Return to Home Mortality > Table

Death Rates Table

Data Options

Death Rate Report for North Carolina by County

All Cancer Sites, 2016-2020

Black Non-Hispanic, Both Sexes, All Ages

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 No 176.2 (173.7, 178.7) N/A 4,074 falling falling trend -1.9 (-2.0, -1.8)
United States No 174.7 (174.1, 175.3) N/A 70,283 falling falling trend -2.1 (-2.1, -2.0)
Mecklenburg County No 169.2 (161.9, 176.8) 56 (34, 71) 464 falling falling trend -2.0 (-2.3, -1.8)
Wake County No 163.2 (154.3, 172.4) 67 (40, 76) 291 falling falling trend -1.7 (-2.1, -1.4)
Guilford County No 169.8 (160.5, 179.5) 55 (30, 72) 272 falling falling trend -2.0 (-2.3, -1.7)
Cumberland County No 174.2 (163.4, 185.5) 51 (22, 70) 206 falling falling trend -1.4 (-1.7, -1.1)
Durham County No 182.0 (170.4, 194.2) 37 (15, 62) 198 falling falling trend -1.6 (-2.0, -1.2)
Forsyth County No 190.9 (178.4, 204.1) 20 (7, 54) 187 falling falling trend -1.4 (-1.8, -1.1)
Pitt County No 171.4 (156.1, 187.8) 53 (17, 75) 101 falling falling trend -2.0 (-2.6, -1.4)
Wayne County No 189.7 (172.4, 208.4) 23 (6, 64) 94 falling falling trend -1.9 (-2.4, -1.4)
Alamance County No 219.2 (197.9, 242.2) 3 (1, 34) 82 falling falling trend -1.3 (-1.9, -0.7)
Nash County No 189.4 (170.8, 209.6) 24 (5, 66) 81 falling falling trend -1.7 (-2.1, -1.2)
Halifax County No 214.4 (193.1, 237.5) 6 (1, 38) 80 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.6, -0.7)
Edgecombe County No 180.2 (161.5, 200.7) 39 (7, 74) 73 falling falling trend -1.9 (-2.2, -1.6)
Robeson County No 194.5 (174.0, 216.7) 15 (4, 61) 71 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.7, -0.6)
New Hanover County No 192.1 (171.5, 214.5) 19 (4, 67) 68 falling falling trend -1.6 (-2.1, -1.0)
Wilson County No 168.4 (150.2, 188.2) 59 (15, 78) 67 falling falling trend -1.3 (-1.9, -0.6)
Gaston County No 182.7 (161.9, 205.5) 33 (7, 74) 61 falling falling trend -1.5 (-2.0, -1.1)
Vance County No 220.4 (194.4, 249.0) 2 (1, 42) 57 falling falling trend -1.3 (-2.0, -0.6)
Craven County No 203.4 (178.8, 230.5) 10 (2, 61) 52 falling falling trend -1.9 (-2.8, -1.1)
Johnston County No 163.9 (143.4, 186.3) 66 (15, 80) 52 falling falling trend -2.1 (-2.9, -1.3)
Lenoir County No 159.8 (139.8, 182.0) 71 (22, 81) 50 falling falling trend -1.5 (-2.2, -0.9)
Cabarrus County No 168.8 (147.1, 192.5) 57 (12, 79) 49 falling falling trend -1.6 (-2.3, -0.8)
Harnett County No 185.2 (161.5, 211.2) 31 (4, 75) 49 falling falling trend -1.7 (-2.3, -1.0)
Rockingham County No 188.0 (163.5, 215.5) 27 (4, 74) 46 falling falling trend -1.5 (-2.0, -1.1)
Onslow County No 194.3 (169.0, 222.1) 16 (3, 72) 45 falling falling trend -1.2 (-2.0, -0.5)
Union County No 175.7 (152.2, 201.6) 50 (7, 78) 45 falling falling trend -1.8 (-2.6, -1.0)
Granville County No 176.6 (153.8, 202.0) 48 (8, 77) 45 falling falling trend -2.0 (-2.8, -1.2)
Rowan County No 178.3 (154.7, 204.6) 43 (8, 78) 43 falling falling trend -1.5 (-2.1, -0.9)
Sampson County No 179.9 (155.9, 206.9) 40 (6, 78) 43 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.9, -0.5)
Cleveland County No 189.0 (162.7, 218.2) 25 (3, 75) 41 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.6, -0.3)
Columbus County No 182.1 (157.1, 210.2) 36 (4, 77) 40 falling falling trend -1.6 (-2.2, -0.9)
Franklin County No 168.6 (144.8, 195.5) 58 (10, 80) 38 falling falling trend -1.6 (-2.3, -0.9)
Davidson County No 198.3 (169.9, 230.2) 14 (2, 72) 37 stable stable trend -0.8 (-1.6, 0.0)
Duplin County No 166.2 (141.3, 194.7) 63 (11, 81) 36 falling falling trend -2.0 (-2.6, -1.4)
Iredell County No 157.0 (133.7, 183.1) 72 (18, 82) 34 falling falling trend -1.8 (-2.6, -0.9)
Scotland County No 211.1 (179.0, 247.3) 8 (1, 67) 34 stable stable trend -3.5 (-10.7, 4.3)
Orange County No 190.4 (161.8, 222.6) 21 (3, 77) 33 falling falling trend -1.5 (-2.1, -0.9)
Brunswick County No 170.6 (144.2, 200.8) 54 (7, 80) 32 falling falling trend -1.9 (-2.6, -1.1)
Buncombe County No 179.1 (151.3, 210.5) 42 (5, 79) 32 falling falling trend -1.3 (-2.1, -0.4)
Moore County No 200.9 (169.9, 236.3) 13 (1, 72) 32 falling falling trend -1.5 (-2.1, -0.8)
Pasquotank County No 182.7 (154.5, 214.8) 35 (4, 78) 31 falling falling trend -2.1 (-2.8, -1.3)
Lee County No 212.2 (178.7, 250.3) 7 (1, 65) 31 falling falling trend -1.4 (-2.3, -0.4)
Beaufort County No 187.4 (157.2, 222.2) 29 (2, 78) 30 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.9, -0.3)
Hertford County No 154.2 (129.2, 183.0) 77 (15, 82) 29 falling falling trend -2.4 (-3.0, -1.8)
Martin County No 187.8 (156.8, 224.2) 28 (2, 79) 29 falling falling trend -1.9 (-2.6, -1.2)
Bertie County No 167.0 (139.6, 198.9) 61 (8, 81) 29 falling falling trend -2.4 (-3.1, -1.6)
Northampton County No 155.7 (129.2, 186.8) 75 (13, 82) 28 falling falling trend -1.9 (-2.7, -1.0)
Richmond County No 176.4 (147.5, 209.5) 49 (5, 80) 28 falling falling trend -1.4 (-2.3, -0.6)
Hoke County No 155.3 (129.0, 185.1) 76 (16, 82) 27 falling falling trend -2.4 (-3.5, -1.2)
Person County No 183.2 (152.2, 219.2) 32 (3, 79) 27 falling falling trend -1.2 (-2.1, -0.3)
Bladen County No 156.2 (128.6, 188.5) 73 (12, 82) 26 falling falling trend -2.1 (-2.9, -1.4)
Warren County No 162.8 (134.5, 196.0) 68 (8, 82) 26 falling falling trend -1.9 (-2.7, -1.1)
Anson County No 177.2 (146.5, 212.7) 46 (4, 81) 25 falling falling trend -1.1 (-2.0, -0.1)
Catawba County No 167.8 (138.1, 202.0) 60 (6, 81) 25 falling falling trend -2.0 (-2.9, -1.1)
Chatham County No 165.8 (136.8, 200.2) 65 (8, 81) 24 falling falling trend -1.6 (-2.6, -0.6)
Caswell County No 180.4 (148.5, 218.9) 38 (3, 80) 24 falling falling trend -2.1 (-2.9, -1.3)
Pender County No 173.4 (141.6, 210.7) 52 (4, 81) 23 falling falling trend -1.7 (-2.5, -0.8)
Randolph County No 202.8 (163.4, 248.9) 12 (1, 77) 20 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.8, -0.2)
Rutherford County No 203.1 (160.1, 254.6) 11 (1, 79) 16 falling falling trend -1.3 (-2.4, -0.2)
Greene County No 162.0 (126.6, 205.0) 69 (4, 82) 16 falling falling trend -1.2 (-2.3, -0.1)
Washington County No 188.5 (145.4, 241.3) 26 (1, 81) 15 falling falling trend -2.4 (-3.5, -1.3)
Montgomery County No 204.5 (158.7, 260.9) 9 (1, 79) 14 falling falling trend -1.6 (-2.6, -0.6)
Stanly County No 190.0 (145.8, 243.3) 22 (1, 81) 14 falling falling trend -1.2 (-2.2, -0.1)
Chowan County No 178.2 (133.2, 234.8) 44 (1, 82) 12 stable stable trend -0.8 (-1.9, 0.4)
Davie County No 263.0 (196.2, 348.0) 1 (1, 70) 11 stable stable trend -0.2 (-1.6, 1.3)
Burke County No 127.2 (91.9, 172.4) 82 (19, 82) 9 stable stable trend -18.1 (-34.1, 1.8)
Gates County No 141.2 (101.6, 195.3) 81 (7, 82) 9 falling falling trend -2.3 (-3.8, -0.7)
Carteret County No 160.4 (114.8, 219.5) 70 (2, 82) 9 falling falling trend -3.5 (-4.8, -2.2)
Caldwell County No 156.2 (110.0, 215.9) 74 (2, 82) 8 falling falling trend -1.9 (-3.2, -0.5)
Jones County No 166.2 (112.0, 241.0) 64 (1, 82) 8 stable stable trend -0.9 (-2.3, 0.5)
Lincoln County No 141.5 (99.8, 195.5) 80 (6, 82) 8 falling falling trend -2.4 (-3.8, -1.0)
Pamlico County No 186.0 (129.0, 265.6) 30 (1, 82) 8 falling falling trend -2.1 (-3.4, -0.9)
Perquimans County No 144.2 (102.1, 202.6) 79 (5, 82) 8 falling falling trend -4.0 (-5.5, -2.4)
Henderson County No 193.7 (134.4, 269.6) 17 (1, 82) 8 falling falling trend -1.8 (-3.1, -0.5)
Surry County No 182.7 (128.1, 255.7) 34 (1, 82) 8 falling falling trend -1.9 (-3.0, -0.9)
Wilkes County No 145.9 (98.3, 210.5) 78 (2, 82) 6 stable stable trend -1.4 (-2.9, 0.1)
Stokes County No 177.0 (111.3, 272.3) 47 (1, 82) 5 falling falling trend -2.0 (-3.8, -0.1)
Alexander County No 177.9 (113.6, 267.8) 45 (1, 82) 5
*
*
Hyde County No 216.0 (131.1, 345.4) 5 (1, 82) 5
*
*
Tyrrell County No 179.4 (109.9, 287.0) 41 (1, 82) 4 falling falling trend -2.1 (-4.1, -0.1)
Currituck County No 193.0 (115.1, 307.6) 18 (1, 82) 4 falling falling trend -2.6 (-4.0, -1.2)
McDowell County No 166.4 (95.0, 272.0) 62 (1, 82) 3
*
*
Transylvania County No 218.7 (123.1, 363.4) 4 (1, 82) 3
*
*
Alleghany County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Ashe County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Avery County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Camden County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Cherokee County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Clay County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Dare County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Graham County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Haywood County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Jackson County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Macon County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Madison County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Mitchell County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Polk County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Swain County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Watauga County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Yadkin County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Yancey County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 06/22/2024 5:25 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.
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