Return to Home Mortality > Table

Death Rates Table

Data Options

Death Rate Report for Mississippi by County

Lung & Bronchus, 2018-2022

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

Sorted by Ruralurban

County
 sort alphabetically by name ascending
2023 Rural-Urban Continuum Codes Φ
 sort by rural urban descending
Met Healthy People Objective of 25.1?
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
Mississippi N/A No 47.5 (46.5, 48.5) N/A 1,788 falling falling trend -3.1 (-4.0, -2.6)
United States N/A No 32.4 (32.3, 32.5) N/A 136,831 falling falling trend -4.3 (-4.4, -4.1)
Adams County Rural No 46.1 (37.6, 56.3) 52 (9, 78) 21 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.8, -0.4)
Alcorn County Rural No 46.7 (38.5, 56.4) 49 (9, 77) 23 falling falling trend -3.7 (-13.2, -1.7)
Amite County Rural No 40.2 (28.6, 55.8) 70 (7, 80) 9 stable stable trend -0.8 (-2.0, 0.4)
Attala County Rural No 53.1 (41.3, 67.8) 25 (2, 76) 14 stable stable trend 0.1 (-1.3, 1.7)
Bolivar County Rural No 54.5 (44.3, 66.4) 19 (2, 70) 21 stable stable trend -1.0 (-2.1, 0.1)
Calhoun County Rural No 52.5 (38.9, 70.0) 27 (1, 79) 10 stable stable trend -0.3 (-1.3, 0.7)
Carroll County Rural No 50.0 (35.3, 70.1) 35 (1, 80) 8 stable stable trend -0.3 (-1.6, 1.3)
Chickasaw County Rural No 50.2 (38.1, 65.3) 34 (2, 80) 12 stable stable trend -1.2 (-2.5, 0.0)
Choctaw County Rural No 41.8 (27.6, 62.3) 66 (3, 80) 6
*
*
Claiborne County Rural No 44.2 (27.6, 67.6) 56 (1, 80) 5 stable stable trend 0.8 (-0.4, 2.2)
Clarke County Rural No 52.6 (40.1, 68.3) 26 (1, 77) 13 stable stable trend 0.3 (-1.0, 1.9)
Clay County Rural No 42.4 (31.9, 55.7) 62 (8, 80) 11 falling falling trend -6.2 (-19.9, -0.6)
Coahoma County Rural No 54.3 (42.4, 68.7) 20 (1, 75) 15 stable stable trend -0.8 (-1.9, 0.2)
Covington County Rural No 51.7 (39.7, 66.5) 30 (2, 78) 13 falling falling trend -1.2 (-2.2, -0.1)
Franklin County Rural No 42.3 (27.7, 63.4) 63 (2, 80) 5
*
*
George County Rural No 54.8 (42.6, 69.5) 18 (1, 76) 15 stable stable trend -1.1 (-2.1, 0.0)
Greene County Rural No 40.5 (28.0, 57.2) 68 (6, 80) 7 falling falling trend -2.3 (-3.8, -0.7)
Grenada County Rural No 55.3 (43.9, 69.0) 15 (1, 72) 17 stable stable trend -0.1 (-1.2, 1.0)
Humphreys County Rural No 65.8 (44.6, 94.4) 2 (1, 78) 7 stable stable trend -0.6 (-2.0, 0.7)
Itawamba County Rural No 45.9 (36.1, 57.9) 54 (6, 79) 15 stable stable trend -3.2 (-12.4, 7.3)
Jasper County Rural No 49.0 (37.3, 63.8) 39 (3, 79) 12 stable stable trend -1.3 (-2.4, 0.0)
Jefferson County Rural No 53.4 (34.1, 80.5) 24 (1, 80) 5
*
*
Jefferson Davis County Rural No 35.5 (24.8, 50.5) 78 (19, 80) 7 falling falling trend -2.2 (-3.6, -0.7)
Jones County Rural No 46.1 (39.9, 53.0) 53 (15, 75) 42 falling falling trend -1.7 (-2.4, -1.1)
Kemper County Rural No 36.9 (23.9, 55.9) 77 (9, 80) 5 stable stable trend -1.0 (-3.1, 1.1)
Lafayette County Rural No 33.6 (27.1, 41.3) 79 (51, 80) 19 falling falling trend -2.7 (-3.7, -1.7)
Lauderdale County Rural No 40.2 (34.8, 46.3) 69 (37, 79) 41 falling falling trend -4.5 (-6.8, -3.4)
Lawrence County Rural No 57.5 (41.8, 77.7) 11 (1, 77) 9 stable stable trend -0.8 (-2.2, 0.7)
Leake County Rural No 51.7 (40.4, 65.4) 31 (2, 77) 15 falling falling trend -3.9 (-13.2, -1.2)
Lee County Rural No 54.9 (48.5, 62.0) 17 (4, 53) 54 falling falling trend -4.3 (-7.6, -2.5)
Leflore County Rural No 58.7 (47.2, 72.1) 10 (1, 67) 19 stable stable trend -0.1 (-1.4, 1.2)
Lincoln County Rural No 53.7 (44.5, 64.4) 23 (2, 70) 25 falling falling trend -1.1 (-2.0, -0.1)
Lowndes County Rural No 43.9 (37.4, 51.4) 58 (21, 77) 33 falling falling trend -18.9 (-27.5, -10.6)
Marion County Rural No 48.1 (37.9, 60.5) 44 (4, 78) 16 falling falling trend -2.5 (-4.7, -1.4)
Monroe County Rural No 47.4 (39.2, 57.0) 46 (9, 76) 24 falling falling trend -1.1 (-2.0, -0.1)
Montgomery County Rural No 39.6 (26.6, 57.9) 72 (4, 80) 6 falling falling trend -2.0 (-4.2, -0.2)
Neshoba County Rural No 44.2 (34.8, 55.5) 57 (8, 80) 16 falling falling trend -2.1 (-5.0, -0.4)
Newton County Rural No 41.9 (31.8, 54.6) 65 (8, 80) 12 falling falling trend -2.6 (-10.2, -1.5)
Noxubee County Rural No 38.4 (24.5, 57.8) 74 (6, 80) 5 stable stable trend -1.3 (-2.8, 0.2)
Oktibbeha County Rural No 32.6 (25.6, 41.1) 80 (50, 80) 15 falling falling trend -1.5 (-2.6, -0.3)
Panola County Rural No 57.4 (47.6, 68.7) 13 (1, 61) 25 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.4, 0.1)
Pearl River County Rural No 48.2 (41.6, 55.7) 42 (11, 71) 39 falling falling trend -3.8 (-11.9, -2.0)
Pike County Rural No 43.0 (35.2, 52.0) 60 (17, 79) 23 stable stable trend -1.0 (-2.0, 0.0)
Pontotoc County Rural No 48.2 (38.4, 59.7) 43 (5, 77) 17 falling falling trend -1.2 (-2.3, -0.1)
Prentiss County Rural No 49.0 (39.1, 61.0) 38 (4, 77) 17 stable stable trend -0.6 (-1.6, 0.5)
Quitman County Rural No 55.0 (34.5, 84.4) 16 (1, 80) 5
*
*
Smith County Rural No 48.5 (35.9, 64.6) 41 (2, 80) 10 falling falling trend -5.6 (-11.7, -3.1)
Sunflower County Rural No 48.8 (38.0, 61.8) 40 (4, 79) 15 falling falling trend -16.9 (-30.2, -1.4)
Tallahatchie County Rural No 64.2 (47.8, 84.8) 3 (1, 72) 11 rising rising trend 1.3 (0.1, 2.6)
Tippah County Rural No 46.9 (36.3, 59.9) 48 (4, 79) 14 stable stable trend -20.3 (-34.5, 0.7)
Tishomingo County Rural No 60.6 (48.3, 75.4) 8 (1, 65) 17 stable stable trend -0.8 (-1.7, 0.2)
Union County Rural No 54.0 (43.6, 66.2) 21 (2, 71) 19 stable stable trend -0.6 (-1.4, 0.2)
Walthall County Rural No 41.9 (30.4, 57.1) 64 (7, 80) 9 stable stable trend -0.8 (-1.9, 0.5)
Warren County Rural No 51.2 (43.3, 60.2) 33 (4, 69) 32 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.7, 0.3)
Washington County Rural No 57.4 (48.8, 67.1) 12 (2, 57) 34 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.5, -0.4)
Wayne County Rural No 43.6 (32.9, 56.9) 59 (6, 80) 12 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.8, 0.4)
Webster County Rural No 40.0 (26.6, 58.7) 71 (4, 80) 6 stable stable trend -0.4 (-2.3, 1.6)
Wilkinson County Rural No 52.3 (35.0, 76.0) 28 (1, 80) 6 stable stable trend -0.7 (-2.6, 1.3)
Winston County Rural No 46.2 (35.4, 59.6) 51 (4, 79) 13 stable stable trend -0.7 (-2.0, 0.7)
Yalobusha County Rural No 59.4 (44.7, 78.1) 9 (1, 74) 11 falling falling trend -2.3 (-10.6, -0.4)
Benton County Urban No 39.2 (23.3, 62.6) 73 (3, 80) 4 falling falling trend -4.5 (-11.2, -2.5)
Copiah County Urban No 49.4 (39.6, 61.0) 37 (4, 77) 19 falling falling trend -1.1 (-2.1, -0.2)
DeSoto County Urban No 52.2 (47.6, 57.1) 29 (10, 54) 99 falling falling trend -1.5 (-2.0, -0.8)
Forrest County Urban No 56.5 (49.3, 64.4) 14 (3, 54) 46 falling falling trend -1.3 (-1.9, -0.7)
Hancock County Urban No 46.2 (39.2, 54.2) 50 (14, 76) 34 falling falling trend -1.6 (-2.4, -0.8)
Harrison County Urban No 50.0 (46.1, 54.1) 36 (15, 57) 128 falling falling trend -2.8 (-3.7, -2.2)
Hinds County Urban No 41.5 (38.0, 45.1) 67 (43, 76) 113 stable stable trend -1.2 (-1.9, 0.7)
Holmes County Urban No 51.6 (38.4, 68.0) 32 (1, 79) 11 falling falling trend -2.6 (-15.1, -0.4)
Jackson County Urban No 45.4 (41.1, 50.2) 55 (25, 72) 83 falling falling trend -2.3 (-7.7, -1.7)
Lamar County Urban No 38.2 (32.0, 45.4) 75 (37, 80) 27 stable stable trend 1.0 (-2.8, 10.8)
Madison County Urban No 42.8 (37.5, 48.5) 61 (29, 77) 51 falling falling trend -8.3 (-10.2, -7.3)
Marshall County Urban No 62.5 (52.5, 74.0) 4 (1, 48) 30 stable stable trend -0.9 (-1.9, 0.1)
Perry County Urban No 61.6 (45.5, 82.2) 5 (1, 75) 10 stable stable trend -0.3 (-2.0, 1.6)
Rankin County Urban No 37.8 (34.0, 41.9) 76 (53, 79) 73 falling falling trend -1.4 (-1.8, -0.9)
Scott County Urban No 47.5 (37.7, 59.4) 45 (4, 79) 16 stable stable trend -0.2 (-1.5, 1.2)
Simpson County Urban No 47.0 (37.6, 58.4) 47 (6, 78) 18 falling falling trend -1.6 (-2.4, -0.7)
Stone County Urban No 53.8 (40.3, 70.5) 22 (1, 78) 12 falling falling trend -1.8 (-3.2, -0.2)
Tate County Urban No 61.2 (50.0, 74.3) 6 (1, 55) 22 stable stable trend -0.6 (-1.7, 0.7)
Tunica County Urban No 61.1 (41.4, 87.1) 7 (1, 79) 7 falling falling trend -1.6 (-3.0, -0.1)
Yazoo County Urban No 74.8 (61.2, 90.6) 1 (1, 26) 22 stable stable trend 0.1 (-0.9, 1.2)
Issaquena County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Sharkey County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 12/11/2024 2:22 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.

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