Return to Home Mortality > Table

Death Rates Table

Data Options

Death Rate Report for North Carolina by County

Liver & Bile Duct, 2018-2022

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

Sorted by Ruralurban

County
sort alphabetically by name ascending 		2023 Rural-Urban Continuum Codes Φ
sort by rural urban ascending 		Met Healthy People Objective of ***?
 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 *** 6.8 (6.6, 7.0) N/A 932 stable stable trend 0.0 (-1.3, 0.8)
United States N/A *** 6.6 (6.6, 6.6) N/A 28,305 falling falling trend -0.5 (-0.8, -0.2)
Alamance County Urban *** 8.9 (7.3, 10.9) 15 (2, 49) 21 rising rising trend 3.8 (2.7, 5.9)
Alexander County Urban *** 6.8 (4.1, 10.9) 44 (2, 72) 4
*
*
Brunswick County Urban *** 6.3 (5.0, 8.0) 52 (20, 71) 19 stable stable trend 0.5 (-0.9, 3.1)
Buncombe County Urban *** 6.6 (5.5, 7.8) 48 (18, 68) 27 rising rising trend 2.4 (1.5, 3.6)
Burke County Urban *** 4.9 (3.4, 7.1) 69 (27, 72) 7
*
*
Cabarrus County Urban *** 7.1 (5.7, 8.8) 39 (11, 67) 17 rising rising trend 2.8 (1.6, 4.9)
Caldwell County Urban *** 7.3 (5.3, 9.9) 37 (5, 71) 9
*
*
Catawba County Urban *** 6.4 (5.0, 8.1) 51 (16, 71) 15 rising rising trend 2.7 (1.2, 5.0)
Chatham County Urban *** 4.7 (3.3, 6.8) 72 (31, 72) 7
*
*
Cumberland County Urban *** 6.6 (5.4, 7.9) 49 (18, 68) 23 rising rising trend 2.3 (1.3, 4.1)
Davidson County Urban *** 7.6 (6.2, 9.4) 32 (8, 62) 19 rising rising trend 3.5 (2.4, 5.2)
Durham County Urban *** 5.6 (4.5, 6.9) 61 (31, 72) 19 stable stable trend -3.4 (-11.0, 0.0)
Edgecombe County Urban *** 9.2 (6.3, 13.1) 11 (1, 67) 7
*
*
Forsyth County Urban *** 7.1 (6.1, 8.3) 40 (15, 62) 35 rising rising trend 3.1 (2.2, 4.4)
Franklin County Urban *** 5.5 (3.5, 8.2) 64 (15, 72) 5
*
*
Gaston County Urban *** 9.5 (8.0, 11.3) 10 (2, 36) 29 rising rising trend 3.6 (2.6, 5.3)
Guilford County Urban *** 6.2 (5.4, 7.1) 55 (29, 68) 41 rising rising trend 2.8 (2.0, 3.8)
Henderson County Urban *** 5.5 (4.1, 7.3) 63 (27, 72) 12
*
*
Iredell County Urban *** 4.8 (3.7, 6.3) 71 (37, 72) 12 rising rising trend 1.6 (0.1, 4.2)
Johnston County Urban *** 5.0 (3.8, 6.5) 68 (35, 72) 12 stable stable trend 0.0 (-1.5, 2.2)
Lincoln County Urban *** 7.1 (5.2, 9.6) 42 (6, 71) 10
*
*
Mecklenburg County Urban *** 7.5 (6.7, 8.3) 35 (16, 51) 81 rising rising trend 2.6 (2.1, 3.4)
Moore County Urban *** 6.1 (4.5, 8.1) 56 (15, 72) 11
*
*
Nash County Urban *** 7.7 (5.7, 10.2) 31 (4, 69) 11 rising rising trend 3.5 (2.0, 6.0)
New Hanover County Urban *** 5.7 (4.6, 7.1) 60 (30, 72) 19 rising rising trend 1.7 (0.3, 4.0)
Onslow County Urban *** 8.1 (6.2, 10.4) 25 (3, 65) 13
*
*
Orange County Urban *** 4.9 (3.5, 6.7) 70 (31, 72) 8
*
*
Pender County Urban *** 5.3 (3.3, 8.3) 65 (14, 72) 4
*
*
Person County Urban *** 7.4 (4.4, 11.7) 36 (1, 72) 4
*
*
Pitt County Urban *** 5.9 (4.5, 7.7) 58 (19, 72) 12 rising rising trend 2.5 (1.2, 4.8)
Randolph County Urban *** 8.4 (6.7, 10.5) 20 (3, 58) 17 rising rising trend 4.2 (3.4, 5.4)
Rockingham County Urban *** 5.2 (3.6, 7.4) 66 (24, 72) 8
*
*
Rowan County Urban *** 6.7 (5.2, 8.6) 45 (11, 70) 13 rising rising trend 2.9 (1.4, 5.3)
Stokes County Urban *** 6.3 (4.0, 9.9) 54 (5, 72) 5
*
*
Union County Urban *** 6.5 (5.1, 8.1) 50 (16, 70) 17 rising rising trend 2.1 (1.0, 4.1)
Wake County Urban *** 5.5 (4.9, 6.2) 62 (43, 70) 64 stable stable trend -8.9 (-15.6, 1.7)
Wayne County Urban *** 8.0 (6.1, 10.5) 26 (3, 65) 12
*
*
Yadkin County Urban *** 8.6 (5.5, 13.0) 18 (1, 72) 5
*
*
Ashe County Rural *** 8.0 (4.9, 13.3) 27 (1, 72) 4
*
*
Beaufort County Rural *** 9.7 (6.8, 13.6) 7 (1, 63) 8
*
*
Bladen County Rural *** 9.9 (6.4, 15.2) 5 (1, 70) 5
*
*
Carteret County Rural *** 8.0 (5.8, 11.0) 28 (2, 68) 10
*
*
Cherokee County Rural *** 6.6 (3.2, 12.5) 47 (1, 72) 3
*
*
Cleveland County Rural *** 7.8 (5.8, 10.2) 30 (4, 69) 11
*
*
Columbus County Rural *** 8.0 (5.3, 11.7) 29 (2, 72) 6
*
*
Craven County Rural *** 9.1 (6.9, 11.9) 12 (1, 58) 13
*
*
Dare County Rural *** 8.2 (5.3, 12.6) 23 (1, 72) 6
*
*
Granville County Rural *** 8.9 (6.4, 12.3) 16 (1, 66) 8
*
*
Greene County Rural *** 15.0 (8.9, 24.0) 1 (1, 60) 4
*
*
Halifax County Rural *** 7.5 (4.9, 11.2) 34 (2, 72) 6
*
*
Harnett County Rural *** 8.3 (6.3, 10.7) 22 (2, 65) 12 rising rising trend 2.0 (0.8, 3.7)
Haywood County Rural *** 7.1 (5.0, 10.0) 41 (4, 71) 8
*
*
Jackson County Rural *** 7.2 (4.4, 11.5) 38 (2, 72) 4
*
*
Lee County Rural *** 6.7 (4.4, 9.7) 46 (5, 72) 6
*
*
Lenoir County Rural *** 5.9 (3.7, 9.0) 59 (9, 72) 5 stable stable trend 1.3 (-0.4, 3.8)
Macon County Rural *** 5.1 (3.0, 8.6) 67 (12, 72) 4
*
*
McDowell County Rural *** 11.3 (7.9, 15.9) 2 (1, 53) 8
*
*
Montgomery County Rural *** 8.4 (4.7, 14.2) 21 (1, 72) 3
*
*
Richmond County Rural *** 9.1 (5.9, 13.6) 13 (1, 71) 5 rising rising trend 3.0 (1.4, 5.5)
Robeson County Rural *** 9.6 (7.5, 12.2) 8 (1, 54) 14 rising rising trend 4.6 (3.4, 6.9)
Rutherford County Rural *** 10.1 (7.5, 13.5) 4 (1, 53) 11 rising rising trend 4.2 (2.7, 6.7)
Sampson County Rural *** 6.0 (3.9, 9.1) 57 (8, 72) 5
*
*
Scotland County Rural *** 9.8 (6.3, 14.8) 6 (1, 70) 5
*
*
Stanly County Rural *** 9.6 (6.9, 13.1) 9 (1, 62) 9 rising rising trend 3.5 (2.0, 6.0)
Surry County Rural *** 6.9 (4.8, 9.8) 43 (4, 72) 7
*
*
Transylvania County Rural *** 8.8 (5.3, 14.1) 17 (1, 72) 5
*
*
Vance County Rural *** 8.5 (5.6, 12.6) 19 (1, 71) 6
*
*
Warren County Rural *** 9.0 (5.0, 16.0) 14 (1, 72) 3
*
*
Watauga County Rural *** 6.3 (3.9, 10.0) 53 (4, 72) 4
*
*
Wilkes County Rural *** 8.1 (5.8, 11.2) 24 (2, 69) 9
*
*
Wilson County Rural *** 7.6 (5.4, 10.4) 33 (3, 70) 8
*
*
Yancey County Rural *** 11.2 (6.6, 18.6) 3 (1, 69) 4
*
*
Alleghany County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Anson County Urban ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Avery County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Bertie County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Camden County Urban ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Caswell County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Chowan County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Clay County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Currituck County Urban ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Davie County Urban ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Duplin County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Gates County Urban ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Graham County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Hertford County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Hoke County Urban ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Hyde County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Jones County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Madison County Urban ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Martin County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Mitchell County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Northampton County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Pamlico County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Pasquotank County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Perquimans County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Polk County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Swain County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Tyrrell County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Washington County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 04/26/2025 3:04 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.

*** No Healthy People 2030 Objective for this cancer.
Healthy People 2030 Objectives provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

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