Return to Home Mortality > Table

Death Rates Table

Data Options

Death Rate Report for Texas by County

All Cancer Sites, 2018-2022

Hispanic (any race), Both Sexes, All Ages

Sorted by Name

County
 sort alphabetically by name descending
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 Yes 115.6 (114.5, 116.7) N/A 8,904 falling falling trend -1.3 (-1.5, -1.2)
United States 6 N/A Yes 106.8 (106.4, 107.3) N/A 44,330 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.2, -1.1)
Anderson County Rural No 304.3 (232.6, 389.2) 2 (1, 15) 16
*
*
Andrews County Rural Yes 102.8 (67.1, 148.8) 110 (19, 147) 6
*
*
Angelina County Rural Yes 98.7 (72.4, 130.7) 115 (35, 146) 11 stable stable trend -1.3 (-2.8, 0.9)
Aransas County Urban No 155.5 (115.1, 205.3) 31 (4, 123) 10 stable stable trend -0.9 (-2.3, 1.3)
Atascosa County Urban No 137.5 (118.7, 158.3) 52 (20, 101) 40 falling falling trend -1.3 (-2.2, -0.1)
Austin County Urban Yes 111.0 (69.8, 164.8) 97 (9, 147) 5
*
*
Bailey County Rural Yes 121.5 (71.5, 191.1) 77 (4, 147) 4
*
*
Bandera County Urban Yes 96.8 (59.9, 148.1) 119 (19, 147) 5
*
*
Bastrop County Urban Yes 99.5 (80.3, 121.5) 114 (52, 143) 23 stable stable trend -1.6 (-3.0, 0.7)
Bee County Rural No 169.3 (141.1, 201.3) 20 (4, 79) 26 stable stable trend 0.0 (-0.8, 0.9)
Bell County Urban Yes 108.0 (94.5, 122.7) 104 (60, 129) 53 falling falling trend -1.3 (-2.1, -0.1)
Bexar County Urban No 128.0 (124.7, 131.3) 68 (51, 82) 1,245 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.3, -1.0)
Blanco County Rural No 216.1 (122.1, 348.4) 7 (1, 141) 4
*
*
Brazoria County Urban Yes 113.7 (101.9, 126.5) 90 (55, 122) 79 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.6, -0.2)
Brazos County Urban Yes 105.4 (86.1, 127.2) 105 (48, 139) 26 stable stable trend -1.3 (-2.5, 0.5)
Brewster County Rural Yes 75.1 (45.6, 117.6) 144 (51, 147) 4 falling falling trend -8.2 (-31.7, -3.5)
Brooks County Rural No 173.3 (132.7, 222.8) 15 (3, 106) 13 stable stable trend -0.3 (-1.5, 0.9)
Brown County Rural Yes 112.0 (75.9, 158.1) 95 (14, 145) 7
*
*
Burleson County Urban No 155.0 (94.2, 237.5) 32 (2, 145) 4
*
*
Burnet County Rural Yes 79.0 (49.2, 118.4) 139 (46, 147) 6
*
*
Caldwell County Urban No 131.3 (109.0, 156.6) 61 (18, 122) 26 stable stable trend -1.2 (-2.2, 0.1)
Calhoun County Rural No 162.9 (125.5, 207.5) 25 (4, 114) 14 falling falling trend -1.8 (-3.0, -0.4)
Cameron County Urban Yes 121.0 (115.7, 126.4) 80 (58, 95) 409 falling falling trend -0.8 (-1.0, -0.5)
Castro County Rural Yes 121.4 (77.5, 180.3) 78 (5, 146) 5
*
*
Chambers County Urban Yes 88.7 (47.7, 146.7) 127 (12, 147) 4
*
*
Cherokee County Rural Yes 92.0 (56.8, 138.6) 124 (19, 147) 5
*
*
Collin County Urban Yes 84.0 (74.2, 94.6) 133 (105, 143) 66 falling falling trend -2.0 (-2.9, -0.5)
Colorado County Rural No 146.8 (99.7, 207.1) 42 (3, 139) 7
*
*
Comal County Urban Yes 103.4 (88.4, 120.1) 109 (58, 137) 37 falling falling trend -1.9 (-2.8, -0.8)
Cooke County Rural Yes 77.5 (45.2, 122.9) 141 (38, 147) 4
*
*
Coryell County Urban No 127.2 (90.8, 171.7) 69 (9, 143) 9
*
*
Crockett County Rural No 169.8 (102.7, 265.6) 19 (2, 145) 4
*
*
Dallas County Urban Yes 102.0 (97.7, 106.3) 113 (89, 122) 560 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.4, -0.8)
Dawson County Rural No 177.5 (131.3, 233.9) 14 (2, 111) 10 stable stable trend 0.4 (-0.9, 2.1)
DeWitt County Rural No 130.8 (93.7, 177.4) 62 (8, 140) 8 stable stable trend -1.4 (-2.9, 0.2)
Deaf Smith County Rural No 152.3 (116.1, 195.3) 36 (5, 121) 13 stable stable trend -0.8 (-2.1, 0.8)
Denton County Urban Yes 80.5 (71.3, 90.3) 136 (112, 144) 72 falling falling trend -1.9 (-2.7, -0.3)
Dimmit County Rural No 172.4 (135.2, 216.9) 16 (3, 99) 15 rising rising trend 15.4 (0.5, 25.9)
Duval County Rural No 181.1 (145.9, 222.5) 12 (3, 81) 19 stable stable trend 0.2 (-0.7, 1.1)
Ector County Urban No 154.1 (138.8, 170.6) 35 (13, 67) 85 stable stable trend -0.8 (-1.4, 0.2)
El Paso County Urban No 125.2 (121.4, 129.0) 73 (56, 86) 845 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.3, -0.9)
Ellis County Urban Yes 103.8 (84.8, 125.4) 108 (47, 141) 27 stable stable trend -0.9 (-2.1, 1.0)
Erath County Rural Yes 82.9 (46.0, 134.7) 134 (22, 147) 4
*
*
Fayette County Rural Yes 102.4 (59.7, 162.1) 112 (9, 147) 4
*
*
Floyd County Rural No 138.9 (81.5, 219.4) 50 (3, 147) 4
*
*
Fort Bend County Urban Yes 91.2 (83.4, 99.4) 126 (99, 137) 119 falling falling trend -1.7 (-2.1, -1.2)
Frio County Rural No 163.0 (132.7, 198.1) 24 (5, 91) 20 stable stable trend 0.3 (-0.7, 1.6)
Gaines County Rural Yes 108.5 (70.8, 157.5) 102 (13, 147) 6 falling falling trend -2.2 (-3.9, -0.1)
Galveston County Urban Yes 110.0 (98.0, 123.0) 100 (58, 124) 68 falling falling trend -2.5 (-6.4, -1.7)
Gillespie County Rural Yes 79.7 (46.5, 126.0) 138 (39, 147) 4
*
*
Goliad County Urban No 128.9 (78.8, 201.3) 64 (5, 147) 4
*
*
Gonzales County Rural No 137.5 (101.1, 181.8) 53 (8, 134) 10 stable stable trend -1.5 (-2.8, 0.0)
Grayson County Urban Yes 117.8 (82.2, 161.5) 84 (13, 145) 9
*
*
Gregg County Urban Yes 77.5 (53.3, 107.7) 142 (66, 147) 9
*
*
Grimes County Rural Yes 118.6 (74.6, 176.7) 83 (7, 147) 5
*
*
Guadalupe County Urban Yes 111.0 (98.0, 125.2) 96 (53, 124) 56 falling falling trend -1.9 (-2.5, -1.2)
Hale County Rural No 141.4 (114.3, 172.6) 47 (11, 114) 20 stable stable trend 0.0 (-1.1, 1.4)
Harris County Urban Yes 104.3 (101.4, 107.2) 107 (89, 117) 1,217 falling falling trend -1.3 (-1.7, -1.0)
Hays County Urban No 125.6 (111.1, 141.4) 71 (35, 109) 64 falling falling trend -1.5 (-2.4, -0.3)
Henderson County Rural Yes 57.7 (33.3, 91.6) 147 (94, 147) 4
*
*
Hidalgo County Urban Yes 116.4 (112.6, 120.3) 86 (69, 100) 721 falling falling trend -0.7 (-1.0, -0.4)
Hill County Rural No 150.1 (101.3, 212.0) 38 (3, 138) 7
*
*
Hockley County Urban Yes 110.6 (79.2, 149.7) 98 (19, 145) 9 stable stable trend -1.8 (-3.4, 0.3)
Howard County Rural No 128.4 (97.7, 165.0) 67 (13, 137) 13 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.8, 0.5)
Hudspeth County Urban No 237.8 (144.3, 365.9) 3 (1, 125) 4
*
*
Hunt County Urban Yes 88.2 (59.0, 125.3) 128 (41, 147) 7
*
*
Jackson County Rural No 149.3 (98.4, 215.8) 39 (3, 143) 6 stable stable trend 0.3 (-1.2, 2.2)
Jefferson County Urban Yes 76.9 (63.0, 92.6) 143 (106, 146) 25 falling falling trend -1.4 (-2.4, -0.2)
Jim Hogg County Rural No 225.9 (168.5, 297.0) 5 (1, 68) 11 stable stable trend 0.3 (-1.1, 1.8)
Jim Wells County Rural No 181.9 (161.9, 203.6) 11 (4, 40) 62 stable stable trend 0.0 (-0.6, 0.7)
Johnson County Urban Yes 97.7 (78.0, 120.3) 117 (53, 143) 21
*
*
Jones County Urban Yes 115.7 (71.7, 175.4) 88 (7, 147) 5
*
*
Karnes County Rural No 177.6 (133.9, 230.3) 13 (2, 100) 12 stable stable trend -0.3 (-1.8, 1.3)
Kaufman County Urban Yes 117.4 (86.0, 154.8) 85 (14, 142) 14 stable stable trend -1.2 (-2.9, 1.7)
Kendall County Urban Yes 86.5 (58.2, 122.7) 130 (30, 147) 6 falling falling trend -3.3 (-4.7, -1.3)
Kerr County Rural Yes 109.7 (83.5, 141.0) 101 (30, 144) 13 stable stable trend -1.3 (-2.3, 0.0)
Kleberg County Rural No 157.5 (133.6, 184.4) 29 (8, 85) 31 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.2, 0.4)
La Salle County Rural No 182.0 (131.6, 244.8) 10 (2, 107) 9 stable stable trend -0.1 (-1.9, 2.1)
Lamb County Rural No 155.6 (114.0, 206.8) 30 (3, 131) 10 stable stable trend -0.8 (-2.3, 1.2)
Lampasas County Urban No 141.9 (89.0, 212.8) 46 (4, 145) 5
*
*
Lavaca County Rural Yes 116.1 (68.2, 183.2) 87 (6, 147) 4
*
*
Liberty County Urban Yes 102.6 (72.7, 139.3) 111 (25, 146) 12
*
*
Live Oak County Rural No 125.4 (84.0, 180.0) 72 (6, 146) 6 stable stable trend -1.3 (-2.7, 0.2)
Lubbock County Urban No 147.2 (134.3, 160.9) 41 (21, 71) 105 falling falling trend -0.8 (-1.2, -0.3)
Lynn County Urban No 227.7 (149.4, 332.0) 4 (1, 106) 6
*
*
Mason County Rural No 342.0 (196.7, 552.4) 1 (1, 121) 4
*
*
Matagorda County Rural No 129.2 (100.5, 163.0) 63 (13, 134) 15 stable stable trend -1.7 (-3.1, 0.1)
Maverick County Urban No 135.8 (121.5, 151.2) 55 (26, 93) 67 stable stable trend -0.2 (-0.6, 0.4)
McCulloch County Rural No 222.6 (149.0, 320.4) 6 (1, 107) 6
*
*
McLennan County Urban Yes 108.5 (94.1, 124.2) 103 (56, 129) 46 falling falling trend -1.6 (-2.3, -0.6)
Medina County Urban Yes 122.7 (103.8, 143.9) 74 (32, 125) 32 falling falling trend -1.2 (-2.0, -0.2)
Midland County Urban No 134.9 (117.7, 153.6) 56 (22, 102) 53 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.4, 0.8)
Milam County Rural Yes 79.9 (47.3, 125.1) 137 (37, 147) 4
*
*
Mitchell County Rural No 137.9 (81.3, 217.3) 51 (2, 147) 4
*
*
Montgomery County Urban Yes 97.7 (86.6, 109.6) 118 (79, 135) 73 stable stable trend 6.8 (-1.7, 16.1)
Moore County Rural Yes 110.3 (77.7, 150.9) 99 (17, 145) 9
*
*
Nacogdoches County Rural Yes 94.0 (57.6, 142.0) 121 (17, 147) 5
*
*
Navarro County Rural Yes 122.6 (86.5, 167.0) 75 (10, 143) 9
*
*
Nolan County Rural No 162.7 (115.7, 221.8) 26 (3, 129) 8 stable stable trend -0.8 (-2.5, 1.5)
Nueces County Urban Yes 113.4 (107.1, 120.0) 91 (69, 110) 249 falling falling trend -3.4 (-7.0, -1.9)
Palo Pinto County Rural No 128.6 (77.7, 197.7) 66 (4, 147) 5
*
*
Parker County Urban Yes 119.0 (86.4, 158.4) 82 (13, 143) 11
*
*
Parmer County Rural Yes 114.7 (72.1, 171.3) 89 (10, 147) 5
*
*
Pecos County Rural Yes 113.0 (85.1, 147.1) 93 (23, 144) 11 stable stable trend 8.6 (-0.8, 24.1)
Polk County Rural No 162.0 (99.0, 244.8) 27 (2, 144) 5
*
*
Potter County Urban No 131.8 (111.9, 153.9) 60 (23, 115) 36 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.6, 0.5)
Presidio County Rural Yes 84.7 (56.8, 123.0) 131 (46, 147) 7 falling falling trend -2.6 (-4.4, -0.9)
Randall County Urban No 150.4 (116.7, 189.3) 37 (5, 118) 19
*
*
Reeves County Rural No 172.0 (136.6, 213.6) 17 (4, 89) 16 rising rising trend 16.3 (0.1, 28.6)
Refugio County Rural Yes 121.0 (78.1, 180.3) 79 (7, 147) 5
*
*
Robertson County Urban No 168.6 (107.6, 250.5) 21 (2, 142) 5
*
*
Rockwall County Urban Yes 91.9 (62.8, 128.2) 125 (33, 147) 9
*
*
Runnels County Rural No 171.6 (110.6, 252.9) 18 (2, 143) 5 stable stable trend -0.5 (-2.6, 2.1)
Rusk County Urban Yes 59.8 (33.0, 99.1) 146 (76, 147) 4
*
*
San Patricio County Urban No 154.4 (136.4, 173.9) 34 (11, 74) 55 falling falling trend -1.3 (-2.0, -0.5)
Scurry County Rural Yes 120.0 (77.8, 175.2) 81 (8, 147) 6
*
*
Smith County Urban Yes 70.5 (53.6, 90.5) 145 (102, 147) 15
*
*
Starr County Rural No 133.6 (120.1, 148.2) 57 (30, 93) 72 stable stable trend 0.1 (-0.4, 0.7)
Sutton County Rural No 167.2 (103.6, 257.7) 22 (1, 144) 4
*
*
Swisher County Rural No 205.3 (131.5, 303.5) 8 (1, 127) 5
*
*
Tarrant County Urban Yes 105.3 (99.7, 111.0) 106 (82, 119) 334 falling falling trend -1.3 (-1.6, -0.7)
Taylor County Urban No 136.7 (115.6, 160.3) 54 (18, 108) 32 falling falling trend -1.4 (-2.3, -0.3)
Terry County Rural No 154.8 (108.0, 213.7) 33 (3, 138) 8 stable stable trend -1.4 (-3.2, 0.9)
Titus County Rural Yes 86.6 (54.0, 129.9) 129 (30, 147) 6
*
*
Tom Green County Urban No 128.6 (112.6, 146.2) 65 (29, 107) 49 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.6, -0.3)
Travis County Urban Yes 98.4 (92.1, 105.0) 116 (89, 129) 224 falling falling trend -2.2 (-2.5, -1.7)
Uvalde County Rural No 166.4 (139.7, 196.8) 23 (5, 77) 28 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.6, 0.4)
Val Verde County Rural No 142.0 (125.6, 159.9) 45 (20, 89) 55 stable stable trend 0.7 (-0.5, 2.8)
Van Zandt County Rural Yes 78.7 (43.2, 129.4) 140 (30, 147) 4
*
*
Victoria County Urban No 159.0 (140.9, 178.6) 28 (9, 68) 58 stable stable trend -0.3 (-1.2, 0.9)
Walker County Rural Yes 122.2 (80.3, 175.5) 76 (8, 146) 7
*
*
Waller County Urban Yes 92.3 (63.3, 128.7) 123 (36, 147) 8
*
*
Ward County Rural No 142.4 (97.6, 199.5) 43 (4, 143) 7 stable stable trend -0.3 (-2.1, 2.0)
Washington County Rural Yes 113.4 (64.9, 180.6) 92 (6, 147) 4
*
*
Webb County Urban No 139.2 (131.8, 146.9) 49 (33, 72) 274 stable stable trend -0.2 (-0.6, 0.2)
Wharton County Rural Yes 112.2 (87.7, 141.1) 94 (29, 142) 15 falling falling trend -1.7 (-2.7, -0.6)
Wichita County Urban No 147.4 (119.2, 179.7) 40 (9, 107) 21 stable stable trend -1.3 (-2.4, 0.3)
Wilbarger County Rural No 133.1 (73.6, 216.7) 59 (2, 147) 3
*
*
Willacy County Rural No 142.3 (118.4, 169.5) 44 (12, 108) 25 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.8, 0.6)
Williamson County Urban Yes 84.5 (74.8, 95.0) 132 (103, 143) 67 falling falling trend -2.3 (-3.0, -1.2)
Wilson County Urban No 133.1 (110.3, 159.2) 58 (19, 118) 26 falling falling trend -1.7 (-2.6, -0.7)
Winkler County Rural Yes 81.8 (45.9, 134.0) 135 (28, 147) 3 stable stable trend -2.0 (-4.1, 0.4)
Wise County Urban Yes 92.5 (59.6, 135.0) 122 (28, 147) 6
*
*
Wood County Rural Yes 96.7 (55.4, 155.1) 120 (12, 147) 3
*
*
Yoakum County Rural No 139.9 (85.3, 213.8) 48 (3, 146) 5
*
*
Zapata County Rural No 126.8 (98.6, 160.4) 70 (17, 134) 14 stable stable trend 17.5 (-0.5, 32.6)
Zavala County Rural No 188.0 (150.0, 232.8) 9 (2, 74) 17 stable stable trend 0.2 (-1.0, 1.6)
Archer County Urban ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Armstrong County Urban ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Baylor County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Borden County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Bosque County Urban ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Bowie County Urban ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Briscoe County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Callahan County Urban ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Camp County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Carson County Urban ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Cass County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Childress County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Clay County Urban ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Cochran County Urban ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Coke County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Coleman County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Collingsworth County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Comanche County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Concho County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Cottle County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Crane County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Crosby County Urban ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Culberson County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Dallam County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Delta County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Dickens County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Donley County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Eastland County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Edwards County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Falls County Urban ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Fannin County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Fisher County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Foard County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Franklin County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Freestone County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Garza County Urban ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Glasscock County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Gray County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Hall County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Hamilton County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Hansford County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Hardeman County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Hardin County Urban ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Harrison County Urban ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Hartley County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Haskell County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Hemphill County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Hood County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Hopkins County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Houston County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Hutchinson County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Irion County Urban ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Jack County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Jasper County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Jeff Davis County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Kenedy County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Kent County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Kimble County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
King County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Kinney County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Knox County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Lamar County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Lee County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Leon County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Limestone County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Lipscomb County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Llano County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Loving County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Madison County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Marion County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Martin County Urban ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
McMullen County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Menard County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Mills County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Montague County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Morris County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Motley County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Newton County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Ochiltree County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Oldham County Urban ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Orange County Urban ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Panola County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Rains County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Reagan County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Real County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Red River County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Roberts County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Sabine County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
San Augustine County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
San Jacinto County Urban ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
San Saba County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Schleicher County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Shackelford County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Shelby County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Sherman County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Somervell County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Stephens 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
*
*
Trinity County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Tyler County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Upshur County Urban ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Upton County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Wheeler County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Young County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 12/10/2024 1:27 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.
6 Hispanic mortality recent trend data for the United States has been excluded for the following states: Louisiana, New Hampshire, and Oklahoma. The data on Hispanic and non-Hispanic mortality for these states may be unreliable for the time period used in the generation of the recent trend (1990 - 2022) and has been excluded from the calculation of the United States recent trend. This was based on the NCHS Policy.

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.
NHIA (NAACCR Hispanic Identification Algorithm) was used for Hispanic Ethnicity (see Technical Notes section of the USCS).
Statistics for minorities may be affected by inconsistent race identification between the cancer case reports (sources for numerator of rate) and data from the Census Bureau (source for denominator of rate); and from undercounts of some population groups in the census.

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