Return to Home Mortality > Table

Death Rates Table

Data Options

Death Rate Report for Texas by County

All Cancer Sites, 2018-2022

All Races (includes Hispanic), Male, All Ages

Sorted by Rate

County
 sort alphabetically by name ascending
2023 Rural-Urban Continuum Codes Φ
 sort by rural urban descending
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
Texas N/A No 172.0 (170.9, 173.0) N/A 22,472 falling falling trend -1.6 (-1.8, -1.1)
United States N/A No 173.2 (173.0, 173.5) N/A 317,428 falling falling trend -1.8 (-1.8, -1.8)
Presidio County Rural Yes 95.4 (61.5, 145.3) 228 (182, 228) 5
*
*
Concho County Rural Yes 110.0 (62.7, 188.7) 227 (74, 228) 3
*
*
Ochiltree County Rural Yes 115.0 (74.3, 169.6) 226 (96, 228) 5
*
*
Brewster County Rural No 126.4 (91.9, 171.8) 225 (99, 228) 10 falling falling trend -1.8 (-3.3, -0.3)
Archer County Urban No 130.5 (93.0, 180.3) 224 (74, 228) 8 falling falling trend -1.7 (-3.0, -0.4)
Dallam County Rural No 131.6 (77.7, 206.2) 223 (28, 228) 4 stable stable trend -1.9 (-4.2, 0.2)
Hidalgo County Urban No 134.1 (128.6, 139.7) 222 (206, 225) 460 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.2, -0.7)
Donley County Rural No 134.6 (79.3, 223.1) 221 (18, 228) 4 stable stable trend -0.7 (-2.8, 1.2)
Fort Bend County Urban No 135.7 (129.7, 141.9) 220 (202, 225) 452 falling falling trend -2.3 (-2.7, -1.8)
Collin County Urban No 138.4 (133.1, 143.9) 219 (200, 224) 570 falling falling trend -2.3 (-2.5, -2.0)
Denton County Urban No 139.3 (133.3, 145.4) 218 (199, 223) 481 falling falling trend -2.3 (-2.5, -2.0)
Castro County Rural No 140.3 (93.7, 202.6) 217 (41, 228) 6 falling falling trend -2.9 (-4.7, -1.2)
Travis County Urban No 140.9 (135.9, 146.2) 216 (198, 222) 672 falling falling trend -2.3 (-2.4, -2.1)
Williamson County Urban No 142.8 (136.1, 149.7) 215 (193, 222) 372 falling falling trend -2.0 (-2.4, -1.6)
Cameron County Urban No 143.7 (136.2, 151.5) 214 (191, 222) 280 stable stable trend 4.5 (-1.2, 7.7)
Deaf Smith County Rural No 146.7 (111.8, 188.8) 213 (87, 228) 12 stable stable trend -0.8 (-2.1, 0.6)
Gillespie County Rural No 147.8 (126.8, 172.2) 212 (133, 226) 39 falling falling trend -1.4 (-2.1, -0.7)
Parmer County Rural No 147.8 (103.2, 205.0) 211 (24, 228) 7 stable stable trend -1.4 (-2.9, 0.2)
Pecos County Rural No 150.0 (113.4, 194.4) 210 (54, 228) 12 falling falling trend -1.6 (-2.6, -0.6)
Ward County Rural No 150.7 (105.9, 207.4) 209 (28, 228) 8 falling falling trend -1.5 (-2.7, -0.4)
Carson County Urban No 150.7 (98.8, 222.4) 208 (15, 228) 6
*
*
Live Oak County Rural No 151.2 (115.8, 195.1) 207 (63, 228) 13 falling falling trend -1.8 (-3.2, -0.4)
El Paso County Urban No 152.6 (146.9, 158.5) 206 (181, 213) 556 falling falling trend -1.6 (-4.9, -0.7)
Moore County Rural No 154.4 (120.2, 194.8) 205 (58, 227) 15 falling falling trend -1.8 (-3.0, -0.5)
Bailey County Rural No 155.3 (103.5, 224.5) 204 (14, 228) 6
*
*
Washington County Rural No 155.6 (134.3, 179.7) 203 (100, 225) 41 falling falling trend -1.9 (-2.6, -1.2)
Andrews County Rural No 155.7 (114.5, 205.7) 202 (31, 228) 11 falling falling trend -2.0 (-3.3, -0.8)
Brooks County Rural No 156.1 (103.3, 226.3) 201 (14, 228) 6 stable stable trend -1.1 (-2.5, 0.1)
Fayette County Rural No 157.3 (133.0, 185.6) 200 (94, 226) 32 falling falling trend -1.8 (-2.3, -1.2)
Brazos County Urban No 158.2 (145.4, 171.9) 199 (142, 218) 118 falling falling trend -2.1 (-2.4, -1.8)
Kendall County Urban No 158.5 (138.2, 181.2) 198 (113, 224) 46 falling falling trend -1.8 (-2.5, -0.9)
Rockwall County Urban No 159.2 (142.4, 177.4) 197 (126, 222) 74 falling falling trend -1.8 (-2.4, -0.9)
Harris County Urban No 159.8 (157.1, 162.6) 196 (176, 203) 2,929 falling falling trend -2.3 (-3.5, -2.2)
Hutchinson County Rural No 161.2 (131.1, 196.6) 195 (60, 226) 21 falling falling trend -1.4 (-2.3, -0.5)
Bastrop County Urban No 162.3 (146.7, 179.2) 194 (123, 219) 89 falling falling trend -5.2 (-13.6, -2.0)
Somervell County Rural No 162.4 (120.2, 216.4) 193 (18, 228) 11 falling falling trend -2.3 (-3.4, -1.1)
Starr County Rural No 164.1 (142.0, 188.3) 192 (82, 224) 41 stable stable trend 0.1 (-0.6, 0.9)
Shackelford County Rural No 164.3 (95.7, 269.0) 191 (3, 228) 4 falling falling trend -3.3 (-5.8, -1.3)
Guadalupe County Urban No 164.4 (152.2, 177.4) 190 (134, 209) 141 falling falling trend -1.6 (-2.0, -1.1)
Montgomery County Urban No 165.0 (158.1, 172.1) 189 (151, 203) 484 falling falling trend -2.3 (-2.5, -1.9)
Crosby County Urban No 165.1 (107.6, 244.4) 188 (11, 228) 5 stable stable trend -0.8 (-2.3, 0.6)
Floyd County Rural No 165.5 (110.1, 241.3) 187 (12, 228) 6 falling falling trend -1.6 (-3.4, -0.1)
Midland County Urban No 167.1 (152.6, 182.6) 186 (113, 213) 107 falling falling trend -1.5 (-2.0, -1.0)
Medina County Urban No 167.2 (146.7, 189.7) 185 (93, 221) 51 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.9, -0.5)
Nueces County Urban No 167.5 (159.0, 176.4) 184 (139, 201) 305 falling falling trend -1.8 (-2.0, -1.5)
Webb County Urban No 167.5 (155.4, 180.3) 183 (126, 207) 153 falling falling trend -0.7 (-1.0, -0.2)
Hays County Urban No 167.8 (155.1, 181.1) 182 (115, 210) 153 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.4, 2.1)
Comanche County Rural No 167.9 (133.4, 209.9) 181 (32, 226) 18 falling falling trend -1.6 (-2.4, -0.8)
Gray County Rural No 169.4 (138.5, 205.3) 180 (46, 225) 21 falling falling trend -1.2 (-2.2, -0.3)
Winkler County Rural No 169.5 (114.8, 241.1) 179 (8, 228) 7 stable stable trend -0.2 (-2.3, 1.8)
Comal County Urban No 171.0 (159.2, 183.4) 178 (118, 204) 171 falling falling trend -1.6 (-2.0, -1.1)
Willacy County Rural No 171.2 (136.6, 211.7) 177 (36, 225) 17 stable stable trend -0.8 (-2.0, 0.5)
Bexar County Urban No 171.3 (167.2, 175.4) 176 (146, 188) 1,433 falling falling trend -1.6 (-1.7, -1.5)
Val Verde County Rural No 172.5 (149.1, 198.4) 175 (55, 220) 39 falling falling trend -1.8 (-2.4, -1.1)
Llano County Rural No 172.9 (147.0, 203.5) 174 (55, 221) 41 falling falling trend -2.0 (-2.7, -1.2)
Dallas County Urban No 173.6 (169.8, 177.5) 173 (141, 184) 1,755 falling falling trend -2.0 (-2.1, -1.8)
Waller County Urban No 174.0 (150.3, 200.3) 172 (50, 218) 42 falling falling trend -1.8 (-2.5, -1.1)
Schleicher County Rural No 174.0 (96.9, 297.0) 171 (1, 228) 3 stable stable trend 1.2 (-1.1, 3.9)
Austin County Urban No 175.0 (149.7, 203.7) 170 (62, 217) 37 falling falling trend -1.6 (-2.4, -0.8)
Tarrant County Urban No 175.6 (171.4, 179.8) 169 (137, 181) 1,505 falling falling trend -1.8 (-2.0, -1.6)
Maverick County Urban No 176.0 (152.2, 202.3) 168 (60, 217) 40 stable stable trend -0.3 (-1.0, 0.4)
Hartley County Rural No 176.6 (113.3, 261.8) 167 (5, 228) 5
*
*
Tom Green County Urban No 176.7 (162.2, 192.2) 166 (93, 204) 113 falling falling trend -1.3 (-1.7, -0.9)
Frio County Rural No 177.2 (137.8, 223.9) 165 (19, 226) 15 falling falling trend -1.4 (-2.7, -0.1)
Walker County Rural No 177.3 (158.1, 198.2) 164 (72, 208) 69 falling falling trend -2.3 (-5.2, -1.6)
Hood County Rural No 177.9 (161.1, 196.3) 163 (83, 205) 89 falling falling trend -2.0 (-2.6, -1.4)
Erath County Rural No 178.2 (152.6, 206.7) 162 (44, 218) 37 falling falling trend -1.5 (-2.2, -0.8)
Falls County Urban No 178.5 (145.2, 218.0) 161 (33, 224) 21 falling falling trend -2.3 (-3.3, -1.4)
Randall County Urban No 179.0 (164.9, 194.0) 160 (88, 197) 125 falling falling trend -0.7 (-1.1, -0.2)
Burnet County Rural No 179.5 (160.2, 200.8) 159 (65, 207) 68 falling falling trend -1.9 (-2.5, -1.3)
Garza County Urban No 180.1 (114.7, 268.5) 158 (2, 228) 5 falling falling trend -2.2 (-4.0, -0.6)
Hale County Rural No 180.3 (151.7, 212.7) 157 (39, 219) 29 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.9, -0.5)
Callahan County Urban No 181.2 (145.1, 224.7) 156 (20, 224) 18 falling falling trend -1.6 (-2.8, -0.3)
Harrison County Urban No 181.5 (163.1, 201.5) 155 (65, 204) 76 falling falling trend -2.7 (-10.7, -1.8)
Gaines County Rural No 181.8 (138.0, 233.8) 154 (16, 226) 13 stable stable trend -0.8 (-2.1, 0.8)
Grimes County Rural No 181.8 (155.1, 212.0) 153 (39, 218) 36 falling falling trend -2.0 (-2.6, -1.4)
Parker County Urban No 182.5 (169.3, 196.5) 152 (82, 190) 152 falling falling trend -1.7 (-2.0, -1.3)
Kinney County Rural No 183.1 (118.3, 277.9) 151 (2, 228) 5 stable stable trend -0.1 (-1.8, 1.9)
Kerr County Rural No 183.1 (165.5, 202.6) 150 (67, 201) 87 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.4, -0.7)
Marion County Rural No 183.5 (145.4, 231.7) 149 (21, 223) 17 falling falling trend -2.3 (-8.0, -1.2)
Jones County Urban No 183.9 (150.0, 223.3) 148 (20, 223) 21 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.6, 0.1)
Hockley County Urban No 184.0 (149.5, 224.1) 147 (26, 223) 21 falling falling trend -1.5 (-2.5, -0.5)
Wilson County Urban No 184.1 (162.0, 208.3) 146 (50, 208) 54 falling falling trend -1.6 (-2.2, -0.9)
Houston County Rural No 184.8 (157.2, 216.6) 145 (37, 213) 32 falling falling trend -1.8 (-2.5, -1.2)
Smith County Urban No 185.2 (174.6, 196.2) 144 (88, 182) 239 stable stable trend -2.2 (-5.3, 0.2)
Kleberg County Rural No 186.4 (154.9, 222.3) 143 (29, 220) 25 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.8, -0.3)
Cooke County Rural No 186.4 (163.4, 211.9) 142 (41, 203) 50 falling falling trend -1.3 (-1.8, -0.7)
Haskell County Rural No 186.9 (133.1, 259.0) 141 (7, 227) 8 stable stable trend -1.3 (-2.8, 0.1)
Clay County Urban No 187.1 (146.0, 238.2) 140 (17, 224) 15 falling falling trend -1.5 (-2.5, -0.5)
Jefferson County Urban No 187.8 (177.3, 198.8) 139 (86, 173) 254 falling falling trend -1.9 (-2.2, -1.6)
McLennan County Urban No 188.0 (177.4, 199.2) 138 (82, 176) 242 falling falling trend -2.1 (-4.7, -1.6)
Atascosa County Urban No 188.4 (164.7, 214.4) 137 (38, 204) 48 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.6, -0.4)
Bell County Urban No 188.6 (178.5, 199.2) 136 (81, 173) 276 falling falling trend -1.5 (-1.8, -1.1)
Lamb County Rural No 189.0 (148.1, 238.4) 135 (16, 224) 15 stable stable trend -0.6 (-1.8, 0.5)
San Saba County Rural No 189.6 (137.6, 258.7) 134 (8, 227) 9 stable stable trend -0.7 (-2.1, 0.8)
Hemphill County Rural No 190.0 (105.8, 314.0) 133 (1, 228) 3
*
*
Mitchell County Rural No 190.4 (137.4, 256.8) 132 (6, 227) 9 stable stable trend -1.3 (-2.6, 0.0)
Franklin County Rural No 190.9 (148.3, 243.5) 131 (15, 224) 15 stable stable trend -0.9 (-1.8, 0.2)
Yoakum County Rural No 191.0 (126.6, 275.1) 130 (3, 228) 6 stable stable trend 1.6 (-0.1, 3.8)
Angelina County Rural No 191.3 (173.8, 210.1) 129 (50, 185) 92 falling falling trend -1.8 (-2.3, -1.3)
Brazoria County Urban No 191.5 (181.5, 201.9) 128 (78, 165) 307 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.7, 2.3)
Victoria County Urban No 191.9 (174.7, 210.4) 127 (52, 185) 95 falling falling trend -1.4 (-2.0, -0.8)
Lee County Rural No 192.3 (157.5, 233.1) 126 (16, 220) 23 falling falling trend -1.2 (-2.0, -0.3)
Lynn County Urban No 192.6 (131.1, 274.3) 125 (2, 228) 7 stable stable trend -0.2 (-1.8, 1.4)
Calhoun County Rural No 192.7 (159.8, 230.7) 124 (19, 214) 25 falling falling trend -1.4 (-2.3, -0.5)
Goliad County Urban No 192.8 (142.5, 257.8) 123 (5, 225) 11 falling falling trend -1.5 (-2.8, -0.1)
Burleson County Urban No 193.3 (160.6, 231.7) 122 (22, 218) 26 falling falling trend -1.8 (-2.5, -1.0)
Zapata County Rural No 193.5 (147.9, 248.4) 121 (10, 224) 12 stable stable trend 0.3 (-1.3, 2.3)
Johnson County Urban No 193.6 (180.2, 207.7) 120 (61, 171) 170 falling falling trend -1.5 (-1.8, -1.2)
Rains County Rural No 194.3 (157.4, 239.0) 119 (12, 223) 21 falling falling trend -1.6 (-2.6, -0.5)
Hardeman County Rural No 194.4 (124.9, 293.6) 118 (1, 228) 5 stable stable trend -0.7 (-2.5, 1.0)
Ellis County Urban No 194.8 (180.8, 209.4) 117 (59, 174) 164 falling falling trend -1.7 (-2.1, -1.3)
Childress County Rural No 194.9 (135.6, 271.9) 116 (4, 227) 7 falling falling trend -1.6 (-3.1, -0.2)
Navarro County Rural No 194.9 (172.7, 219.3) 115 (35, 202) 59 falling falling trend -1.5 (-2.2, -0.9)
Jackson County Rural No 196.4 (158.9, 240.9) 114 (13, 219) 20 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.8, -0.1)
Colorado County Rural No 196.5 (165.2, 232.6) 113 (19, 211) 29 falling falling trend -1.4 (-2.3, -0.6)
Van Zandt County Rural No 197.0 (177.8, 217.9) 112 (40, 182) 81 falling falling trend -1.6 (-2.2, -1.0)
Bee County Rural No 197.4 (166.0, 232.8) 111 (19, 211) 30 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.9, -0.4)
Wharton County Rural No 198.0 (173.1, 225.5) 110 (23, 194) 48 falling falling trend -1.9 (-2.4, -1.4)
DeWitt County Rural No 198.3 (165.2, 236.6) 109 (13, 212) 26 stable stable trend -0.8 (-1.6, 0.0)
Lavaca County Rural No 198.4 (167.5, 234.2) 108 (14, 205) 31 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.7, -0.5)
Tyler County Rural No 198.7 (167.6, 234.6) 107 (20, 206) 31 falling falling trend -1.4 (-2.2, -0.5)
Taylor County Urban No 199.1 (184.3, 214.7) 106 (48, 163) 139 falling falling trend -1.3 (-1.7, -0.9)
Galveston County Urban No 200.5 (191.0, 210.4) 105 (58, 141) 366 falling falling trend -1.7 (-1.9, -1.4)
Caldwell County Urban No 200.5 (175.3, 228.4) 104 (24, 194) 49 falling falling trend -1.6 (-2.4, -0.7)
Montague County Rural No 200.9 (170.0, 236.7) 103 (17, 203) 31 falling falling trend -2.2 (-11.0, -1.4)
Nacogdoches County Rural No 200.9 (179.0, 224.8) 102 (30, 180) 66 falling falling trend -1.5 (-2.0, -1.1)
Lubbock County Urban No 201.9 (191.0, 213.3) 101 (52, 142) 268 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.3, -0.7)
Hardin County Urban No 202.2 (180.1, 226.2) 100 (26, 184) 66 falling falling trend -2.1 (-5.1, -1.7)
Gregg County Urban No 203.3 (187.5, 220.0) 99 (37, 159) 129 falling falling trend -1.7 (-2.2, -1.3)
Sabine County Rural No 203.5 (162.4, 254.8) 98 (8, 218) 21 falling falling trend -1.3 (-2.1, -0.5)
Panola County Rural No 203.6 (171.6, 240.4) 97 (13, 211) 31 falling falling trend -1.8 (-2.6, -1.0)
Titus County Rural No 203.8 (172.4, 239.2) 96 (16, 202) 31 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.9, -0.6)
Hunt County Urban No 203.8 (187.0, 221.8) 95 (40, 162) 116 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.6, -0.7)
Cherokee County Rural No 204.3 (182.1, 228.6) 94 (27, 181) 64 stable stable trend 1.1 (-2.0, 8.4)
Gonzales County Rural No 204.6 (169.0, 245.8) 93 (12, 210) 24 stable stable trend -1.0 (-2.2, 0.1)
Blanco County Rural No 204.6 (165.3, 252.8) 92 (8, 214) 21 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.9, 0.7)
Orange County Urban No 204.9 (186.5, 224.6) 91 (31, 163) 97 falling falling trend -1.8 (-2.3, -1.3)
Freestone County Rural No 205.3 (171.8, 243.9) 90 (12, 202) 28 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.9, -0.2)
Chambers County Urban No 205.6 (176.0, 238.5) 89 (15, 196) 39 falling falling trend -1.7 (-2.6, -0.7)
Howard County Rural No 205.7 (175.3, 239.8) 88 (16, 196) 36 falling falling trend -1.2 (-2.0, -0.5)
Bandera County Urban No 205.8 (176.8, 239.4) 87 (17, 197) 41 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.7, -0.1)
Upshur County Urban No 206.8 (182.4, 233.8) 86 (22, 182) 55 falling falling trend -1.9 (-2.5, -1.4)
Stephens County Rural No 207.1 (159.3, 265.7) 85 (4, 222) 13 falling falling trend -1.4 (-2.5, -0.4)
Duval County Rural No 207.4 (158.6, 267.1) 84 (5, 223) 12 stable stable trend -0.2 (-1.5, 1.1)
Rusk County Urban No 207.5 (185.3, 231.8) 83 (23, 174) 66 falling falling trend -1.6 (-2.2, -0.9)
Kaufman County Urban No 207.7 (190.2, 226.2) 82 (29, 155) 122 falling falling trend -1.9 (-2.2, -1.5)
Wise County Urban No 208.2 (187.1, 231.1) 81 (26, 167) 79 stable stable trend -0.9 (-1.6, 0.0)
Collingsworth County Rural No 208.3 (117.5, 345.4) 80 (1, 228) 3
*
*
Dawson County Rural No 208.6 (158.9, 268.4) 79 (4, 223) 12 stable stable trend -0.3 (-1.5, 0.9)
Limestone County Rural No 208.9 (176.8, 245.7) 78 (12, 206) 32 falling falling trend -1.6 (-2.3, -0.8)
Hopkins County Rural No 209.6 (183.4, 238.8) 77 (17, 188) 48 falling falling trend -1.6 (-2.3, -0.8)
Reeves County Rural No 209.6 (158.7, 270.6) 76 (4, 221) 12 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.9, 0.4)
Uvalde County Rural No 210.8 (177.5, 248.7) 75 (12, 196) 29 stable stable trend -1.1 (-2.2, 0.0)
Bowie County Urban No 212.5 (194.8, 231.4) 74 (28, 142) 113 falling falling trend -1.4 (-1.9, -1.0)
Brown County Rural No 213.8 (188.9, 241.3) 73 (17, 166) 56 falling falling trend -1.3 (-1.8, -0.7)
Swisher County Rural No 214.0 (156.3, 286.9) 72 (2, 226) 9 stable stable trend -0.2 (-1.4, 1.1)
Coryell County Urban No 214.5 (190.9, 240.0) 71 (19, 161) 64 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.6, -0.3)
Potter County Urban No 214.5 (197.3, 232.7) 70 (25, 143) 121 falling falling trend -1.5 (-1.9, -1.2)
Fannin County Rural No 215.2 (189.1, 244.2) 69 (15, 179) 51 falling falling trend -1.3 (-1.9, -0.6)
Terry County Rural No 215.3 (165.7, 275.1) 68 (3, 220) 13 stable stable trend -0.9 (-2.2, 0.4)
San Jacinto County Urban No 215.4 (187.7, 246.7) 67 (13, 177) 48 stable stable trend -0.8 (-1.6, 0.1)
Milam County Rural No 215.6 (184.9, 250.4) 66 (12, 188) 37 stable stable trend -0.8 (-1.6, 0.2)
Cochran County Urban No 216.1 (125.4, 351.0) 65 (1, 228) 3 stable stable trend -0.2 (-2.4, 1.8)
Wood County Rural No 216.7 (195.7, 239.9) 64 (22, 144) 86 falling falling trend -1.3 (-1.9, -0.6)
Eastland County Rural No 217.7 (182.7, 258.4) 63 (8, 192) 29 falling falling trend -1.6 (-2.5, -0.7)
Ector County Urban No 218.0 (200.1, 237.0) 62 (22, 137) 123 falling falling trend -1.3 (-1.7, -0.9)
San Patricio County Urban No 218.3 (196.7, 241.7) 61 (19, 148) 79 falling falling trend -1.5 (-2.1, -1.0)
Sutton County Rural No 219.0 (139.8, 331.0) 60 (1, 228) 5 stable stable trend -1.0 (-2.7, 1.0)
Lampasas County Urban No 219.8 (186.4, 258.0) 59 (9, 183) 32 falling falling trend -1.8 (-2.5, -1.0)
Liberty County Urban No 219.9 (199.4, 242.0) 58 (18, 140) 96 falling falling trend -2.7 (-7.9, -1.9)
Refugio County Rural No 220.7 (164.1, 293.2) 57 (2, 223) 11 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.7, 0.8)
Palo Pinto County Rural No 221.0 (191.5, 254.1) 56 (9, 184) 43 falling falling trend -1.3 (-1.9, -0.7)
Grayson County Urban No 221.7 (206.8, 237.4) 55 (23, 111) 177 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.5, -0.8)
Hansford County Rural No 223.0 (147.4, 323.1) 54 (1, 227) 6 stable stable trend -0.6 (-2.2, 1.1)
Crane County Rural No 223.9 (140.2, 337.4) 53 (1, 228) 5 stable stable trend -0.7 (-2.3, 1.0)
Henderson County Rural No 224.7 (207.4, 243.1) 52 (15, 117) 135 falling falling trend -1.3 (-1.8, -0.8)
Aransas County Urban No 224.8 (194.9, 258.8) 51 (9, 155) 47 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.7, -0.2)
Jasper County Rural No 225.1 (197.2, 256.2) 50 (10, 162) 50 falling falling trend -1.5 (-2.2, -0.7)
Wheeler County Rural No 225.2 (160.5, 310.8) 49 (1, 226) 8 stable stable trend -0.3 (-1.9, 1.2)
Bosque County Urban No 225.4 (192.0, 264.0) 48 (7, 169) 35 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.7, -0.3)
Leon County Rural No 226.5 (188.6, 270.7) 47 (7, 190) 28 falling falling trend -1.7 (-2.6, -0.7)
Wichita County Urban No 227.1 (210.5, 244.6) 46 (16, 105) 147 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.5, -0.9)
Mills County Rural No 227.3 (164.0, 313.4) 45 (1, 224) 9 stable stable trend -1.0 (-2.6, 0.7)
Camp County Rural No 227.7 (181.1, 283.4) 44 (4, 204) 18 falling falling trend -1.7 (-2.9, -0.5)
Mason County Rural No 228.1 (160.8, 321.2) 43 (1, 225) 9 falling falling trend -1.7 (-3.0, -0.3)
Cass County Rural No 230.4 (201.4, 262.9) 42 (9, 148) 48 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.5, -0.3)
Kimble County Rural No 230.8 (159.4, 328.4) 41 (1, 226) 8 stable stable trend -0.6 (-1.9, 0.8)
Lamar County Rural No 231.1 (207.0, 257.4) 40 (10, 124) 71 falling falling trend -1.4 (-2.0, -0.9)
Scurry County Rural No 231.7 (186.1, 284.9) 39 (3, 196) 19 falling falling trend -1.5 (-12.4, -0.3)
Jim Wells County Rural No 232.6 (203.8, 264.5) 38 (5, 141) 49 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.4, 0.0)
La Salle County Rural No 232.6 (163.3, 321.1) 37 (1, 225) 7 stable stable trend -1.6 (-3.1, 0.0)
Jack County Rural No 233.3 (177.4, 301.7) 36 (1, 214) 12 falling falling trend -1.3 (-2.5, -0.2)
Coke County Rural No 234.2 (160.9, 338.3) 35 (1, 225) 7 stable stable trend -1.4 (-3.0, 0.2)
Morris County Rural No 237.0 (192.7, 289.7) 34 (3, 187) 21 falling falling trend -1.5 (-2.5, -0.4)
Matagorda County Rural No 237.0 (207.7, 269.3) 33 (6, 135) 51 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.9, -0.3)
Dimmit County Rural No 237.3 (178.8, 309.2) 32 (1, 219) 11 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.6, 0.7)
San Augustine County Rural No 238.0 (189.8, 298.3) 31 (2, 196) 18 stable stable trend -1.1 (-2.5, 0.2)
Fisher County Rural No 239.8 (157.9, 352.8) 30 (1, 226) 6 stable stable trend 24.6 (-0.5, 46.7)
Real County Rural No 239.9 (164.0, 352.5) 29 (1, 227) 7 stable stable trend 4.8 (-2.1, 31.9)
Hill County Rural No 239.9 (213.2, 269.4) 28 (8, 119) 62 stable stable trend 7.4 (-1.0, 12.7)
Wilbarger County Rural No 240.2 (192.5, 296.7) 27 (2, 198) 18 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.8, -0.2)
Martin County Urban No 240.2 (157.3, 350.0) 26 (1, 226) 6
*
*
Shelby County Rural No 242.5 (207.5, 281.9) 25 (4, 137) 36 falling falling trend -1.3 (-2.1, -0.6)
Runnels County Rural No 244.1 (194.1, 304.2) 24 (2, 195) 17 falling falling trend -1.3 (-2.5, -0.3)
McCulloch County Rural No 245.0 (190.7, 312.4) 23 (1, 200) 15 falling falling trend -1.4 (-2.5, -0.3)
Robertson County Urban No 245.0 (204.0, 292.5) 22 (2, 168) 27 falling falling trend -1.3 (-1.9, -0.6)
Edwards County Rural No 246.4 (140.7, 425.4) 21 (1, 228) 3
*
*
Newton County Rural No 247.8 (203.5, 300.4) 20 (2, 167) 24 stable stable trend -0.6 (-6.4, 6.0)
Zavala County Rural No 248.6 (187.0, 323.7) 19 (1, 211) 11 stable stable trend -0.7 (-2.2, 0.8)
Lipscomb County Rural No 249.2 (155.6, 381.0) 18 (1, 227) 5 stable stable trend -1.4 (-3.9, 1.0)
Red River County Rural No 250.5 (205.0, 304.6) 17 (1, 163) 23 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.4, 0.5)
Karnes County Rural No 251.6 (201.1, 310.4) 16 (1, 187) 18 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.5, 0.5)
Coleman County Rural No 251.9 (199.9, 316.4) 15 (1, 182) 18 stable stable trend -0.6 (-1.5, 0.4)
Hamilton County Rural No 253.1 (198.5, 320.1) 14 (1, 192) 17 stable stable trend 0.1 (-0.8, 1.1)
Madison County Rural No 253.4 (201.2, 314.6) 13 (1, 184) 17 stable stable trend -0.8 (-1.8, 0.3)
Young County Rural No 256.6 (216.0, 303.3) 12 (2, 141) 30 stable stable trend 1.5 (-0.2, 7.4)
Hudspeth County Urban No 265.9 (156.1, 421.0) 11 (1, 228) 4
*
*
Trinity County Rural No 266.3 (223.8, 316.2) 10 (1, 118) 32 stable stable trend -0.1 (-1.0, 0.9)
Nolan County Rural No 268.6 (220.8, 324.1) 9 (1, 130) 23 stable stable trend -0.1 (-0.9, 0.6)
Jim Hogg County Rural No 271.5 (182.4, 387.9) 8 (1, 219) 7 stable stable trend -0.6 (-2.4, 1.3)
Baylor County Rural No 275.7 (189.9, 392.1) 7 (1, 219) 7 stable stable trend -0.8 (-2.3, 0.6)
Delta County Rural No 280.8 (209.1, 372.3) 6 (1, 177) 11 stable stable trend -0.2 (-1.4, 1.1)
Knox County Rural No 284.8 (188.0, 416.6) 5 (1, 221) 6 stable stable trend -0.6 (-2.2, 0.9)
Polk County Rural No 306.1 (272.5, 342.6) 4 (1, 29) 87 stable stable trend -0.3 (-1.1, 0.5)
Anderson County Rural No 311.9 (285.2, 340.4) 3 (1, 16) 110 falling falling trend -1.7 (-3.1, -0.9)
Reagan County Rural No 320.2 (189.8, 498.6) 2 (1, 225) 4
*
*
Crockett County Rural No 330.1 (216.3, 483.5) 1 (1, 209) 6
*
*
Armstrong County Urban ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Borden County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Briscoe County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Cottle County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Culberson County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Dickens County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Foard County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Glasscock County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Hall County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Irion County Urban ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Jeff Davis County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Kenedy County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Kent County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
King County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Loving County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
McMullen County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Menard County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Motley County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Oldham County Urban ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Roberts County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Sherman County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Sterling County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Stonewall County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Terrell County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Throckmorton County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Upton County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 10/22/2024 4:03 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.

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