Return to Home Mortality > Table

Death Rates Table

Data Options

Death Rate Report for Mississippi by County

All Cancer Sites, 2018-2022

All Races (includes Hispanic), Both Sexes, All Ages

Sorted by Recentaapc

County
 sort alphabetically by name ascending
2023 Rural-Urban Continuum Codes Φ
 sort by rural urban descending
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 descending
Average Annual Count
 sort by count descending
Recent Trend
Recent 5-Year Trend in Death Rates
(95% Confidence Interval)
 sort by trend ascending
Mississippi N/A No 179.8 (177.8, 181.8) N/A 6,592 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.1, -0.9)
United States N/A No 146.0 (145.8, 146.2) N/A 602,955 falling falling trend -1.5 (-1.6, -1.4)
Humphreys County Rural No 245.6 (202.5, 295.8) 3 (1, 54) 25 rising rising trend 19.9 (3.2, 32.1)
Jasper County Rural No 195.6 (170.1, 224.2) 29 (5, 73) 46 stable stable trend 12.5 (-0.4, 20.4)
Pontotoc County Rural No 203.0 (182.4, 225.3) 21 (5, 58) 74 stable stable trend 2.0 (-0.1, 11.6)
Union County Rural No 194.6 (174.1, 217.0) 30 (8, 69) 67 stable stable trend 1.9 (-0.3, 9.9)
Issaquena County Rural No 274.8 (165.4, 445.5) 1 (1, 82) 4 stable stable trend 1.3 (-1.0, 3.7)
Neshoba County Rural No 189.6 (169.2, 211.9) 38 (9, 70) 65 rising rising trend 1.1 (0.1, 4.3)
Prentiss County Rural No 188.5 (167.7, 211.4) 39 (9, 73) 62 stable stable trend 0.1 (-0.6, 0.8)
Calhoun County Rural No 175.5 (148.9, 206.1) 53 (11, 81) 33 stable stable trend 0.0 (-0.8, 0.9)
Hinds County Urban No 171.0 (163.8, 178.4) 60 (43, 71) 451 stable stable trend 0.0 (-0.3, 0.4)
Leflore County Rural No 243.3 (219.0, 269.7) 4 (1, 23) 76 stable stable trend 0.0 (-0.5, 0.5)
Covington County Rural No 205.1 (179.6, 233.4) 17 (3, 64) 48 stable stable trend -0.1 (-0.7, 0.5)
Holmes County Urban No 242.0 (212.0, 275.4) 5 (1, 32) 49 stable stable trend -0.1 (-0.9, 0.6)
Yazoo County Urban No 241.8 (216.6, 269.2) 7 (1, 28) 69 stable stable trend -0.1 (-0.7, 0.6)
Attala County Rural No 200.4 (176.1, 227.5) 24 (5, 68) 51 stable stable trend -0.2 (-0.9, 0.5)
Coahoma County Rural No 230.8 (204.6, 259.6) 9 (1, 37) 60 stable stable trend -0.2 (-3.7, 0.3)
Grenada County Rural No 209.2 (185.8, 235.0) 15 (3, 60) 61 stable stable trend -0.2 (-0.8, 0.4)
Lawrence County Rural No 209.5 (177.5, 245.9) 14 (2, 68) 33 stable stable trend -0.2 (-0.9, 0.6)
Perry County Urban No 203.2 (172.4, 238.5) 20 (2, 74) 32 stable stable trend -0.2 (-1.0, 0.7)
Clarke County Rural No 156.9 (134.5, 182.5) 71 (25, 82) 37 stable stable trend -0.3 (-1.0, 0.5)
Sunflower County Rural No 221.8 (197.9, 247.9) 11 (2, 45) 65 stable stable trend -0.3 (-0.7, 0.1)
Tallahatchie County Rural No 204.1 (173.3, 239.2) 18 (2, 74) 32 stable stable trend -0.3 (-1.0, 0.3)
Tippah County Rural No 172.1 (150.4, 196.2) 58 (16, 80) 47 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.0, 0.2)
Washington County Rural No 213.3 (195.8, 231.9) 12 (4, 42) 119 stable stable trend -0.4 (-0.9, 0.0)
Webster County Rural No 191.8 (159.6, 229.3) 34 (4, 79) 26 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.2, 0.6)
Bolivar County Rural No 225.5 (204.0, 248.7) 10 (2, 36) 85 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.0, 0.0)
Carroll County Rural No 175.6 (146.7, 209.6) 52 (9, 82) 29 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.3, 0.4)
Clay County Rural No 170.4 (148.3, 195.3) 62 (17, 80) 45 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.1, 0.1)
Monroe County Rural No 181.6 (164.6, 200.0) 48 (16, 73) 89 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.0, 0.1)
Quitman County Rural No 271.5 (221.1, 330.6) 2 (1, 39) 22 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.3, 0.3)
Tishomingo County Rural No 207.6 (184.0, 233.7) 16 (4, 58) 59 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.2, 0.1)
Adams County Rural No 198.1 (179.1, 218.8) 25 (8, 61) 85 falling falling trend -0.6 (-1.0, -0.2)
Chickasaw County Rural No 184.8 (160.2, 212.4) 46 (9, 78) 42 stable stable trend -0.6 (-1.2, 0.0)
Lowndes County Rural No 188.3 (174.1, 203.3) 40 (15, 66) 138 falling falling trend -0.6 (-1.1, -0.2)
Montgomery County Rural No 174.7 (145.5, 208.7) 55 (8, 82) 27 stable stable trend -0.6 (-1.2, 0.0)
Tate County Urban No 190.2 (169.6, 212.6) 37 (9, 71) 66 stable stable trend -0.6 (-1.0, 0.0)
Tunica County Urban No 242.0 (198.3, 292.2) 6 (1, 58) 24 stable stable trend -0.6 (-1.2, 0.1)
Walthall County Rural No 167.7 (142.6, 196.4) 65 (15, 82) 33 stable stable trend -0.6 (-1.3, 0.1)
Claiborne County Rural No 203.3 (165.7, 247.2) 19 (2, 77) 22 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.6, 0.2)
Jefferson County Rural No 197.4 (157.9, 244.4) 28 (2, 80) 19 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.6, 0.2)
Kemper County Rural No 140.7 (112.3, 175.0) 80 (32, 82) 19 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.9, 0.5)
Lincoln County Rural No 190.3 (172.3, 209.7) 36 (11, 69) 86 falling falling trend -0.7 (-1.3, -0.2)
Marshall County Urban No 211.7 (192.8, 232.1) 13 (5, 48) 98 falling falling trend -0.7 (-1.1, -0.3)
Noxubee County Rural No 175.0 (142.9, 212.6) 54 (7, 82) 22 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.7, 0.4)
Panola County Rural No 194.5 (175.7, 214.8) 32 (8, 65) 83 falling falling trend -0.7 (-1.1, -0.2)
Pearl River County Rural No 194.0 (180.0, 208.9) 33 (11, 59) 152 falling falling trend -0.7 (-1.1, -0.4)
Scott County Urban No 170.6 (151.0, 192.0) 61 (21, 80) 57 falling falling trend -0.7 (-1.3, -0.1)
Wayne County Rural No 187.7 (164.1, 213.8) 41 (8, 75) 48 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.3, 0.0)
Alcorn County Rural No 167.8 (151.3, 185.6) 64 (27, 78) 79 falling falling trend -0.8 (-1.3, -0.3)
Forrest County Urban No 191.4 (178.1, 205.6) 35 (14, 61) 157 falling falling trend -0.8 (-1.1, -0.5)
George County Rural No 202.5 (177.8, 229.6) 22 (4, 68) 54 stable stable trend -0.8 (-1.5, 0.0)
Hancock County Urban No 165.9 (152.1, 180.7) 66 (34, 79) 116 falling falling trend -0.8 (-1.2, -0.4)
Itawamba County Rural No 171.0 (150.8, 193.3) 59 (20, 79) 54 falling falling trend -0.8 (-1.3, -0.3)
Pike County Rural No 176.2 (159.9, 193.7) 51 (20, 75) 90 stable stable trend -0.8 (-1.4, 0.0)
Winston County Rural No 164.3 (142.4, 189.0) 67 (23, 82) 43 falling falling trend -0.8 (-1.6, -0.1)
Yalobusha County Rural No 194.5 (166.7, 226.2) 31 (5, 75) 37 falling falling trend -0.8 (-1.4, -0.2)
DeSoto County Urban No 178.1 (169.5, 187.0) 50 (30, 67) 337 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.2, -0.6)
Simpson County Urban No 168.7 (149.5, 190.0) 63 (23, 79) 59 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.5, -0.2)
Warren County Rural No 185.0 (169.2, 202.0) 45 (16, 69) 107 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.3, -0.6)
Wilkinson County Rural No 197.6 (161.8, 239.7) 27 (2, 79) 23 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.7, -0.1)
Choctaw County Rural No 144.0 (115.6, 178.3) 78 (31, 82) 19 falling falling trend -1.1 (-2.1, -0.2)
Copiah County Urban No 172.8 (153.9, 193.5) 57 (22, 78) 65 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.6, -0.6)
Jefferson Davis County Rural No 178.2 (150.1, 210.7) 49 (7, 80) 32 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.9, -0.4)
Oktibbeha County Rural No 155.1 (139.0, 172.5) 73 (44, 82) 71 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.6, -0.5)
Franklin County Rural No 161.0 (129.5, 199.0) 69 (13, 82) 19 falling falling trend -1.2 (-2.2, -0.3)
Greene County Rural No 152.8 (126.8, 182.9) 75 (26, 82) 25 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.9, -0.4)
Jackson County Urban No 183.0 (174.0, 192.4) 47 (24, 62) 325 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.4, -0.9)
Jones County Rural No 156.5 (144.6, 169.1) 72 (50, 80) 136 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.5, -0.8)
Stone County Urban No 187.1 (161.0, 216.4) 42 (6, 77) 40 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.9, -0.4)
Harrison County Urban No 185.1 (177.5, 193.0) 44 (25, 59) 464 falling falling trend -1.3 (-2.3, -1.0)
Lauderdale County Rural No 150.4 (139.4, 162.0) 76 (59, 81) 146 stable stable trend -1.3 (-2.9, 3.2)
Lafayette County Rural No 147.4 (132.9, 163.1) 77 (55, 82) 79 falling falling trend -1.4 (-1.9, -0.9)
Newton County Rural No 159.1 (138.2, 182.5) 70 (28, 82) 43 falling falling trend -1.4 (-2.1, -0.7)
Sharkey County Rural No 238.7 (181.3, 310.4) 8 (1, 77) 13 falling falling trend -1.4 (-2.7, -0.3)
Lamar County Urban No 135.2 (123.2, 148.1) 81 (69, 82) 96 falling falling trend -1.5 (-2.0, -0.9)
Marion County Rural No 173.2 (153.5, 195.0) 56 (20, 79) 59 stable stable trend -1.6 (-4.1, 2.8)
Rankin County Urban No 133.3 (126.0, 140.9) 82 (75, 82) 257 falling falling trend -2.0 (-5.6, -0.4)
Amite County Rural No 141.0 (119.3, 166.5) 79 (46, 82) 32 falling falling trend -2.2 (-4.9, -1.4)
Benton County Urban No 153.5 (120.5, 193.6) 74 (12, 82) 16 falling falling trend -2.3 (-14.3, -0.7)
Leake County Rural No 187.1 (164.4, 212.3) 43 (9, 76) 51 falling falling trend -3.0 (-10.7, -1.0)
Lee County Rural No 201.5 (188.8, 214.8) 23 (10, 49) 194 stable stable trend -3.1 (-4.9, 0.3)
Smith County Rural No 161.3 (137.3, 188.8) 68 (22, 82) 34 falling falling trend -4.0 (-12.9, -1.8)
Madison County Urban No 197.8 (186.4, 209.7) 26 (12, 50) 238 falling falling trend -5.0 (-5.8, -4.3)
Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 11/09/2024 6:06 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.


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