Return to Home Mortality > Table > Data Table

Data Table for Rate/Trend Comparison by Cancer

Death Rate/Trend Comparison by Cancer, 2016-2020

Utah Counties versus United States

All Cancer Sites

All Races, Both Sexes

Sorted by count
Counties
 sort alphabetically by name ascending
Priority Index1
1=highest
9=lowest

 sort by priority index descending
Recent Trend2
County Death
Rate
Compared
to
US Rate
Average Annual Count
 sort by count ascending
Age-Adjusted Death Rate

deaths per 100,000
(95% Confidence Interval)
 sort by rate descending
Rate
Ratio3
County
to
US
 sort by rate descending
Recent 5-Year Trend2 in Death Rates
(95% Confidence Interval)
 sort by trend descending
United States - falling falling trend - 599,666 149.4 (149.3, 149.6) - -2.0 (-2.2, -1.8)
Utah - falling falling trend - 3,259 120.6 (118.7, 122.4) - -1.1 (-1.2, -0.9)
Salt Lake County 9 falling falling trend lower 1,234 125.5 (122.3, 128.7) 0.8 -1.1 (-1.3, -0.9)
Utah County 9 falling falling trend lower 443 116.1 (111.3, 121.2) 0.8 -0.7 (-0.9, -0.5)
Davis County 7 stable stable trend lower 319 114.1 (108.5, 120.0) 0.8 2.4 (-2.5, 7.4)
Weber County 9 falling falling trend lower 285 122.0 (115.6, 128.6) 0.8 -1.0 (-1.3, -0.8)
Washington County 9 falling falling trend lower 274 107.1 (101.2, 113.2) 0.7 -1.3 (-1.7, -1.0)
Cache County 9 falling falling trend lower 103 111.4 (101.9, 121.5) 0.7 -0.8 (-1.3, -0.4)
Tooele County 8 falling falling trend similar 75 146.6 (131.6, 162.6) 1.0 -1.2 (-1.7, -0.6)
Box Elder County 9 falling falling trend lower 67 120.1 (107.4, 133.8) 0.8 -0.8 (-1.4, -0.1)
Iron County 6 stable stable trend similar 65 134.5 (119.9, 150.4) 0.9 -0.8 (-1.6, 0.1)
Uintah County 9 falling falling trend lower 40 130.9 (113.0, 150.7) 0.9 -1.9 (-3.0, -0.9)
Carbon County 6 stable stable trend similar 37 148.7 (127.5, 172.5) 1.0 -0.5 (-1.3, 0.2)
Summit County 9 falling falling trend lower 37 95.9 (81.2, 112.3) 0.6 -1.8 (-2.8, -0.8)
Sevier County 6 stable stable trend similar 36 142.7 (122.4, 165.5) 1.0 -0.5 (-1.2, 0.3)
Sanpete County 9 falling falling trend lower 34 109.4 (93.2, 127.5) 0.7 -1.6 (-2.4, -0.8)
Wasatch County 9 falling falling trend lower 34 124.9 (105.7, 146.4) 0.8 -1.2 (-2.1, -0.4)
Duchesne County 6 stable stable trend similar 28 150.1 (126.1, 177.4) 1.0 -0.8 (-1.8, 0.2)
Grand County 8 falling falling trend similar 19 147.7 (118.8, 182.0) 1.0 -1.5 (-2.3, -0.6)
Millard County 7 stable stable trend lower 19 112.6 (90.5, 139.0) 0.8 -0.8 (-2.0, 0.4)
Kane County 6 stable stable trend similar 18 161.3 (127.8, 201.8) 1.1 -0.8 (-2.1, 0.6)
San Juan County 7 stable stable trend lower 18 109.1 (87.1, 135.0) 0.7 -0.6 (-1.7, 0.5)
Emery County 9 falling falling trend lower 15 114.7 (89.6, 145.1) 0.8 -2.0 (-3.2, -0.8)
Morgan County 8 falling falling trend similar 14 132.5 (102.7, 168.1) 0.9 -1.3 (-2.4, -0.2)
Juab County 6 stable stable trend similar 13 122.8 (94.3, 156.9) 0.8 -1.0 (-2.3, 0.4)
Beaver County 6 stable stable trend similar 9 143.5 (103.9, 193.0) 1.0 -1.1 (-2.3, 0.1)
Garfield County 6 stable stable trend similar 9 138.7 (99.5, 189.3) 0.9 -1.4 (-2.9, 0.2)
Wayne County 6 stable stable trend similar 5 125.1 (79.2, 191.7) 0.8 -0.9 (-2.7, 1.0)
Piute County
**
** similar 4 158.3 (85.7, 274.7) 1.1
**
Daggett County
**
**
*
3 or fewer
*
*
**
Rich County
**
**
*
3 or fewer
*
*
**
Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 03/28/2024 12:51 pm.

Trend2
     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.
Rate Comparison
     Above     when 95% confident the rate is above and Rate Ratio3 > 1.10
     Similar     when unable to conclude above or below with confidence.
     Below     when 95% confident the rate is below and Rate Ratio3 < 0.90

* Data has been suppressed to ensure confidentiality and stability of rate and trend estimates.
** Data are too sparse to provide stable estimates of annual rates needed to calculate trend.
1 Priority indices were created by ordering from rates that are rising and above the comparison rate to rates that are falling and below the comparison rate.
2 Recent trend in death rates is usually an Average Annual Percent Change (AAPC) based on the APCs calculated by Joinpoint Version 4.8.0.0. Due to data availability issues, the time period and/or calculation method used in the calculation of the trends may differ for selected geographic areas.
3 Rate ratio is the county rate divided by the US rate. Previous versions of this table used one-year rates for states and five-year rates for counties. As of June 2018, only five-year rates are used.
Source: 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 US Population Data File is used with mortality data.
Note: 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. Suppression is used to avoid misinterpretation when rates are unstable.

State Cancer Registries may provide more current or more local data. Data presented on the State Cancer Profiles Web Site may differ from statistics reported by the State Cancer Registries (for more information).

Data for the following has been suppressed to ensure confidentiality and stability of rate and trend estimates:
Daggett County, Rich County

Trend for the following could not be reliably determined due to small number of deaths per year:
Piute County


Interpret Rankings provides insight into interpreting cancer 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.

Return to Top