Return to Home Mortality > Table

Death Rates Table

Data Options

Death Rate Report for North Carolina by County

All Cancer Sites, 2016-2020

All Races (includes Hispanic), Both Sexes, Ages <50

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
North Carolina Yes 15.3 (14.9, 15.8) N/A 994 falling falling trend -2.0 (-2.1, -1.9)
United States Yes 14.9 (14.8, 15.0) N/A 29,891 falling falling trend -1.7 (-1.9, -1.6)
Mecklenburg County Yes 11.8 (10.7, 12.9) 66 (56, 69) 89 falling falling trend -2.7 (-3.1, -2.2)
Wake County Yes 11.3 (10.3, 12.4) 68 (58, 69) 88 falling falling trend -2.6 (-3.0, -2.1)
Guilford County Yes 15.1 (13.3, 17.2) 52 (28, 64) 50 falling falling trend -2.5 (-3.0, -1.9)
Cumberland County Yes 17.9 (15.3, 20.9) 32 (12, 57) 34 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.9, -0.3)
Forsyth County Yes 13.8 (11.7, 16.1) 63 (33, 69) 32 falling falling trend -2.1 (-2.7, -1.5)
Durham County Yes 14.7 (12.4, 17.2) 56 (24, 67) 30 falling falling trend -2.4 (-3.0, -1.8)
Gaston County Yes 17.2 (14.3, 20.5) 36 (12, 62) 25 falling falling trend -2.1 (-2.8, -1.5)
Buncombe County Yes 14.9 (12.4, 17.9) 54 (22, 67) 24 falling falling trend -1.7 (-2.8, -0.6)
Cabarrus County Yes 14.1 (11.5, 17.2) 58 (26, 69) 21 falling falling trend -2.3 (-3.2, -1.4)
New Hanover County Yes 14.1 (11.4, 17.1) 60 (24, 69) 20 falling falling trend -2.4 (-3.4, -1.3)
Onslow County Yes 21.9 (17.7, 26.7) 12 (2, 47) 20 stable stable trend 0.1 (-0.9, 1.1)
Johnston County Yes 14.1 (11.4, 17.2) 59 (25, 69) 19 falling falling trend -2.3 (-3.3, -1.3)
Union County Yes 11.6 (9.4, 14.2) 67 (44, 69) 19 falling falling trend -2.7 (-3.6, -1.9)
Iredell County Yes 16.4 (13.2, 20.0) 47 (13, 66) 19 falling falling trend -1.2 (-2.3, -0.1)
Catawba County Yes 19.2 (15.5, 23.6) 20 (5, 59) 19 falling falling trend -1.3 (-2.0, -0.5)
Robeson County Yes 21.9 (17.5, 27.0) 13 (2, 52) 17 stable stable trend -0.9 (-1.9, 0.0)
Pitt County Yes 17.1 (13.7, 21.1) 38 (11, 65) 17 falling falling trend -2.5 (-3.5, -1.4)
Davidson County Yes 16.6 (13.2, 20.5) 45 (12, 66) 17 stable stable trend -0.6 (-1.6, 0.4)
Alamance County Yes 15.8 (12.5, 19.7) 49 (14, 68) 16 falling falling trend -1.9 (-3.0, -0.7)
Rowan County Yes 16.6 (12.9, 20.9) 44 (11, 67) 14 falling falling trend -1.7 (-2.6, -0.7)
Randolph County Yes 15.8 (12.3, 20.1) 48 (12, 68) 14 falling falling trend -1.5 (-2.3, -0.7)
Harnett County Yes 14.8 (11.3, 18.9) 55 (15, 69) 13 falling falling trend -2.8 (-3.8, -1.9)
Wayne County Yes 16.6 (12.7, 21.4) 43 (9, 68) 12 falling falling trend -2.4 (-3.3, -1.5)
Cleveland County Yes 20.1 (15.1, 26.2) 18 (3, 61) 11 stable stable trend -1.1 (-2.5, 0.4)
Lincoln County Yes 18.5 (13.8, 24.5) 30 (4, 66) 10 stable stable trend -1.4 (-2.9, 0.2)
Burke County Yes 19.0 (14.0, 25.1) 24 (3, 66) 10 stable stable trend -0.9 (-1.9, 0.1)
Craven County Yes 18.9 (14.0, 25.0) 25 (4, 66) 10 stable stable trend -0.8 (-1.8, 0.2)
Henderson County Yes 15.3 (11.3, 20.3) 51 (12, 69) 10 falling falling trend -2.2 (-3.6, -0.9)
Caldwell County Yes 18.7 (13.7, 24.9) 27 (4, 67) 10 stable stable trend -0.3 (-1.1, 0.6)
Moore County Yes 17.6 (13.0, 23.4) 33 (5, 68) 10 falling falling trend -1.7 (-3.0, -0.5)
Brunswick County Yes 14.0 (10.3, 18.7) 61 (16, 69) 9 falling falling trend -2.1 (-3.2, -1.0)
Nash County Yes 17.0 (12.5, 22.6) 40 (7, 68) 9 falling falling trend -1.6 (-2.7, -0.5)
Orange County Yes 10.7 (7.8, 14.2) 69 (42, 69) 9 falling falling trend -2.6 (-3.8, -1.4)
Rockingham County Yes 16.9 (12.3, 22.7) 42 (6, 69) 9 falling falling trend -1.4 (-2.6, -0.2)
Franklin County Yes 20.8 (15.1, 28.0) 16 (2, 65) 9 stable stable trend -1.6 (-3.5, 0.4)
Duplin County Yes 25.0 (18.0, 33.8) 6 (1, 55) 8 stable stable trend 8.3 (-1.1, 18.6)
Rutherford County Yes 19.4 (13.6, 26.7) 19 (2, 67) 8 stable stable trend -0.3 (-1.5, 0.9)
Stokes County Yes 26.8 (18.9, 37.2) 3 (1, 53) 8 stable stable trend 1.4 (-0.2, 3.0)
Vance County Yes 30.5 (21.5, 41.9) 2 (1, 40) 8 stable stable trend -1.4 (-3.0, 0.3)
Hoke County Yes 21.8 (15.3, 30.0) 14 (1, 64) 7 falling falling trend -1.9 (-3.2, -0.5)
Wilkes County Yes 18.6 (13.0, 25.7) 29 (3, 68) 7 stable stable trend -0.8 (-2.4, 0.8)
Wilson County Yes 15.1 (10.6, 20.9) 53 (9, 69) 7 falling falling trend -2.4 (-3.5, -1.3)
Granville County Yes 17.6 (12.1, 24.7) 34 (3, 69) 7 stable stable trend -1.5 (-3.4, 0.5)
Pender County Yes 17.1 (11.9, 24.1) 37 (5, 69) 7 stable stable trend -1.3 (-2.8, 0.3)
Carteret County Yes 16.9 (11.5, 24.0) 41 (5, 69) 6 falling falling trend -2.2 (-3.6, -0.7)
Lenoir County Yes 20.2 (13.8, 28.6) 17 (2, 68) 6 falling falling trend -1.7 (-3.0, -0.4)
Sampson County Yes 16.5 (11.3, 23.3) 46 (5, 69) 6 falling falling trend -1.9 (-3.2, -0.5)
Halifax County Yes 22.5 (15.3, 32.0) 10 (1, 66) 6 falling falling trend -1.9 (-3.0, -0.7)
Richmond County Yes 22.6 (15.3, 32.1) 9 (1, 67) 6 stable stable trend -1.0 (-2.7, 0.7)
Surry County Yes 14.5 (9.8, 20.6) 57 (11, 69) 6 falling falling trend -1.8 (-3.0, -0.5)
Beaufort County Yes 23.8 (16.0, 34.1) 7 (1, 64) 6 stable stable trend -0.9 (-2.1, 0.4)
McDowell County Yes 21.5 (14.4, 30.8) 15 (1, 68) 6 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.8, 0.8)
Stanly County Yes 15.6 (10.5, 22.3) 50 (7, 69) 6 stable stable trend -1.1 (-2.5, 0.4)
Columbus County Yes 17.2 (11.4, 25.0) 35 (4, 69) 6 stable stable trend -0.7 (-2.2, 0.8)
Yadkin County Yes 23.7 (15.7, 34.6) 8 (1, 67) 6 stable stable trend -0.2 (-1.7, 1.3)
Chatham County Yes 11.8 (7.6, 17.6) 65 (22, 69) 5 falling falling trend -3.7 (-5.5, -1.9)
Edgecombe County Yes 17.0 (11.0, 25.2) 39 (3, 69) 5 falling falling trend -2.4 (-3.6, -1.2)
Bladen County Yes 26.5 (16.9, 39.5) 5 (1, 65) 5 falling falling trend -1.9 (-3.5, -0.2)
Davie County Yes 18.7 (11.9, 28.1) 26 (2, 69) 5 stable stable trend -1.6 (-3.3, 0.2)
Haywood County Yes 13.8 (8.8, 20.7) 62 (11, 69) 5 falling falling trend -2.4 (-3.9, -0.9)
Lee County Yes 12.5 (7.9, 18.7) 64 (16, 69) 5 falling falling trend -2.7 (-4.1, -1.3)
Person County Yes 19.2 (12.1, 29.0) 22 (2, 69) 5 stable stable trend -1.5 (-3.4, 0.3)
Scotland County Yes 22.1 (14.0, 33.3) 11 (1, 69) 5 stable stable trend -1.8 (-3.5, 0.0)
Pasquotank County Yes 19.2 (12.0, 29.1) 21 (1, 69) 4 stable stable trend -0.4 (-2.1, 1.4)
Dare County Yes 18.6 (11.5, 28.7) 28 (2, 69) 4 stable stable trend -1.3 (-3.0, 0.5)
Jackson County Yes 19.1 (11.7, 29.2) 23 (2, 69) 4 falling falling trend -1.9 (-3.7, -0.1)
Alexander County Yes 18.2 (11.1, 28.2) 31 (2, 69) 4 stable stable trend -0.7 (-2.0, 0.7)
Anson County Yes 26.7 (16.0, 41.8) 4 (1, 68) 4 stable stable trend -1.4 (-2.9, 0.0)
Northampton County Yes 36.4 (21.8, 57.3) 1 (1, 56) 4 stable stable trend 0.8 (-1.2, 2.8)
Alleghany County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Ashe County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Avery County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Bertie County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Camden County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Caswell County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Cherokee County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Chowan County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Clay County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Currituck County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Gates County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Graham County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Greene County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Hertford County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Hyde County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Jones County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Macon County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Madison County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Martin County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Mitchell County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Montgomery County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Pamlico County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Perquimans County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Polk County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Swain County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Transylvania County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Tyrrell County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Warren County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Washington County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Watauga County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Yancey County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 12/08/2022 12:16 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 (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.

* 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).


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