Return to Home Mortality > Table

Death Rates Table

Data Options

Death Rate Report for Louisiana by Parish

Breast, 2018-2022

All Races (includes Hispanic), Female, All Ages

Sorted by Ruralurban

Parish
 sort alphabetically by name ascending
2023 Rural-Urban Continuum Codes Φ
 sort by rural urban ascending
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
Louisiana N/A No 22.1 (21.3, 22.9) N/A 662 falling falling trend -1.5 (-1.6, -1.3)
United States N/A No 19.3 (19.2, 19.4) N/A 42,308 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.3, -1.1)
Acadia Parish Urban No 17.5 (11.8, 25.2) 44 (8, 46) 6 stable stable trend -1.3 (-2.8, 0.2)
Ascension Parish Urban No 23.0 (18.1, 28.9) 22 (4, 44) 15 falling falling trend -1.9 (-3.0, -0.7)
Assumption Parish Urban No 25.8 (15.1, 41.9) 11 (1, 46) 4
*
*
Bossier Parish Urban No 19.5 (15.4, 24.5) 38 (10, 46) 16 falling falling trend -1.9 (-2.8, -0.9)
Caddo Parish Urban No 23.4 (20.1, 27.2) 20 (6, 38) 39 falling falling trend -1.5 (-2.3, -0.7)
Calcasieu Parish Urban No 19.4 (16.0, 23.3) 39 (14, 46) 25 falling falling trend -1.4 (-2.2, -0.6)
De Soto Parish Urban No 21.7 (13.1, 34.2) 29 (1, 46) 4 falling falling trend -2.5 (-4.3, -0.9)
East Baton Rouge Parish Urban No 20.1 (17.7, 22.7) 36 (17, 44) 56 falling falling trend -1.9 (-2.5, -1.2)
Iberville Parish Urban No 28.2 (18.6, 41.3) 5 (1, 45) 6 stable stable trend -1.2 (-3.0, 0.7)
Jefferson Davis Parish Urban No 21.5 (13.6, 32.7) 30 (2, 46) 5 stable stable trend -0.2 (-1.7, 1.6)
Jefferson Parish Urban No 23.0 (20.6, 25.6) 23 (9, 36) 73 falling falling trend -1.5 (-2.1, -0.9)
LaFourche Parish Urban No 18.6 (14.1, 24.1) 42 (11, 46) 12 stable stable trend -0.9 (-2.2, 0.6)
Lafayette Parish Urban No 23.6 (20.1, 27.5) 19 (6, 39) 35 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.9, -0.5)
Livingston Parish Urban No 17.4 (13.5, 22.0) 45 (19, 46) 14 falling falling trend -1.8 (-3.0, -0.3)
Morehouse Parish Urban No 17.1 (9.5, 29.0) 46 (4, 46) 3 falling falling trend -2.7 (-4.5, -1.3)
Orleans Parish Urban No 23.8 (21.1, 26.8) 18 (7, 35) 60 falling falling trend -1.9 (-2.4, -1.5)
Ouachita Parish Urban No 26.1 (21.7, 31.1) 10 (3, 36) 26 falling falling trend -1.5 (-2.3, -0.6)
Plaquemines Parish Urban No 27.6 (16.2, 44.3) 8 (1, 46) 4 stable stable trend 0.1 (-1.7, 2.2)
Pointe Coupee Parish Urban No 25.6 (14.6, 42.3) 12 (1, 46) 4
*
*
Rapides Parish Urban No 22.2 (17.8, 27.5) 25 (6, 44) 19 stable stable trend -0.8 (-1.7, 0.1)
Richland Parish Urban No 21.9 (12.3, 36.9) 28 (1, 46) 3
*
*
St. Bernard Parish Urban No 21.1 (13.4, 31.7) 32 (2, 46) 5 stable stable trend -0.8 (-2.5, 0.6)
St. Charles Parish Urban No 19.6 (13.1, 28.5) 37 (4, 46) 6 stable stable trend -2.0 (-3.8, 0.0)
St. James Parish Urban No 27.9 (16.6, 44.6) 7 (1, 46) 4
*
*
St. John the Baptist Parish Urban No 22.0 (14.5, 32.1) 27 (2, 46) 6 falling falling trend -7.5 (-22.9, -1.9)
St. Martin Parish Urban No 20.7 (14.4, 29.0) 33 (4, 46) 7 falling falling trend -1.9 (-3.2, -0.5)
St. Tammany Parish Urban No 18.6 (15.9, 21.8) 41 (20, 46) 34 falling falling trend -1.5 (-2.3, -0.6)
Tangipahoa Parish Urban No 23.2 (18.6, 28.8) 21 (4, 43) 18 falling falling trend -1.7 (-2.8, -0.5)
Terrebonne Parish Urban No 22.4 (17.5, 28.3) 24 (5, 45) 15 falling falling trend -1.8 (-2.9, -0.7)
Union Parish Urban No 26.8 (16.0, 43.0) 9 (1, 46) 4
*
*
Vermilion Parish Urban No 20.7 (14.6, 28.6) 34 (5, 46) 8 falling falling trend -1.9 (-3.1, -0.7)
West Baton Rouge Parish Urban No 25.3 (15.6, 39.1) 14 (1, 46) 4
*
*
Allen Parish Rural No 33.0 (18.8, 53.4) 2 (1, 46) 4
*
*
Avoyelles Parish Rural No 19.1 (12.2, 28.9) 40 (5, 46) 5 stable stable trend -1.2 (-2.8, 0.4)
Beauregard Parish Rural No 20.2 (12.6, 30.9) 35 (3, 46) 5
*
*
Concordia Parish Rural No 32.4 (18.8, 52.5) 3 (1, 46) 4 stable stable trend -1.3 (-3.0, 0.4)
Evangeline Parish Rural No 17.5 (10.2, 28.5) 43 (4, 46) 4 stable stable trend -1.4 (-4.1, 1.1)
Iberia Parish Rural No 24.1 (17.6, 32.3) 17 (2, 45) 10 stable stable trend -1.0 (-2.2, 0.2)
Lincoln Parish Rural No 22.1 (14.8, 32.0) 26 (2, 46) 6 stable stable trend -1.5 (-3.2, 0.3)
Natchitoches Parish Rural No 31.2 (21.3, 44.3) 4 (1, 42) 7 stable stable trend -0.7 (-2.3, 0.9)
Sabine Parish Rural No 34.0 (20.5, 53.2) 1 (1, 45) 4
*
*
St. Landry Parish Rural No 25.4 (19.8, 32.3) 13 (2, 42) 15 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.2, 0.4)
St. Mary Parish Rural No 21.5 (14.7, 30.5) 31 (3, 46) 7 stable stable trend -1.0 (-3.1, 1.1)
Vernon Parish Rural No 24.4 (16.1, 35.4) 16 (1, 46) 6 stable stable trend 1.1 (-0.8, 3.6)
Washington Parish Rural No 28.0 (20.1, 38.2) 6 (1, 42) 9 falling falling trend -1.2 (-2.3, -0.1)
Webster Parish Rural No 24.9 (16.9, 35.8) 15 (1, 46) 7 falling falling trend -1.6 (-2.8, -0.6)
Bienville Parish Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Caldwell Parish Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Cameron Parish Urban ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Catahoula Parish Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Claiborne Parish Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
East Carroll Parish Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
East Feliciana Parish Urban ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Franklin Parish Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Grant Parish Urban ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Jackson Parish Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
La Salle Parish Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Madison Parish Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Red River Parish Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
St. Helena Parish Urban ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Tensas Parish Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
West Carroll Parish Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
West Feliciana Parish Urban ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Winn Parish Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 12/10/2024 7:33 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.

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