Return to Home Mortality > Table

Death Rates Table

Data Options

Death Rate Report for Michigan by County

Prostate, 2018-2022

All Races (includes Hispanic), Male, All Ages

Sorted by Count

County
sort alphabetically by name ascending 		2023 Rural-Urban Continuum Codes Φ
sort by rural urban descending 		Met Healthy People Objective of 16.9?
 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 ascending 		Recent Trend
 Recent 5-Year Trend ‡ in Death Rates
(95% Confidence Interval)
sort by trend descending
Michigan N/A No 19.0 (18.5, 19.6) N/A 1,035 stable stable trend -0.2 (-0.9, 0.8)
United States N/A No 19.0 (18.9, 19.1) N/A 32,351 falling falling trend -0.5 (-0.8, -0.1)
Wayne County Urban No 21.1 (19.7, 22.6) 13 (8, 32) 180 falling falling trend -2.1 (-2.8, -0.5)
Oakland County Urban No 18.2 (16.8, 19.8) 36 (17, 49) 123 stable stable trend 1.0 (-1.4, 7.2)
Macomb County Urban No 18.6 (16.9, 20.5) 30 (14, 49) 88 stable stable trend 0.0 (-1.5, 3.2)
Kent County Urban No 18.5 (16.3, 21.0) 33 (13, 52) 53 stable stable trend 1.3 (-2.3, 11.8)
Genesee County Urban Yes 16.9 (14.5, 19.5) 47 (19, 57) 38 stable stable trend -1.9 (-3.1, 0.9)
Washtenaw County Urban No 18.2 (15.3, 21.5) 37 (10, 55) 29 falling falling trend -3.4 (-4.2, -2.4)
Ingham County Urban No 23.5 (19.5, 27.9) 7 (1, 41) 26 stable stable trend 4.4 (-1.0, 19.6)
Ottawa County Urban No 17.2 (14.3, 20.6) 40 (13, 58) 25 falling falling trend -2.5 (-3.1, -1.8)
Kalamazoo County Urban No 19.1 (15.8, 23.0) 26 (6, 55) 24 falling falling trend -2.9 (-3.7, -2.0)
Saginaw County Urban No 20.4 (16.8, 24.6) 18 (4, 52) 23 stable stable trend 4.8 (-1.6, 20.6)
Livingston County Urban No 20.7 (16.8, 25.2) 16 (3, 51) 21 stable stable trend 0.5 (-3.4, 16.9)
Jackson County Urban No 22.8 (18.6, 27.8) 8 (1, 44) 21 falling falling trend -2.4 (-3.6, -1.2)
St. Clair County Urban No 22.1 (17.9, 27.1) 9 (2, 50) 20 stable stable trend 2.6 (-2.2, 18.2)
Berrien County Urban No 20.4 (16.5, 24.9) 19 (4, 53) 20 stable stable trend 0.8 (-1.9, 12.3)
Muskegon County Urban No 18.7 (14.9, 23.2) 29 (6, 57) 18 falling falling trend -2.1 (-3.2, -1.0)
Monroe County Urban No 19.7 (15.6, 24.5) 23 (4, 56) 17 falling falling trend -2.6 (-3.5, -1.6)
Calhoun County Urban No 17.0 (12.9, 22.0) 43 (8, 62) 12 falling falling trend -2.5 (-3.8, -1.2)
Grand Traverse County Urban No 20.3 (15.3, 26.5) 20 (2, 58) 12 falling falling trend -3.7 (-5.4, -2.0)
Allegan County Rural No 19.1 (14.2, 25.1) 28 (3, 60) 11 falling falling trend -3.0 (-4.1, -2.1)
Bay County Urban No 17.0 (12.6, 22.4) 45 (7, 62) 11 falling falling trend -3.1 (-4.3, -2.0)
Eaton County Urban Yes 14.5 (10.5, 19.5) 58 (15, 62) 9 falling falling trend -3.0 (-4.7, -1.1)
Cass County Urban No 24.6 (17.8, 33.4) 5 (1, 54) 9 stable stable trend 7.9 (-2.4, 31.8)
Lapeer County Urban No 17.1 (12.1, 23.5) 41 (4, 62) 9 falling falling trend -3.8 (-5.3, -2.3)
Lenawee County Rural Yes 14.7 (10.5, 20.1) 56 (14, 62) 9 falling falling trend -2.4 (-3.8, -1.0)
Clinton County Urban No 18.1 (12.8, 24.9) 38 (3, 62) 8 falling falling trend -2.6 (-4.6, -0.6)
Hillsdale County Rural No 28.8 (20.1, 40.0) 2 (1, 49) 8 rising rising trend 4.7 (0.2, 22.1)
Barry County Urban No 23.6 (16.4, 32.9) 6 (1, 58) 7 falling falling trend -2.2 (-3.7, -0.6)
Delta County Rural No 25.5 (17.8, 36.0) 4 (1, 55) 7 stable stable trend -1.1 (-2.6, 0.5)
Montcalm County Urban No 18.6 (12.9, 26.0) 32 (2, 62) 7 falling falling trend -3.3 (-4.8, -1.9)
Van Buren County Rural No 18.4 (12.8, 25.7) 34 (2, 62) 7 falling falling trend -2.5 (-3.9, -1.2)
Branch County Rural No 28.8 (19.7, 40.6) 1 (1, 52) 7 stable stable trend -0.1 (-1.7, 1.9)
Midland County Urban Yes 13.2 (9.1, 18.5) 62 (19, 62) 7 falling falling trend -2.4 (-3.8, -0.8)
Marquette County Rural Yes 15.5 (10.7, 22.1) 53 (7, 62) 7 falling falling trend -2.3 (-3.9, -0.8)
St. Joseph County Rural No 20.5 (14.1, 28.8) 17 (1, 61) 7 falling falling trend -2.8 (-5.1, -0.7)
Chippewa County Rural No 27.9 (18.9, 40.1) 3 (1, 55) 6
*
*
Isabella County Rural No 21.5 (13.9, 31.7) 12 (1, 62) 5 falling falling trend -3.1 (-4.9, -1.5)
Huron County Rural No 20.7 (13.5, 31.4) 15 (1, 62) 5 falling falling trend -2.7 (-4.6, -1.1)
Emmet County Rural No 19.6 (12.4, 30.0) 24 (1, 62) 5 stable stable trend -1.5 (-3.3, 0.7)
Mecosta County Rural No 21.0 (13.1, 32.0) 14 (1, 62) 5 stable stable trend 2.8 (-3.6, 28.6)
Shiawassee County Rural Yes 13.7 (8.7, 20.7) 61 (10, 62) 5 falling falling trend -2.9 (-4.6, -1.2)
Tuscola County Rural Yes 13.7 (8.7, 20.9) 60 (11, 62) 5 falling falling trend -3.1 (-4.9, -1.3)
Houghton County Rural No 22.1 (13.9, 33.5) 10 (1, 62) 5 falling falling trend -2.6 (-4.3, -1.1)
Ionia County Urban Yes 14.6 (9.0, 22.1) 57 (6, 62) 5 falling falling trend -4.1 (-5.9, -2.6)
Newaygo County Rural Yes 14.3 (8.9, 22.1) 59 (6, 62) 5
*
*
Sanilac County Rural Yes 16.0 (10.0, 24.6) 50 (4, 62) 5 falling falling trend -3.4 (-5.4, -1.6)
Clare County Rural No 19.1 (11.8, 30.1) 27 (1, 62) 4 falling falling trend -2.2 (-4.2, -0.1)
Manistee County Rural No 21.6 (13.5, 34.1) 11 (1, 62) 4 stable stable trend 2.0 (-2.9, 20.4)
Roscommon County Rural Yes 15.8 (9.7, 27.2) 51 (3, 62) 4
*
*
Wexford County Rural No 19.9 (12.2, 31.0) 21 (1, 62) 4 falling falling trend -2.3 (-3.7, -0.7)
Alpena County Rural No 18.4 (11.1, 29.6) 35 (1, 62) 4
*
*
Dickinson County Rural No 19.8 (11.9, 31.9) 22 (1, 62) 4
*
*
Iosco County Rural No 17.0 (10.2, 28.3) 42 (2, 62) 4 stable stable trend -1.9 (-17.7, 17.8)
Leelanau County Urban No 17.7 (10.8, 29.8) 39 (2, 62) 4
*
*
Cheboygan County Rural Yes 16.2 (9.6, 27.2) 49 (2, 62) 4 falling falling trend -3.5 (-5.8, -1.3)
Gratiot County Rural Yes 15.1 (8.9, 24.2) 55 (3, 62) 4
*
*
Gladwin County Rural Yes 16.5 (9.5, 27.9) 48 (2, 62) 3
*
*
Mason County Rural No 17.0 (9.8, 28.3) 44 (2, 62) 3
*
*
Menominee County Rural No 17.0 (9.8, 28.7) 46 (2, 62) 3
*
*
Oceana County Rural No 19.5 (11.2, 32.1) 25 (1, 62) 3
*
*
Antrim County Rural Yes 15.6 (8.8, 27.4) 52 (3, 62) 3
*
*
Charlevoix County Rural Yes 15.3 (8.6, 26.3) 54 (3, 62) 3 falling falling trend -4.5 (-6.6, -2.7)
Otsego County Rural No 18.6 (10.5, 31.3) 31 (1, 62) 3
*
*
Alcona County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Alger County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Arenac County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Baraga County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Benzie County Urban ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Crawford County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Gogebic County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Iron County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Kalkaska County Urban ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Keweenaw County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Lake County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Luce County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Mackinac County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Missaukee County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Montmorency County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Ogemaw County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Ontonagon County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Osceola County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Oscoda County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Presque Isle County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Schoolcraft County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 10/22/2024 4:00 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