Return to Home Mortality > Table

Death Rates Table

Data Options

Death Rate Report for Kansas by County

All Cancer Sites, 2018-2022

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

Sorted by CI*Rank

County
 sort alphabetically by name ascending
2023 Rural-Urban Continuum Codes Φ
 sort by rural urban descending
Met Healthy People Objective of 122.7?
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
Kansas N/A No 153.0 (151.2, 154.8) N/A 5,546 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.3, -1.0)
United States N/A No 146.0 (145.8, 146.2) N/A 602,955 falling falling trend -1.5 (-1.6, -1.4)
Kingman County Rural No 378.1 (326.0, 437.2) 1 (1, 3) 42 rising rising trend 13.0 (5.8, 30.2)
Elk County Rural No 272.6 (201.3, 366.2) 2 (1, 59) 12 stable stable trend -0.4 (-2.0, 1.1)
Edwards County Rural No 241.9 (173.0, 330.8) 3 (1, 92) 10 stable stable trend 1.0 (-0.7, 2.7)
Harper County Rural No 215.6 (172.2, 268.2) 4 (2, 73) 18 stable stable trend 0.0 (-1.1, 1.2)
Morton County Rural No 213.2 (154.7, 290.6) 5 (2, 97) 9 stable stable trend 0.3 (-1.0, 1.7)
Republic County Rural No 208.1 (163.5, 263.6) 6 (2, 80) 18 rising rising trend 3.9 (1.3, 15.5)
Rush County Rural No 207.7 (154.4, 278.0) 7 (2, 95) 11 stable stable trend 0.0 (-1.3, 1.4)
Russell County Rural No 205.9 (166.2, 253.3) 8 (2, 75) 22 stable stable trend -0.3 (-1.5, 0.9)
Hamilton County Rural No 198.6 (127.4, 295.1) 9 (2, 103) 5 stable stable trend -0.2 (-1.7, 1.1)
Brown County Rural No 198.3 (165.7, 236.3) 10 (2, 76) 28 stable stable trend 0.3 (-0.7, 1.4)
Chase County Rural No 195.8 (135.1, 277.7) 11 (2, 102) 8 stable stable trend -0.1 (-1.5, 1.2)
Morris County Rural No 192.9 (151.1, 244.3) 12 (2, 93) 18 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.5, 0.5)
Phillips County Rural No 192.8 (149.7, 246.2) 13 (2, 94) 16 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.6, 0.5)
Neosho County Rural No 191.0 (165.7, 219.4) 14 (4, 64) 44 stable stable trend -0.3 (-0.8, 0.2)
Cherokee County Urban No 190.2 (167.4, 215.5) 15 (3, 63) 53 falling falling trend -0.7 (-1.1, -0.2)
Anderson County Rural No 188.8 (154.8, 229.2) 16 (3, 87) 23 stable stable trend -1.0 (-2.0, 0.0)
Cowley County Rural No 188.7 (171.0, 207.9) 17 (6, 55) 88 stable stable trend -0.4 (-0.8, 0.0)
Doniphan County Urban No 187.7 (152.0, 230.2) 18 (2, 92) 20 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.2, 0.5)
Crawford County Rural No 187.0 (169.5, 205.9) 19 (6, 59) 88 stable stable trend -0.4 (-0.9, 0.1)
Franklin County Rural No 186.5 (165.9, 209.0) 20 (5, 62) 63 stable stable trend -0.3 (-0.8, 0.2)
Lane County Rural No 182.4 (115.9, 282.2) 21 (2, 103) 5 stable stable trend 0.5 (-1.0, 2.0)
Linn County Urban No 182.2 (152.5, 217.0) 22 (3, 88) 28 stable stable trend 0.0 (-0.9, 0.9)
Nemaha County Rural No 181.7 (151.3, 217.0) 23 (4, 85) 29 rising rising trend 1.7 (0.1, 10.0)
Logan County Rural No 181.6 (124.4, 258.6) 24 (2, 103) 7 stable stable trend -0.4 (-2.0, 1.2)
Ellsworth County Rural No 181.3 (144.2, 226.5) 25 (3, 96) 18 stable stable trend 0.0 (-1.1, 1.2)
Meade County Rural No 181.0 (134.7, 239.9) 26 (2, 101) 11 stable stable trend 0.3 (-1.1, 1.6)
Barber County Rural No 180.5 (135.7, 237.7) 27 (2, 101) 12 stable stable trend -0.9 (-2.0, 0.0)
Sumner County Urban No 179.9 (159.4, 202.5) 28 (6, 74) 60 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.4, -0.5)
Chautauqua County Rural No 178.8 (131.3, 241.3) 29 (2, 102) 11 stable stable trend -0.1 (-1.7, 1.4)
Wilson County Rural No 178.5 (147.4, 215.3) 30 (4, 93) 25 stable stable trend -0.2 (-1.1, 0.6)
Rice County Rural No 176.4 (145.1, 213.2) 31 (4, 93) 24 stable stable trend -0.3 (-1.4, 0.8)
Greenwood County Rural No 175.9 (140.5, 219.6) 32 (4, 97) 19 falling falling trend -1.0 (-2.0, -0.1)
Labette County Rural No 174.5 (153.5, 197.9) 33 (8, 78) 53 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.1, 0.3)
Marshall County Rural No 172.4 (143.5, 206.2) 34 (5, 93) 28 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.3, 0.3)
Kiowa County Rural No 171.3 (117.9, 245.6) 35 (2, 103) 7 stable stable trend 0.2 (-1.5, 1.7)
Geary County Urban No 169.5 (146.8, 194.6) 36 (9, 88) 41 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.7, -0.2)
Woodson County Rural No 169.4 (124.5, 230.2) 37 (3, 102) 10 falling falling trend -5.3 (-21.5, -0.7)
Allen County Rural No 169.1 (142.6, 199.7) 38 (7, 92) 31 stable stable trend -0.8 (-1.6, 0.0)
Wichita County Rural No 168.9 (104.5, 260.8) 39 (2, 103) 5 stable stable trend -0.3 (-2.2, 1.5)
Dickinson County Rural No 168.8 (147.4, 192.9) 40 (9, 86) 48 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.1, 0.0)
Trego County Rural No 168.7 (123.7, 231.2) 41 (2, 102) 10 stable stable trend -0.2 (-1.4, 0.9)
Lyon County Rural No 168.4 (149.7, 189.0) 42 (12, 82) 62 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.0, 0.2)
Montgomery County Rural No 168.1 (151.5, 186.2) 43 (14, 80) 79 falling falling trend -2.1 (-9.4, -0.9)
Comanche County Rural No 167.7 (110.0, 255.7) 44 (2, 103) 5 stable stable trend 0.1 (-2.1, 2.3)
Wyandotte County Urban No 166.7 (158.0, 175.8) 45 (25, 65) 289 falling falling trend -3.4 (-6.0, -2.2)
Smith County Rural No 166.6 (121.3, 227.0) 46 (3, 103) 11 stable stable trend -0.6 (-1.8, 0.5)
Hodgeman County Rural No 164.0 (105.3, 252.3) 47 (2, 103) 5 stable stable trend -1.2 (-2.9, 0.4)
Jefferson County Urban No 163.3 (141.4, 188.0) 48 (10, 91) 42 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.5, -0.3)
Atchison County Rural No 162.6 (138.5, 190.0) 49 (10, 94) 34 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.6, -0.2)
Butler County Urban No 159.8 (147.5, 172.9) 50 (25, 82) 131 falling falling trend -0.6 (-0.9, -0.2)
Cloud County Rural No 159.7 (129.7, 195.3) 51 (7, 100) 22 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.5, 0.7)
Harvey County Urban No 159.5 (143.6, 176.9) 52 (21, 88) 80 stable stable trend -0.3 (-0.8, 0.2)
Gray County Rural No 159.4 (119.5, 209.1) 53 (4, 102) 11 stable stable trend -1.3 (-2.8, 0.2)
Shawnee County Urban No 158.8 (151.6, 166.3) 54 (34, 73) 388 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.2, -0.7)
Clay County Rural No 158.1 (129.3, 192.8) 55 (9, 99) 22 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.3, 0.4)
Pratt County Rural No 157.5 (128.3, 192.2) 56 (8, 100) 23 stable stable trend -0.6 (-1.5, 0.2)
Leavenworth County Urban No 157.0 (145.8, 169.0) 57 (30, 81) 150 falling falling trend -1.5 (-1.9, -1.2)
Sedgwick County Urban No 156.1 (151.6, 160.7) 58 (43, 73) 938 stable stable trend -1.1 (-1.5, 0.3)
Bourbon County Rural No 155.9 (131.4, 183.9) 59 (14, 98) 31 stable stable trend -0.6 (-1.4, 0.2)
Clark County Rural No 155.6 (95.5, 243.7) 60 (2, 103) 5 stable stable trend -0.2 (-1.9, 1.5)
Kearny County Rural No 155.3 (108.1, 216.8) 61 (3, 103) 7 stable stable trend -0.4 (-2.0, 1.4)
Barton County Rural No 154.9 (136.9, 174.8) 62 (22, 94) 59 stable stable trend -0.6 (-1.3, 0.0)
Saline County Rural No 154.8 (142.3, 168.2) 63 (30, 87) 119 falling falling trend -0.6 (-1.1, -0.2)
Seward County Rural No 154.1 (129.7, 181.6) 64 (15, 99) 29 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.8, -0.4)
Stafford County Rural No 153.9 (110.8, 210.3) 65 (4, 103) 10 stable stable trend -0.9 (-2.0, 0.2)
Jewell County Rural No 152.8 (110.7, 212.4) 66 (4, 103) 9 falling falling trend -1.3 (-2.4, -0.3)
Osage County Urban No 152.2 (129.6, 178.0) 67 (17, 99) 35 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.6, -0.2)
Grant County Rural No 151.4 (115.2, 195.6) 68 (7, 103) 12 stable stable trend -0.9 (-2.1, 0.4)
Mitchell County Rural No 151.3 (116.1, 195.2) 69 (6, 103) 14 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.6, 0.5)
Cheyenne County Rural No 151.0 (100.1, 222.8) 70 (3, 103) 7 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.9, 0.9)
Pawnee County Rural No 149.6 (115.6, 192.1) 71 (7, 103) 15 stable stable trend -0.3 (-1.3, 0.6)
Reno County Rural No 148.7 (137.3, 160.9) 72 (39, 90) 134 falling falling trend -0.6 (-1.1, -0.2)
Ness County Rural No 145.8 (100.9, 209.5) 73 (4, 103) 8 stable stable trend 0.1 (-1.4, 1.5)
Stanton County Rural No 145.7 (86.1, 233.6) 74 (2, 103) 4
*
*
Wabaunsee County Urban No 145.6 (114.9, 183.4) 75 (13, 103) 16 stable stable trend -0.8 (-2.0, 0.4)
Riley County Urban No 144.6 (130.2, 160.1) 76 (37, 97) 77 stable stable trend -0.4 (-0.9, 0.1)
Marion County Rural No 144.4 (121.8, 170.9) 77 (24, 101) 31 stable stable trend -0.3 (-1.2, 0.6)
Rooks County Rural No 143.7 (108.7, 188.7) 78 (9, 103) 12 falling falling trend -1.8 (-3.7, -0.9)
Ottawa County Rural No 143.1 (108.1, 187.1) 79 (9, 103) 12 stable stable trend -0.9 (-2.0, 0.2)
Stevens County Rural No 142.0 (102.8, 191.9) 80 (7, 103) 9 stable stable trend 0.2 (-1.5, 2.0)
Osborne County Rural No 141.0 (103.6, 191.9) 81 (8, 103) 10 stable stable trend -0.7 (-2.0, 0.6)
Ford County Rural No 140.5 (122.4, 160.5) 82 (35, 100) 46 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.9, -0.6)
Gove County Rural No 140.2 (96.9, 201.4) 83 (6, 103) 7 stable stable trend -0.6 (-2.3, 1.0)
Thomas County Rural No 139.9 (109.8, 176.6) 84 (13, 103) 15 falling falling trend -1.4 (-2.6, -0.3)
Coffey County Rural No 139.1 (112.0, 172.1) 85 (20, 103) 19 falling falling trend -3.0 (-12.1, -1.2)
Finney County Rural No 139.0 (121.6, 158.2) 86 (38, 101) 48 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.7, -0.7)
Pottawatomie County Urban No 138.3 (119.3, 159.4) 87 (35, 102) 40 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.7, -0.5)
Ellis County Rural No 137.8 (119.9, 157.6) 88 (39, 101) 45 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.4, -0.3)
McPherson County Rural No 137.1 (121.9, 154.0) 89 (45, 100) 65 stable stable trend -0.3 (-0.8, 0.2)
Douglas County Urban No 137.1 (127.4, 147.3) 90 (61, 98) 155 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.5, -0.7)
Rawlins County Rural No 136.0 (94.4, 196.8) 91 (7, 103) 7 falling falling trend -17.1 (-30.3, -0.5)
Jackson County Urban No 133.8 (111.4, 160.0) 92 (34, 103) 26 falling falling trend -1.4 (-2.2, -0.7)
Decatur County Rural No 132.7 (87.9, 197.5) 93 (5, 103) 7 falling falling trend -28.4 (-51.1, -0.3)
Miami County Urban No 132.6 (117.9, 148.8) 94 (56, 101) 61 falling falling trend -1.4 (-2.0, -0.7)
Johnson County Urban No 128.6 (124.8, 132.5) 95 (79, 99) 896 falling falling trend -1.4 (-1.5, -1.2)
Washington County Rural No 125.0 (96.3, 162.1) 96 (32, 103) 13 stable stable trend -0.8 (-2.0, 0.4)
Norton County Rural Yes 121.0 (88.7, 162.8) 97 (26, 103) 10 falling falling trend -2.1 (-3.5, -0.9)
Lincoln County Rural Yes 120.8 (81.5, 177.8) 98 (12, 103) 7 stable stable trend -0.2 (-1.5, 1.1)
Graham County Rural Yes 118.4 (80.8, 176.6) 99 (17, 103) 7 falling falling trend -1.9 (-3.5, -0.5)
Sheridan County Rural Yes 118.4 (77.7, 179.5) 100 (13, 103) 6 falling falling trend -1.4 (-2.9, -0.1)
Haskell County Rural Yes 117.7 (74.3, 177.4) 101 (12, 103) 5 stable stable trend 0.4 (-0.9, 2.0)
Scott County Rural Yes 116.1 (84.3, 157.7) 102 (32, 103) 9 stable stable trend -0.9 (-2.3, 0.5)
Sherman County Rural Yes 115.1 (85.6, 153.1) 103 (39, 103) 11 stable stable trend -1.0 (-2.5, 0.5)
Greeley County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Wallace County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 12/04/2024 10:40 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.


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