Return to Home Mortality > Table

Death Rates Table

Data Options

Death Rate Report for Michigan by County

Breast, 2014-2018

All Races (includes Hispanic), Female, All Ages

Sorted by Count
County
 sort alphabetically by name ascending
Met Healthy People Objective of ***?
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
Michigan *** 20.8 (20.3, 21.3) N/A 1,406 falling falling trend -1.9 (-2.1, -1.7)
United States *** 20.1 (20.0, 20.2) N/A 41,737 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.5, -0.6)
Manistee County *** 13.0 (7.4, 23.4) 62 (13, 63) 3
*
*
Mason County *** 13.1 (7.5, 22.4) 61 (13, 63) 3 stable stable trend -1.4 (-3.9, 1.1)
Ogemaw County *** 16.4 (9.5, 28.5) 56 (3, 63) 3
*
*
Benzie County *** 21.4 (12.5, 36.5) 27 (1, 63) 4
*
*
Chippewa County *** 14.7 (8.6, 24.1) 58 (7, 63) 4 stable stable trend -1.5 (-3.6, 0.6)
Mecosta County *** 13.6 (8.0, 22.2) 60 (9, 63) 4 stable stable trend -1.9 (-4.0, 0.1)
Wexford County *** 16.4 (9.5, 26.8) 55 (2, 63) 4
*
*
Oceana County *** 20.4 (12.3, 32.6) 34 (1, 63) 4 stable stable trend -0.8 (-3.1, 1.6)
Dickinson County *** 21.7 (12.8, 35.3) 23 (1, 63) 4 falling falling trend -2.0 (-3.9, -0.1)
Emmet County *** 16.8 (9.9, 27.1) 51 (3, 63) 4 falling falling trend -3.3 (-5.4, -1.1)
Iosco County *** 16.1 (9.9, 26.7) 57 (5, 63) 4 falling falling trend -3.2 (-4.8, -1.5)
Newaygo County *** 12.2 (7.6, 19.1) 63 (26, 63) 4 falling falling trend -3.5 (-5.5, -1.5)
Houghton County *** 20.2 (12.5, 31.4) 35 (1, 63) 5 stable stable trend -1.1 (-3.1, 0.9)
Huron County *** 14.7 (9.3, 23.4) 59 (10, 63) 5 falling falling trend -2.3 (-3.8, -0.7)
Leelanau County *** 26.5 (15.8, 43.2) 5 (1, 62) 5 falling falling trend -3.1 (-5.5, -0.7)
Osceola County *** 27.1 (17.0, 42.1) 4 (1, 61) 5 stable stable trend -0.6 (-2.9, 1.8)
Menominee County *** 23.4 (14.4, 37.3) 13 (1, 62) 5 stable stable trend 0.5 (-2.0, 3.1)
Otsego County *** 28.2 (17.8, 43.3) 2 (1, 60) 5 stable stable trend -0.8 (-2.7, 1.2)
Branch County *** 17.8 (11.5, 26.7) 42 (3, 63) 5 falling falling trend -1.7 (-3.2, -0.2)
Charlevoix County *** 24.8 (15.6, 38.2) 8 (1, 62) 5
*
*
Delta County *** 17.6 (11.1, 27.1) 44 (3, 63) 5 stable stable trend -1.8 (-3.9, 0.4)
Cheboygan County *** 26.0 (16.6, 40.0) 6 (1, 61) 6 stable stable trend -1.8 (-3.9, 0.3)
Alpena County *** 20.8 (13.9, 31.2) 29 (1, 63) 6 falling falling trend -2.1 (-4.0, -0.2)
Roscommon County *** 22.9 (15.0, 35.8) 16 (1, 62) 6 stable stable trend 0.2 (-1.9, 2.3)
Cass County *** 16.7 (11.3, 24.3) 52 (5, 63) 6 falling falling trend -3.0 (-4.7, -1.3)
Clare County *** 27.8 (18.3, 41.0) 3 (1, 59) 6 stable stable trend 0.6 (-1.3, 2.4)
Ionia County *** 16.4 (11.1, 23.7) 54 (6, 63) 6 falling falling trend -2.1 (-3.7, -0.5)
Gratiot County *** 22.6 (15.1, 32.9) 17 (1, 62) 6 stable stable trend -0.9 (-2.8, 1.1)
Hillsdale County *** 24.4 (16.6, 34.8) 9 (1, 60) 7 stable stable trend 0.1 (-1.4, 1.7)
Montcalm County *** 17.3 (11.9, 24.4) 46 (6, 63) 7 stable stable trend -0.6 (-2.5, 1.4)
Marquette County *** 17.7 (12.3, 24.7) 43 (5, 63) 8 falling falling trend -2.3 (-3.7, -1.0)
Barry County *** 20.2 (14.3, 28.0) 36 (2, 62) 8 falling falling trend -2.5 (-4.0, -1.0)
Isabella County *** 23.1 (16.3, 31.7) 15 (1, 60) 8 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.9, 1.2)
St. Joseph County *** 21.7 (15.4, 29.9) 24 (1, 61) 8 stable stable trend -1.5 (-2.9, 0.0)
Tuscola County *** 21.7 (15.5, 29.9) 25 (1, 61) 8 falling falling trend -2.1 (-3.5, -0.6)
Sanilac County *** 30.1 (21.3, 41.7) 1 (1, 48) 9 stable stable trend 0.0 (-2.1, 2.0)
Shiawassee County *** 19.0 (13.7, 25.9) 40 (4, 62) 9 falling falling trend -2.0 (-3.2, -0.9)
Clinton County *** 19.5 (14.4, 25.9) 39 (4, 62) 10 falling falling trend -1.8 (-3.1, -0.4)
Van Buren County *** 21.9 (16.3, 29.0) 21 (2, 59) 11 stable stable trend -0.9 (-2.3, 0.5)
Grand Traverse County *** 17.2 (12.8, 22.8) 48 (9, 63) 11 falling falling trend -1.8 (-3.3, -0.4)
Midland County *** 20.7 (15.5, 27.2) 31 (2, 60) 12 falling falling trend -2.2 (-3.6, -0.8)
Allegan County *** 17.3 (13.1, 22.4) 47 (10, 62) 12 falling falling trend -2.2 (-3.6, -0.8)
Bay County *** 17.0 (12.9, 22.1) 50 (11, 62) 13 falling falling trend -1.9 (-3.2, -0.6)
Lapeer County *** 23.5 (18.1, 30.2) 12 (1, 55) 14 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.9, 1.0)
Lenawee County *** 23.1 (18.1, 29.1) 14 (1, 54) 16 falling falling trend -1.5 (-2.7, -0.2)
Eaton County *** 20.7 (16.2, 26.0) 32 (4, 58) 16 falling falling trend -1.1 (-2.0, -0.3)
Calhoun County *** 22.0 (17.9, 26.9) 18 (3, 54) 21 falling falling trend -1.4 (-2.4, -0.4)
Livingston County *** 18.2 (14.9, 22.1) 41 (13, 60) 22 falling falling trend -2.3 (-3.5, -1.1)
Monroe County *** 22.0 (18.0, 26.7) 19 (3, 54) 23 falling falling trend -1.7 (-2.9, -0.5)
Jackson County *** 21.3 (17.4, 25.9) 28 (4, 54) 23 falling falling trend -2.2 (-3.0, -1.4)
Muskegon County *** 20.5 (17.0, 24.7) 33 (6, 56) 25 falling falling trend -1.6 (-2.4, -0.8)
Saginaw County *** 16.7 (13.8, 20.2) 53 (21, 61) 25 falling falling trend -2.3 (-3.2, -1.4)
St. Clair County *** 21.9 (18.2, 26.4) 20 (3, 52) 25 falling falling trend -1.4 (-2.3, -0.6)
Berrien County *** 24.1 (20.1, 28.8) 10 (1, 43) 28 falling falling trend -2.0 (-3.0, -1.1)
Ottawa County *** 17.3 (14.5, 20.4) 45 (22, 60) 29 falling falling trend -2.7 (-3.7, -1.7)
Ingham County *** 20.8 (17.6, 24.3) 30 (6, 52) 33 falling falling trend -1.6 (-2.4, -0.8)
Kalamazoo County *** 21.7 (18.4, 25.4) 26 (5, 50) 34 falling falling trend -1.7 (-2.5, -0.8)
Washtenaw County *** 19.9 (17.2, 23.0) 38 (10, 54) 40 falling falling trend -1.8 (-2.6, -1.0)
Kent County *** 17.0 (15.1, 19.0) 49 (30, 59) 65 stable stable trend -4.3 (-18.9, 13.1)
Genesee County *** 24.9 (22.2, 27.8) 7 (2, 30) 69 falling falling trend -1.4 (-2.0, -0.8)
Macomb County *** 21.7 (20.1, 23.5) 22 (10, 39) 135 falling falling trend -1.9 (-2.4, -1.5)
Oakland County *** 20.0 (18.7, 21.4) 37 (18, 46) 172 falling falling trend -1.9 (-2.2, -1.6)
Wayne County *** 23.7 (22.4, 25.0) 11 (5, 27) 273 falling falling trend -1.8 (-2.1, -1.5)
Alcona County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Alger County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Antrim County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Arenac County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Baraga County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Crawford County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Gladwin County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Gogebic County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Iron County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Kalkaska County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Keweenaw County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Lake County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Luce County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Mackinac County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Missaukee County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Montmorency County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Ontonagon County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Oscoda County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Presque Isle County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Schoolcraft County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 06/13/2021 8:31 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 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.

*** No Healthy People 2020 Objective for this cancer.
Healthy People 2020 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