Return to Home Mortality > Table

Death Rates Table

Data Options

Death Rate Report for North Carolina by County

Colon & Rectum, 2016-2020

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

Sorted by Count
County
 sort alphabetically by name ascending
Met Healthy People Objective of 74.4?
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 Yes 12.6 (12.3, 12.9) N/A 1,578 falling falling trend -2.4 (-2.6, -2.3)
United States Yes 13.1 (13.1, 13.2) N/A 52,152 falling falling trend -1.9 (-2.1, -1.8)
Clay County Yes 15.3 (8.4, 27.5) 27 (1, 91) 3
*
*
Currituck County Yes 10.6 (6.0, 17.4) 83 (7, 91) 3
*
*
Greene County Yes 13.1 (7.5, 21.5) 52 (2, 91) 3
*
*
Chowan County Yes 14.5 (8.5, 24.2) 35 (2, 91) 4 falling falling trend -3.1 (-4.8, -1.3)
Martin County Yes 9.8 (5.6, 16.3) 88 (11, 91) 4 falling falling trend -3.0 (-5.0, -1.0)
Warren County Yes 12.4 (7.0, 20.8) 60 (3, 91) 4 stable stable trend -1.9 (-3.7, 0.0)
Mitchell County Yes 17.8 (10.5, 29.0) 9 (1, 91) 4 stable stable trend -1.2 (-2.7, 0.4)
Perquimans County Yes 15.6 (9.6, 25.6) 23 (1, 91) 4 stable stable trend -1.1 (-3.0, 0.8)
Madison County Yes 13.9 (8.3, 22.1) 42 (2, 91) 4 stable stable trend -0.8 (-2.6, 1.0)
Washington County Yes 28.3 (16.8, 45.1) 1 (1, 81) 5 stable stable trend -1.3 (-3.2, 0.6)
Bertie County Yes 15.9 (10.0, 24.7) 20 (1, 91) 5 falling falling trend -5.3 (-7.0, -3.5)
Northampton County Yes 14.1 (8.7, 22.3) 40 (2, 91) 5 falling falling trend -2.7 (-4.0, -1.3)
Swain County Yes 24.9 (15.6, 38.1) 2 (1, 80) 5 stable stable trend 0.5 (-1.5, 2.5)
Watauga County Yes 8.1 (5.1, 12.4) 91 (38, 91) 5
*
*
Hertford County Yes 15.5 (9.8, 23.5) 25 (1, 91) 5 falling falling trend -2.0 (-3.5, -0.5)
Hoke County Yes 11.8 (7.6, 17.4) 70 (6, 91) 5 falling falling trend -3.7 (-5.2, -2.2)
Yancey County Yes 16.8 (10.8, 25.6) 13 (1, 91) 5 stable stable trend -0.7 (-2.4, 1.0)
Ashe County Yes 12.2 (7.9, 18.5) 64 (5, 91) 6 stable stable trend -1.5 (-3.2, 0.3)
Montgomery County Yes 14.7 (9.7, 21.6) 33 (2, 91) 6 falling falling trend -2.4 (-4.0, -0.8)
Yadkin County Yes 11.2 (7.4, 16.5) 79 (9, 91) 6 falling falling trend -3.4 (-5.2, -1.6)
Polk County Yes 12.7 (8.5, 19.5) 55 (5, 91) 6
*
*
Transylvania County Yes 9.6 (6.4, 14.5) 89 (24, 91) 7 falling falling trend -3.7 (-5.2, -2.2)
Dare County Yes 11.7 (7.9, 17.0) 72 (9, 91) 7 falling falling trend -1.7 (-3.3, -0.2)
Anson County Yes 22.3 (15.6, 31.2) 3 (1, 67) 8 stable stable trend 3.7 (-0.6, 8.2)
Caswell County Yes 21.5 (15.0, 30.4) 4 (1, 75) 8 stable stable trend -0.7 (-2.3, 0.9)
Alexander County Yes 14.3 (10.1, 19.9) 36 (3, 90) 8 stable stable trend -1.3 (-2.9, 0.2)
Davie County Yes 12.4 (8.7, 17.2) 61 (8, 91) 8 falling falling trend -3.4 (-4.8, -1.8)
Pender County Yes 10.4 (7.4, 14.4) 84 (22, 91) 8 falling falling trend -2.2 (-3.8, -0.6)
Bladen County Yes 16.4 (11.7, 22.8) 16 (2, 87) 8 falling falling trend -2.4 (-3.6, -1.1)
Stokes County Yes 12.7 (9.0, 17.6) 54 (7, 91) 8 stable stable trend -1.0 (-2.4, 0.4)
Jackson County Yes 16.0 (11.5, 21.9) 19 (2, 87) 9 stable stable trend -0.7 (-2.0, 0.8)
Scotland County Yes 20.0 (14.5, 27.1) 5 (1, 71) 9 stable stable trend -1.6 (-3.2, 0.0)
Vance County Yes 14.8 (10.7, 20.0) 30 (3, 90) 9 falling falling trend -1.8 (-3.1, -0.4)
Cherokee County Yes 17.6 (12.7, 24.4) 10 (1, 84) 9 stable stable trend -1.3 (-2.7, 0.2)
Franklin County Yes 11.3 (8.2, 15.2) 77 (16, 91) 9 falling falling trend -2.7 (-4.0, -1.5)
Macon County Yes 15.6 (11.1, 21.7) 24 (2, 89) 10 stable stable trend -0.5 (-2.1, 1.1)
McDowell County Yes 13.8 (10.1, 18.7) 44 (5, 90) 10 stable stable trend -0.7 (-2.0, 0.5)
Pasquotank County Yes 19.4 (14.2, 26.0) 7 (1, 75) 10 falling falling trend -1.5 (-2.7, -0.4)
Richmond County Yes 16.7 (12.3, 22.2) 15 (2, 86) 10 falling falling trend -2.4 (-3.6, -1.2)
Haywood County Yes 10.2 (7.5, 13.7) 85 (29, 91) 10 falling falling trend -2.3 (-3.6, -1.0)
Lee County Yes 12.7 (9.4, 16.9) 53 (8, 91) 10 falling falling trend -1.6 (-3.1, -0.1)
Person County Yes 18.6 (13.7, 24.9) 8 (1, 76) 10 falling falling trend -1.7 (-3.2, -0.1)
Beaufort County Yes 15.9 (11.6, 21.4) 21 (2, 86) 11 falling falling trend -1.5 (-2.8, -0.2)
Lenoir County Yes 13.8 (10.3, 18.4) 43 (5, 90) 11 falling falling trend -1.9 (-3.0, -0.8)
Duplin County Yes 14.1 (10.6, 18.6) 38 (5, 90) 11 stable stable trend 4.2 (-2.6, 11.3)
Edgecombe County Yes 15.8 (11.9, 20.8) 22 (3, 85) 11 falling falling trend -1.9 (-2.9, -1.0)
Columbus County Yes 15.4 (11.7, 20.1) 26 (3, 86) 12 falling falling trend -1.5 (-2.7, -0.3)
Sampson County Yes 14.6 (11.1, 18.9) 34 (5, 87) 12 falling falling trend -2.0 (-2.9, -1.1)
Stanly County Yes 14.1 (10.7, 18.3) 39 (6, 88) 12 stable stable trend 0.0 (-2.2, 2.4)
Chatham County Yes 9.8 (7.4, 12.8) 86 (37, 91) 12 falling falling trend -3.1 (-4.5, -1.7)
Wilson County Yes 11.8 (9.0, 15.2) 69 (16, 91) 13 falling falling trend -1.7 (-2.8, -0.5)
Granville County Yes 16.7 (12.8, 21.5) 14 (2, 79) 13 falling falling trend -1.4 (-2.6, -0.2)
Surry County Yes 13.3 (10.2, 17.1) 51 (9, 89) 14 stable stable trend -0.6 (-2.0, 0.8)
Nash County Yes 11.3 (8.8, 14.4) 76 (23, 91) 15 falling falling trend -16.1 (-28.9, -1.0)
Lincoln County Yes 12.5 (9.7, 15.8) 57 (14, 90) 15 falling falling trend -2.9 (-4.0, -1.8)
Rutherford County Yes 14.8 (11.5, 18.9) 29 (5, 85) 15 stable stable trend -1.2 (-2.4, 0.0)
Wilkes County Yes 14.3 (11.1, 18.2) 37 (6, 86) 15 falling falling trend -1.3 (-2.5, -0.1)
Halifax County Yes 19.8 (15.4, 25.1) 6 (1, 52) 15 stable stable trend -0.9 (-1.8, 0.0)
Burke County Yes 12.0 (9.4, 15.3) 66 (17, 90) 15 falling falling trend -1.6 (-2.7, -0.5)
Orange County Yes 10.6 (8.4, 13.3) 82 (31, 91) 16 falling falling trend -3.2 (-4.2, -2.2)
Craven County Yes 12.6 (9.9, 15.8) 56 (14, 89) 17 falling falling trend -2.8 (-4.0, -1.6)
Caldwell County Yes 14.7 (11.7, 18.4) 31 (6, 85) 17 falling falling trend -1.5 (-2.4, -0.7)
Moore County Yes 11.7 (9.2, 14.7) 71 (21, 90) 18 falling falling trend -3.6 (-4.6, -2.6)
Cleveland County Yes 13.5 (10.9, 16.7) 48 (11, 86) 18 stable stable trend -1.0 (-2.1, 0.1)
Harnett County Yes 14.9 (12.0, 18.3) 28 (6, 80) 19 falling falling trend -2.6 (-3.3, -1.9)
Carteret County Yes 16.2 (13.0, 20.2) 18 (3, 72) 19 falling falling trend -1.4 (-2.5, -0.4)
Rockingham County Yes 14.7 (11.9, 18.0) 32 (7, 80) 20 falling falling trend -1.6 (-2.4, -0.8)
Henderson County Yes 11.1 (8.9, 13.8) 80 (28, 91) 21 falling falling trend -2.5 (-3.6, -1.5)
Randolph County Yes 11.4 (9.3, 13.8) 74 (28, 90) 22 falling falling trend -2.3 (-3.2, -1.4)
Pitt County Yes 11.9 (9.7, 14.4) 67 (24, 89) 22 falling falling trend -3.1 (-3.6, -2.5)
Alamance County Yes 11.2 (9.3, 13.5) 78 (31, 90) 24 falling falling trend -2.2 (-2.9, -1.6)
Rowan County Yes 13.4 (11.1, 16.1) 50 (13, 85) 24 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.8, -0.4)
Onslow County Yes 16.8 (13.9, 20.1) 12 (3, 60) 25 falling falling trend -2.3 (-3.5, -1.1)
Wayne County Yes 16.4 (13.6, 19.6) 17 (4, 67) 25 falling falling trend -2.0 (-2.8, -1.3)
New Hanover County Yes 8.4 (7.0, 10.1) 90 (70, 91) 25 falling falling trend -3.6 (-4.5, -2.8)
Robeson County Yes 17.6 (14.6, 21.0) 11 (3, 55) 26 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.9, -0.3)
Union County Yes 11.3 (9.4, 13.5) 75 (32, 89) 27 falling falling trend -2.5 (-3.2, -1.8)
Cabarrus County Yes 12.3 (10.3, 14.6) 63 (23, 87) 27 falling falling trend -2.0 (-2.8, -1.1)
Catawba County Yes 13.5 (11.3, 16.1) 49 (15, 84) 27 falling falling trend -2.2 (-3.0, -1.3)
Iredell County Yes 13.8 (11.6, 16.4) 45 (13, 79) 29 falling falling trend -2.1 (-2.8, -1.4)
Brunswick County Yes 12.4 (10.3, 14.9) 59 (19, 87) 29 falling falling trend -2.9 (-4.0, -1.9)
Johnston County Yes 13.8 (11.6, 16.2) 46 (14, 80) 30 falling falling trend -1.7 (-2.6, -0.8)
Davidson County Yes 13.7 (11.6, 16.1) 47 (13, 81) 31 falling falling trend -1.5 (-2.2, -0.8)
Durham County Yes 11.4 (9.8, 13.2) 73 (37, 88) 37 falling falling trend -3.9 (-6.1, -1.6)
Gaston County Yes 14.0 (12.1, 16.2) 41 (13, 74) 38 falling falling trend -1.7 (-2.3, -1.1)
Cumberland County Yes 12.2 (10.5, 14.0) 65 (29, 86) 38 falling falling trend -2.2 (-2.8, -1.5)
Buncombe County Yes 11.8 (10.3, 13.6) 68 (32, 87) 44 falling falling trend -2.8 (-3.4, -2.2)
Forsyth County Yes 12.4 (11.0, 14.0) 58 (29, 84) 56 falling falling trend -2.3 (-2.9, -1.7)
Guilford County Yes 12.4 (11.1, 13.7) 62 (33, 80) 77 falling falling trend -2.6 (-3.2, -1.9)
Wake County Yes 9.8 (8.9, 10.7) 87 (69, 90) 98 falling falling trend -3.0 (-3.5, -2.5)
Mecklenburg County Yes 10.9 (10.0, 11.9) 81 (54, 87) 111 falling falling trend -2.4 (-2.9, -1.9)
Alleghany County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Avery County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Camden County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Gates County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Graham County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Hyde County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Jones County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Pamlico County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Tyrrell County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 01/29/2023 7:39 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