Return to Home Mortality > Table

Death Rates Table

Data Options

Death Rate Report for North Carolina by County

All Cancer Sites, 2018-2022

All Races (includes Hispanic), Both Sexes, Ages 65+

Sorted by CI*Rank

County
 sort alphabetically by name ascending
2023 Rural-Urban Continuum Codes Φ
 sort by rural urban descending
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 ascending
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 883.4 (876.9, 889.9) N/A 14,510 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.3, -1.2)
United States N/A No 844.0 (842.9, 845.1) N/A 441,232 falling falling trend -1.6 (-1.8, -1.5)
Clay County Rural No 700.7 (577.9, 841.9) 100 (42, 100) 24 falling falling trend -1.5 (-2.2, -0.8)
Orange County Urban No 717.3 (665.0, 772.5) 99 (82, 100) 145 falling falling trend -2.4 (-6.9, -1.8)
Jackson County Rural No 729.8 (647.1, 820.2) 98 (61, 100) 58 falling falling trend -11.7 (-20.9, -1.6)
Watauga County Rural No 748.4 (664.6, 839.6) 97 (58, 100) 60 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.6, -0.2)
Chatham County Urban No 755.2 (700.2, 813.3) 96 (70, 100) 141 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.5, -0.7)
Wake County Urban No 759.0 (737.3, 781.2) 95 (81, 99) 956 falling falling trend -4.4 (-6.2, -3.0)
Polk County Rural No 760.8 (666.9, 864.2) 94 (39, 100) 48 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.7, -0.6)
Pamlico County Rural No 763.6 (639.6, 904.5) 93 (26, 100) 27 falling falling trend -1.9 (-2.8, -0.9)
Transylvania County Rural No 769.8 (695.5, 849.9) 92 (55, 100) 79 falling falling trend -1.3 (-2.0, -0.6)
Buncombe County Urban No 775.1 (741.5, 809.8) 91 (75, 98) 409 falling falling trend -1.4 (-1.7, -1.2)
Avery County Rural No 787.7 (664.9, 926.3) 90 (16, 100) 30 falling falling trend -1.3 (-2.2, -0.3)
Mecklenburg County Urban No 787.7 (764.9, 811.0) 89 (75, 96) 937 falling falling trend -4.0 (-6.3, -1.6)
Durham County Urban No 794.0 (755.2, 834.2) 88 (66, 98) 327 falling falling trend -3.9 (-6.7, -2.1)
Madison County Urban No 796.5 (685.3, 920.6) 87 (21, 100) 37 stable stable trend 0.3 (-3.1, 9.3)
Dare County Rural No 801.5 (710.4, 901.0) 86 (33, 100) 61 falling falling trend -1.5 (-2.1, -0.8)
Macon County Rural No 814.9 (736.9, 898.8) 85 (35, 100) 81 falling falling trend -0.8 (-1.3, -0.3)
Henderson County Urban No 815.2 (769.4, 862.9) 84 (57, 96) 239 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.2, -0.6)
Hyde County Rural No 824.8 (582.6, 1,133.0) 83 (1, 100) 8 falling falling trend -12.2 (-34.5, -0.1)
Duplin County Rural No 826.5 (744.7, 914.9) 82 (23, 100) 76 falling falling trend -1.7 (-2.0, -1.2)
Northampton County Rural No 826.8 (714.7, 951.5) 81 (14, 100) 39 falling falling trend -1.6 (-2.2, -0.9)
Currituck County Urban No 829.7 (706.1, 968.6) 80 (10, 100) 35 falling falling trend -1.9 (-2.6, -1.1)
Cabarrus County Urban No 835.4 (787.6, 885.3) 79 (46, 94) 234 falling falling trend -2.0 (-3.2, -1.4)
Gates County Urban No 837.4 (672.2, 1,030.9) 78 (3, 100) 18 falling falling trend -1.6 (-2.6, -0.6)
Iredell County Urban No 838.1 (790.5, 887.8) 77 (45, 94) 238 falling falling trend -2.8 (-7.0, -1.1)
Pitt County Urban No 840.5 (787.1, 896.5) 76 (41, 94) 191 falling falling trend -1.5 (-1.8, -1.1)
Pasquotank County Rural No 845.3 (750.6, 948.7) 75 (19, 100) 59 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.8, -0.5)
Moore County Urban No 846.5 (795.4, 900.1) 74 (39, 93) 205 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.2, -0.7)
Union County Urban No 851.3 (803.5, 901.2) 73 (42, 91) 245 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.6, -0.8)
Catawba County Urban No 852.0 (803.5, 902.7) 72 (39, 91) 235 falling falling trend -2.0 (-5.1, -1.3)
Cherokee County Rural No 858.2 (769.9, 953.7) 71 (15, 98) 71 falling falling trend -1.8 (-7.9, -0.9)
Perquimans County Rural No 859.4 (725.8, 1,010.4) 70 (4, 100) 30 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.6, -0.2)
Montgomery County Rural No 864.0 (754.4, 985.2) 69 (10, 99) 46 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.6, -0.2)
Lincoln County Urban No 869.4 (802.7, 940.1) 68 (24, 92) 130 falling falling trend -5.1 (-9.1, -0.7)
Bertie County Rural No 870.9 (746.4, 1,010.1) 67 (5, 100) 36 falling falling trend -1.9 (-2.5, -1.2)
Chowan County Rural No 872.0 (736.1, 1,025.7) 66 (3, 100) 30 falling falling trend -2.4 (-9.7, -0.9)
New Hanover County Urban No 874.3 (833.0, 917.2) 65 (36, 84) 344 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.4, -0.9)
Guilford County Urban No 874.7 (845.6, 904.6) 64 (45, 80) 693 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.3, -0.9)
Lee County Rural No 874.9 (795.0, 960.8) 63 (15, 95) 90 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.6, -0.6)
Haywood County Rural No 879.2 (812.9, 949.4) 62 (23, 91) 131 stable stable trend -0.5 (-0.9, 0.0)
Brunswick County Urban No 881.6 (837.6, 927.2) 61 (33, 84) 337 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.3, -0.7)
Alleghany County Rural No 882.3 (735.8, 1,049.4) 60 (3, 100) 26 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.9, -0.1)
Burke County Urban No 885.4 (824.6, 949.6) 59 (22, 88) 159 falling falling trend -2.2 (-5.4, -1.0)
Alexander County Urban No 887.7 (791.1, 992.8) 58 (11, 97) 62 falling falling trend -0.8 (-1.3, -0.2)
Gaston County Urban No 890.0 (846.2, 935.5) 57 (30, 81) 317 falling falling trend -1.3 (-1.8, -1.0)
Nash County Urban No 899.7 (835.6, 967.3) 56 (17, 87) 151 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.3, -0.5)
Davie County Urban No 901.2 (814.9, 994.1) 55 (10, 93) 81 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.0, 0.0)
Ashe County Rural No 910.6 (811.6, 1,018.5) 54 (6, 95) 62 falling falling trend -0.8 (-1.4, -0.2)
Franklin County Urban No 913.9 (833.6, 999.8) 53 (9, 88) 99 falling falling trend -1.7 (-8.4, -0.7)
Lenoir County Rural No 916.0 (837.9, 999.4) 52 (10, 88) 103 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.4, -0.6)
Jones County Rural No 917.2 (739.5, 1,124.6) 51 (1, 100) 19 stable stable trend -0.1 (-1.3, 1.2)
Camden County Urban No 918.1 (716.3, 1,158.8) 50 (1, 100) 15 falling falling trend -2.3 (-3.4, -1.1)
Hertford County Rural No 919.2 (794.1, 1,058.3) 49 (2, 97) 39 stable stable trend 0.8 (-2.9, 9.6)
Forsyth County Urban No 922.1 (887.4, 957.7) 48 (24, 67) 545 falling falling trend -1.4 (-2.3, -1.0)
Carteret County Rural No 925.8 (860.1, 995.0) 47 (12, 81) 152 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.6, -0.6)
Wilkes County Rural No 927.7 (857.9, 1,001.7) 46 (10, 82) 132 stable stable trend -0.4 (-0.7, 0.0)
Anson County Urban No 935.8 (809.0, 1,076.8) 45 (2, 97) 40 stable stable trend -0.6 (-1.2, 0.1)
Graham County Rural No 936.3 (751.5, 1,152.8) 44 (1, 100) 18 falling falling trend -1.2 (-2.1, -0.2)
Bladen County Rural No 936.5 (832.8, 1,049.4) 43 (4, 93) 61 stable stable trend -0.6 (-1.4, 0.2)
Washington County Rural No 937.1 (780.1, 1,116.3) 42 (1, 100) 25 falling falling trend -1.3 (-2.4, -0.2)
Stokes County Urban No 937.3 (852.1, 1,028.6) 41 (6, 86) 90 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.4, -0.5)
Yancey County Rural No 941.0 (820.2, 1,074.5) 40 (2, 95) 44 stable stable trend -0.1 (-0.8, 0.6)
Rutherford County Rural No 942.2 (869.2, 1,019.7) 39 (7, 80) 126 stable stable trend -0.4 (-0.9, 0.1)
Randolph County Urban No 943.7 (889.7, 1,000.1) 38 (11, 70) 233 falling falling trend -0.4 (-0.7, -0.1)
Cumberland County Urban No 944.9 (902.0, 989.2) 37 (15, 64) 374 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.4, -0.9)
Rockingham County Urban No 946.5 (883.7, 1,012.6) 36 (9, 77) 172 falling falling trend -1.6 (-2.7, -1.1)
Warren County Rural No 948.4 (826.1, 1,083.6) 35 (2, 95) 44 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.8, -0.3)
Caswell County Rural No 953.0 (832.6, 1,085.9) 34 (2, 93) 46 falling falling trend -0.8 (-1.5, -0.1)
Granville County Rural No 953.5 (868.5, 1,044.5) 33 (5, 82) 95 falling falling trend -0.7 (-1.1, -0.2)
Craven County Rural No 953.5 (892.4, 1,017.7) 32 (9, 73) 184 falling falling trend -1.3 (-3.0, -1.0)
Wilson County Rural No 956.2 (884.2, 1,032.5) 31 (8, 76) 133 falling falling trend -0.8 (-1.2, -0.3)
Rowan County Urban No 958.1 (903.5, 1,015.2) 30 (10, 67) 235 falling falling trend -4.6 (-7.3, -1.2)
Beaufort County Rural No 962.1 (877.5, 1,052.6) 29 (4, 79) 98 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.4, -0.3)
Greene County Rural No 966.2 (817.9, 1,133.5) 28 (1, 98) 31 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.1, 0.3)
Hoke County Urban No 967.6 (845.4, 1,102.4) 27 (2, 94) 49 falling falling trend -1.3 (-2.0, -0.5)
Caldwell County Urban No 969.7 (900.8, 1,042.5) 26 (5, 70) 150 falling falling trend -0.6 (-1.0, -0.2)
Johnston County Urban No 970.7 (917.0, 1,026.8) 25 (8, 62) 259 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.4, -0.6)
Mitchell County Rural No 974.2 (834.8, 1,130.0) 24 (1, 93) 35 stable stable trend 8.3 (-0.5, 15.0)
Harnett County Rural No 975.1 (908.5, 1,045.3) 23 (4, 70) 164 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.2, -0.6)
Pender County Urban No 975.5 (889.9, 1,067.0) 22 (3, 76) 100 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.0, 0.2)
Stanly County Rural No 980.4 (898.9, 1,067.4) 21 (3, 71) 109 falling falling trend -0.5 (-2.7, -0.1)
Yadkin County Urban No 980.6 (881.9, 1,087.5) 20 (2, 81) 72 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.0, 0.1)
Alamance County Urban No 986.2 (934.7, 1,039.8) 19 (6, 55) 277 falling falling trend -0.6 (-0.9, -0.3)
Person County Urban No 991.5 (891.5, 1,099.6) 18 (2, 81) 74 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.1, 0.3)
Vance County Rural No 997.4 (898.5, 1,104.1) 17 (2, 76) 76 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.6, -0.4)
Cleveland County Rural No 998.5 (932.3, 1,068.2) 16 (4, 58) 174 falling falling trend -0.6 (-3.9, -0.1)
Davidson County Urban No 1,003.7 (953.2, 1,056.2) 15 (5, 47) 301 stable stable trend -0.3 (-0.7, 0.1)
Martin County Rural No 1,003.8 (883.1, 1,136.4) 14 (1, 86) 51 falling falling trend -1.3 (-2.0, -0.6)
Edgecombe County Urban No 1,017.2 (927.3, 1,113.5) 13 (1, 69) 97 stable stable trend -0.1 (-0.7, 1.0)
Columbus County Rural No 1,020.9 (933.1, 1,114.7) 12 (1, 61) 101 falling falling trend -0.7 (-1.3, -0.2)
Wayne County Urban No 1,034.3 (969.3, 1,102.5) 11 (2, 44) 192 falling falling trend -0.7 (-1.1, -0.3)
Halifax County Rural No 1,035.5 (947.0, 1,130.0) 10 (1, 58) 103 stable stable trend -0.4 (-0.8, 0.0)
Scotland County Rural No 1,038.6 (924.8, 1,162.5) 9 (1, 75) 62 stable stable trend -0.6 (-1.2, 0.2)
McDowell County Rural No 1,068.5 (973.3, 1,170.4) 8 (1, 52) 95 stable stable trend 0.3 (-0.2, 0.8)
Robeson County Rural No 1,082.6 (1,013.1, 1,155.7) 7 (1, 31) 188 falling falling trend -0.6 (-3.4, -0.2)
Onslow County Urban No 1,086.0 (1,018.6, 1,156.7) 6 (1, 31) 200 falling falling trend -0.7 (-1.0, -0.2)
Surry County Rural No 1,096.9 (1,020.7, 1,177.2) 5 (1, 28) 156 stable stable trend 0.2 (-0.2, 0.5)
Sampson County Rural No 1,100.0 (1,008.9, 1,197.0) 4 (1, 40) 110 stable stable trend 0.0 (-0.4, 0.5)
Richmond County Rural No 1,108.0 (1,002.1, 1,222.1) 3 (1, 43) 82 stable stable trend -0.2 (-0.7, 0.4)
Tyrrell County Rural No 1,155.3 (844.8, 1,543.1) 2 (1, 100) 9 stable stable trend -0.5 (-2.1, 1.4)
Swain County Rural No 1,233.5 (1,051.4, 1,438.1) 1 (1, 38) 33 stable stable trend 0.5 (-0.3, 1.5)
Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 12/04/2024 10:49 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.

Φ Rural-Urban Continuum Codes provided by the USDA.


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.

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