Return to Home Mortality > Table

Death Rates Table

Data Options

Death Rate Report for Minnesota by County

All Cancer Sites, 2015-2019

All Races (includes Hispanic), Both Sexes, 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 ascending
Recent Trend
Recent 5-Year Trend in Death Rates
(95% Confidence Interval)
 sort by trend descending
Minnesota *** 147.0 (145.7, 148.3) N/A 9,926 falling falling trend -1.4 (-1.5, -1.3)
United States *** 152.4 (152.3, 152.6) N/A 598,381 falling falling trend -2.1 (-2.3, -1.8)
Hennepin County *** 141.4 (138.5, 144.3) 68 (50, 76) 1,928 falling falling trend -1.8 (-2.0, -1.5)
Ramsey County *** 148.7 (144.3, 153.2) 53 (31, 67) 901 falling falling trend -1.7 (-1.9, -1.5)
Dakota County *** 139.3 (134.4, 144.4) 73 (51, 80) 636 falling falling trend -1.4 (-1.6, -1.2)
Anoka County *** 151.6 (146.0, 157.5) 47 (22, 65) 569 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.4, -0.9)
St. Louis County *** 161.3 (154.5, 168.3) 18 (9, 49) 460 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.2, -0.7)
Washington County *** 143.6 (137.3, 150.1) 65 (37, 78) 411 falling falling trend -1.4 (-1.8, -1.1)
Stearns County *** 146.3 (138.4, 154.6) 59 (27, 77) 264 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.1, -0.6)
Olmsted County *** 124.7 (117.5, 132.3) 86 (70, 87) 232 falling falling trend -1.8 (-2.0, -1.6)
Wright County *** 149.5 (140.1, 159.3) 51 (15, 78) 197 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.4, -0.7)
Scott County *** 140.7 (131.3, 150.7) 70 (30, 83) 176 falling falling trend -1.5 (-2.0, -1.1)
Crow Wing County *** 158.4 (147.3, 170.3) 24 (6, 68) 162 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.3, -0.6)
Otter Tail County *** 141.2 (130.5, 152.7) 69 (26, 84) 142 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.5, -0.6)
Sherburne County *** 151.9 (140.0, 164.5) 46 (10, 77) 129 falling falling trend -1.3 (-1.9, -0.7)
Itasca County *** 173.9 (160.1, 188.8) 7 (1, 43) 128 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.5, -0.7)
Carver County *** 127.2 (117.1, 137.9) 84 (60, 87) 126 falling falling trend -1.6 (-2.0, -1.1)
Rice County *** 143.6 (131.8, 156.3) 64 (21, 83) 112 falling falling trend -1.4 (-1.9, -1.0)
Goodhue County *** 157.0 (143.7, 171.3) 30 (5, 73) 109 falling falling trend -0.8 (-1.2, -0.4)
Blue Earth County *** 141.8 (129.5, 155.0) 66 (19, 85) 103 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.6, -0.7)
Clay County *** 153.5 (140.2, 167.8) 44 (8, 78) 102 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.0, 0.0)
Chisago County *** 155.4 (141.9, 169.9) 39 (7, 76) 102 stable stable trend 7.0 (-7.5, 23.8)
Winona County *** 157.3 (143.3, 172.4) 28 (5, 76) 100 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.4, -0.7)
Douglas County *** 158.8 (144.2, 174.6) 23 (4, 75) 97 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.0, 0.0)
Mower County *** 156.2 (141.5, 172.1) 35 (5, 77) 90 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.5, -0.5)
Kandiyohi County *** 145.9 (131.9, 161.1) 60 (13, 84) 86 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.5, -0.6)
Cass County *** 165.2 (148.8, 183.3) 13 (2, 70) 84 falling falling trend -0.8 (-1.2, -0.3)
Beltrami County *** 149.3 (134.9, 164.9) 52 (9, 81) 82 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.6, -0.6)
Freeborn County *** 154.6 (139.0, 171.8) 41 (6, 80) 78 falling falling trend -0.8 (-1.2, -0.4)
Carlton County *** 161.0 (145.0, 178.3) 19 (3, 76) 77 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.3, 0.0)
Morrison County *** 155.6 (140.0, 172.7) 38 (5, 79) 77 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.4, -0.4)
Isanti County *** 157.2 (141.6, 174.2) 29 (4, 77) 76 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.0, 0.2)
Becker County *** 147.3 (132.4, 163.6) 56 (11, 84) 75 falling falling trend -0.8 (-1.3, -0.3)
Polk County *** 169.6 (152.3, 188.6) 11 (1, 68) 75 stable stable trend 2.2 (-15.0, 22.9)
Pine County *** 165.0 (148.3, 183.3) 14 (2, 71) 74 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.6, -0.3)
McLeod County *** 138.2 (123.8, 153.8) 75 (21, 87) 70 falling falling trend -0.8 (-1.4, -0.2)
Benton County *** 149.9 (134.0, 167.1) 49 (8, 82) 69 falling falling trend -1.5 (-2.1, -0.9)
Brown County *** 158.4 (140.8, 177.9) 25 (3, 78) 66 stable stable trend -0.6 (-1.1, 0.0)
Steele County *** 132.7 (118.4, 148.4) 79 (33, 87) 66 falling falling trend -1.6 (-2.0, -1.1)
Mille Lacs County *** 186.7 (166.6, 208.8) 2 (1, 38) 65 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.1, 0.1)
Le Sueur County *** 162.4 (144.3, 182.3) 16 (2, 77) 60 falling falling trend -0.7 (-1.3, -0.1)
Nicollet County *** 141.6 (125.7, 159.2) 67 (14, 86) 59 stable stable trend 8.5 (-5.6, 24.7)
Martin County *** 171.0 (150.9, 193.6) 9 (1, 70) 59 stable stable trend -0.3 (-1.1, 0.4)
Hubbard County *** 157.9 (139.0, 179.2) 27 (3, 82) 56 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.7, -0.3)
Aitkin County *** 159.6 (139.5, 182.9) 21 (2, 82) 56 falling falling trend -1.3 (-1.9, -0.6)
Meeker County *** 155.6 (137.1, 176.3) 37 (3, 82) 54 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.4, -0.4)
Wabasha County *** 148.6 (130.7, 168.6) 54 (7, 85) 52 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.7, -0.5)
Lyon County *** 158.2 (138.8, 179.7) 26 (2, 81) 51 stable stable trend -0.3 (-1.0, 0.4)
Todd County *** 131.8 (115.7, 149.8) 81 (27, 87) 51 falling falling trend -1.4 (-2.0, -0.8)
Fillmore County *** 152.8 (133.6, 174.4) 45 (4, 85) 50 falling falling trend -0.8 (-1.3, -0.3)
Nobles County *** 156.3 (135.6, 179.4) 34 (2, 83) 43 falling falling trend -0.8 (-1.4, -0.1)
Wadena County *** 185.8 (160.0, 215.1) 3 (1, 59) 41 stable stable trend -0.1 (-0.8, 0.6)
Faribault County *** 171.0 (146.7, 198.8) 10 (1, 78) 40 stable stable trend -0.1 (-0.7, 0.5)
Houston County *** 131.0 (112.6, 152.0) 83 (18, 87) 39 falling falling trend -1.4 (-1.9, -0.9)
Waseca County *** 146.9 (126.0, 170.6) 57 (4, 87) 37 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.9, -0.5)
Renville County *** 155.7 (133.1, 181.6) 36 (2, 85) 37 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.3, 0.0)
Sibley County *** 174.5 (149.5, 202.9) 6 (1, 77) 37 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.1, 0.3)
Dodge County *** 154.2 (132.3, 178.9) 42 (2, 86) 36 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.5, 0.2)
Koochiching County *** 158.8 (135.7, 185.8) 22 (1, 84) 36 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.9, -0.2)
Chippewa County *** 178.0 (151.1, 208.9) 5 (1, 75) 35 stable stable trend 0.6 (-0.3, 1.5)
Redwood County *** 139.2 (118.1, 163.5) 74 (9, 87) 34 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.5, -0.3)
Kanabec County *** 137.4 (116.5, 161.4) 76 (10, 87) 33 falling falling trend -1.6 (-2.5, -0.8)
Cottonwood County *** 148.3 (124.1, 176.7) 55 (3, 87) 30 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.2, 0.2)
Lake County *** 144.4 (120.4, 173.0) 62 (4, 87) 29 falling falling trend -1.7 (-2.4, -1.0)
Pennington County *** 145.7 (122.2, 172.8) 61 (4, 87) 29 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.8, -0.3)
Jackson County *** 151.4 (124.9, 182.9) 48 (1, 87) 26 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.4, 0.5)
Roseau County *** 122.0 (101.3, 146.0) 87 (33, 87) 26 falling falling trend -1.7 (-2.3, -1.1)
Pipestone County *** 156.9 (129.3, 189.6) 31 (1, 87) 25 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.3, 0.4)
Pope County *** 131.6 (107.4, 160.3) 82 (11, 87) 24 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.9, -0.3)
Rock County *** 162.1 (133.6, 195.9) 17 (1, 87) 24 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.3, 0.3)
Swift County *** 156.5 (128.1, 190.2) 33 (1, 87) 24 falling falling trend -1.3 (-2.0, -0.6)
Watonwan County *** 146.4 (119.9, 177.7) 58 (2, 87) 24 stable stable trend -0.9 (-1.9, 0.0)
Yellow Medicine County *** 149.5 (122.2, 181.9) 50 (2, 87) 24 stable stable trend -0.8 (-1.5, 0.1)
Clearwater County *** 166.8 (136.3, 202.9) 12 (1, 85) 22 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.4, 0.1)
Marshall County *** 135.0 (109.3, 165.8) 77 (8, 87) 21 falling falling trend -1.5 (-2.4, -0.7)
Murray County *** 134.5 (108.4, 166.3) 78 (7, 87) 20 stable stable trend -0.8 (-1.8, 0.3)
Lac qui Parle County *** 139.5 (109.7, 177.0) 72 (2, 87) 18 falling falling trend -1.6 (-2.6, -0.6)
Norman County *** 160.1 (127.6, 199.9) 20 (1, 87) 18 stable stable trend -0.9 (-1.9, 0.1)
Lincoln County *** 171.3 (134.3, 217.1) 8 (1, 86) 18 stable stable trend 0.0 (-1.8, 1.7)
Wilkin County *** 183.5 (145.8, 229.2) 4 (1, 85) 17 stable stable trend -0.6 (-1.6, 0.4)
Stevens County *** 132.1 (103.5, 166.5) 80 (6, 87) 16 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.3, 0.3)
Big Stone County *** 156.6 (120.9, 202.2) 32 (1, 87) 16 falling falling trend -1.7 (-2.6, -0.8)
Mahnomen County *** 199.5 (155.7, 252.8) 1 (1, 80) 15 stable stable trend -0.2 (-1.0, 0.6)
Cook County *** 154.7 (117.9, 201.7) 40 (1, 87) 15 stable stable trend -0.9 (-2.8, 1.0)
Grant County *** 143.7 (109.9, 186.2) 63 (1, 87) 14 falling falling trend -1.0 (-2.0, -0.1)
Kittson County *** 140.5 (103.2, 189.6) 71 (1, 87) 11 stable stable trend -1.1 (-2.4, 0.1)
Traverse County *** 154.1 (114.0, 208.5) 43 (1, 87) 11 stable stable trend -0.6 (-2.2, 0.9)
Red Lake County *** 164.7 (118.9, 224.1) 15 (1, 87) 9 stable stable trend -0.3 (-1.4, 0.8)
Lake of the Woods County *** 125.7 (89.4, 175.9) 85 (2, 87) 8 stable stable trend -1.1 (-2.3, 0.2)
Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 08/15/2022 11:51 am.

State Cancer Registries may provide more current or more local data.
† 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 1969-2018 US Population Data File is used with mortality data.
⋔ 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.



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