27 (1, 72) 3
*
*
Ripley County Rural No 17.2 (9.7, 28.6) 61 (3, 72) 3 falling falling trend -4.2 (-13.9, -1.3)
Putnam County Rural No 20.3 (13.0, 30.7) 42 (2, 72) 5 stable stable trend -2.6 (-5.3, 0.0)
Posey County Urban No 20.8 (12.0, 34.2) 35 (1, 72) 4
*
*
Porter County Urban No 20.3 (16.8, 24.4) 41 (10, 65) 25 falling falling trend -1.3 (-2.0, -0.4)
Perry County Rural No 24.5 (13.9, 41.3) 11 (1, 72) 3
*
*
Parke County Rural No 27.6 (15.7, 46.0) 5 (1, 72) 3
*
*
Owen County Urban No 22.2 (12.5, 37.4) 23 (1, 72) 3 stable stable trend -0.7 (-2.4, 1.2)
Orange County Rural No 26.6 (14.8, 44.6) 7 (1, 72) 3
*
*
Noble County Rural No 20.4 (13.9, 29.3) 39 (2, 72) 7 falling falling trend -2.3 (-3.6, -0.9)
Morgan County Urban No 23.7 (17.8, 31.0) 13 (1, 66) 12 stable stable trend 0.3 (-0.8, 1.6)
Montgomery County Rural No 17.7 (11.0, 27.4) 58 (4, 72) 5 falling falling trend -1.6 (-3.2, -0.1)
Monroe County Urban No 15.6 (12.0, 20.1) 68 (27, 72) 13 falling falling trend -1.5 (-2.9, -0.2)
Miami County Rural No 20.1 (12.1, 31.6) 46 (1, 72) 4 falling falling trend -2.5 (-4.1, -1.2)
Marshall County Rural No 21.6 (14.8, 30.9) 28 (1, 71) 7 falling falling trend -2.1 (-3.5, -0.8)
Marion County Urban No 21.3 (19.5, 23.1) 30 (14, 50) 118 falling falling trend -1.6 (-2.0, -1.2)
Madison County Urban No 22.3 (18.0, 27.3) 22 (4, 63) 21 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.8, -0.2)
Lawrence County Rural No 19.1 (13.1, 27.5) 52 (4, 72) 7 stable stable trend -0.8 (-2.4, 0.8)
Lake County Urban No 22.0 (19.7, 24.4) 24 (10, 50) 76 falling falling trend -2.0 (-2.5, -1.6)
LaPorte County Urban No 19.2 (15.1, 24.1) 51 (11, 70) 16 falling falling trend -2.4 (-3.4, -1.5)
LaGrange County Rural No 20.8 (12.4, 32.7) 33 (1, 72) 4
*
*
Kosciusko County Rural No 19.0 (13.8, 25.5) 53 (6, 72) 10 falling falling trend -1.6 (-2.9, -0.3)
Knox County Rural No 22.4 (15.1, 32.5) 20 (1, 71) 6 stable stable trend -1.6 (-3.7, 0.2)
Johnson County Urban No 20.6 (16.8, 25.2) 38 (7, 66) 21 falling falling trend -1.7 (-2.8, -0.6)
Jennings County Rural No 23.7 (14.6, 36.9) 14 (1, 72) 4
*
*
Jefferson County Rural No 19.8 (12.7, 30.0) 47 (2, 72) 5 stable stable trend -2.1 (-4.3, 0.0)
Jay County Rural No 28.5 (17.4, 44.8) 3 (1, 70) 4
*
*
Jasper County Urban No 20.3 (12.8, 31.1) 40 (1, 72) 5 falling falling trend -1.7 (-3.2, -0.1)
Jackson County Rural Yes 13.1 (8.2, 20.4) 72 (27, 72) 4
*
*
Huntington County Rural Yes 13.5 (8.2, 21.5) 71 (18, 72) 4 falling falling trend -2.5 (-4.4, -0.8)
Howard County Urban No 20.7 (15.6, 27.0) 37 (4, 70) 12 falling falling trend -1.1 (-2.1, -0.2)
Henry County Rural No 19.8 (13.6, 28.1) 48 (3, 72) 7 stable stable trend -0.8 (-2.3, 0.7)
Hendricks County Urban No 18.2 (14.7, 22.3) 55 (16, 70) 19 falling falling trend -1.4 (-2.3, -0.3)
Harrison County Urban No 17.8 (11.3, 27.1) 57 (4, 72) 5 falling falling trend -3.0 (-4.5, -1.6)
Hancock County Urban Yes 14.9 (10.6, 20.5) 69 (24, 72) 8 falling falling trend -1.9 (-3.4, -0.2)
Hamilton County Urban No 18.5 (15.9, 21.5) 54 (21, 68) 37 falling falling trend -1.9 (-2.7, -1.0)
Greene County Rural No 20.2 (12.4, 31.7) 44 (1, 72) 5 stable stable trend 0.1 (-1.8, 2.0)
Grant County Rural No 23.6 (17.6, 31.2) 15 (1, 67) 11 falling falling trend -2.0 (-15.1, -0.9)
Gibson County Rural Yes 14.7 (8.4, 24.5) 70 (8, 72) 3 falling falling trend -2.6 (-4.8, -0.8)
Fulton County Rural No 29.1 (17.3, 46.4) 2 (1, 71) 4
*
*
Franklin County Urban No 22.5 (12.9, 37.1) 18 (1, 72) 4
*
*
Fountain County Rural No 26.2 (15.1, 43.8) 9 (1, 72) 3
*
*
Floyd County Urban No 17.6 (12.9, 23.6) 59 (9, 72) 10 falling falling trend -2.1 (-3.6, -0.8)
Fayette County Rural No 27.8 (17.0, 43.5) 4 (1, 71) 5 stable stable trend -1.3 (-3.2, 0.3)
Elkhart County Urban No 19.7 (16.3, 23.6) 49 (11, 67) 25 stable stable trend 3.4 (-1.2, 14.3)
Dubois County Rural No 17.6 (11.6, 26.0) 60 (6, 72) 6 stable stable trend -1.2 (-2.6, 0.2)
Delaware County Urban No 17.8 (13.6, 22.9) 56 (12, 71) 14 falling falling trend -1.8 (-3.0, -0.8)
Decatur County Rural No 24.1 (14.8, 37.7) 12 (1, 72) 4 stable stable trend -0.4 (-2.6, 2.0)
Dearborn County Urban No 23.4 (16.4, 32.7) 16 (1, 69) 8 stable stable trend -0.8 (-2.4, 1.0)
DeKalb County Rural No 16.6 (10.5, 25.2) 66 (6, 72) 5 falling falling trend -2.0 (-3.5, -0.4)
Daviess County Rural No 21.7 (13.7, 33.0) 26 (1, 72) 5 falling falling trend -2.2 (-4.3, -0.4)
Clinton County Rural No 16.8 (10.3, 26.5) 65 (5, 72) 4 falling falling trend -2.5 (-4.1, -1.2)
Clay County Urban No 20.8 (12.4, 33.5) 32 (1, 72) 4 stable stable trend -0.2 (-2.8, 2.4)
Clark County Urban No 22.4 (17.9, 27.7) 21 (3, 65) 18 stable stable trend 4.6 (-2.0, 23.8)
Cass County Rural No 20.7 (13.6, 30.7) 36 (2, 72) 6 stable stable trend 1.0 (-2.0, 22.6)
Boone County Urban No 16.8 (11.7, 23.5) 64 (9, 72) 7 falling falling trend -1.8 (-3.3, -0.1)
Bartholomew County Urban No 21.0 (15.6, 27.7) 31 (3, 70) 11 falling falling trend -1.7 (-2.8, -0.5)
Allen County Urban No 19.3 (16.8, 22.0) 50 (18, 64) 46 falling falling trend -1.7 (-2.5, -1.0)
Adams County Rural No 26.6 (17.2, 39.4) 6 (1, 71) 6
*
*
Benton County Urban ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Blackford County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Brown County Urban ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Carroll County Urban ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Crawford County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Martin County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Newton County Urban ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Ohio County Urban ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Pike County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Pulaski County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Randolph County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Rush County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Spencer County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Sullivan County Urban ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Switzerland County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Union County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Vermillion County Urban ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Warren County Urban ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Washington County Urban ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
White County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 11/06/2024 9:31 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.

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