Return to Home Mortality > Table

Death Rates Table

Data Options

Death Rate Report for Oklahoma by County

All Cancer Sites, 2015-2019

All Races (includes Hispanic), Male, All Ages

Sorted by Rate
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 ascending
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
Oklahoma *** 214.3 (211.5, 217.2) N/A 4,470 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.2, -1.1)
United States *** 181.4 (181.1, 181.7) N/A 314,987 falling falling trend -2.3 (-2.6, -2.0)
Okfuskee County *** 310.2 (256.2, 372.7) 1 (1, 38) 24 stable stable trend 0.1 (-0.7, 1.0)
Greer County *** 293.1 (219.3, 384.8) 2 (1, 72) 11 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.6, 0.8)
Hughes County *** 291.9 (241.6, 350.0) 3 (1, 47) 24 stable stable trend -0.6 (-1.3, 0.2)
Kiowa County *** 275.7 (215.8, 348.0) 4 (1, 69) 16 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.5, 0.7)
Ottawa County *** 271.4 (238.2, 308.2) 5 (1, 45) 50 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.5, -0.5)
Nowata County *** 260.2 (209.6, 320.7) 6 (1, 71) 19 stable stable trend -1.2 (-2.5, 0.1)
Harmon County *** 258.8 (158.1, 403.6) 7 (1, 77) 4 stable stable trend -0.5 (-2.9, 1.8)
Haskell County *** 257.0 (210.5, 311.7) 8 (1, 69) 22 falling falling trend -1.2 (-2.3, -0.1)
Okmulgee County *** 255.9 (227.3, 287.2) 9 (2, 50) 61 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.0, 0.0)
Seminole County *** 254.5 (218.9, 294.6) 10 (1, 60) 38 stable stable trend -0.1 (-0.6, 0.5)
Pushmataha County *** 253.8 (207.9, 308.5) 11 (1, 70) 22 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.7, 0.9)
Caddo County *** 253.6 (220.0, 291.1) 12 (1, 60) 42 stable stable trend -0.3 (-1.0, 0.5)
Pittsburg County *** 252.1 (226.1, 280.4) 13 (2, 51) 72 stable stable trend -7.3 (-16.3, 2.8)
Jefferson County *** 249.4 (185.0, 331.1) 14 (1, 77) 11 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.7, 0.7)
Garvin County *** 249.0 (215.7, 286.2) 15 (2, 63) 41 stable stable trend -0.3 (-1.1, 0.4)
Choctaw County *** 248.8 (206.3, 298.3) 16 (1, 70) 26 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.3, 0.3)
Craig County *** 248.7 (205.5, 299.0) 17 (1, 68) 24 falling falling trend -1.3 (-2.1, -0.6)
Muskogee County *** 248.3 (226.0, 272.2) 18 (4, 49) 95 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.3, -0.5)
Blaine County *** 245.9 (192.8, 310.3) 19 (1, 74) 15 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.3, 0.6)
Cotton County *** 243.6 (176.5, 329.8) 20 (1, 77) 9 stable stable trend -0.6 (-1.8, 0.6)
Atoka County *** 243.5 (200.2, 294.0) 21 (1, 71) 23 stable stable trend -0.1 (-1.1, 0.9)
Grant County *** 243.3 (166.9, 345.4) 22 (1, 77) 7 stable stable trend -0.2 (-1.9, 1.6)
Creek County *** 242.3 (221.6, 264.5) 23 (6, 52) 105 falling falling trend -0.7 (-1.1, -0.2)
Sequoyah County *** 242.0 (214.9, 271.8) 24 (3, 62) 61 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.8, -0.5)
Kay County *** 240.8 (215.3, 268.6) 25 (4, 60) 67 stable stable trend -0.6 (-1.1, 0.0)
Carter County *** 238.2 (212.1, 266.6) 26 (4, 61) 64 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.5, -0.3)
Le Flore County *** 237.1 (212.3, 264.1) 27 (5, 62) 70 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.5, -0.6)
Mayes County *** 234.5 (207.7, 264.0) 28 (4, 65) 59 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.9, -0.5)
Cherokee County *** 233.4 (207.6, 261.7) 29 (6, 67) 62 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.1, 0.1)
Beckham County *** 232.8 (194.0, 277.0) 30 (3, 73) 26 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.9, -0.2)
Washington County *** 231.0 (208.1, 256.0) 31 (8, 62) 77 stable stable trend 1.9 (-0.1, 3.9)
Pottawatomie County *** 230.7 (209.4, 253.7) 32 (8, 61) 90 falling falling trend -0.7 (-1.1, -0.3)
Murray County *** 230.6 (188.7, 280.0) 33 (2, 75) 22 falling falling trend -1.7 (-2.6, -0.8)
McCurtain County *** 230.2 (200.9, 262.7) 34 (6, 70) 46 falling falling trend -1.5 (-2.1, -0.9)
Love County *** 228.9 (180.2, 287.8) 35 (1, 77) 16 falling falling trend -2.5 (-4.0, -1.0)
Roger Mills County *** 227.5 (151.5, 332.9) 36 (1, 77) 6
*
*
Latimer County *** 226.8 (181.3, 281.7) 37 (2, 76) 18 falling falling trend -1.5 (-2.6, -0.5)
Custer County *** 226.5 (191.8, 265.5) 38 (5, 73) 31 stable stable trend -0.2 (-1.0, 0.6)
Lincoln County *** 226.2 (198.5, 256.9) 39 (6, 70) 50 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.6, -0.1)
McIntosh County *** 224.3 (192.7, 260.6) 40 (6, 73) 38 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.7, -0.1)
Johnston County *** 223.9 (177.9, 279.3) 41 (2, 76) 17 stable stable trend -0.9 (-2.0, 0.3)
Stephens County *** 223.6 (198.9, 250.7) 42 (9, 69) 63 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.1, 0.1)
Pontotoc County *** 223.0 (195.3, 253.8) 43 (7, 71) 47 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.6, -0.2)
McClain County *** 221.3 (192.5, 253.2) 44 (8, 72) 45 falling falling trend -1.2 (-2.0, -0.4)
Texas County *** 220.2 (175.5, 272.1) 45 (2, 76) 18 stable stable trend -0.8 (-1.7, 0.1)
Pawnee County *** 219.8 (180.7, 265.4) 46 (4, 76) 23 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.5, 0.2)
Coal County *** 217.1 (152.9, 301.2) 47 (1, 77) 8 falling falling trend -1.6 (-3.0, -0.2)
Adair County *** 214.8 (179.2, 255.5) 48 (5, 75) 27 falling falling trend -1.5 (-2.2, -0.8)
Grady County *** 214.1 (190.8, 239.6) 49 (13, 72) 66 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.7, -0.7)
Dewey County *** 213.5 (141.3, 310.5) 50 (1, 77) 6 stable stable trend -0.9 (-2.2, 0.4)
Comanche County *** 211.8 (194.4, 230.3) 51 (24, 69) 114 falling falling trend -1.3 (-1.8, -0.9)
Oklahoma County *** 209.5 (202.6, 216.5) 52 (38, 63) 754 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.4, -1.1)
Harper County *** 207.2 (131.3, 313.5) 53 (1, 77) 5
*
*
Delaware County *** 207.1 (185.4, 231.0) 54 (21, 74) 73 falling falling trend -1.6 (-2.1, -1.0)
Alfalfa County *** 206.1 (149.2, 279.5) 55 (2, 77) 9 stable stable trend -0.3 (-1.6, 1.0)
Washita County *** 205.3 (158.2, 262.6) 56 (3, 77) 14 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.7, 0.9)
Garfield County *** 205.2 (183.8, 228.5) 57 (24, 73) 69 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.2, -0.6)
Tulsa County *** 204.7 (197.5, 212.2) 58 (42, 66) 630 falling falling trend -1.3 (-1.5, -1.2)
Jackson County *** 204.6 (170.5, 243.5) 59 (10, 77) 26 stable stable trend -10.4 (-23.6, 5.1)
Major County *** 202.8 (150.3, 269.3) 60 (3, 77) 11 stable stable trend 0.6 (-0.8, 2.0)
Noble County *** 202.0 (158.1, 255.3) 61 (5, 77) 15 falling falling trend -1.5 (-2.3, -0.8)
Tillman County *** 201.5 (149.2, 268.1) 62 (3, 77) 10 stable stable trend 0.7 (-5.7, 7.6)
Cimarron County *** 201.4 (118.3, 334.0) 63 (1, 77) 4
*
*
Ellis County *** 201.3 (129.5, 301.8) 64 (1, 77) 5 falling falling trend -1.8 (-3.4, -0.2)
Bryan County *** 200.1 (176.9, 225.6) 65 (26, 75) 56 falling falling trend -1.7 (-2.4, -1.0)
Marshall County *** 200.1 (165.8, 240.4) 66 (12, 77) 25 falling falling trend -1.5 (-2.4, -0.5)
Rogers County *** 199.5 (182.4, 217.8) 67 (34, 74) 105 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.6, -0.7)
Cleveland County *** 192.3 (181.2, 203.8) 68 (48, 73) 243 falling falling trend -0.8 (-1.2, -0.4)
Canadian County *** 189.3 (173.7, 205.8) 69 (47, 76) 119 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.5, -0.8)
Logan County *** 186.7 (163.5, 212.4) 70 (35, 77) 49 falling falling trend -2.2 (-2.8, -1.5)
Woods County *** 183.2 (135.2, 243.7) 71 (8, 77) 10 stable stable trend -1.2 (-2.6, 0.2)
Osage County *** 180.8 (160.1, 203.6) 72 (46, 77) 59 falling falling trend -1.5 (-2.1, -0.9)
Payne County *** 180.4 (160.7, 201.8) 73 (45, 77) 63 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.6, -0.3)
Kingfisher County *** 177.3 (139.7, 222.1) 74 (24, 77) 16 stable stable trend -1.0 (-2.1, 0.1)
Woodward County *** 172.2 (139.4, 210.5) 75 (31, 77) 20 stable stable trend -0.8 (-1.9, 0.3)
Wagoner County *** 168.7 (151.7, 187.3) 76 (59, 77) 76 falling falling trend -1.5 (-2.2, -0.8)
Beaver County *** 159.1 (105.8, 232.6) 77 (10, 77) 6 falling falling trend -2.8 (-4.2, -1.3)
Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 11/28/2021 3:08 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 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.
‡ 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.

*** No Healthy People 2020 Objective for this cancer.
Healthy People 2020 Objectives provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

* 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.

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