Return to Home Mortality > Table

Death Rates Table

Data Options

Death Rate Report for Oklahoma by County

All Cancer Sites, 2018-2022

All Races (includes Hispanic), Male, 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 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 descending
Oklahoma N/A No 209.4 (206.6, 212.2) N/A 4,497 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.6, -1.0)
United States N/A No 173.2 (173.0, 173.5) N/A 317,428 falling falling trend -1.8 (-1.8, -1.8)
Canadian County Urban No 177.1 (163.0, 192.1) 70 (52, 76) 126 falling falling trend -1.3 (-1.7, -0.9)
Cleveland County Urban No 171.6 (161.9, 181.8) 74 (61, 76) 245 falling falling trend -2.8 (-7.4, -1.1)
Comanche County Urban No 214.2 (197.0, 232.4) 47 (22, 65) 120 falling falling trend -1.5 (-6.5, -0.2)
Cotton County Urban No 295.0 (219.4, 390.5) 4 (1, 68) 11 stable stable trend -0.2 (-1.2, 0.8)
Creek County Urban No 230.1 (210.2, 251.5) 31 (11, 60) 103 falling falling trend -0.6 (-1.0, -0.3)
Garfield County Urban No 202.8 (181.9, 225.6) 54 (26, 73) 71 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.2, -0.6)
Grady County Urban No 201.0 (178.5, 225.7) 58 (24, 74) 63 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.7, -0.6)
Lincoln County Urban No 224.8 (197.5, 255.1) 39 (9, 68) 51 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.5, -0.2)
Logan County Urban No 172.2 (151.1, 195.5) 73 (49, 76) 51 falling falling trend -2.3 (-3.2, -1.7)
McClain County Urban No 201.5 (175.3, 230.6) 56 (19, 74) 45 falling falling trend -1.3 (-2.0, -0.3)
Oklahoma County Urban No 206.4 (199.6, 213.3) 53 (39, 62) 762 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.3, -1.0)
Okmulgee County Urban No 242.6 (214.3, 273.8) 21 (5, 60) 55 stable stable trend -0.4 (-0.8, 0.1)
Osage County Urban No 185.5 (164.7, 208.5) 67 (40, 76) 61 falling falling trend -1.3 (-1.8, -0.6)
Pawnee County Urban No 233.2 (191.7, 281.6) 28 (3, 73) 24 stable stable trend -0.6 (-1.4, 0.3)
Rogers County Urban No 197.7 (181.3, 215.4) 60 (34, 72) 111 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.5, -0.6)
Sequoyah County Urban No 264.7 (235.9, 296.2) 10 (2, 40) 65 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.4, -0.3)
Tulsa County Urban No 192.6 (185.7, 199.7) 64 (49, 70) 628 falling falling trend -1.6 (-3.8, -1.4)
Wagoner County Urban No 179.2 (162.4, 197.5) 69 (49, 76) 88 falling falling trend -1.4 (-1.9, -0.7)
Adair County Rural No 217.4 (180.5, 260.1) 45 (7, 75) 26 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.9, -0.6)
Alfalfa County Rural No 200.4 (143.4, 274.7) 59 (3, 76) 8 stable stable trend -0.3 (-1.6, 0.9)
Atoka County Rural No 225.0 (183.0, 274.2) 38 (4, 75) 21 stable stable trend 0.0 (-1.1, 1.1)
Beaver County Rural No 167.4 (113.3, 242.0) 76 (11, 76) 6 falling falling trend -2.1 (-3.7, -0.8)
Beckham County Rural No 229.5 (191.8, 272.4) 32 (5, 73) 27 stable stable trend -0.9 (-1.9, 0.0)
Blaine County Rural No 234.4 (179.7, 301.6) 26 (2, 75) 13 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.4, 0.6)
Bryan County Rural No 226.0 (200.9, 253.6) 35 (10, 65) 61 falling falling trend -1.3 (-2.0, -0.5)
Caddo County Rural No 268.4 (231.1, 309.9) 9 (2, 50) 39 stable stable trend 0.0 (-0.7, 0.7)
Carter County Rural No 232.9 (206.6, 261.5) 29 (7, 63) 61 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.5, -0.3)
Cherokee County Rural No 238.2 (212.5, 266.3) 25 (6, 57) 66 stable stable trend -0.6 (-1.1, 0.1)
Choctaw County Rural No 218.7 (178.6, 266.1) 43 (5, 75) 22 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.5, 0.1)
Coal County Rural No 273.9 (202.4, 365.3) 8 (1, 73) 10 stable stable trend -1.0 (-2.4, 0.5)
Craig County Rural No 201.4 (161.5, 248.8) 57 (9, 76) 19 falling falling trend -1.6 (-2.4, -0.8)
Custer County Rural No 206.4 (173.5, 243.8) 52 (12, 76) 29 stable stable trend -0.3 (-1.1, 0.6)
Delaware County Rural No 190.3 (169.9, 212.9) 65 (35, 75) 68 falling falling trend -1.5 (-2.0, -0.9)
Dewey County Rural No 249.8 (156.3, 375.8) 17 (1, 76) 5 stable stable trend -0.6 (-2.1, 0.6)
Ellis County Rural No 176.7 (109.7, 274.1) 71 (3, 76) 5 falling falling trend -1.5 (-3.1, -0.2)
Garvin County Rural No 262.1 (226.8, 301.5) 12 (2, 52) 41 stable stable trend -0.1 (-0.9, 0.7)
Grant County Rural No 303.6 (221.2, 410.6) 2 (1, 71) 10 stable stable trend 0.3 (-1.7, 2.1)
Greer County Rural No 253.1 (183.3, 342.0) 15 (1, 76) 9 stable stable trend -0.3 (-1.5, 0.8)
Harmon County Rural No 167.6 (93.9, 286.7) 75 (3, 76) 3 stable stable trend -1.1 (-3.7, 1.3)
Harper County Rural No 226.7 (143.4, 344.6) 34 (1, 76) 5
*
*
Haskell County Rural No 225.3 (180.7, 278.8) 36 (3, 75) 19 stable stable trend -1.0 (-2.2, 0.2)
Hughes County Rural No 218.0 (174.8, 269.0) 44 (4, 76) 18 stable stable trend -0.8 (-1.6, 0.1)
Jackson County Rural No 206.5 (172.1, 245.9) 51 (11, 75) 26 stable stable trend -0.2 (-0.9, 0.6)
Jefferson County Rural No 286.6 (209.3, 385.0) 5 (1, 74) 10 stable stable trend -0.1 (-1.3, 1.0)
Johnston County Rural No 223.3 (174.2, 282.7) 41 (3, 76) 15 stable stable trend -0.8 (-1.8, 0.2)
Kay County Rural No 228.1 (203.4, 255.2) 33 (9, 64) 64 falling falling trend -0.6 (-1.0, -0.1)
Kingfisher County Rural No 193.7 (153.4, 241.6) 63 (11, 76) 17 stable stable trend -0.8 (-1.8, 0.2)
Kiowa County Rural No 300.1 (236.8, 376.5) 3 (1, 57) 17 stable stable trend -0.2 (-1.4, 1.0)
Latimer County Rural No 242.6 (194.3, 301.0) 22 (2, 73) 18 falling falling trend -1.2 (-2.4, -0.1)
Le Flore County Rural No 254.8 (228.5, 283.4) 14 (4, 47) 73 falling falling trend -0.8 (-1.2, -0.4)
Love County Rural No 259.0 (207.3, 320.8) 13 (1, 70) 18 stable stable trend -0.2 (-1.1, 0.8)
Major County Rural No 188.7 (137.9, 253.6) 66 (6, 76) 10 stable stable trend 0.5 (-0.9, 2.2)
Marshall County Rural No 244.3 (205.0, 289.9) 20 (3, 67) 29 stable stable trend -0.9 (-1.7, 0.1)
Mayes County Rural No 221.8 (195.6, 250.8) 42 (11, 68) 55 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.8, -0.3)
McCurtain County Rural No 240.4 (209.7, 274.5) 23 (5, 61) 46 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.8, -0.6)
McIntosh County Rural No 245.5 (211.8, 284.2) 18 (3, 62) 41 stable stable trend -0.8 (-1.6, 0.0)
Murray County Rural No 202.1 (164.6, 246.8) 55 (11, 76) 21 falling falling trend -1.8 (-2.7, -1.0)
Muskogee County Rural No 239.5 (217.4, 263.3) 24 (7, 56) 91 falling falling trend -0.8 (-1.3, -0.4)
Noble County Rural No 234.2 (187.6, 290.2) 27 (2, 74) 18 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.9, -0.4)
Nowata County Rural No 286.5 (229.6, 354.4) 6 (1, 58) 18 stable stable trend -0.7 (-2.1, 0.7)
Okfuskee County Rural No 344.9 (286.3, 412.5) 1 (1, 17) 25 stable stable trend 0.4 (-0.4, 1.4)
Ottawa County Rural No 262.6 (229.3, 299.6) 11 (2, 48) 47 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.4, -0.4)
Payne County Rural No 196.0 (175.7, 218.1) 61 (30, 74) 70 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.4, -0.2)
Pittsburg County Rural No 245.5 (220.5, 272.7) 19 (5, 51) 73 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.5, -0.4)
Pontotoc County Rural No 207.7 (181.0, 237.4) 49 (17, 74) 45 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.7, -0.4)
Pottawatomie County Rural No 250.3 (227.9, 274.3) 16 (5, 45) 98 stable stable trend -0.4 (-0.8, 0.1)
Pushmataha County Rural No 232.5 (188.0, 286.1) 30 (3, 74) 20 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.6, 0.6)
Roger Mills County Rural No 207.1 (133.4, 312.4) 50 (1, 76) 5
*
*
Seminole County Rural No 283.3 (244.9, 326.4) 7 (1, 39) 41 stable stable trend 0.2 (-0.3, 0.7)
Stephens County Rural No 225.1 (200.5, 252.2) 37 (11, 65) 64 falling falling trend -1.0 (-5.0, -0.5)
Texas County Rural No 195.4 (155.9, 241.5) 62 (11, 76) 18 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.7, -0.1)
Tillman County Rural No 209.5 (154.8, 279.5) 48 (3, 76) 10 falling falling trend -3.0 (-9.2, -1.5)
Washington County Rural No 223.8 (201.4, 248.3) 40 (12, 63) 76 stable stable trend 0.9 (-0.8, 8.0)
Washita County Rural No 216.8 (168.1, 275.8) 46 (3, 76) 14 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.7, 0.7)
Woods County Rural No 183.9 (135.0, 245.6) 68 (9, 76) 10 stable stable trend -1.1 (-2.5, 0.2)
Woodward County Rural No 173.9 (141.7, 211.3) 72 (31, 76) 21 stable stable trend -0.8 (-1.8, 0.2)
Cimarron County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 12/02/2024 9:09 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.

* 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