Return to Home Mortality > Table

Death Rates Table

Data Options
Comparison Options

Death Rate Report for North Carolina by County

Colon & Rectum, 2019-2023

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

Sorted by Recentaapc

County
 sort alphabetically by name ascending
2023 Rural-Urban Continuum Codes Φ
 sort by rural urban descending
Met Healthy People Objective of 8.9?
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
Rowan County Urban No 12.1 (10.0, 14.7) 68 (23, 88) 22 falling falling trend -5.3 (-15.8, -2.1)
Yadkin County Urban No 9.0 (5.7, 13.7) 89 (29, 91) 5 falling falling trend -4.2 (-8.1, -0.9)
Franklin County Urban Yes 8.5 (6.0, 11.8) 91 (48, 91) 7 falling falling trend -4.1 (-6.3, -2.1)
Hertford County Rural No 16.2 (10.0, 25.1) 24 (1, 91) 4 falling falling trend -4.1 (-7.0, -1.8)
Bertie County Rural No 17.7 (11.0, 27.5) 10 (1, 90) 5 falling falling trend -3.9 (-6.1, -2.1)
Warren County Rural No 12.0 (6.9, 20.1) 69 (3, 91) 3 falling falling trend -3.8 (-7.9, -0.4)
Craven County Rural No 12.7 (10.1, 15.8) 60 (16, 89) 17 falling falling trend -3.6 (-5.6, -1.8)
Nash County Urban No 10.0 (7.6, 12.9) 83 (39, 91) 13 falling falling trend -3.4 (-5.8, -1.2)
Martin County Rural No 12.6 (7.2, 20.8) 61 (2, 91) 4 stable stable trend -3.1 (-7.0, 0.0)
Currituck County Urban No 13.2 (8.0, 20.7) 52 (2, 91) 4 stable stable trend -2.9 (-6.0, 0.2)
Chowan County Rural No 13.1 (7.5, 22.6) 55 (1, 91) 3 stable stable trend -2.8 (-7.0, 1.0)
New Hanover County Urban No 10.7 (9.1, 12.5) 80 (47, 90) 32 falling falling trend -2.8 (-4.4, -1.1)
Lee County Rural No 14.5 (11.0, 18.8) 41 (4, 87) 12 falling falling trend -2.7 (-5.1, -0.2)
Mecklenburg County Urban No 11.2 (10.3, 12.2) 77 (53, 85) 117 falling falling trend -2.7 (-3.5, -1.9)
Union County Urban No 10.6 (8.9, 12.7) 81 (45, 90) 27 falling falling trend -2.7 (-3.9, -1.3)
Hoke County Urban No 13.5 (9.0, 19.4) 49 (3, 91) 6 stable stable trend -2.5 (-5.4, 0.4)
Cumberland County Urban No 12.5 (10.8, 14.4) 63 (29, 82) 40 falling falling trend -2.4 (-3.3, -1.5)
Iredell County Urban No 12.4 (10.4, 14.7) 66 (26, 86) 28 falling falling trend -2.4 (-4.0, -0.8)
Northampton County Rural No 11.4 (6.4, 19.7) 76 (4, 91) 3 falling falling trend -2.4 (-4.8, -0.3)
Wilkes County Rural No 12.8 (9.8, 16.6) 58 (12, 90) 13 falling falling trend -2.4 (-5.0, -0.1)
Ashe County Rural Yes 8.7 (5.5, 13.9) 90 (30, 91) 4 stable stable trend -2.3 (-5.2, 0.6)
Chatham County Urban No 9.3 (6.9, 12.3) 87 (41, 91) 11 stable stable trend -2.3 (-4.9, 0.2)
Catawba County Urban No 14.3 (12.0, 16.9) 45 (11, 78) 30 falling falling trend -2.2 (-3.7, -0.7)
Randolph County Urban No 13.5 (11.2, 16.1) 50 (15, 84) 25 falling falling trend -2.2 (-3.9, -0.7)
Cabarrus County Urban No 11.9 (9.9, 14.0) 72 (30, 88) 28 falling falling trend -2.1 (-3.3, -0.8)
Henderson County Urban No 12.8 (10.5, 15.6) 59 (19, 87) 24 stable stable trend -2.1 (-4.2, 0.0)
Davie County Urban No 11.4 (8.0, 16.0) 75 (14, 91) 7 stable stable trend -2.0 (-4.5, 0.7)
Forsyth County Urban No 13.1 (11.6, 14.7) 56 (28, 77) 60 falling falling trend -2.0 (-3.1, -0.9)
Guilford County Urban No 11.9 (10.7, 13.3) 71 (40, 83) 74 falling falling trend -2.0 (-3.1, -0.9)
Lenoir County Rural No 15.8 (11.8, 20.7) 27 (2, 85) 11 falling falling trend -2.0 (-4.1, -0.1)
Montgomery County Rural No 15.6 (10.2, 23.1) 30 (1, 91) 6 stable stable trend -2.0 (-4.9, 0.7)
Pender County Urban No 9.9 (7.0, 13.7) 85 (28, 91) 8 stable stable trend -2.0 (-4.9, 0.9)
Perquimans County Rural No 17.9 (10.6, 29.6) 9 (1, 91) 4 stable stable trend -2.0 (-5.1, 1.2)
Rockingham County Urban No 15.5 (12.7, 18.9) 31 (5, 76) 21 falling falling trend -2.0 (-3.4, -0.6)
Alexander County Urban No 14.3 (10.1, 19.9) 44 (3, 91) 7 stable stable trend -1.9 (-5.1, 1.3)
Brunswick County Urban No 12.0 (9.9, 14.4) 70 (25, 88) 30 stable stable trend -1.9 (-3.7, 0.2)
Cleveland County Rural No 15.7 (12.8, 19.2) 28 (4, 74) 21 falling falling trend -1.9 (-3.8, -0.1)
Beaufort County Rural No 15.6 (11.5, 20.9) 29 (2, 87) 10 falling falling trend -1.8 (-3.7, -0.1)
Johnston County Urban No 11.2 (9.3, 13.4) 78 (33, 90) 26 falling falling trend -1.8 (-3.2, -0.1)
Rutherford County Rural No 16.8 (13.2, 21.2) 18 (2, 77) 16 stable stable trend -1.8 (-4.0, 0.1)
Buncombe County Urban No 11.5 (10.0, 13.2) 74 (41, 87) 45 falling falling trend -1.7 (-2.9, -0.6)
Burke County Urban No 12.5 (9.8, 15.8) 64 (13, 90) 15 stable stable trend -1.7 (-3.7, 0.1)
Dare County Rural No 11.6 (7.9, 16.9) 73 (9, 91) 7 stable stable trend -1.7 (-4.0, 0.8)
Durham County Urban No 11.2 (9.6, 13.0) 79 (40, 89) 38 stable stable trend -1.7 (-3.3, 4.5)
Gaston County Urban No 13.7 (11.8, 15.8) 48 (18, 78) 38 falling falling trend -1.7 (-2.6, -0.8)
Person County Urban No 13.3 (9.4, 18.7) 51 (4, 91) 7 stable stable trend -1.6 (-4.1, 0.9)
Alamance County Urban No 13.1 (11.0, 15.5) 54 (19, 85) 29 falling falling trend -1.4 (-2.3, -0.5)
Davidson County Urban No 14.9 (12.7, 17.3) 37 (9, 73) 34 falling falling trend -1.4 (-2.5, -0.2)
Granville County Rural No 18.7 (14.5, 23.7) 7 (1, 65) 14 stable stable trend -1.4 (-3.7, 0.9)
Stokes County Urban No 14.6 (10.5, 19.9) 39 (3, 89) 9 stable stable trend -1.4 (-3.6, 0.8)
Vance County Rural No 18.8 (13.9, 25.0) 6 (1, 75) 10 stable stable trend -1.4 (-3.4, 0.7)
Cherokee County Rural No 17.4 (12.6, 24.2) 13 (1, 83) 10 stable stable trend -1.3 (-3.8, 1.4)
Edgecombe County Urban No 14.3 (10.5, 19.2) 43 (3, 88) 10 stable stable trend -1.3 (-2.8, 0.1)
Wake County Urban No 10.0 (9.1, 10.8) 84 (67, 90) 110 stable stable trend -1.3 (-6.5, 5.5)
Mitchell County Rural No 17.5 (11.0, 27.6) 12 (1, 91) 4 stable stable trend -1.2 (-4.0, 1.4)
Scotland County Rural No 15.4 (10.5, 21.9) 32 (2, 91) 6 stable stable trend -1.2 (-3.6, 1.2)
Yancey County Rural No 12.5 (7.5, 20.3) 65 (3, 91) 4 stable stable trend -1.2 (-5.9, 3.2)
Wilson County Rural No 14.5 (11.3, 18.4) 42 (4, 86) 14 stable stable trend -1.1 (-3.4, 1.2)
Carteret County Rural No 14.1 (11.1, 17.8) 46 (8, 86) 17 stable stable trend -1.0 (-2.8, 0.7)
Pasquotank County Rural No 14.9 (10.6, 20.6) 36 (2, 90) 8 stable stable trend -1.0 (-3.4, 1.5)
Transylvania County Rural No 9.1 (6.0, 13.9) 88 (25, 91) 6 stable stable trend -1.0 (-4.0, 2.3)
Halifax County Rural No 15.3 (11.3, 20.4) 34 (2, 87) 10 stable stable trend -0.9 (-2.6, 0.8)
Jackson County Rural No 14.8 (10.5, 20.3) 38 (2, 90) 8 stable stable trend -0.9 (-3.6, 1.9)
Caldwell County Urban No 15.9 (12.7, 19.8) 25 (3, 80) 18 stable stable trend -0.8 (-2.8, 1.1)
Sampson County Rural No 17.3 (13.3, 22.2) 16 (1, 77) 13 stable stable trend -0.8 (-2.5, 1.0)
Wayne County Urban No 18.5 (15.4, 22.1) 8 (1, 50) 26 stable stable trend -0.8 (-2.4, 0.8)
McDowell County Rural No 17.6 (13.2, 23.1) 11 (1, 80) 11 stable stable trend -0.7 (-2.7, 1.3)
Bladen County Rural No 17.3 (12.3, 24.1) 14 (1, 87) 8 stable stable trend -0.5 (-2.3, 1.4)
Pitt County Urban No 12.5 (10.3, 15.1) 62 (20, 87) 22 stable stable trend -0.5 (-2.9, 7.0)
Caswell County Rural No 15.1 (10.0, 22.5) 35 (2, 91) 5 stable stable trend -0.3 (-2.9, 2.5)
Macon County Rural No 16.9 (12.6, 22.6) 17 (1, 82) 11 stable stable trend -0.3 (-2.5, 2.1)
Orange County Urban No 9.8 (7.7, 12.3) 86 (46, 91) 16 stable stable trend -0.3 (-3.2, 11.1)
Surry County Rural No 16.6 (13.2, 20.8) 20 (2, 72) 17 stable stable trend -0.3 (-2.8, 2.3)
Robeson County Rural No 19.7 (16.4, 23.4) 5 (1, 42) 27 stable stable trend 0.0 (-1.4, 1.6)
Madison County Urban No 15.9 (9.9, 24.7) 26 (1, 91) 5 stable stable trend 0.1 (-3.0, 3.2)
Anson County Urban No 20.5 (14.0, 29.4) 4 (1, 84) 6 stable stable trend 0.8 (-1.1, 3.0)
Stanly County Rural No 16.4 (12.7, 20.9) 21 (2, 80) 14 stable stable trend 0.9 (-7.1, 10.2)
Harnett County Rural No 16.2 (13.3, 19.6) 22 (3, 69) 22 stable stable trend 1.6 (-1.3, 10.2)
Swain County Rural No 20.9 (11.9, 34.2) 3 (1, 91) 3 stable stable trend 2.1 (-0.6, 5.5)
Moore County Urban No 12.3 (9.9, 15.2) 67 (21, 89) 20 stable stable trend 2.8 (-0.2, 9.4)
Duplin County Rural No 16.7 (12.4, 22.0) 19 (2, 81) 11 stable stable trend 2.9 (-0.3, 15.8)
Columbus County Rural No 17.3 (13.2, 22.5) 15 (1, 77) 12 stable stable trend 3.0 (-0.1, 16.6)
Onslow County Urban No 16.2 (13.4, 19.4) 23 (3, 69) 24 stable stable trend 3.9 (-0.4, 16.7)
Washington County Rural No 29.1 (16.8, 47.1) 1 (1, 80) 4 stable stable trend 5.6 (-18.4, 34.1)
Richmond County Rural No 21.3 (16.0, 28.0) 2 (1, 55) 11 rising rising trend 8.2 (0.1, 30.8)
Lincoln County Urban No 14.6 (11.5, 18.2) 40 (5, 83) 17 stable stable trend 13.6 (-2.1, 26.7)
Haywood County Rural No 14.1 (10.8, 18.2) 47 (5, 87) 14 stable stable trend 21.0 (-1.8, 41.7)
Clay County Rural No 13.1 (7.3, 24.0) 57 (2, 91) 3
*
*
Greene County Rural No 13.2 (7.5, 21.7) 53 (2, 91) 3
*
*
Polk County Rural No 15.3 (9.3, 24.5) 33 (1, 91) 5
*
*
Watauga County Rural No 10.3 (6.7, 15.2) 82 (17, 91) 5
*
*
Alleghany County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Avery County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Camden County Urban ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Gates County Urban ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Graham County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Hyde County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Jones County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Pamlico County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Tyrrell County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*

Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 03/21/2026 11:35 pm.

State Cancer Registries may provide more current or more local data.

† 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 (20 age groups: <1, 1-4, 5-9, ... , 80-84, 85-89, 90+).

Population counts for denominators are based on Census populations as modified by NCI.

The US Population Data File is used with mortality data.

⋔ 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.

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.

Φ Rural–urban county classifications are based on the 2023 USDA Rural–Urban Continuum Codes (except for Connecticut Counties which use 2013 codes). State-level cancer rates for rural areas are calculated using cancer cases registered exclusively in rural counties, while state-level cancer rates for urban areas are calculated using cases registered exclusively in urban counties.

* 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).

Data for United States does not include Puerto Rico.

Return to Top