Return to Home Mortality > Table

Death Rates Table

Data Options

Death Rate Report for New Jersey by County

Breast, 2018-2022

All Races (includes Hispanic), Female, All Ages

Sorted by Ruralurban

County
 sort alphabetically by name ascending
2023 Rural-Urban Continuum Codes Φ
 sort by rural urban ascending
Met Healthy People Objective of 15.3?
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
New Jersey N/A No 19.1 (18.7, 19.6) N/A 1,239 falling falling trend -2.3 (-2.4, -2.2)
United States N/A No 19.3 (19.2, 19.4) N/A 42,308 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.3, -1.1)
Atlantic County Urban No 20.5 (17.7, 23.7) 8 (1, 19) 42 falling falling trend -2.1 (-2.7, -1.5)
Bergen County Urban No 17.2 (15.8, 18.7) 19 (11, 21) 122 falling falling trend -2.7 (-3.0, -2.4)
Burlington County Urban No 21.8 (19.6, 24.3) 5 (1, 14) 75 stable stable trend -0.9 (-4.3, 3.7)
Camden County Urban No 20.5 (18.4, 22.8) 9 (2, 17) 74 falling falling trend -2.2 (-2.6, -1.7)
Cape May County Urban No 18.1 (14.0, 23.4) 15 (2, 21) 17 falling falling trend -1.8 (-3.2, -0.5)
Cumberland County Urban No 22.1 (18.0, 26.9) 4 (1, 19) 22 falling falling trend -1.6 (-2.4, -0.9)
Essex County Urban No 18.5 (16.9, 20.2) 14 (7, 20) 98 falling falling trend -2.6 (-3.0, -2.3)
Gloucester County Urban No 23.0 (20.1, 26.2) 3 (1, 13) 47 falling falling trend -1.6 (-2.1, -1.0)
Hudson County Urban No 17.0 (15.2, 19.0) 20 (10, 21) 66 falling falling trend -2.5 (-3.0, -2.1)
Hunterdon County Urban No 19.4 (15.7, 23.9) 12 (1, 21) 20 falling falling trend -1.8 (-2.6, -0.9)
Mercer County Urban No 20.7 (18.2, 23.5) 7 (1, 18) 53 falling falling trend -2.4 (-2.9, -1.9)
Middlesex County Urban No 18.1 (16.6, 19.8) 16 (8, 21) 103 falling falling trend -2.4 (-2.9, -2.0)
Monmouth County Urban No 19.9 (18.1, 21.9) 11 (3, 18) 97 falling falling trend -2.4 (-2.9, -2.0)
Morris County Urban No 17.8 (15.9, 19.9) 18 (8, 21) 69 falling falling trend -2.6 (-3.1, -2.0)
Ocean County Urban No 18.9 (17.2, 20.8) 13 (5, 20) 104 falling falling trend -2.4 (-2.8, -2.0)
Passaic County Urban No 18.1 (16.1, 20.4) 17 (6, 21) 60 falling falling trend -2.1 (-2.7, -1.4)
Salem County Urban No 20.9 (15.2, 28.1) 6 (1, 21) 10 stable stable trend -1.2 (-2.6, 0.1)
Somerset County Urban No 16.1 (13.8, 18.6) 21 (11, 21) 40 falling falling trend -2.8 (-3.4, -2.1)
Sussex County Urban No 24.0 (19.9, 28.8) 2 (1, 14) 26 falling falling trend -1.9 (-2.9, -0.8)
Union County Urban No 20.0 (18.0, 22.2) 10 (3, 19) 75 falling falling trend -2.2 (-2.7, -1.7)
Warren County Urban No 24.1 (19.4, 29.9) 1 (1, 17) 20 stable stable trend 0.3 (-1.3, 9.4)
Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 12/03/2024 9:33 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.


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