Return to Home Mortality > Table

Death Rates Table

Data Options
Comparison Options

Death Rate Report for North Carolina by County

Prostate, 2019-2023

All Races (includes Hispanic), Male, 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 16.9?
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
North Carolina N/A No 20.6 (20.0, 21.2) N/A 1,066 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.3, 1.0)
United States N/A No 19.2 (19.1, 19.3) N/A 32,830 falling falling trend -0.6 (-0.9, -0.2)
Richmond County Rural No 18.5 (11.1, 28.9) 60 (4, 81) 4 falling falling trend -5.3 (-8.9, -2.3)
Cleveland County Rural Yes 15.5 (10.9, 21.3) 75 (23, 81) 8 falling falling trend -4.8 (-7.6, -2.3)
Vance County Rural No 24.1 (15.6, 35.9) 20 (1, 80) 5 falling falling trend -4.4 (-7.3, -1.8)
Pender County Urban No 18.6 (12.2, 27.1) 59 (7, 81) 5 falling falling trend -4.2 (-7.2, -1.2)
Cabarrus County Urban Yes 14.6 (11.2, 18.7) 78 (43, 81) 13 falling falling trend -3.9 (-5.6, -2.1)
Martin County Rural No 21.1 (12.1, 35.5) 48 (2, 81) 3 falling falling trend -3.9 (-7.1, -0.8)
Iredell County Urban Yes 15.6 (12.0, 19.8) 74 (35, 81) 14 falling falling trend -3.8 (-8.5, -2.3)
Hoke County Urban No 21.2 (11.8, 34.6) 47 (1, 81) 3 stable stable trend -3.7 (-8.4, 1.8)
Sampson County Rural No 26.6 (18.9, 36.3) 11 (1, 72) 8 falling falling trend -3.7 (-6.0, -1.5)
Orange County Urban No 18.4 (13.8, 23.9) 61 (14, 80) 12 falling falling trend -3.6 (-5.7, -1.4)
Alexander County Urban No 19.2 (11.9, 29.7) 58 (4, 81) 4 stable stable trend -3.5 (-7.0, 0.2)
Granville County Rural No 20.1 (13.3, 29.1) 51 (4, 81) 6 falling falling trend -3.5 (-6.0, -1.0)
Franklin County Urban No 21.9 (15.3, 30.3) 40 (3, 80) 8 falling falling trend -3.4 (-5.6, -1.0)
Pasquotank County Rural No 21.8 (13.9, 32.7) 41 (2, 81) 5 falling falling trend -3.4 (-6.2, -0.7)
Wake County Urban No 18.0 (16.1, 20.1) 62 (37, 75) 72 falling falling trend -3.4 (-4.5, -2.2)
Cumberland County Urban No 22.7 (18.9, 27.0) 31 (7, 66) 28 falling falling trend -3.3 (-4.5, -1.9)
Durham County Urban No 22.6 (19.0, 26.7) 32 (8, 65) 28 falling falling trend -3.3 (-4.9, -1.6)
Gaston County Urban No 17.5 (14.2, 21.5) 64 (26, 80) 20 falling falling trend -3.2 (-4.7, -1.5)
Person County Urban No 24.5 (16.0, 36.3) 17 (1, 80) 5 stable stable trend -3.2 (-7.2, 0.8)
Harnett County Rural No 22.4 (16.8, 29.1) 34 (4, 77) 12 falling falling trend -3.1 (-5.1, -0.8)
McDowell County Rural Yes 13.1 (7.5, 21.5) 80 (19, 81) 3 stable stable trend -3.1 (-7.0, 0.7)
Stanly County Rural Yes 15.1 (9.7, 22.4) 76 (18, 81) 5 stable stable trend -3.1 (-7.6, 0.9)
Caswell County Rural No 22.1 (12.5, 36.7) 37 (1, 81) 3 stable stable trend -3.0 (-8.1, 2.0)
Pitt County Urban No 23.8 (18.6, 29.9) 22 (4, 71) 16 stable stable trend -2.9 (-5.8, 0.2)
Columbus County Rural No 24.4 (16.8, 34.4) 19 (2, 78) 7 stable stable trend -2.8 (-6.5, 0.7)
Craven County Rural No 19.6 (14.9, 25.4) 53 (10, 80) 12 stable stable trend -2.8 (-5.5, 0.0)
Halifax County Rural No 27.6 (19.6, 38.0) 9 (1, 73) 8 falling falling trend -2.8 (-5.0, -0.6)
Lincoln County Urban No 17.5 (12.4, 24.1) 63 (13, 81) 8 stable stable trend -2.8 (-5.4, 0.0)
Nash County Urban No 25.0 (18.8, 32.6) 13 (2, 73) 12 falling falling trend -2.8 (-5.5, -0.1)
Wayne County Urban No 29.2 (23.0, 36.5) 7 (1, 51) 16 stable stable trend -2.8 (-5.6, 0.1)
Lee County Rural No 19.3 (12.9, 27.7) 54 (6, 81) 6 stable stable trend -2.7 (-5.8, 0.5)
Robeson County Rural No 24.6 (18.7, 31.7) 16 (2, 72) 13 falling falling trend -2.7 (-4.5, -0.9)
Carteret County Rural No 19.2 (14.1, 25.9) 57 (8, 80) 10 stable stable trend -2.6 (-5.3, 0.1)
Hertford County Rural No 30.3 (17.2, 49.8) 5 (1, 81) 3 stable stable trend -2.6 (-5.7, 0.2)
Bladen County Rural No 21.7 (13.5, 33.7) 46 (2, 81) 4 stable stable trend -2.5 (-5.9, 1.3)
Johnston County Urban No 21.7 (17.2, 27.1) 44 (7, 73) 18 falling falling trend -2.5 (-4.5, -0.2)
Union County Urban No 17.2 (13.3, 21.8) 66 (22, 80) 15 falling falling trend -2.5 (-4.4, -0.2)
Buncombe County Urban No 17.0 (14.2, 20.2) 68 (37, 79) 27 falling falling trend -2.4 (-3.8, -1.1)
Mecklenburg County Urban No 20.7 (18.6, 23.0) 49 (21, 64) 78 falling falling trend -2.3 (-3.1, -1.5)
Randolph County Urban Yes 16.2 (12.2, 21.0) 71 (26, 81) 12 falling falling trend -2.3 (-4.2, -0.3)
Chatham County Urban No 22.0 (17.1, 28.2) 39 (6, 76) 13 stable stable trend -2.2 (-4.5, 0.5)
Wilkes County Rural No 22.6 (16.6, 30.2) 33 (4, 77) 10 stable stable trend -2.2 (-4.4, 0.2)
Yadkin County Urban No 24.5 (16.1, 36.1) 18 (1, 80) 5 stable stable trend -2.2 (-5.1, 0.9)
Alamance County Urban No 21.7 (17.5, 26.6) 43 (8, 72) 19 falling falling trend -2.1 (-3.5, -0.5)
Haywood County Rural Yes 15.9 (11.0, 22.5) 73 (22, 81) 7 falling falling trend -2.1 (-4.0, -0.1)
Wilson County Rural No 23.1 (16.8, 31.0) 26 (3, 78) 9 falling falling trend -2.1 (-3.9, -0.2)
Macon County Rural Yes 16.4 (10.5, 25.4) 70 (8, 81) 5 stable stable trend -2.0 (-5.3, 1.4)
Surry County Rural No 23.4 (17.1, 31.3) 25 (3, 76) 9 stable stable trend -2.0 (-4.6, 0.7)
Transylvania County Rural Yes 14.6 (9.5, 22.9) 77 (21, 81) 5 stable stable trend -2.0 (-4.8, 1.1)
Davie County Urban Yes 16.0 (10.2, 24.3) 72 (12, 81) 5 stable stable trend -1.9 (-5.2, 2.2)
Rutherford County Rural No 20.6 (14.3, 28.7) 50 (4, 81) 7 stable stable trend -1.9 (-4.4, 0.4)
Stokes County Urban No 16.9 (11.1, 25.2) 69 (9, 81) 5 stable stable trend -1.7 (-4.5, 1.6)
Brunswick County Urban No 21.7 (17.5, 26.7) 45 (8, 72) 23 stable stable trend -1.6 (-3.3, 0.5)
Davidson County Urban No 22.0 (17.9, 26.9) 38 (7, 70) 21 stable stable trend -1.6 (-3.4, 0.4)
New Hanover County Urban No 21.8 (18.1, 26.0) 42 (9, 68) 26 stable stable trend -1.6 (-3.2, 0.0)
Rockingham County Urban No 23.6 (18.0, 30.4) 23 (4, 73) 13 stable stable trend -1.6 (-4.0, 0.9)
Onslow County Urban No 19.2 (14.2, 25.3) 56 (9, 80) 11 stable stable trend -1.5 (-4.1, 1.4)
Beaufort County Rural No 24.9 (17.4, 34.9) 14 (2, 79) 7 stable stable trend -1.4 (-4.8, 1.9)
Moore County Urban No 19.3 (15.2, 24.2) 55 (14, 78) 15 stable stable trend -1.3 (-3.7, 1.3)
Catawba County Urban No 22.9 (18.3, 28.2) 29 (6, 70) 19 stable stable trend -1.2 (-2.9, 0.7)
Burke County Urban No 17.1 (12.6, 22.8) 67 (17, 81) 10 stable stable trend -0.9 (-3.2, 1.9)
Edgecombe County Urban No 32.5 (23.6, 43.9) 4 (1, 58) 9 stable stable trend -0.7 (-3.9, 2.7)
Guilford County Urban No 22.1 (19.5, 25.0) 36 (13, 61) 55 stable stable trend -0.6 (-3.6, 5.4)
Rowan County Urban No 22.9 (18.1, 28.6) 28 (5, 73) 17 stable stable trend -0.6 (-2.3, 1.2)
Chowan County Rural No 39.7 (24.9, 62.2) 1 (1, 66) 4 stable stable trend -0.2 (-4.0, 4.2)
Dare County Rural No 24.6 (16.0, 36.6) 15 (1, 80) 5 stable stable trend 0.1 (-4.9, 6.6)
Lenoir County Rural No 23.9 (16.9, 33.0) 21 (2, 78) 8 stable stable trend 0.5 (-4.4, 22.9)
Forsyth County Urban No 25.6 (22.3, 29.2) 12 (5, 46) 46 stable stable trend 3.4 (-2.5, 16.0)
Henderson County Urban No 23.0 (18.7, 28.1) 27 (6, 69) 21 rising rising trend 6.0 (0.6, 22.8)
Caldwell County Urban No 22.4 (16.2, 30.1) 35 (3, 79) 10 stable stable trend 12.3 (-2.5, 24.3)
Duplin County Rural No 22.8 (15.6, 32.5) 30 (3, 80) 6 rising rising trend 26.4 (2.5, 47.3)
Alleghany County Rural No 29.7 (16.8, 52.5) 6 (1, 81) 3
*
*
Anson County Urban No 37.9 (23.1, 58.4) 2 (1, 73) 4
*
*
Bertie County Rural No 27.1 (15.7, 44.9) 10 (1, 81) 3
*
*
Cherokee County Rural Yes 12.1 (6.7, 21.6) 81 (29, 81) 3
*
*
Jackson County Rural Yes 13.3 (7.2, 22.5) 79 (13, 81) 3
*
*
Montgomery County Rural No 19.7 (11.1, 32.9) 52 (2, 81) 3
*
*
Northampton County Rural No 34.2 (22.2, 52.5) 3 (1, 68) 5
*
*
Warren County Rural No 28.2 (17.7, 44.3) 8 (1, 79) 4
*
*
Watauga County Rural No 17.5 (10.9, 26.8) 65 (8, 81) 4
*
*
Yancey County Rural No 23.5 (13.0, 40.1) 24 (1, 81) 3
*
*
Ashe County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Avery County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Camden County Urban ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Clay County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Currituck County Urban ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Gates County Urban ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Graham County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Greene County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Hyde County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Jones County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Madison County Urban ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Mitchell County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Pamlico County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Perquimans County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Polk County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Scotland County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Swain County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Tyrrell County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Washington County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*

Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 03/21/2026 4:24 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 (20 age groups: <1, 1-4, 5-9, ... , 80-84, 85-89, 90+).

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.

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.

Healthy People 2030 Objectives provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

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