Return to Home Mortality > Table

Death Rates Table

Data Options

Death Rate Report for North Carolina by County

All Cancer Sites, 2018-2022

Black Non-Hispanic, Both Sexes, All Ages

Sorted by Count
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 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 175.5 (173.1, 178.0) N/A 4,140 falling falling trend -1.7 (-1.9, -1.6)
United States 6 N/A No 168.6 (168.1, 169.2) N/A 70,631 falling falling trend -2.0 (-2.1, -2.0)
Camden County Urban No 181.8 (101.5, 310.5) 38 (1, 81) 3 stable stable trend -2.1 (-4.8, 0.2)
Currituck County Urban No 151.5 (84.6, 254.1) 74 (1, 81) 3 falling falling trend -2.7 (-4.4, -1.2)
McDowell County Rural No 224.8 (139.7, 344.0) 5 (1, 81) 5
*
*
Tyrrell County Rural No 248.7 (153.6, 394.8) 1 (1, 81) 5 stable stable trend -1.7 (-3.9, 0.3)
Wilkes County Rural No 129.6 (84.7, 191.7) 79 (10, 81) 5 falling falling trend -1.6 (-3.0, -0.2)
Stokes County Urban No 192.1 (123.9, 289.2) 26 (1, 81) 6 falling falling trend -1.9 (-3.7, -0.2)
Pamlico County Rural No 137.9 (88.1, 211.7) 78 (4, 81) 6 falling falling trend -2.4 (-3.7, -1.2)
Alexander County Urban No 246.4 (165.8, 354.2) 2 (1, 80) 6
*
*
Henderson County Urban No 184.4 (127.3, 258.0) 37 (1, 81) 7 falling falling trend -1.7 (-3.0, -0.4)
Lincoln County Urban No 125.9 (87.9, 175.4) 80 (17, 81) 8 falling falling trend -2.5 (-3.8, -1.1)
Surry County Rural No 204.6 (144.6, 283.4) 12 (1, 80) 8 falling falling trend -1.8 (-3.0, -0.6)
Perquimans County Rural No 160.1 (114.9, 222.4) 64 (2, 81) 8 falling falling trend -3.2 (-13.6, -1.6)
Carteret County Rural No 156.4 (111.4, 215.5) 70 (4, 81) 9 falling falling trend -3.2 (-4.6, -1.9)
Burke County Urban No 123.2 (88.5, 168.0) 81 (29, 81) 9 stable stable trend -0.9 (-2.3, 0.6)
Caldwell County Urban No 178.2 (128.7, 241.1) 43 (1, 81) 9 falling falling trend -1.8 (-3.2, -0.4)
Jones County Rural No 196.9 (138.8, 275.4) 22 (1, 81) 10 stable stable trend -0.7 (-2.1, 0.7)
Gates County Urban No 174.0 (127.3, 236.7) 49 (2, 81) 10 falling falling trend -2.0 (-3.6, -0.5)
Davie County Urban No 237.4 (175.9, 316.5) 3 (1, 76) 10 stable stable trend -0.5 (-2.0, 1.4)
Chowan County Rural No 157.7 (116.7, 210.1) 66 (4, 81) 11 stable stable trend -1.1 (-2.4, 0.3)
Montgomery County Rural No 209.3 (160.1, 270.2) 10 (1, 78) 13 falling falling trend -1.3 (-2.4, -0.1)
Stanly County Rural No 177.0 (135.7, 227.0) 46 (2, 81) 14 falling falling trend -1.3 (-2.4, -0.3)
Greene County Rural No 154.2 (119.0, 197.2) 73 (11, 81) 14 stable stable trend -1.3 (-2.6, 0.0)
Washington County Rural No 203.9 (156.3, 262.2) 16 (1, 79) 15 falling falling trend -1.9 (-3.2, -0.7)
Rutherford County Rural No 204.2 (160.3, 256.8) 14 (1, 78) 16 falling falling trend -1.2 (-2.2, -0.1)
Pender County Urban No 156.8 (125.7, 193.8) 69 (11, 81) 19 falling falling trend -1.4 (-2.2, -0.6)
Caswell County Rural No 167.2 (135.6, 205.4) 59 (6, 80) 21 falling falling trend -2.1 (-2.9, -1.3)
Chatham County Urban No 143.1 (116.9, 174.7) 76 (28, 81) 22 falling falling trend -1.8 (-2.8, -0.7)
Randolph County Urban No 225.9 (184.5, 273.8) 4 (1, 61) 23 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.5, 0.2)
Hoke County Urban No 141.8 (117.0, 170.3) 77 (33, 81) 25 falling falling trend -2.3 (-3.3, -1.2)
Anson County Urban No 193.6 (160.7, 231.7) 25 (2, 75) 26 stable stable trend -0.8 (-1.7, 0.1)
Bladen County Rural No 170.7 (140.9, 205.6) 54 (8, 80) 26 falling falling trend -1.5 (-2.2, -0.8)
Bertie County Rural No 169.7 (140.6, 203.6) 56 (7, 80) 27 falling falling trend -2.2 (-3.0, -1.4)
Lee County Rural No 188.4 (157.2, 224.3) 32 (3, 77) 28 falling falling trend -1.4 (-2.2, -0.5)
Warren County Rural No 177.9 (148.7, 212.3) 44 (4, 78) 28 falling falling trend -1.5 (-2.4, -0.7)
Hertford County Rural No 156.3 (130.6, 186.2) 71 (18, 81) 28 falling falling trend -2.2 (-2.8, -1.6)
Catawba County Urban No 192.0 (160.3, 228.1) 27 (2, 75) 28 falling falling trend -1.7 (-2.5, -0.8)
Pasquotank County Rural No 157.7 (132.2, 186.8) 67 (20, 81) 28 falling falling trend -2.2 (-2.9, -1.4)
Person County Urban No 186.8 (155.9, 222.7) 33 (3, 77) 28 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.9, -0.3)
Northampton County Rural No 172.8 (143.1, 207.8) 52 (6, 79) 29 falling falling trend -1.6 (-2.5, -0.8)
Beaufort County Rural No 190.2 (159.4, 225.8) 30 (3, 75) 30 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.5, 0.0)
Richmond County Rural No 200.8 (169.1, 236.8) 19 (2, 72) 31 stable stable trend -1.1 (-2.1, 0.0)
Buncombe County Urban No 167.1 (140.7, 197.1) 60 (10, 80) 31 falling falling trend -1.4 (-2.4, -0.5)
Martin County Rural No 204.4 (171.7, 242.5) 13 (1, 69) 31 falling falling trend -1.7 (-2.4, -0.9)
Duplin County Rural No 179.3 (151.0, 211.8) 41 (5, 77) 33 falling falling trend -1.5 (-2.2, -0.8)
Orange County Urban No 175.0 (148.4, 205.3) 47 (7, 78) 33 falling falling trend -1.5 (-2.2, -0.9)
Brunswick County Urban No 174.0 (147.1, 204.8) 50 (8, 78) 33 falling falling trend -1.6 (-2.3, -0.8)
Scotland County Rural No 208.2 (176.4, 244.3) 11 (1, 65) 33 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.5, 0.1)
Davidson County Urban No 178.9 (152.6, 208.5) 42 (6, 77) 35 stable stable trend -0.9 (-1.8, 0.1)
Franklin County Urban No 158.5 (135.3, 184.8) 65 (22, 80) 35 falling falling trend -1.6 (-2.3, -0.7)
Moore County Urban No 222.1 (189.6, 259.0) 6 (1, 52) 36 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.8, -0.3)
Iredell County Urban No 157.3 (134.9, 182.3) 68 (22, 80) 38 falling falling trend -1.8 (-2.5, -0.9)
Columbus County Rural No 192.0 (165.0, 222.4) 28 (3, 72) 39 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.9, -0.6)
Sampson County Rural No 189.3 (163.9, 218.0) 31 (4, 72) 42 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.7, -0.3)
Cleveland County Rural No 199.8 (172.7, 229.9) 21 (2, 67) 44 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.7, -0.2)
Rockingham County Urban No 180.2 (156.2, 207.2) 40 (7, 75) 44 falling falling trend -1.6 (-2.0, -1.2)
Union County Urban No 167.6 (145.3, 192.3) 58 (14, 78) 45 falling falling trend -2.0 (-2.8, -1.1)
Granville County Rural No 177.5 (154.6, 203.0) 45 (10, 75) 45 falling falling trend -1.9 (-2.6, -1.1)
Onslow County Urban No 185.7 (161.4, 212.5) 34 (5, 73) 45 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.8, -0.4)
Rowan County Urban No 185.1 (161.6, 211.1) 36 (5, 73) 48 falling falling trend -1.4 (-2.0, -0.8)
Vance County Rural No 201.5 (176.1, 229.6) 18 (2, 62) 50 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.9, -0.5)
Lenoir County Rural No 156.3 (137.0, 177.8) 72 (28, 80) 52 falling falling trend -3.9 (-12.9, -1.7)
Craven County Rural No 203.9 (179.4, 231.0) 15 (2, 62) 53 falling falling trend -1.9 (-4.0, -1.2)
Harnett County Rural No 201.5 (177.2, 228.2) 17 (2, 64) 54 falling falling trend -1.3 (-2.0, -0.6)
Johnston County Urban No 160.4 (140.9, 181.7) 63 (26, 79) 56 falling falling trend -2.1 (-2.9, -1.2)
Cabarrus County Urban No 164.8 (144.9, 186.5) 62 (20, 78) 57 falling falling trend -1.7 (-2.4, -0.9)
Gaston County Urban No 165.8 (146.9, 186.4) 61 (19, 78) 61 falling falling trend -1.6 (-2.1, -1.1)
Robeson County Rural No 200.5 (178.7, 224.4) 20 (3, 59) 66 falling falling trend -0.8 (-1.5, -0.2)
New Hanover County Urban No 191.5 (170.6, 214.3) 29 (5, 66) 66 falling falling trend -1.3 (-1.8, -0.7)
Edgecombe County Urban No 185.4 (166.1, 206.7) 35 (7, 68) 73 falling falling trend -1.6 (-2.0, -1.3)
Wilson County Rural No 193.6 (173.7, 215.3) 24 (5, 62) 75 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.6, -0.5)
Halifax County Rural No 219.1 (197.4, 242.9) 7 (1, 37) 80 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.5, -0.5)
Nash County Urban No 175.0 (157.6, 193.8) 48 (16, 73) 81 falling falling trend -1.6 (-2.1, -1.1)
Alamance County Urban No 217.6 (196.6, 240.2) 8 (1, 39) 85 falling falling trend -1.3 (-1.9, -0.6)
Wayne County Urban No 210.5 (191.6, 230.8) 9 (2, 40) 98 stable stable trend 7.0 (-1.4, 12.9)
Pitt County Urban No 180.7 (164.9, 197.5) 39 (14, 67) 106 falling falling trend -1.8 (-2.3, -1.2)
Durham County Urban No 171.5 (160.4, 183.1) 53 (28, 70) 194 falling falling trend -1.6 (-2.0, -1.2)
Forsyth County Urban No 195.1 (182.7, 208.2) 23 (9, 48) 199 falling falling trend -1.7 (-2.7, -1.3)
Cumberland County Urban No 169.9 (159.5, 180.8) 55 (30, 70) 211 falling falling trend -1.4 (-1.7, -1.1)
Guilford County Urban No 173.5 (164.3, 183.2) 51 (29, 67) 287 falling falling trend -1.8 (-2.1, -1.5)
Wake County Urban No 151.3 (143.0, 159.8) 75 (54, 78) 287 falling falling trend -5.6 (-9.9, -2.1)
Mecklenburg County Urban No 167.8 (160.7, 175.1) 57 (38, 69) 483 falling falling trend -2.0 (-2.2, -1.7)
Alleghany County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Ashe County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Avery County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Cherokee County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Clay County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Dare County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Graham County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Haywood County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Hyde County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Jackson County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Macon County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Madison County Urban ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Mitchell County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Polk County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Swain County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Transylvania County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Watauga County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Yadkin County Urban ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Yancey County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 09/20/2024 8:01 pm.

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.
6 Hispanic mortality recent trend data for the United States has been excluded for the following states: Louisiana, New Hampshire, and Oklahoma. The data on Hispanic and non-Hispanic mortality for these states may be unreliable for the time period used in the generation of the recent trend (1990 - 2022) and has been excluded from the calculation of the United States recent trend. This was based on the NCHS Policy.

Φ Rural-Urban Continuum Codes provided by the USDA.

* 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