Return to Home Mortality > Table

Death Rates Table

Data Options

Death Rate Report by State

Breast, 2018-2022

All Races (includes Hispanic), Female, All Ages

Sorted by CI*Rank
State
 sort alphabetically by name ascending
Met Healthy People Objective of 15.3?
Age-Adjusted Death Rate
deaths per 100,000
(95% Confidence Interval)
 sort by rate descending
CI*Rank ⋔
(95% Confidence Interval)
 sort by CI rank ascending
Average Annual Count
 sort by count descending
Recent Trend
Recent 5-Year Trend in Death Rates
(95% Confidence Interval)
 sort by trend descending
United States No 19.3 (19.2, 19.4) N/A 42,308 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.3, -1.1)
Massachusetts Yes 15.2 (14.7, 15.7) 51 (48, 51) 759 falling falling trend -3.0 (-3.2, -2.9)
Rhode Island No 16.1 (14.8, 17.5) 50 (38, 51) 130 stable stable trend -2.3 (-2.9, 0.9)
North Dakota No 16.2 (14.5, 18.0) 49 (32, 51) 77 falling falling trend -2.3 (-2.7, -1.9)
Hawaii 8 No 16.6 (15.5, 17.9) 48 (36, 51) 172 stable stable trend 1.1 (-1.0, 7.0)
Maine No 16.7 (15.6, 17.8) 47 (36, 51) 187 falling falling trend -2.2 (-2.6, -1.9)
Connecticut No 16.8 (16.1, 17.6) 46 (38, 50) 444 falling falling trend -2.3 (-2.5, -2.1)
Vermont No 16.9 (15.3, 18.7) 45 (26, 51) 85 falling falling trend -2.4 (-2.8, -2.0)
Alaska No 17.1 (15.2, 19.2) 44 (18, 51) 63 falling falling trend -1.7 (-2.2, -1.0)
New York No 17.2 (16.9, 17.5) 43 (39, 48) 2,416 falling falling trend -2.3 (-2.5, -0.9)
Minnesota No 17.2 (16.6, 17.9) 42 (37, 49) 649 stable stable trend -1.6 (-2.2, 0.9)
New Hampshire No 17.6 (16.4, 18.9) 41 (26, 50) 180 falling falling trend -2.1 (-2.5, -0.4)
Montana No 17.7 (16.3, 19.1) 40 (22, 50) 138 falling falling trend -1.9 (-2.3, -1.4)
Iowa No 17.8 (17.0, 18.6) 39 (30, 48) 393 stable stable trend -1.5 (-1.9, 0.5)
Wisconsin No 17.9 (17.3, 18.6) 38 (31, 46) 723 falling falling trend -1.5 (-1.9, -0.8)
South Dakota No 18.3 (16.7, 20.0) 37 (10, 50) 107 falling falling trend -1.7 (-2.1, -1.3)
Colorado No 18.6 (17.9, 19.3) 36 (24, 41) 633 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.1, 2.1)
Florida No 18.6 (18.3, 18.9) 35 (28, 39) 3,101 falling falling trend -1.3 (-1.5, -1.0)
Washington No 18.7 (18.2, 19.3) 34 (25, 40) 904 falling falling trend -1.4 (-1.7, -0.2)
California No 18.8 (18.6, 19.1) 33 (27, 38) 4,551 falling falling trend -1.3 (-1.5, -1.0)
Arizona No 18.8 (18.3, 19.4) 32 (24, 40) 902 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.0, 1.0)
Oregon No 19.1 (18.4, 19.8) 31 (16, 39) 558 stable stable trend -0.9 (-1.6, 1.5)
New Jersey No 19.1 (18.7, 19.6) 30 (20, 37) 1,239 falling falling trend -2.3 (-2.4, -2.2)
New Mexico No 19.3 (18.2, 20.4) 29 (10, 41) 279 falling falling trend -1.3 (-1.7, -1.0)
Nebraska No 19.5 (18.4, 20.7) 28 (8, 40) 243 falling falling trend -6.8 (-12.7, -0.1)
Pennsylvania No 19.6 (19.2, 20.0) 27 (15, 32) 1,905 falling falling trend -1.6 (-1.9, -0.3)
Idaho No 19.7 (18.5, 20.9) 26 (8, 40) 223 falling falling trend -1.3 (-1.7, -0.9)
Texas No 19.7 (19.4, 20.0) 25 (16, 30) 3,127 stable stable trend -0.6 (-1.0, 0.2)
Arkansas No 19.8 (19.0, 20.8) 24 (8, 36) 401 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.4, -1.0)
Kansas No 19.9 (19.0, 20.8) 23 (8, 36) 379 falling falling trend -1.5 (-1.8, -1.2)
North Carolina No 19.9 (19.4, 20.4) 22 (12, 30) 1,392 falling falling trend -1.5 (-1.7, -1.3)
Wyoming No 19.9 (17.9, 22.2) 21 (2, 47) 73 stable stable trend 1.6 (-1.4, 8.2)
Missouri No 20.0 (19.3, 20.6) 20 (10, 32) 847 falling falling trend -1.5 (-1.7, -1.3)
Maryland No 20.0 (19.4, 20.6) 19 (9, 31) 827 falling falling trend -1.9 (-2.0, -1.7)
Ohio No 20.2 (19.7, 20.6) 18 (10, 28) 1,657 falling falling trend -1.8 (-1.9, -1.7)
Utah No 20.2 (19.2, 21.2) 17 (6, 35) 303 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.2, -0.7)
Virginia No 20.2 (19.6, 20.7) 16 (9, 29) 1,133 stable stable trend -1.1 (-1.8, 0.8)
Illinois No 20.2 (19.8, 20.7) 15 (9, 28) 1,719 falling falling trend -1.3 (-1.6, -0.7)
Michigan No 20.3 (19.8, 20.8) 14 (9, 27) 1,416 falling falling trend -1.4 (-1.7, -0.1)
Indiana No 20.3 (19.7, 21.0) 13 (8, 28) 901 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.4, 1.7)
Alabama No 20.4 (19.7, 21.1) 12 (7, 29) 710 falling falling trend -1.3 (-1.5, -1.1)
Georgia No 20.7 (20.2, 21.3) 11 (7, 21) 1,341 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.4, -1.1)
West Virginia No 21.1 (19.9, 22.2) 10 (2, 28) 288 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.5, -1.0)
South Carolina No 21.3 (20.6, 22.0) 9 (3, 18) 759 falling falling trend -1.4 (-1.6, -1.1)
Kentucky No 21.4 (20.6, 22.2) 8 (3, 17) 639 stable stable trend 0.2 (-1.0, 3.0)
Tennessee No 21.7 (21.0, 22.3) 7 (3, 12) 998 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.1, 1.6)
Nevada No 21.7 (20.8, 22.7) 6 (2, 17) 404 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.3, -0.8)
Delaware No 22.0 (20.4, 23.7) 5 (1, 26) 159 stable stable trend 5.3 (-0.2, 8.6)
Louisiana No 22.1 (21.3, 22.9) 4 (1, 11) 662 falling falling trend -1.5 (-1.6, -1.3)
Oklahoma No 22.4 (21.6, 23.3) 3 (1, 10) 562 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.2, -0.8)
Mississippi No 23.4 (22.5, 24.5) 2 (1, 6) 458 falling falling trend -0.8 (-1.0, -0.6)
District of Columbia No 24.0 (21.8, 26.4) 1 (1, 12) 90 falling falling trend -2.0 (-2.4, -1.6)
Puerto Rico 8 No 15.4 (14.7, 16.1) N/A 416 stable stable trend -3.8 (-9.0, 1.7)
Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 09/20/2024 6:12 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.
8 Due to data availability issues, the time period used in the calculation of the joinpoint regression model may differ for selected counties.



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.
CI*Rank data for Puerto Rico is not available.

Return to Top