Return to Home Mortality > Table

Death Rates Table

Data Options

Death Rate Report for West Virginia by County

All Cancer Sites, 2016-2020

All Races (includes Hispanic), Both Sexes, All Ages

Sorted by Count
County
 sort alphabetically by name 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 ascending
Recent Trend
Recent 5-Year Trend in Death Rates
(95% Confidence Interval)
 sort by trend descending
West Virginia No 177.5 (175.2, 179.9) N/A 4,665 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.2, -1.0)
United States No 149.4 (149.3, 149.6) N/A 599,666 falling falling trend -2.0 (-2.2, -1.8)
Kanawha County No 172.5 (165.4, 179.8) 33 (17, 46) 470 falling falling trend -1.3 (-1.5, -1.1)
Berkeley County No 185.7 (175.1, 196.8) 15 (8, 38) 247 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.5, -0.7)
Wood County No 183.9 (173.2, 195.1) 17 (9, 40) 231 falling falling trend -0.6 (-0.9, -0.3)
Cabell County No 180.2 (169.7, 191.3) 21 (10, 43) 229 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.2, -0.7)
Raleigh County No 179.2 (167.8, 191.3) 22 (10, 45) 196 falling falling trend -0.8 (-1.1, -0.4)
Harrison County No 183.3 (171.2, 196.1) 18 (8, 42) 179 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.2, -0.5)
Mercer County No 195.2 (182.0, 209.3) 14 (4, 31) 177 falling falling trend -0.5 (-0.8, -0.2)
Monongalia County No 141.6 (131.2, 152.6) 53 (45, 55) 145 falling falling trend -1.6 (-2.0, -1.1)
Marion County No 173.7 (160.7, 187.7) 32 (12, 49) 138 falling falling trend -0.7 (-1.1, -0.3)
Fayette County No 196.8 (181.4, 213.2) 13 (3, 34) 130 falling falling trend -0.5 (-0.9, -0.2)
Jefferson County No 181.9 (167.7, 197.0) 20 (7, 45) 129 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.6, -0.5)
Putnam County No 164.9 (152.0, 178.7) 45 (18, 52) 126 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.5, -0.7)
Ohio County No 176.2 (161.4, 192.2) 26 (10, 48) 116 falling falling trend -1.3 (-1.6, -1.0)
Logan County No 218.0 (199.1, 238.3) 5 (1, 17) 106 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.6, -0.5)
Wayne County No 172.4 (157.6, 188.3) 34 (11, 50) 105 falling falling trend -1.7 (-2.1, -1.3)
Greenbrier County No 166.3 (151.3, 182.7) 42 (13, 52) 96 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.5, -0.7)
Marshall County No 170.4 (153.8, 188.6) 37 (11, 51) 83 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.4, -0.5)
Hancock County No 167.1 (150.8, 185.0) 40 (12, 53) 82 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.5, -0.6)
Preston County No 163.5 (147.4, 181.0) 46 (14, 53) 80 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.3, -0.4)
Jackson County No 167.0 (150.3, 185.4) 41 (12, 53) 75 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.6, -0.5)
Randolph County No 165.0 (148.1, 183.5) 44 (13, 53) 74 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.4, -0.4)
Mason County No 175.8 (157.8, 195.6) 27 (8, 51) 73 falling falling trend -1.4 (-1.9, -0.9)
Mineral County No 174.6 (156.4, 194.6) 29 (8, 51) 71 falling falling trend -0.8 (-1.4, -0.3)
Mingo County No 208.0 (185.7, 232.4) 6 (1, 33) 69 falling falling trend -0.8 (-1.2, -0.3)
Nicholas County No 175.1 (156.1, 196.0) 28 (7, 52) 67 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.6, -0.6)
Boone County No 200.8 (178.8, 225.1) 8 (1, 40) 65 falling falling trend -1.3 (-1.8, -0.8)
McDowell County No 223.3 (198.8, 250.5) 2 (1, 19) 65 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.0, 0.0)
Lincoln County No 222.2 (197.7, 249.1) 3 (1, 20) 64 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.0, 0.1)
Hampshire County No 176.9 (157.1, 198.8) 24 (7, 51) 64 stable stable trend -0.6 (-1.2, 0.1)
Upshur County No 174.4 (155.2, 195.7) 30 (7, 52) 63 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.6, -0.5)
Brooke County No 166.3 (147.6, 187.2) 43 (10, 53) 62 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.6, -0.5)
Wyoming County No 198.4 (175.5, 223.7) 11 (1, 43) 61 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.0, 0.1)
Morgan County No 199.2 (175.9, 225.2) 9 (1, 44) 58 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.0, 0.1)
Lewis County No 227.8 (201.1, 257.5) 1 (1, 20) 55 stable stable trend -0.2 (-0.7, 0.2)
Roane County No 220.0 (191.7, 251.9) 4 (1, 28) 47 stable stable trend -0.2 (-0.8, 0.5)
Taylor County No 174.4 (151.8, 200.0) 31 (6, 53) 44 falling falling trend -1.4 (-2.0, -0.7)
Wetzel County No 170.9 (148.4, 196.6) 36 (7, 54) 44 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.3, 0.0)
Barbour County No 184.4 (159.8, 212.1) 16 (2, 51) 43 falling falling trend -0.7 (-1.4, -0.1)
Braxton County No 168.5 (145.3, 195.1) 39 (7, 54) 39 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.9, -0.4)
Summers County No 177.0 (151.9, 206.0) 23 (4, 53) 39 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.8, -0.5)
Monroe County No 169.6 (145.9, 196.9) 38 (7, 54) 39 stable stable trend -0.6 (-1.2, 0.1)
Hardy County No 150.1 (126.6, 177.2) 50 (15, 55) 31 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.8, -0.7)
Webster County No 197.6 (164.1, 237.1) 12 (1, 51) 27 stable stable trend 0.1 (-0.7, 0.8)
Clay County No 198.6 (164.7, 238.3) 10 (1, 51) 26 falling falling trend -1.4 (-2.1, -0.7)
Grant County No 128.5 (106.6, 154.5) 55 (41, 55) 26 falling falling trend -1.3 (-2.2, -0.3)
Pocahontas County No 171.4 (140.9, 208.0) 35 (3, 55) 25 stable stable trend -0.9 (-1.8, 0.0)
Ritchie County No 155.1 (128.2, 187.0) 49 (9, 55) 25 stable stable trend -0.8 (-1.6, 0.0)
Tyler County No 162.6 (133.4, 197.3) 47 (6, 55) 24 falling falling trend -1.3 (-2.0, -0.6)
Pleasants County No 206.7 (169.2, 251.1) 7 (1, 51) 22 stable stable trend -0.1 (-1.2, 0.9)
Tucker County No 176.4 (143.0, 217.1) 25 (1, 55) 22 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.8, -0.1)
Pendleton County No 139.2 (112.5, 172.7) 54 (17, 55) 20 falling falling trend -1.2 (-2.2, -0.1)
Gilmer County No 182.5 (147.5, 224.4) 19 (1, 55) 19 stable stable trend -0.3 (-1.2, 0.6)
Doddridge County No 145.3 (117.0, 179.5) 52 (12, 55) 19 falling falling trend -1.8 (-2.6, -0.9)
Calhoun County No 147.9 (118.6, 184.1) 51 (10, 55) 19 falling falling trend -1.3 (-2.3, -0.4)
Wirt County No 158.0 (120.7, 204.5) 48 (4, 55) 13 stable stable trend -0.8 (-2.0, 0.5)
Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 12/01/2022 10:47 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.



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