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), 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 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 122.8 (122.0, 123.5) N/A 19,618 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.5, -0.7)
United States N/A No 126.4 (126.2, 126.6) N/A 285,526 falling falling trend -1.3 (-1.4, -1.1)
Aransas County Urban No 137.6 (114.2, 165.3) 109 (12, 208) 30 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.8, -0.4)
Archer County Urban Yes 113.6 (81.5, 157.2) 194 (21, 218) 8
*
*
Atascosa County Urban No 129.6 (111.6, 149.8) 139 (39, 206) 38 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.4, -0.3)
Austin County Urban Yes 119.6 (99.5, 143.0) 182 (52, 214) 27 falling falling trend -1.2 (-2.0, -0.2)
Bandera County Urban Yes 104.8 (85.4, 129.0) 203 (92, 217) 23 falling falling trend -1.5 (-2.6, -0.2)
Bastrop County Urban No 131.1 (117.9, 145.3) 131 (54, 193) 77 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.8, -0.5)
Bell County Urban No 135.4 (127.8, 143.2) 117 (71, 155) 247 falling falling trend -1.3 (-2.3, -0.8)
Bexar County Urban Yes 119.6 (116.7, 122.6) 181 (142, 187) 1,287 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.3, -1.0)
Bosque County Urban No 163.3 (135.3, 196.6) 33 (5, 176) 27 stable stable trend -0.2 (-0.9, 0.5)
Bowie County Urban No 159.1 (145.1, 174.1) 44 (14, 110) 102 falling falling trend -0.7 (-1.2, -0.2)
Brazoria County Urban No 129.1 (121.9, 136.5) 142 (86, 179) 251 falling falling trend -1.3 (-1.7, -0.9)
Brazos County Urban Yes 104.9 (95.8, 114.6) 202 (158, 214) 101 falling falling trend -1.6 (-2.1, -1.0)
Burleson County Urban No 167.2 (136.0, 204.3) 25 (2, 184) 23 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.5, 0.8)
Caldwell County Urban Yes 122.6 (104.9, 142.7) 173 (59, 212) 35 falling falling trend -1.1 (-2.0, -0.1)
Callahan County Urban No 144.5 (113.2, 183.1) 91 (7, 211) 16 stable stable trend -2.2 (-13.5, 0.3)
Cameron County Urban Yes 112.2 (106.2, 118.5) 195 (152, 205) 266 falling falling trend -0.5 (-0.8, -0.1)
Carson County Urban No 148.6 (101.2, 214.6) 80 (2, 217) 7 stable stable trend -0.5 (-2.1, 1.1)
Chambers County Urban No 131.0 (110.4, 154.3) 133 (28, 207) 30 falling falling trend -1.4 (-2.2, -0.4)
Clay County Urban No 125.4 (93.1, 167.8) 156 (11, 217) 11 stable stable trend 0.3 (-1.0, 1.7)
Collin County Urban Yes 102.2 (98.3, 106.1) 209 (186, 213) 544 falling falling trend -1.8 (-2.0, -1.5)
Comal County Urban Yes 119.9 (111.0, 129.5) 180 (104, 199) 139 falling falling trend -0.8 (-1.2, -0.2)
Coryell County Urban No 151.4 (134.4, 169.8) 70 (12, 156) 59 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.1, 0.2)
Crosby County Urban No 123.1 (77.3, 189.5) 170 (4, 218) 5 stable stable trend -0.5 (-2.3, 1.1)
Dallas County Urban No 125.0 (122.3, 127.8) 160 (125, 172) 1,618 falling falling trend -1.5 (-2.0, -1.3)
Denton County Urban Yes 103.9 (99.5, 108.3) 204 (182, 212) 460 falling falling trend -1.9 (-2.1, -1.6)
Ector County Urban No 164.8 (151.3, 179.1) 30 (12, 100) 113 stable stable trend -0.3 (-0.9, 0.3)
El Paso County Urban Yes 114.6 (110.3, 119.1) 191 (155, 197) 547 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.4, -1.0)
Ellis County Urban No 138.0 (128.1, 148.6) 108 (54, 164) 147 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.5, -0.7)
Falls County Urban No 151.6 (122.0, 186.9) 68 (6, 203) 19 stable stable trend -0.3 (-1.3, 0.6)
Fort Bend County Urban Yes 102.5 (98.0, 107.1) 208 (184, 212) 419 falling falling trend -1.5 (-1.7, -1.1)
Galveston County Urban No 129.9 (123.0, 137.0) 138 (89, 174) 279 falling falling trend -2.1 (-5.1, -1.5)
Garza County Urban No 149.7 (90.2, 237.1) 78 (1, 218) 4
*
*
Goliad County Urban Yes 85.4 (56.2, 129.1) 214 (70, 218) 6 falling falling trend -1.8 (-3.5, -0.1)
Grayson County Urban No 143.0 (132.4, 154.3) 94 (42, 157) 142 falling falling trend -0.6 (-1.0, -0.2)
Gregg County Urban No 149.6 (137.6, 162.4) 79 (28, 131) 122 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.3, -0.7)
Guadalupe County Urban No 124.5 (115.0, 134.7) 165 (92, 194) 128 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.2, 3.4)
Hardin County Urban No 128.9 (113.1, 146.4) 144 (52, 204) 50 falling falling trend -1.3 (-2.1, -0.4)
Harris County Urban Yes 120.2 (118.2, 122.3) 179 (147, 182) 2,749 falling falling trend -1.6 (-1.8, -1.5)
Harrison County Urban No 123.2 (109.2, 138.7) 169 (71, 205) 59 falling falling trend -1.7 (-4.2, -1.0)
Hays County Urban Yes 117.1 (108.1, 126.6) 188 (117, 203) 133 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.5, -0.5)
Hidalgo County Urban Yes 100.6 (96.3, 105.0) 212 (188, 214) 424 stable stable trend 0.0 (-0.6, 2.6)
Hockley County Urban No 155.6 (126.0, 190.4) 55 (6, 197) 20 stable stable trend -0.1 (-1.0, 0.8)
Hunt County Urban No 147.0 (133.9, 161.1) 81 (26, 151) 96 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.2, 0.1)
Jefferson County Urban No 128.1 (120.2, 136.4) 147 (90, 184) 206 falling falling trend -1.6 (-3.8, -1.3)
Johnson County Urban No 145.8 (135.6, 156.7) 86 (38, 144) 155 falling falling trend -0.7 (-1.0, -0.3)
Jones County Urban No 155.6 (120.9, 198.0) 54 (3, 211) 16 stable stable trend -0.2 (-1.3, 0.9)
Kaufman County Urban No 150.4 (137.8, 163.8) 75 (24, 135) 110 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.5, -0.5)
Kendall County Urban Yes 103.4 (88.3, 120.6) 206 (130, 217) 37 falling falling trend -2.0 (-2.8, -1.1)
Lampasas County Urban No 158.2 (131.4, 189.7) 46 (6, 184) 26 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.5, 0.6)
Liberty County Urban No 170.2 (153.8, 187.9) 20 (8, 94) 82 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.6, -0.5)
Lubbock County Urban No 131.1 (123.3, 139.2) 130 (83, 177) 220 falling falling trend -0.7 (-1.1, -0.3)
Lynn County Urban No 188.9 (128.6, 269.7) 11 (1, 212) 7 stable stable trend 0.1 (-1.4, 1.5)
Martin County Urban No 207.3 (134.3, 305.8) 4 (1, 214) 5
*
*
Maverick County Urban Yes 109.1 (92.6, 127.8) 199 (88, 216) 31 stable stable trend -0.2 (-1.0, 0.6)
McLennan County Urban No 131.0 (123.1, 139.4) 132 (81, 175) 214 falling falling trend -1.6 (-5.3, -1.2)
Medina County Urban No 125.7 (108.9, 144.6) 155 (57, 208) 42 stable stable trend -0.8 (-1.6, 0.0)
Midland County Urban No 125.1 (114.0, 136.9) 159 (81, 197) 99 falling falling trend -0.8 (-1.3, -0.2)
Montgomery County Urban Yes 120.8 (115.6, 126.1) 178 (127, 189) 423 falling falling trend -1.7 (-3.5, -1.3)
Nueces County Urban Yes 117.0 (110.5, 123.8) 189 (133, 198) 255 falling falling trend -1.5 (-1.8, -1.3)
Orange County Urban No 152.8 (138.2, 168.5) 63 (17, 133) 84 falling falling trend -0.8 (-1.3, -0.4)
Parker County Urban No 145.9 (135.0, 157.6) 85 (36, 140) 136 falling falling trend -0.7 (-1.0, -0.2)
Potter County Urban No 134.8 (122.2, 148.3) 118 (55, 182) 89 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.6, -0.8)
Randall County Urban No 124.5 (114.1, 135.5) 166 (87, 197) 110 falling falling trend -0.8 (-1.2, -0.4)
Robertson County Urban No 136.9 (108.8, 170.9) 113 (11, 211) 18 falling falling trend -1.6 (-3.8, -0.8)
Rockwall County Urban Yes 118.2 (105.8, 131.6) 186 (95, 209) 69 falling falling trend -1.4 (-2.0, -0.4)
Rusk County Urban No 142.6 (124.8, 162.4) 95 (25, 189) 49 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.0, 0.1)
San Jacinto County Urban No 137.3 (114.5, 163.7) 110 (19, 210) 29 stable stable trend -0.6 (-1.5, 0.4)
San Patricio County Urban No 140.6 (124.5, 158.3) 100 (24, 180) 57 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.4, -0.4)
Smith County Urban No 124.8 (117.0, 133.0) 162 (101, 187) 202 falling falling trend -1.5 (-2.0, -1.0)
Tarrant County Urban No 124.8 (121.8, 127.8) 163 (126, 172) 1,372 falling falling trend -1.4 (-2.6, -1.3)
Taylor County Urban No 134.0 (122.9, 145.8) 121 (61, 183) 117 falling falling trend -0.8 (-1.2, -0.4)
Tom Green County Urban No 127.3 (116.0, 139.5) 150 (66, 194) 99 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.4, -0.5)
Travis County Urban Yes 101.9 (98.2, 105.8) 210 (186, 213) 583 falling falling trend -1.9 (-2.1, -1.6)
Upshur County Urban No 155.1 (135.0, 177.6) 57 (11, 162) 46 stable stable trend -0.8 (-1.7, 0.2)
Victoria County Urban No 131.4 (118.2, 145.7) 128 (48, 193) 78 falling falling trend -0.8 (-1.4, -0.2)
Waller County Urban No 139.5 (119.6, 161.7) 105 (22, 197) 37 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.7, -0.6)
Webb County Urban Yes 114.1 (105.6, 123.0) 193 (133, 207) 136 stable stable trend 0.7 (-0.5, 5.4)
Wichita County Urban No 157.5 (145.1, 170.7) 49 (18, 111) 128 falling falling trend -0.7 (-1.1, -0.3)
Williamson County Urban Yes 107.8 (102.8, 113.0) 200 (171, 208) 355 falling falling trend -1.5 (-1.8, -1.2)
Wilson County Urban No 128.8 (111.4, 148.3) 145 (40, 206) 41 stable stable trend -0.2 (-1.0, 0.8)
Wise County Urban No 158.3 (141.4, 176.7) 45 (12, 136) 67 stable stable trend 0.0 (-0.8, 1.0)
Anderson County Rural No 124.8 (107.8, 143.9) 164 (49, 210) 41 falling falling trend -3.1 (-9.2, -2.0)
Andrews County Rural No 164.3 (126.1, 210.0) 31 (2, 210) 13 stable stable trend 0.1 (-0.7, 1.0)
Angelina County Rural No 130.3 (117.1, 144.7) 136 (58, 195) 74 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.5, -0.2)
Bailey County Rural Yes 87.6 (50.4, 142.3) 213 (30, 218) 3 stable stable trend -1.0 (-3.1, 0.9)
Baylor County Rural No 221.1 (149.1, 322.8) 2 (1, 208) 7 stable stable trend 0.6 (-1.3, 2.4)
Bee County Rural No 145.7 (118.2, 177.9) 87 (8, 210) 21 stable stable trend -0.8 (-1.7, 0.1)
Blanco County Rural No 141.3 (109.9, 182.0) 98 (9, 213) 15 stable stable trend -0.6 (-4.8, 0.8)
Brewster County Rural Yes 81.0 (53.5, 120.0) 215 (93, 218) 6 falling falling trend -1.6 (-2.8, -0.4)
Brooks County Rural No 198.1 (141.8, 270.9) 6 (1, 193) 9 stable stable trend 0.8 (-0.8, 2.6)
Brown County Rural No 127.8 (110.0, 148.0) 148 (46, 210) 39 falling falling trend -2.8 (-14.7, -0.8)
Burnet County Rural Yes 119.1 (104.1, 136.0) 184 (71, 212) 51 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.7, -0.7)
Calhoun County Rural No 150.2 (122.2, 183.3) 77 (6, 197) 22 stable stable trend -0.6 (-1.5, 0.4)
Camp County Rural No 140.5 (105.7, 183.9) 101 (7, 215) 12 falling falling trend -1.4 (-2.4, -0.5)
Cass County Rural No 160.8 (138.2, 186.5) 40 (7, 152) 40 stable stable trend -0.3 (-1.0, 0.3)
Castro County Rural No 139.9 (91.6, 205.1) 103 (2, 218) 6 stable stable trend -1.0 (-2.5, 0.4)
Cherokee County Rural No 138.1 (120.7, 157.4) 107 (28, 194) 48 falling falling trend -1.3 (-2.0, -0.6)
Childress County Rural No 162.1 (109.7, 233.6) 37 (1, 215) 7 stable stable trend -1.3 (-6.2, 0.5)
Coke County Rural No 173.0 (109.1, 269.4) 17 (1, 216) 5
*
*
Coleman County Rural No 198.7 (154.0, 256.0) 5 (1, 143) 15 stable stable trend 0.6 (-0.6, 1.9)
Colorado County Rural No 144.9 (119.0, 175.5) 90 (10, 206) 25 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.3, 0.3)
Comanche County Rural Yes 118.0 (88.7, 155.2) 187 (16, 217) 13 stable stable trend -1.0 (-2.2, 0.2)
Cooke County Rural No 150.7 (131.3, 172.6) 73 (15, 177) 46 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.6, 0.2)
Crane County Rural No 131.6 (74.3, 216.2) 127 (1, 218) 3
*
*
Crockett County Rural No 190.9 (116.2, 301.7) 10 (1, 217) 4
*
*
Dallam County Rural No 157.2 (102.3, 230.9) 50 (1, 218) 5 falling falling trend -1.6 (-3.2, -0.2)
Dawson County Rural No 143.5 (106.3, 190.5) 93 (4, 215) 10 stable stable trend -0.3 (-1.7, 1.1)
DeWitt County Rural No 162.6 (133.6, 196.8) 35 (4, 190) 26 stable stable trend 0.0 (-0.8, 0.8)
Deaf Smith County Rural No 150.3 (116.8, 190.5) 76 (5, 211) 14 stable stable trend 0.6 (-0.3, 1.6)
Delta County Rural No 127.3 (78.0, 198.2) 151 (3, 218) 5 stable stable trend -0.4 (-2.6, 1.8)
Dickens County Rural No 188.0 (99.4, 344.5) 12 (1, 218) 3
*
*
Dimmit County Rural Yes 121.4 (83.6, 171.5) 177 (9, 218) 7 stable stable trend 0.0 (-1.6, 1.8)
Donley County Rural No 167.5 (99.9, 270.4) 24 (1, 218) 5 stable stable trend 0.1 (-1.5, 1.6)
Duval County Rural No 153.9 (110.9, 208.8) 62 (2, 214) 9 stable stable trend -0.7 (-2.1, 0.6)
Eastland County Rural No 163.3 (132.5, 199.8) 34 (4, 186) 23 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.7, 0.8)
Erath County Rural No 123.0 (103.9, 144.8) 171 (51, 212) 31 stable stable trend -0.9 (-1.8, 0.0)
Fannin County Rural No 168.9 (146.1, 194.7) 22 (5, 137) 42 stable stable trend -0.3 (-0.9, 0.4)
Fayette County Rural Yes 115.0 (94.7, 139.2) 190 (54, 215) 27 stable stable trend -0.9 (-2.1, 0.3)
Fisher County Rural No 170.8 (106.8, 264.9) 19 (1, 218) 6 stable stable trend -0.2 (-2.1, 1.5)
Floyd County Rural No 165.2 (110.3, 240.2) 28 (1, 216) 6 stable stable trend 0.6 (-1.4, 2.4)
Franklin County Rural No 160.8 (120.9, 210.8) 41 (1, 210) 12 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.7, 0.9)
Freestone County Rural No 176.7 (145.5, 213.3) 14 (2, 158) 25 stable stable trend 0.4 (-0.5, 1.3)
Frio County Rural No 159.8 (122.9, 204.4) 42 (2, 207) 14 stable stable trend 0.7 (-0.6, 2.3)
Gaines County Rural No 127.5 (93.8, 168.6) 149 (6, 216) 10 stable stable trend -1.0 (-2.2, 0.2)
Gillespie County Rural Yes 103.8 (85.7, 125.5) 205 (103, 217) 30 falling falling trend -1.4 (-2.2, -0.6)
Gonzales County Rural No 133.5 (106.3, 166.0) 124 (16, 214) 17 falling falling trend -1.1 (-2.0, -0.2)
Gray County Rural No 152.0 (123.2, 186.1) 66 (6, 193) 21 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.6, 0.2)
Grimes County Rural No 137.1 (114.0, 163.9) 112 (19, 208) 27 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.5, 0.2)
Hale County Rural No 125.9 (104.0, 151.3) 154 (35, 214) 24 stable stable trend -7.0 (-19.4, 0.5)
Hall County Rural No 141.0 (83.2, 235.9) 99 (1, 218) 4 stable stable trend 0.6 (-1.6, 2.6)
Hamilton County Rural No 159.3 (118.2, 212.9) 43 (2, 210) 13 stable stable trend -0.1 (-1.4, 1.1)
Hansford County Rural No 140.4 (89.0, 213.0) 102 (2, 218) 5 stable stable trend -0.5 (-2.1, 1.2)
Haskell County Rural No 191.9 (130.5, 275.9) 9 (1, 213) 8 stable stable trend 0.9 (-0.4, 2.1)
Henderson County Rural No 152.7 (139.3, 167.3) 64 (20, 134) 105 falling falling trend -0.6 (-1.1, -0.1)
Hill County Rural No 173.9 (151.9, 198.6) 16 (5, 117) 49 stable stable trend -0.2 (-1.1, 0.7)
Hood County Rural No 125.2 (111.6, 140.3) 158 (71, 202) 71 falling falling trend -1.8 (-2.5, -1.1)
Hopkins County Rural No 134.5 (115.1, 156.6) 119 (24, 206) 36 falling falling trend -0.8 (-1.4, -0.1)
Houston County Rural No 129.4 (106.0, 157.4) 141 (22, 213) 24 falling falling trend -1.1 (-2.1, -0.2)
Howard County Rural No 123.3 (101.0, 149.2) 168 (36, 214) 22 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.6, -0.3)
Hutchinson County Rural No 154.2 (124.8, 188.9) 61 (6, 199) 21 stable stable trend -0.3 (-1.0, 0.4)
Jack County Rural No 124.8 (86.7, 176.7) 161 (7, 218) 7 stable stable trend -0.9 (-2.7, 0.8)
Jackson County Rural No 135.9 (106.0, 172.6) 116 (11, 214) 15 stable stable trend -1.1 (-6.4, 0.1)
Jasper County Rural No 162.3 (139.8, 187.9) 36 (7, 146) 41 falling falling trend -0.8 (-1.4, -0.1)
Jim Hogg County Rural No 154.8 (95.7, 238.8) 58 (1, 218) 5 stable stable trend -0.8 (-2.3, 0.8)
Jim Wells County Rural No 144.9 (124.0, 168.5) 89 (17, 190) 36 stable stable trend -0.3 (-1.1, 0.5)
Karnes County Rural No 126.5 (93.9, 167.9) 152 (12, 216) 11 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.6, 0.5)
Kerr County Rural Yes 121.6 (107.6, 137.4) 175 (78, 210) 66 falling falling trend -1.3 (-2.0, -0.5)
Kimble County Rural No 131.2 (84.1, 203.1) 129 (2, 218) 6 stable stable trend -1.8 (-3.6, 0.0)
Kinney County Rural No 146.0 (78.3, 256.8) 84 (1, 218) 3 stable stable trend 0.6 (-1.8, 3.4)
Kleberg County Rural No 168.7 (141.2, 200.2) 23 (4, 165) 28 stable stable trend 0.1 (-0.7, 1.0)
Knox County Rural No 157.1 (93.1, 253.9) 51 (1, 218) 4
*
*
La Salle County Rural Yes 110.2 (68.4, 171.1) 198 (8, 218) 4 stable stable trend -0.9 (-3.4, 1.8)
Lamar County Rural No 163.9 (145.4, 184.3) 32 (8, 131) 62 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.1, 0.1)
Lamb County Rural No 123.4 (92.7, 162.0) 167 (17, 216) 11 stable stable trend -0.3 (-1.3, 0.6)
Lavaca County Rural No 141.4 (116.3, 171.1) 97 (11, 207) 26 stable stable trend -0.1 (-1.0, 0.8)
Lee County Rural No 131.0 (103.8, 164.0) 135 (16, 215) 17 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.5, 0.3)
Leon County Rural No 146.7 (119.9, 179.2) 82 (11, 203) 22 stable stable trend -0.6 (-1.5, 0.4)
Limestone County Rural No 137.1 (111.5, 167.4) 111 (14, 211) 23 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.8, -0.4)
Live Oak County Rural No 157.8 (116.8, 209.7) 48 (2, 211) 12 stable stable trend -0.2 (-1.7, 1.4)
Llano County Rural No 136.4 (112.9, 165.1) 114 (15, 207) 35 stable stable trend -0.2 (-1.0, 0.6)
Madison County Rural No 169.5 (128.5, 220.1) 21 (1, 206) 13 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.9, 0.5)
Marion County Rural Yes 114.4 (84.6, 154.7) 192 (23, 218) 11 stable stable trend -1.0 (-2.3, 0.3)
Mason County Rural No 174.8 (108.1, 273.5) 15 (1, 217) 6 stable stable trend 23.4 (-1.2, 45.9)
Matagorda County Rural No 144.9 (123.9, 168.7) 88 (16, 191) 36 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.2, 0.4)
McCulloch County Rural No 197.7 (148.5, 260.5) 7 (1, 189) 12 stable stable trend 0.6 (-0.8, 2.0)
Milam County Rural No 128.4 (106.3, 154.3) 146 (32, 212) 26 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.2, 0.2)
Mills County Rural No 150.8 (100.5, 226.1) 71 (1, 217) 7 stable stable trend -0.1 (-2.6, 2.4)
Mitchell County Rural No 196.2 (140.9, 267.6) 8 (1, 204) 9 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.7, 0.9)
Montague County Rural No 139.6 (114.8, 169.0) 104 (13, 209) 24 stable stable trend -0.9 (-1.8, 0.1)
Moore County Rural Yes 111.4 (84.2, 144.6) 197 (32, 218) 12 stable stable trend -0.9 (-2.0, 0.1)
Morris County Rural No 155.1 (120.3, 198.2) 56 (4, 210) 15 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.4, 0.5)
Nacogdoches County Rural No 154.6 (137.1, 173.8) 60 (14, 152) 60 stable stable trend -0.2 (-0.8, 0.4)
Navarro County Rural No 139.3 (121.9, 158.6) 106 (28, 191) 49 stable stable trend -0.8 (-1.5, 0.0)
Newton County Rural No 150.8 (114.4, 196.1) 72 (3, 212) 14 stable stable trend -0.6 (-5.2, 0.6)
Nolan County Rural No 166.9 (132.7, 208.1) 27 (2, 193) 17 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.4, 0.4)
Ochiltree County Rural Yes 107.5 (69.7, 158.4) 201 (15, 218) 5 stable stable trend -0.8 (-2.4, 0.8)
Palo Pinto County Rural No 160.8 (136.6, 188.6) 39 (7, 172) 34 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.8, -0.2)
Panola County Rural No 167.0 (140.4, 197.9) 26 (4, 151) 29 stable stable trend -0.3 (-1.1, 0.5)
Parmer County Rural Yes 121.6 (83.7, 171.5) 176 (7, 218) 7
*
*
Pecos County Rural No 151.6 (113.6, 198.4) 67 (3, 213) 11 rising rising trend 22.3 (3.0, 46.6)
Polk County Rural No 219.9 (194.6, 247.8) 3 (1, 27) 65 stable stable trend 0.5 (-0.4, 1.4)
Presidio County Rural Yes 79.1 (42.4, 135.8) 216 (46, 218) 3 falling falling trend -3.1 (-5.3, -1.3)
Rains County Rural No 129.5 (100.1, 167.0) 140 (15, 215) 14 falling falling trend -2.7 (-5.9, -1.3)
Real County Rural No 236.2 (155.4, 357.3) 1 (1, 195) 7
*
*
Red River County Rural No 152.6 (120.0, 193.5) 65 (5, 209) 17 stable stable trend -0.9 (-1.9, 0.0)
Reeves County Rural No 131.7 (96.0, 177.0) 126 (6, 217) 9 stable stable trend 14.6 (-2.8, 27.8)
Refugio County Rural No 133.6 (95.7, 185.6) 123 (7, 217) 8 stable stable trend -1.1 (-2.7, 0.3)
Runnels County Rural No 154.8 (117.4, 202.5) 59 (3, 213) 12 stable stable trend 0.4 (-0.7, 1.6)
Sabine County Rural No 141.8 (108.2, 185.9) 96 (7, 213) 15 stable stable trend -0.8 (-1.9, 0.3)
San Augustine County Rural Yes 122.5 (89.9, 167.6) 174 (10, 218) 10 stable stable trend -1.2 (-9.9, 0.0)
San Saba County Rural No 129.9 (86.0, 193.9) 137 (2, 218) 6 stable stable trend 0.1 (-1.9, 2.0)
Scurry County Rural Yes 119.0 (91.1, 153.5) 185 (24, 217) 13 stable stable trend -0.6 (-1.7, 0.4)
Shelby County Rural No 158.0 (131.6, 188.7) 47 (6, 181) 26 stable stable trend -0.8 (-1.7, 0.1)
Somervell County Rural No 136.0 (99.5, 183.5) 115 (4, 216) 10 stable stable trend -1.5 (-2.9, 0.3)
Starr County Rural Yes 101.8 (86.7, 118.8) 211 (122, 217) 33 stable stable trend -0.3 (-1.0, 0.6)
Stephens County Rural No 151.5 (110.3, 204.9) 69 (3, 214) 10 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.9, 0.4)
Sutton County Rural No 128.9 (74.3, 215.7) 143 (2, 218) 3 stable stable trend -1.6 (-4.1, 0.7)
Swisher County Rural No 178.6 (125.2, 248.8) 13 (1, 211) 8 stable stable trend -0.1 (-1.5, 1.4)
Terry County Rural No 133.3 (96.9, 179.5) 125 (9, 216) 10 stable stable trend -0.1 (-1.6, 1.3)
Titus County Rural No 134.2 (111.1, 160.8) 120 (23, 211) 24 falling falling trend -1.5 (-2.6, -0.3)
Trinity County Rural No 171.0 (139.5, 209.4) 18 (2, 167) 23 stable stable trend 0.4 (-0.5, 1.4)
Tyler County Rural No 133.7 (108.4, 164.3) 122 (17, 213) 21 falling falling trend -1.3 (-2.0, -0.6)
Uvalde County Rural No 150.7 (124.4, 181.2) 74 (8, 196) 25 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.5, 0.2)
Val Verde County Rural Yes 119.5 (101.4, 140.0) 183 (63, 214) 32 falling falling trend -1.3 (-2.2, -0.4)
Van Zandt County Rural No 143.8 (128.0, 161.2) 92 (26, 178) 66 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.5, 0.1)
Walker County Rural Yes 102.8 (88.5, 118.9) 207 (142, 216) 40 falling falling trend -1.7 (-2.3, -1.1)
Ward County Rural No 131.0 (93.7, 178.7) 134 (9, 217) 8 stable stable trend -1.1 (-2.1, 0.0)
Washington County Rural No 126.5 (108.3, 147.4) 153 (45, 212) 39 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.4, 0.0)
Wharton County Rural No 122.9 (105.0, 143.2) 172 (57, 212) 36 stable stable trend -0.8 (-1.5, 0.0)
Wheeler County Rural No 146.2 (94.3, 220.2) 83 (1, 218) 5 stable stable trend -0.2 (-1.4, 1.0)
Wilbarger County Rural No 125.3 (93.8, 164.9) 157 (14, 217) 12 stable stable trend -0.3 (-1.7, 1.0)
Willacy County Rural Yes 111.9 (85.5, 144.2) 196 (38, 217) 13 stable stable trend -0.8 (-2.1, 0.7)
Winkler County Rural Yes 76.0 (43.3, 124.9) 217 (74, 218) 3 falling falling trend -4.0 (-14.8, -2.3)
Wood County Rural No 156.7 (138.5, 177.2) 52 (13, 146) 66 stable stable trend 7.1 (-0.2, 18.4)
Yoakum County Rural No 156.3 (104.9, 224.3) 53 (1, 217) 6 stable stable trend -0.3 (-2.0, 1.5)
Young County Rural No 165.0 (135.0, 200.6) 29 (4, 178) 23 falling falling trend -2.7 (-11.2, -0.7)
Zapata County Rural Yes 71.6 (46.1, 106.1) 218 (116, 218) 5 stable stable trend -0.7 (-2.6, 1.3)
Zavala County Rural No 162.0 (116.7, 219.5) 38 (1, 215) 9 stable stable trend 0.7 (-0.8, 2.4)
Armstrong County Urban ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Borden County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Briscoe County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Cochran County Urban ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Collingsworth County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Concho County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Cottle County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Culberson County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Edwards County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Foard County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Glasscock County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Hardeman County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Hartley County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Hemphill County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Hudspeth County Urban ***
*
*
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
*
*
Lipscomb 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
*
*
Reagan County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Roberts County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Schleicher County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Shackelford 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 12/07/2024 1:52 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.

* 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