Return to Home Mortality > Table

Death Rates Table

Data Options

Death Rate Report for Kansas by County

All Cancer Sites, 2016-2020

All Races (includes Hispanic), Male, All Ages

Sorted by CI*Rank
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 descending
CI*Rank⋔
(95% Confidence Interval)
 sort by CI rank ascending
Average Annual Count
 sort by count descending
Recent Trend
Recent 5-Year Trend in Death Rates
(95% Confidence Interval)
 sort by trend descending
Kansas No 183.7 (180.6, 186.7) N/A 2,926 falling falling trend -1.3 (-1.4, -1.2)
United States No 177.5 (177.2, 177.8) N/A 315,770 falling falling trend -2.2 (-2.5, -2.0)
Rooks County No 127.9 (83.0, 193.9) 95 (20, 95) 5 falling falling trend -3.4 (-4.9, -1.9)
Norton County No 135.8 (89.2, 200.8) 94 (16, 95) 5 falling falling trend -2.9 (-4.4, -1.4)
Stevens County No 137.1 (83.8, 212.6) 93 (10, 95) 4 stable stable trend -1.8 (-3.7, 0.1)
Gray County No 139.8 (87.4, 212.5) 92 (11, 95) 5 falling falling trend -3.0 (-4.6, -1.3)
Miami County No 141.8 (119.2, 167.6) 91 (57, 95) 29 falling falling trend -1.6 (-2.5, -0.7)
Meade County No 144.9 (86.4, 230.9) 90 (7, 95) 4 falling falling trend -1.6 (-2.8, -0.3)
Sheridan County No 146.5 (83.9, 250.9) 89 (7, 95) 3
*
*
Smith County No 148.6 (94.3, 233.0) 88 (8, 95) 5 stable stable trend -1.3 (-2.7, 0.2)
Johnson County No 150.7 (144.3, 157.3) 87 (71, 91) 437 falling falling trend -1.7 (-1.9, -1.4)
Riley County No 151.6 (130.1, 175.5) 86 (52, 94) 38 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.7, -0.4)
Gove County No 152.8 (85.1, 261.7) 85 (3, 95) 3 stable stable trend -2.3 (-4.7, 0.1)
Sherman County No 152.8 (102.7, 221.2) 84 (10, 95) 6 stable stable trend -1.4 (-3.0, 0.1)
Chautauqua County No 159.2 (101.7, 247.1) 83 (5, 95) 5 stable stable trend -0.9 (-2.7, 0.9)
Douglas County No 160.3 (144.2, 177.6) 82 (49, 91) 78 falling falling trend -1.5 (-1.9, -1.0)
Pottawatomie County No 160.4 (129.2, 196.9) 81 (23, 95) 19 falling falling trend -1.6 (-2.7, -0.6)
Thomas County No 160.5 (112.9, 222.7) 80 (10, 95) 8 falling falling trend -2.5 (-3.5, -1.4)
Stafford County No 162.8 (107.7, 242.5) 79 (6, 95) 6 stable stable trend -1.2 (-2.8, 0.4)
Ford County No 168.6 (138.6, 202.8) 78 (18, 93) 23 falling falling trend -1.9 (-2.6, -1.2)
Clay County No 168.8 (125.5, 224.5) 77 (9, 95) 11 stable stable trend 0.0 (-1.2, 1.3)
Mitchell County No 169.9 (119.2, 237.9) 76 (6, 95) 8 stable stable trend -0.9 (-1.9, 0.1)
Lincoln County No 170.4 (103.8, 273.7) 75 (3, 95) 4 stable stable trend 0.3 (-1.3, 1.8)
Jackson County No 171.2 (133.8, 216.6) 74 (14, 95) 15 falling falling trend -1.3 (-2.2, -0.3)
Ellis County No 172.2 (143.3, 205.3) 73 (20, 92) 26 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.9, -0.5)
Finney County No 173.2 (143.8, 206.6) 72 (20, 92) 26 falling falling trend -1.5 (-2.2, -0.8)
Barton County No 173.9 (147.0, 204.8) 71 (22, 91) 31 falling falling trend -1.3 (-2.1, -0.5)
Kiowa County No 176.1 (100.5, 296.4) 70 (2, 95) 3 stable stable trend -0.3 (-1.9, 1.3)
Harvey County No 177.4 (153.3, 204.5) 69 (23, 89) 41 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.5, 0.1)
Osborne County No 177.7 (117.6, 266.3) 68 (4, 95) 6 falling falling trend -1.5 (-2.9, -0.1)
Wabaunsee County No 178.9 (128.3, 245.2) 67 (5, 95) 9 stable stable trend -1.4 (-2.9, 0.1)
Seward County No 180.4 (139.6, 228.5) 66 (9, 94) 15 falling falling trend -1.3 (-2.4, -0.2)
Marion County No 181.2 (144.3, 226.5) 65 (11, 93) 18 stable stable trend -0.3 (-1.6, 0.9)
Scott County No 182.9 (123.6, 263.7) 64 (3, 95) 6 stable stable trend -0.2 (-2.0, 1.8)
Ottawa County No 183.3 (127.0, 258.1) 63 (4, 95) 7 stable stable trend -1.3 (-2.8, 0.2)
Morris County No 183.5 (130.2, 255.3) 62 (5, 95) 9 falling falling trend -1.6 (-2.8, -0.4)
Washington County No 183.7 (129.5, 256.3) 61 (4, 95) 8 stable stable trend -0.5 (-2.1, 1.1)
Butler County No 184.9 (165.3, 206.2) 60 (22, 82) 69 falling falling trend -2.8 (-4.5, -1.0)
Cloud County No 184.9 (138.8, 243.0) 59 (7, 94) 11 stable stable trend -0.8 (-2.0, 0.5)
Sedgwick County No 185.9 (178.3, 193.6) 58 (36, 70) 487 falling falling trend -1.5 (-1.7, -1.3)
Jewell County No 187.5 (121.8, 289.1) 57 (2, 95) 6 stable stable trend -0.3 (-1.9, 1.4)
Kearny County No 188.0 (108.7, 301.9) 56 (1, 95) 4
*
*
Marshall County No 188.1 (145.3, 241.3) 55 (6, 93) 15 stable stable trend -1.0 (-2.0, 0.0)
Shawnee County No 188.3 (176.5, 200.6) 54 (29, 73) 200 falling falling trend -1.5 (-1.7, -1.2)
Republic County No 189.7 (129.4, 273.9) 53 (2, 95) 7 stable stable trend 0.0 (-1.4, 1.4)
Dickinson County No 189.8 (157.1, 228.0) 52 (11, 90) 24 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.7, -0.4)
McPherson County No 190.4 (163.4, 220.9) 51 (14, 85) 38 stable stable trend -0.1 (-0.9, 0.7)
Saline County No 190.9 (170.2, 213.7) 50 (18, 80) 64 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.6, -0.5)
Pawnee County No 191.3 (138.8, 259.6) 49 (4, 94) 9 stable stable trend -0.7 (-2.1, 0.7)
Phillips County No 191.9 (136.2, 267.0) 48 (3, 95) 8 falling falling trend -1.6 (-3.0, -0.2)
Pratt County No 192.8 (146.4, 250.7) 47 (5, 93) 12 stable stable trend -0.9 (-2.0, 0.2)
Jefferson County No 192.9 (159.3, 232.1) 46 (9, 88) 25 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.9, -0.5)
Osage County No 193.5 (157.5, 236.1) 45 (7, 90) 22 falling falling trend -1.2 (-2.0, -0.4)
Woodson County No 194.0 (123.0, 299.3) 44 (2, 95) 5 stable stable trend 1.1 (-0.8, 3.1)
Reno County No 194.0 (175.0, 214.7) 43 (20, 76) 79 falling falling trend -0.6 (-1.1, -0.1)
Lyon County No 194.4 (165.3, 227.1) 42 (11, 85) 33 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.5, 0.1)
Sumner County No 196.6 (165.2, 232.6) 41 (9, 85) 29 falling falling trend -1.8 (-2.2, -1.3)
Graham County No 197.2 (123.0, 315.7) 40 (1, 95) 5 falling falling trend -2.3 (-4.4, -0.2)
Coffey County No 197.5 (147.6, 260.8) 39 (4, 93) 11 stable stable trend -0.6 (-1.8, 0.5)
Brown County No 197.6 (151.7, 254.5) 38 (5, 92) 13 stable stable trend -0.3 (-1.7, 1.1)
Linn County No 200.0 (157.2, 253.1) 37 (5, 92) 16 stable stable trend -0.6 (-1.8, 0.7)
Ness County No 200.6 (121.0, 320.6) 36 (1, 95) 5 stable stable trend -37.4 (-72.7, 43.7)
Nemaha County No 201.4 (156.2, 256.8) 35 (4, 91) 15 stable stable trend -0.8 (-1.9, 0.3)
Leavenworth County No 202.1 (182.7, 222.9) 34 (14, 69) 86 falling falling trend -1.5 (-1.9, -1.0)
Greenwood County No 202.7 (150.0, 272.2) 33 (3, 94) 10 stable stable trend -1.1 (-2.3, 0.1)
Rice County No 203.4 (154.8, 263.4) 32 (4, 91) 12 stable stable trend -0.9 (-1.9, 0.1)
Labette County No 204.0 (170.0, 243.3) 31 (7, 84) 27 stable stable trend -0.8 (-1.6, 0.1)
Anderson County No 206.7 (154.3, 272.8) 30 (3, 93) 11 falling falling trend -1.5 (-2.8, -0.2)
Geary County No 210.0 (170.3, 255.5) 29 (5, 85) 20 falling falling trend -1.4 (-2.1, -0.6)
Russell County No 210.1 (157.0, 278.3) 28 (3, 92) 11 stable stable trend 13.4 (-8.4, 40.3)
Neosho County No 211.3 (173.6, 255.5) 27 (6, 83) 23 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.9, -0.1)
Montgomery County No 212.0 (184.2, 243.1) 26 (7, 71) 44 falling falling trend -1.3 (-1.9, -0.6)
Allen County No 213.3 (170.5, 264.5) 25 (4, 85) 18 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.9, -0.1)
Decatur County No 214.3 (145.0, 319.3) 24 (2, 95) 6 stable stable trend -0.3 (-1.6, 1.0)
Chase County No 214.8 (128.1, 344.4) 23 (1, 95) 4 stable stable trend 0.1 (-1.8, 2.1)
Rush County No 214.9 (142.9, 320.1) 22 (2, 95) 6 stable stable trend -1.0 (-2.6, 0.8)
Bourbon County No 215.5 (174.2, 264.2) 21 (4, 83) 20 stable stable trend -0.8 (-1.7, 0.2)
Cowley County No 216.3 (189.2, 246.4) 20 (7, 67) 48 falling falling trend -0.7 (-1.1, -0.2)
Grant County No 219.7 (150.4, 308.7) 19 (1, 94) 7 stable stable trend -1.3 (-3.0, 0.4)
Barber County No 219.9 (152.4, 311.3) 18 (1, 94) 8 stable stable trend -0.8 (-2.0, 0.3)
Wyandotte County No 220.4 (204.8, 236.9) 17 (10, 47) 161 falling falling trend -2.0 (-2.5, -1.5)
Logan County No 221.3 (133.2, 349.9) 16 (1, 95) 4 stable stable trend 0.2 (-1.9, 2.4)
Franklin County No 223.4 (190.5, 260.8) 15 (4, 70) 35 stable stable trend -0.1 (-0.9, 0.7)
Atchison County No 225.0 (183.2, 273.9) 14 (3, 80) 21 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.3, 0.5)
Rawlins County No 227.2 (148.0, 346.7) 13 (1, 95) 5 stable stable trend 0.9 (-0.7, 2.5)
Trego County No 229.7 (150.5, 346.4) 12 (1, 94) 6 stable stable trend -0.5 (-2.1, 1.1)
Doniphan County No 236.0 (179.6, 306.4) 11 (2, 88) 12 stable stable trend -0.9 (-2.2, 0.4)
Cherokee County No 238.6 (201.5, 281.0) 10 (3, 60) 31 falling falling trend -1.7 (-2.6, -0.8)
Ellsworth County No 245.0 (183.5, 322.6) 9 (1, 88) 11 stable stable trend -0.2 (-1.6, 1.2)
Crawford County No 255.2 (224.1, 289.5) 8 (2, 38) 51 falling falling trend -0.8 (-1.4, -0.2)
Morton County No 256.2 (161.2, 393.1) 7 (1, 94) 5
*
*
Harper County No 260.5 (192.4, 347.6) 6 (1, 86) 10 stable stable trend -0.6 (-1.8, 0.6)
Wilson County No 261.2 (204.6, 330.0) 5 (1, 67) 15 stable stable trend -0.6 (-1.7, 0.6)
Edwards County No 276.5 (179.0, 413.6) 4 (1, 92) 6 stable stable trend 0.0 (-1.6, 1.7)
Wichita County No 300.9 (183.4, 470.9) 3 (1, 94) 4
*
*
Elk County No 337.3 (228.5, 490.7) 2 (1, 71) 7 stable stable trend 0.3 (-1.3, 1.8)
Kingman County No 349.4 (278.1, 435.2) 1 (1, 16) 18 stable stable trend 12.7 (-1.3, 28.6)
Cheyenne County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Clark County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Comanche County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Greeley County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Hamilton County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Haskell County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Hodgeman County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Lane County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Stanton County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Wallace County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 11/27/2022 12:35 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.

* 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