Return to Home Mortality > Table

Death Rates Table

Data Options

Death Rate Report for Oklahoma by County

Lung & Bronchus, 2014-2018

All Races (includes Hispanic), Both Sexes, 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 *** 50.0 (49.1, 50.9) N/A 2,323 falling falling trend -2.5 (-3.1, -2.0)
United States *** 38.5 (38.4, 38.6) N/A 149,208 falling falling trend -5.0 (-5.4, -4.5)
Nowata County *** 76.1 (57.5, 99.5) 1 (1, 50) 12 stable stable trend 0.0 (-1.6, 1.5)
Love County *** 73.2 (54.2, 97.4) 2 (1, 55) 10 stable stable trend 0.1 (-1.1, 1.4)
Ottawa County *** 69.7 (58.9, 82.0) 3 (1, 35) 30 stable stable trend -7.9 (-27.4, 16.7)
Kiowa County *** 68.4 (50.3, 92.0) 4 (1, 64) 10 stable stable trend 1.1 (-0.3, 2.6)
Marshall County *** 67.2 (53.7, 83.7) 5 (1, 57) 18 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.7, 0.6)
Mayes County *** 67.1 (57.7, 77.7) 6 (1, 38) 38 stable stable trend -0.9 (-1.8, 0.0)
Pittsburg County *** 66.9 (58.2, 76.7) 7 (1, 37) 44 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.1, 0.2)
Jefferson County *** 65.4 (43.9, 95.4) 8 (1, 68) 6 stable stable trend 0.7 (-1.5, 2.9)
Atoka County *** 64.2 (49.6, 82.3) 9 (1, 60) 13 stable stable trend -0.6 (-1.9, 0.8)
Craig County *** 63.3 (49.0, 81.2) 10 (1, 62) 13 stable stable trend -0.3 (-1.4, 0.8)
McCurtain County *** 63.1 (53.1, 74.6) 11 (1, 50) 29 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.6, -0.2)
Sequoyah County *** 62.5 (53.6, 72.6) 12 (1, 46) 36 falling falling trend -1.1 (-2.1, -0.1)
Okmulgee County *** 62.0 (52.9, 72.4) 13 (2, 50) 33 stable stable trend -11.1 (-23.6, 3.5)
Le Flore County *** 61.5 (53.2, 70.7) 14 (2, 49) 41 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.5, 0.1)
Greer County *** 61.2 (39.0, 92.5) 15 (1, 69) 5 stable stable trend 0.2 (-1.6, 2.1)
Muskogee County *** 61.0 (53.9, 68.8) 16 (3, 45) 55 stable stable trend -8.5 (-17.7, 1.7)
Hughes County *** 60.9 (46.1, 79.4) 17 (1, 65) 12 stable stable trend -0.1 (-1.1, 1.0)
Garvin County *** 60.8 (49.9, 73.6) 18 (1, 57) 23 stable stable trend 0.2 (-0.9, 1.3)
Kay County *** 60.2 (51.9, 69.6) 19 (2, 52) 38 stable stable trend -0.1 (-0.8, 0.6)
Custer County *** 60.0 (48.2, 73.8) 20 (1, 62) 18 stable stable trend -0.3 (-1.4, 0.7)
Cotton County *** 59.7 (38.9, 89.4) 21 (1, 69) 5 stable stable trend 0.9 (-0.8, 2.6)
Okfuskee County *** 59.5 (43.9, 79.4) 22 (1, 67) 10 stable stable trend 0.4 (-0.9, 1.7)
Choctaw County *** 59.4 (45.3, 76.9) 23 (1, 65) 13 falling falling trend -4.6 (-8.5, -0.6)
Creek County *** 59.0 (52.2, 66.4) 24 (4, 47) 57 falling falling trend -0.8 (-1.5, -0.1)
Pottawatomie County *** 58.4 (51.5, 66.1) 25 (5, 50) 52 falling falling trend -0.7 (-1.4, -0.1)
McIntosh County *** 57.8 (46.7, 71.3) 26 (2, 62) 20 stable stable trend -0.2 (-1.5, 1.2)
Pushmataha County *** 57.5 (43.0, 76.4) 27 (1, 67) 11 falling falling trend -1.6 (-3.1, -0.1)
Johnston County *** 57.1 (41.7, 77.1) 28 (1, 67) 9 falling falling trend -2.3 (-3.5, -1.0)
Carter County *** 56.9 (48.7, 66.1) 29 (4, 57) 35 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.8, -0.3)
Pawnee County *** 55.1 (42.6, 70.7) 30 (2, 66) 13 stable stable trend -21.0 (-45.0, 13.7)
Lincoln County *** 55.1 (45.8, 65.8) 31 (4, 62) 26 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.2, 0.4)
Cherokee County *** 54.7 (46.5, 63.9) 32 (7, 60) 33 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.5, 0.6)
Jackson County *** 54.4 (42.9, 68.2) 33 (2, 66) 16 stable stable trend -0.1 (-1.1, 1.0)
Pontotoc County *** 54.0 (45.0, 64.4) 34 (6, 64) 26 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.8, -0.1)
Adair County *** 53.9 (42.2, 68.0) 35 (3, 66) 15 falling falling trend -1.7 (-2.6, -0.7)
Haskell County *** 53.3 (39.0, 71.7) 36 (1, 68) 10 stable stable trend -1.2 (-2.7, 0.2)
Seminole County *** 52.2 (41.7, 64.9) 37 (5, 66) 17 stable stable trend -0.9 (-2.0, 0.3)
Bryan County *** 52.0 (44.2, 60.9) 38 (10, 63) 32 stable stable trend -0.9 (-1.9, 0.0)
Stephens County *** 51.9 (44.0, 61.1) 39 (9, 64) 32 falling falling trend -2.8 (-4.2, -1.4)
Coal County *** 51.6 (31.7, 81.1) 40 (1, 69) 4 stable stable trend -0.1 (-1.5, 1.4)
Grady County *** 51.4 (43.9, 59.9) 41 (12, 64) 34 falling falling trend -2.5 (-3.7, -1.3)
Caddo County *** 51.3 (41.4, 63.0) 42 (5, 67) 19 stable stable trend 0.1 (-1.1, 1.3)
McClain County *** 51.1 (42.1, 61.7) 43 (8, 66) 23 falling falling trend -1.4 (-2.6, -0.2)
Woods County *** 50.6 (33.5, 74.1) 44 (1, 69) 6
*
*
Logan County *** 49.8 (41.6, 59.3) 45 (10, 66) 27 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.7, -0.4)
Washington County *** 49.7 (42.7, 57.7) 46 (15, 65) 37 stable stable trend -0.2 (-0.9, 0.5)
Murray County *** 49.3 (35.8, 66.6) 47 (3, 69) 9 falling falling trend -2.1 (-3.6, -0.6)
Comanche County *** 49.1 (43.5, 55.1) 48 (22, 63) 58 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.7, -0.3)
Osage County *** 49.0 (41.6, 57.3) 49 (15, 65) 34 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.9, -0.4)
Delaware County *** 47.9 (40.8, 56.0) 50 (18, 66) 36 falling falling trend -2.0 (-2.9, -1.1)
Oklahoma County *** 47.5 (45.4, 49.7) 51 (38, 58) 386 falling falling trend -1.5 (-1.7, -1.2)
Garfield County *** 47.1 (40.3, 54.7) 52 (23, 67) 35 stable stable trend -0.6 (-1.4, 0.2)
Wagoner County *** 46.7 (40.6, 53.5) 53 (25, 66) 44 falling falling trend -1.6 (-2.5, -0.8)
Kingfisher County *** 46.1 (33.2, 62.5) 54 (5, 69) 9 stable stable trend 0.1 (-1.5, 1.7)
Beckham County *** 45.7 (34.5, 59.5) 55 (9, 69) 12 falling falling trend -1.5 (-2.6, -0.3)
Latimer County *** 45.7 (32.4, 63.7) 56 (6, 69) 8 falling falling trend -2.8 (-4.3, -1.3)
Rogers County *** 44.4 (39.0, 50.4) 57 (31, 67) 50 falling falling trend -1.8 (-2.5, -1.0)
Tulsa County *** 44.0 (41.8, 46.3) 58 (46, 64) 308 falling falling trend -2.8 (-3.3, -2.3)
Tillman County *** 43.6 (27.8, 66.4) 59 (3, 69) 5 stable stable trend -0.7 (-3.2, 1.8)
Washita County *** 42.0 (28.8, 59.8) 60 (9, 69) 7 stable stable trend 0.4 (-1.1, 2.0)
Cleveland County *** 41.8 (38.3, 45.4) 61 (47, 67) 114 falling falling trend -1.3 (-1.9, -0.7)
Canadian County *** 41.7 (37.0, 46.9) 62 (42, 68) 58 falling falling trend -1.6 (-2.2, -1.0)
Payne County *** 41.6 (35.3, 48.9) 63 (35, 69) 31 stable stable trend -0.8 (-1.6, 0.0)
Alfalfa County *** 39.9 (23.6, 65.2) 64 (4, 69) 4 stable stable trend 0.5 (-1.6, 2.6)
Woodward County *** 39.0 (28.6, 52.0) 65 (24, 69) 9 stable stable trend -1.3 (-3.0, 0.4)
Blaine County *** 38.2 (25.1, 56.9) 66 (14, 69) 5 stable stable trend -0.6 (-2.3, 1.0)
Noble County *** 35.2 (23.5, 51.4) 67 (25, 69) 6 stable stable trend -1.2 (-2.6, 0.3)
Major County *** 34.8 (21.4, 55.0) 68 (16, 69) 4 stable stable trend 0.7 (-1.6, 3.0)
Texas County *** 33.0 (22.5, 46.6) 69 (37, 69) 7 falling falling trend -2.2 (-3.9, -0.4)
Beaver County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Cimarron County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Dewey County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Ellis County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Grant County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Harmon County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Harper County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Roger Mills County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 04/14/2021 12:54 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 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 1969-2017 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